Capturing the Light, The Story Of Dorothy Izatt (2007)

I've always wondered if it were possible to replicate her pictures through using fireworks. Well, here's my first try. The resemblance isn't exactly uncanny, but I think theres something there to be honest. With a bit of time, patience and a lot of fooling around I think I'll get a much better result.

Anyway, what do you guys think ?

Originally posted by mmiichael
Maybe it's the product of a jamming old camera and a swwt but flaky little old lady with an active inagination?

Those special effects producers in the video may know something about special effects in Hollywood, but the fact that they didn't seem to consider or mention the possibility you just did about the jamming old camera implies that they are either brain dead or didn't think of it, or that if they did say anything about that, it was edited out.

Someone who believes the Izzat videos are fantastic UFO footage inadvertently provided evidence to debunk or show the true nature of the Izzat movies (the camera jamming theory) in this post:

Anomalous light exhibiting strange "Izatt-type" behavior

That video shows the same Izzat effect, and it's due to shutter speed, which is similar to the camera-jamming effect. And we know it's not filming anything extraordinary because we can see the treeline is moving, showing that it's the camera moving and not the lights. It isn't a leap to suggest the same thing may be happening in the Izzat films.

As MOTT the HOOPLE says:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
Yer the color lights are pretty but I wanna see honest to god Aliens dude!

Mott, I agree!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It isn't a leap to suggest the same thing may be happening in the Izzat films.

It's a large leap when someone of the films spell out letters with the light (keep in mind how big the physical frame in-camera is) and does it all in one frame, *and*, returns to perfect registration after the 1-frame light anomaly (that has no bleed on adjacent frames).

To suggest camera stop/frame open/bump is really not any sort of answer that makes sense with this camera, and, she's been given multiple make cameras to use as controls. They all exhibit the same thing.

To boot, her enlarged stills of these movie frames? When filmed, *they too* exhibit the anomaly. Figure that one out.

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It isn't a leap to suggest the same thing may be happening in the Izzat films.

It's a large leap when someone of the films spell out letters with the light (keep in mind how big the physical frame in-camera is) and does it all in one frame, *and*, returns to perfect registration after the 1-frame light anomaly (that has no bleed on adjacent frames).

Are you talking about this image spelling out letters?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a23a7e0cfe66.jpg[/atsimg]
Until someone told me that was supposed to spell out her name I never would have guessed it. I can pick out shapes in clouds too but that doesn't mean aliens put the images there. It takes an active imagination to see letters in that image. It's just a time exposure and anyone who has done handheld time exposures should recognize that.

To suggest camera stop/frame open/bump is really not any sort of answer that makes sense with this camera, and, she's been given multiple make cameras to use as controls. They all exhibit the same thing.

According to a guy who buys broken cameras like this on e-bay and repairs them, the answer does in fact make sense:

www.democraticunderground.com...

I kept noticing similar patterns over and over as I watched the lady's film. You see how the streaks of light all have the same shape? That's an indication that the camera was moving during the taking of the photo. Over and over as I watched the video, I kept noticing these repeated shapes. There's be fairly static pictures of 3 or 4 lights, then a frame with 3 or 4 streaks that had similar shapes. I'd keep trying to look at these pictures non-judgmentally, and my brain would just keep saying 'but that's camera shake. You've seen it a million times.'

OK - but there were a production designer, a visual effects guy, and a cinematographer who all swore there was no way she could have created this effect with computers or developing equipment. Quite true. What I found strange was that nobody considered the possibility that it arises out of a fault in the camera.

Now, I know something about film (aka movie) cameras (video too, but I am nostalgic about film cameras). I've shot with 8mm cameras, 16mm cameras, and 35mm cameras. I'm not a cinematographer, but I do work in the film world and I've owned 8mm and 16mm cameras, and am able to perform basic maintenance and repairs on them. So I sometimes buy a broken camera on eBay if I am pretty sue what's wrong with it, fix it, and maybe make a few bucks. Or not. I just like fixing things, and I like the feel of shooting film although it's too expensive for me to do regularly.

