Anomalous light exhibiting strange "Izatt-type" behavior

This video is most curious as it is showing a lot of the same characteristics as seen in Dorothy Izatt's movies only this is in Digital and not 8 mm. Fantastic!




Cheers,

Erik

P.S. jamies941 does not say where this footage was taken. Bummer.

[edit on 22/OctamSat, 03 Oct 2009 11:00:16 -0500/08 by redwoodjedi]

reply to post by redwoodjedi

Please re-check the video number in your video link, link doesn't work.

Edit to add:

I see you've fixed the link now, great!



[edit on 3-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by redwoodjedi

 

Please re-check the video number in your video link, link doesn't work.

Thanks for the tip off on the error! I will fix it right away!

Thanks,

Erik

edit to add: P.S. Got 'er fixed now, Buddy!

[edit on 22/OctamSat, 03 Oct 2009 11:01:24 -0500/08 by redwoodjedi]

I found a vid a couple of days ago that also showed anomalous lights exhibiting this very same behavior. Very much again like Dorothy Izatt's captures. Amazing.

Video

Cheers,

Erik

I debunked Dorothy Izatt's captures in another thread, and the video in the OP provides even more proof of exactly what the Izatt captures are!

For example, look at just after 1.5 minutes into the video, where you can see the treeline at times. When the light is still, so is the treeline. When the light moves, so does the treeline.

What can we conclude from this?

The conclusion is that the motion we see in the video is due to camera motion, and not motion of the light. Anyone who thinks there is any significance at all to the Izatt captures needs to see this video which demonstrates what total garbage the Izatt stuff is. Thanks for further debunking the Izatt photos with your good observation that this video looks like them.. it DOES!!!!

Now as for what this light source is, if we knew the direction and location of the sighting in addition to the date and time we could plug that into a software program to see what planets and stars were visible in that direction. It could be a planet.

People who want to take video at night should really consider investing in a tripod.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I debunked Dorothy Izatt's captures in another thread, and the video in the OP provides even more proof of exactly what the Izatt captures are!

For example, look at just after 1.5 minutes into the video, where you can see the treeline at times. When the light is still, so is the treeline. When the light moves, so does the treeline.

What can we conclude from this?

The conclusion is that the motion we see in the video is due to camera motion, and not motion of the light. Anyone who thinks there is any significance at all to the Izatt captures needs to see this video which demonstrates what total garbage the Izatt stuff is. Thanks for further debunking the Izatt photos with your good observation that this video looks like them.. it DOES!!!!

Now as for what this light source is, if we knew the direction and location of the sighting in addition to the date and time we could plug that into a software program to see what planets and stars wee visible in that direction. It could be a planet.

People who want to take video at night should really consider investing in a tripod.

I agree with your post. Not to critisize, but I think a lot of UFOists, or whatever you want to call them, are too quick to believe in what they see. UFO's are supposed to be looked at with skeptisism. In fact, I generally believe all UFO stories are fake unless sufficient evidence is given to the contrary. Putting christmas lights on a treehouse and recording it while shaking it frantically is not an actual UFO, yet there are plenty of people who gazed in wonderment at it.

The light wasn't moving at all, it was all caused by the camera. If you record any kind of light in a dark environment (a still light) and quickly move the camera in bursts, it would produce effects suprisingly similar to this.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


With all due respect, I have invested a lot of time and research into the Izatt Material as is indicative in this thread.

The shaking camera technique you are pointing out is impossible with the Super 8 camera. What you are failing to take notice of is the fact that there is no pre or post frame bleed over in the Izatt captures. Simply a single frame of furious movement and activity and then by the next frame, none. This is humanly impossible especially for this old lady who has generated well over 30,000 feet of this phenomenon which is no small feat with each blast of light only an 18th of a second.

Hoaxable? You do it and show me how it is done. Not with words. I wanna see you use a camera such as hers and document the techniques necessary to get the same effect Dorothy is. If you do not have a Super 8 recorder, I do and I would be only too happy to lend it to you for just such an illustration. I'm calling your bluff. Show 'em or fold 'em.

To hoax 30,000 feet of tiny film frames is again akin to impossible for an old woman with no technical background. It would take a team of specialists and tons of available memory to create what Dorothy has captured.

I think you may have something concerning this particular vid, but you still have a very shallow argument concerning Dorothy's work. I can also bring in the corroborative efforts of Jeff Ritzmann and Dr. Bruce Maccabee who have also seen these many images and attest to their authenticity and they both come with some serious high cred.

This is as off topic as I will go on this thread. I would also appreciate it if you would be kind enough to post your thread concerning the debunking of the Izatt Material.

Cheers,

Erik

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The shaking camera technique you are pointing out is impossible with the Super 8 camera. What you are failing to take notice of is the fact that there is no pre or post frame bleed over in the Izatt captures. Simply a single frame of furious movement and activity and then by the next frame, none. This is humanly impossible especially for this old lady who has generated well over 30,000 feet of this phenomenon which is no small feat with each blast of light only an 18th of a second.

Hoaxable? You do it and show me how it is done. Not with words. I wanna see you use a camera such as hers and document the techniques necessary to get the same effect Dorothy is. If you do not have a Super 8 recorder, I do and I would be only too happy to lend it to you for just such an illustration. I'm calling your bluff. Show 'em or fold 'em.

