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

originally posted by: vlawde
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

It could also be tested by having her recreate her images with a good professional camera, or by someone else recreating the images with both her camera and a control camera. Or how about anyone getting something more clear than squiggly lines and blobs?

Various attempts to confirm the images were tried in the past, but as usual nobody was ever able to confirm anything. However, after taking tens of thousands of feet of footage for decades the fact that nothing truly and unequivocally definitive was ever captured tells you pretty much all you need to know about this asterisk of a case in UFO history.

originally posted by: vlawde
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

I would call it a pseudo-documentary instead of a documentary. If it was a real, unbiased documentary it would have looked at the other side of the story more critically. Regardless of how she did it and the claims it's "impossible", it's obviously not impossible because she did it.

Images like hers are seen in many places even when people aren't trying to create them, but when the people aren't crazy like she was, they get interpreted for what they are. First let's recap one of Dorothy's squiggly lines images which sha said was alien beings of light:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dc5e3b3467f7.jpg[/atsimg]
In that one she says it's three aliens, but it's just a squiggly line from a time exposure. I ran across a similar image recently where the analyst concluded it was evidence of a time exposure. Look on the right hand side to see the squiggly line from the time exposure:

March 20, 1950 - New York City

That video questions what the light source is and says it's probably not a car because the roads are straight and that squiggly line isn't, but that's what you get when a light moves when you leave the shutter open.

In another video, someone got images like Izatt's when the different type of video camera kept the shutter open longer than normal because it was dark, and without even trying to duplicate Izatt images, that's what shows up, in this case not due to the light moving, but due to the camera moving while the shutter was open, for I would guess maybe about 1/3 second per exposure since at some points it seems like there are maybe 3 frames per second. (maybe 30 frames per second but effectively reduced to 3 frames per second, I suspect, from clicking "next frame" ten times before the image changes).

Anomalous light exhibiting strange "Izatt-type" behavior
Time index 4:48


I re-read some of this thread and some people were apparently impressed that Dorothy could make these images with three different cameras. Well here's someone who made a very similar image with a different type of camera and wasn't even trying to do it.

That video also shows the same kind of "out of focus" frames of the image as we see in Dorothy's film.

originally posted by: Odessy
www.abovetopsecret.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d83f0cf08c98.jpg[/atsimg]

"Beginning as a tiny speck, this object grew into a bright blossom of soft white light. Dorothy was swept by a feeling of warmth and love."

I've got nothing against warmth and love, but that's just a nutty description for a light going out of focus. If you watch the Anomalous light exhibiting strange "Izatt-type" behavior video, you can see the same thing where it goes out of focus like that at time 2:25


I get swept with a feeling of a light going out of focus when seeing that and Izatt's similar image.

So why aren't people saying these very similar images made by another person using a totally different camera are aliens, or beings of light? Or maybe they are saying that, if they really believed Dorothy. Or are only Dorothy's squiggly lines aliens because she's the only one who says so? It's really silly.

When you have more than one light in the image, it becomes clear (to anyone with a smidgen of cognitive ability) that they are all tracking the camera movement. Here is an example of that from Izatt video:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a23a7e0cfe66.jpg[/atsimg]
It is so painfully obvious that's the same phenomenon as this, I'm shocked more people can't tell, or they are so biased they don't want to tell, and believe some of the propaganda in the pseudo-documentary which is obviously biased to sell Dorothy's story, which tries to convince people it can't be the same thing because made up excuse blah blah blah. The DVD was on sale for $19.99 (presumably plus shipping and handling) so there was no incentive to debunk her story and end up with nothing to sell, why don't people seem to get that? The incentive was quite the opposite, to promote her story no matter how ridiculous, and she obviously has some very gullible followers if they can't see this for what it is. Thankfully, some people can see it for what it is.


That image was posted by the camera repairman who said he had worked on repairing film cameras and could understand how these time exposures can happen in film cameras, contrary to all the people who have never repaired a film camera saying it's impossible with Dorothy's camera because some biased person in her pseudo-documentary said so.

As for duplicating it exactly with the same cameras, what's the incentive? Besides it would be hard now since I don't know if you can still buy 8mm film or get it processed, it's certainly not commonplace like it used to be. Anyway the photographer who wasn't even trying to duplicate Izatt's imagery got reasonably close with a totally different type of camera that doesn't even use film, which should tell you it's not really about the camera anyway, and not about Izatt since it's from a totally different photographer.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the photos etc. I've done paranormal investigating for years, and learned early on about common camera things that cause unusual effects. How dust can look like 'orbs', motion blur, and the effect we're talking about here.

Yeah, not going to bother with the doc, I was bored and looking for things to watch.