Well, what I see here is called a 'registration problem'. The lady is shooting with an 8mm camera. Hard to say which model, but most such cameras shoot film that is called 'super 8'. It has holes just down one side of the film stock, and you get a bigger (=better) picture by exposing the other side of the film (where there are no holes) than just a square in the center.

Anyway, the way a film camera works is there's a motor (electric or sometimes wind-up) turning gears which open the shutter and move the film along, sometimes using pins or sometimes a clamp mechanism. And what I think is happening in these single-frame 'flash' pictures is that the mechanism is momentarily jamming, leaving the shutter open and letting the film be over-exposed. It could be for a very short time, like 1/9th, 1/6th or 1/3 of a second (I choose these numbers because Super 8 is normally shot at 18 frames per second, as is mentioned in the film).

The film has all the qualities of being over exposed (when the video stops on a frame long enough to let you look), and the repeating patterns described above would also be consistent with the momentary shake while the shutter is open for too long. The streaks in some other examples which look like lines of dashes would be consistent with a light source flashing while moving - for example, some lights on planes or the indicator lamp on a moving car.

Please note, I'm saying that that's the sort of image you'd get if you over-exposed a picture of such a light source at night. I don't know enough about this lady's house or even where it is to make any guesses about what the particular lights are, although I did see some blinking red lights on one segment that I'm pretty sure are hazard lights on an industrial or communications tower designed to warn pilots about the structure.

My guess is that the specific thing with the camera is that it has a broken gear tooth which causes the shutter mechanism to jam open briefly, and not too often. Bear in mind that gears are designed by engineers to use numbers of teeth which will spread wear evenly over the gear, so a damaged tooth on a gear does not mean that such a shutter error would occur every second or even regularly. Camera film is not tensioned tightly inside a movie camera (as it would break easily) so the problem could be quite intermittent. It might only occur when the film tension is above or below a certain threshold, or under a variety of other conditions. Without knowing which exact film camera she is using I can't make more specific guesses, but you've ever looked at a clockwork mechanism or even an old film-winding camera you can get an idea of what I'm referring to.

Check the link as he has some photos and other illustrations there.

If all the cameras are doing it my first guess would be she's popping the battery compartment open to stop the film and make a time exposure. Then pop the batteries back in until the next time exposure when she disconnects them again.

But they are obviously time exposures whether due to batteries being disconnected, or camera jamming or some other cause, I have made enough time exposures myself to recognize the effect, as has the guy who made that post. I don't know why everyone who has ever made a handheld time exposure wouldn't see the same thing.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


This is all well and good when you're talking about one sense of the Izatt material. Delay exposure. But delaying or jamming the single frame in question, then overexposing it to that degree - why no bleed over to any other frames?

And, we mean to say this woman can defeat any number of the different makes she has been given as test cams?

Yes, that's one of the writing frames. Is it clear? Hell no. Is it in the shape of a cursive script of "Dorothy" complete with capital D? Yes it is. How ridiculous a coincidence would that be for an old lady faking this?

But we speak as if this is the only visual data there is - there have been strange landscapes, structured craft, and other assorted weirdness.

There have also been other witnesses, more than a few, that have seen objects and assorted strangeness with her.

The case still yet intrigues me. She fits a pattern of ambiguity consistent with marginality and anti-structure that has coincided with paranormal activity. It's an interesting case, but leaves us short of absolute proof.

There's bigger questions here:

-why has no one hooked this woman up with an HD video camera? why is she still using antiquated cameras?

-why, if this woman is faking, would her only concern these days be getting the reams of footage transferred to digital media before it degrades.

-In several stills, the light burst does not follow a set pattern consistent with camera shake or movement. The only way to do such a thing would be to have sets of lights go off and on at appointed times during the alleged time delay exposure. Not impossible, but that's a bit of a stretch in setup and possibility of being caught.

-WTF is the motive. This woman has been silent for years, and only now towards the end of her life is coming out with a film. She has quietly shot footage for decades with no public entity releasing them.

In short lemme say this: I have been trying for the better part of 6 months to get her on my radio show, and Frank Longo the film's director has been also trying to help me get this set up. I don't approach this woman cold and out of the blue. I am friends with a person they are close with and trust.

To this day, there have been false starts, delays and more delays.

If she wanted the interested public attention, she'd have jumped at the offer to come on. But it's been nothing but a nightmare to get her to confirm a date. I have, in short ceased trying. I'm not mad, but I am exceedingly dissapointed that it hasn't worked out.

This too, fits the pattern of marginality and anti-structure - and makes me think there is something to it. What? I don't know.

Getting contact with Dorothy seems as elusive as the phenomena itself. Like most of the UFO question I expect it's far stranger than we can imagine.

Do I think Dorothy is faking? Based on what I have seen, no. Is the a possible explanation? Sure. Do I know what it is? No.

I always reserve the right to be wrong but...

I certainly don't believe the answer is in the mundane answers presented by camera defects.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by jritzmann]

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

This is all well and good when you're talking about one sense of the Izatt material. Delay exposure. But delaying or jamming the single frame in question, then overexposing it to that degree - why no bleed over to any other frames?

And, we mean to say this woman can defeat any number of the different makes she has been given as test cams?

Well if she's popping the batteries, that will stop the film. The shutter is closed between frames so she will only get exposure when the shutter is open and the frame is lined up. Instead of asking why wouldn't there be any bleed over, we could ask why would there be bleed over? If the film is stopped for whatever reason (camera defect, batteries removed, etc) it won't bleed over.

-WTF is the motive.

This to me is quite clear in the movie. She says that people thought she was crazy. So my interpretation of her motive from that statement is to prove to people that she's not crazy by giving them evidence, even if she has to manufacture it. None of us likes to be marginalized or have other people think we're crazy so I would consider that pretty strong motivation to try to come up with some proof that we're not crazy.

Good luck getting her on your show, that would be an interesting interview!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
why would there be bleed over? If the film is stopped for whatever reason (camera defect, batteries removed, etc) it won't bleed over.

With that kind of exposure, on adjacent largely black frames? Oh they'd be bleed, or some hint of massive overexposure - even if that light is being transferred through brightness through the emulsion or cel material.

As far as motive, I think the "people thought I was crazy" thing a pretty weak argument...I can see some data, but decades of it? Bit of overkill methinks. I mean you could be right, neither of us know her mind...unfortunately there's no test for motive. Which sucks.

I thank you for the luck wishes, but at this point I've almost lost hope for the interview to happen.

We'll see I guess. Anyway have a good day, good chattin with ya.
~J

If you know that the woman is holding the camera by hand, and you are supposing that she is popping the batteries to stop the film, you cannot expect that there would be uniformed artifacts in the film.
Nobody has that steady a hand. To produce similar defects time and again.


And like was said previously, it is much more than just a cursive script of her name. There are landscapes clearly indicated in the exposures.

IMO, they aren't camera defects.

Originally posted by JayinAR
Nobody has that steady a hand. To produce similar defects time and again.

You're right!

Actually the streaks are a result of NOT having a steady hand.

That's why the camera repair hobbyist who said how he knows this camera defect can occur suggested that she use a tripod when filming, and see if the streaks are still there. The tripod would eliminate the problem of not having steady hands.

But then if she used the tripod she wouldn't have some film to prove to her relatives she's not crazy, and she didn't like them thinking she was crazy.

You guys are breaking my heart. Just so you will know. I am so NOT a UFO person, but I was able to view this video before it was removed. Actually had my friends come over to watch it too. We were thrilled.

We loved it, believed it, believed her.

Now here you guys are saying it's a hoax. You're killing me here

reply to post by drjujube
I agree with most of your points. I would also like to add that the light behind the daughters head in the interview is stationary for the most part and it is the cameraman moving that makes it appear to move back and forth. This "ship" in the window seems to be a reflection in that window pane.

The light behind her head is interesting in that there are three grey dim lights that form a triangle, then the bottom two merge and become a bright orange light, but other than that, it looks more like the camera is moving than the light is. When they interview the husband outside during daylight and he is talking about the trees outside of the window, you can see that there is a neighbours house right in line with that window and there is a telephone pole right there as well. It is possible that the light is a streetlight or a porchlight. It doesn't explain the lights being in a triangle then merging, but it was something I saw right off the bat while viewing the documentary.

Lol @ the guy above me replying to 2+ yr old posts. Anywho, kinda glad you did or I wouldn't have seen this lol. The video has been removed, anyone know where I can find it? (Capturing The Light)

Originally posted by Ear-Responsible
Lol @ the guy above me replying to 2+ yr old posts. Anywho, kinda glad you did or I wouldn't have seen this lol. The video has been removed, anyone know where I can find it? (Capturing The Light)

edit on 28-1-2011 by Ear-Responsible because: (no reason given)

Well if you didn't laugh, and the other poster made another thread about the subject then someone else would come along and say we have 20 threads already made on the little lady capturing the light subject and then close the new thread down.

it's a no win situation,

The documentary, was interesting but in the end no true evidence like always.
So in reality their is little of nothing, well nothing other than a nice family gathering.

Originally posted by mysteryskeptic
but in the end no true evidence like always.

No true evidence?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dc5e3b3467f7.jpg[/atsimg]



(I don't see them either, even with the arrows pointing to them, but that's the evidence)

Originally posted by Ear-Responsible
Lol @ the guy above me replying to 2+ yr old posts. Anywho, kinda glad you did or I wouldn't have seen this lol. The video has been removed, anyone know where I can find it? (Capturing The Light)

edit on 28-1-2011 by Ear-Responsible because: (no reason given)

Hey, it was my first post

I saw so many people on the older threads talking about how "astounding" the footage was, and I had to weigh in.

Originally posted by jd230
Hey, it was my first post

I saw so many people on the older threads talking about how "astounding" the footage was, and I had to weigh in.

Hi and welcome to ATS. What you did is fine and you made some great observations!

Actually there's nothing wrong with "bumping" a thread, or posting in an older inactive thread, if it interests you, so feel free to do it again if you wish, just be aware that older threads have dropped off people's "radar screens" and if you ask a question there, nobody may answer you so don't take it personally that you're being ignored (note that drjujube didn't respond to you, he only made 3 posts after joining ATS on July 19,2009 so chances are he will never see your reply to him since we never heard from him again after that. But since you're new and just starting to figure out how the site works, you wouldn't have known that).

You have a better chance of someone seeing and replying to your post in a more active thread, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with bumping an older thread like you did, as long as you don't expect drjujube to reply because I can almost guarantee he won't!

Thanks for contributing!

Originally posted by Ear-Responsible
Lol @ the guy above me replying to 2+ yr old posts. Anywho, kinda glad you did or I wouldn't have seen this lol. The video has been removed, anyone know where I can find it? (Capturing The Light)

edit on 28-1-2011 by Ear-Responsible because: (no reason given)

It may be a forbidden fruit but might I suggest Torrent?

If not Amazon probably has a DVD you can purchase.



Still from her footage. Appears to be the "grey" fellas we hear about. Does not appear to be ball lightning or fireworks. Nice lady i believe her and would love to try her chocolate chip cookie recipe .


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a2f8df59bed.png[/atsimg]


One of my favorite cases of all time.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier
Why does it have a thick white outline like a drawn cartoon figure?

Is that something the film producers added to "point out" the shape of the being that was supposed to be in the image? Or is that cartoonish outline supposed to be a part of the original image?

The real mystery in all this is why do people need expert examining to determine this is bunk.
I know I sound like a smart a** but really why?

Just read about the doc on Dorothy. I skimmed through this thread so forgive me if I missed this, but has anyone been able to recreate the effects she got by pausing/popping batteries in and out? I may watch the doc, but the photos I've seen do look like an open shutter. light source and camera movement. If others have been able to reproduce this, then no point watching or researching this further