Actually instead of saying it's impossible, you should be asking how she did it. My guess is, this can be achieved by popping the battery or batteries loose while the camera is running (In some cameras this could mean just opening the battery cover just a little bit) shake the camera a little and close the battery cover again. You can try that yourself. When you disconnect the batteries the camera will stop. Sometimes it may stop with the shutter closed in which case nothing will show up. If it stops when the shutter is open, then bingo you have a time exposure with no impossible feats.

I would also appreciate it if you would be kind enough to post your thread concerning the debunking of the Izatt Material.

It's not a thread just a post in a thread about "who's a Charlatan in the UFO field" here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here's the photo I used in that post. Any photographer who has ever done a handheld time exposure will recognize the effect instantly.


Now you just posted a video showing what her stuff really is and you don't even want to believe your own proof? Alrighty then, 'nuff said.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I debunked Dorothy Izatt's captures in another thread

what ?

Bahhwahahahahahahahahah !

thanks for the laugh Arby , clearly you have not examined the same video footage i have and your circular debunking logic is also laughable.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

*snip*

It's not a thread just a post in a thread about "who's a Charlatan in the UFO field" here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here's the photo I used in that post. Any photographer who has ever done a handheld time exposure will recognize the effect instantly.


Now you just posted a video showing what her stuff really is and you don't even want to believe your own proof? Alrighty then, 'nuff said.

OK. My camera cannot have battery access without interrupting and exposing the film as both are behind the same access panel. It is vintage. Ca. 1955 and in perfect condition. Dorothy's isn't that much newer.

Poor choice of pics by the way. You do realize that that is the frame grab of the Light Beings spelling her name in the sky?

Dorothy
Dorothy
Dorothy

Look closely. Again. Single frame. No bleed over. Impossible in a vintage camera without exposing the entire film.


Again. David Biedny, Jeff Ritzmann and Dr. Bruce Maccabee will attest to it's authenticity with impeccable cred. Where's yours? Who the heck are you? Credentials? Expertise? I can pull the afforementioned credentials and post in a moment's notice. I wanna see yours. I really don't care if you like these guys are not. Personality is not the issue. Trained expertise is. Show me yours. Tired of it. All talk no show. I am probably a worse Doubting Thomas than you. Put my fingers in the nail holes. My hand in the gash on the side. Dorothy's credibility is not in question. Hasn't been for a long time. However, yours is.

Who's expert opinion besides your own (ahem) do you value in such matters?

I posted somebody's effort with a different camera setup and entirely different medium altogether. Apples and Oranges my friend. You still have no proof or debunk. SHOW me! Don't TELL me. Talk is cheap. You're dead set to debunk Dorothy in the inappropriate thread. Do it on my thread dedicated solely to her case study. Not here. Discuss this OP. Not another.

You've made your unproven opinion quite clear. Back it up! Where's your video? I wanna see it. NOW!!

Armchair debunkers. Sheesh!

Cheers,

Erik

PS: Yeah, I'm testy. 2nd day no cigarettes after 25 years. Bring it!



[edit on 22/OctpmSat, 03 Oct 2009 14:38:39 -0500/08 by redwoodjedi]

I have a video that looks like that, it was easy to do, with a Canon MV730i.

Unfortunately, the camera is not mine and I had to return it to its owner (the company in which I work), so I cannot do another right now.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks ArMaP! Nice vid. Now I must know how you did that with your camera. What was the process? Is it the shaking process or removing the battery process that Arby was talking about in his previous posts? I would like to know so I can recognize what this aspect of a fake not only looks like but how it was produced.

I appreciate any answers you can furnish in this regard.

Cheers,

Erik

Originally posted by ArMaP
I have a video that looks like that, it was easy to do, with a Canon MV730i.

Unfortunately, the camera is not mine and I had to return it to its owner (the company in which I work), so I cannot do another right now.

Hey ArMaP, before you can sell that on a DVD for $20 like Dorothy, you have to take some stills and show us where the aliens are coming out. If you're not sure how to do that, just look at Dorothy's example:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by easynow
another interesting photo were she claims aliens are coming out of a ship ?

Photograph taken September 6th, 1986, 8:30 p.m.

Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada.

Three UFOnauts coming out of ship. First one is already out of ship, second one you can see head and shoulders and third one you can only see head.

The ship is in darkness, only the aliens are illuminated.

reply to post by redwoodjedi

redwoodjedi,

Edit: Sorry I must have missed your post earlier.
I see you can't stop your camera by removing the batteries, do you know that Dorothy couldn't do that with hers? If she could, all she would have to do is stop it with the shutter open and she could write your name, dorothy's name or anyone else's name. Then reconnect the batteries and keep filming, giving the exact effect of no bleedover in the other frames.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
Now I must know how you did that with your camera.

The camera has a light-enhancing system for low light conditions.

The problem is that the system is based on the adding of several frames, so while the camera is adding the frames, if the image changes the result is what we can see in the video.

I haven't timed it, but I think it's something like half a second, and at 30 frames per second that means 15 images superimposed on each other to create the final image.

PS: The camera has a tape, but I used the built-in memory card.

Edited to remove a reference to the end of the video, I did not included that part, sorry.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
Poor choice of pics by the way. You do realize that that is the frame grab of the Light Beings spelling her name in the sky?

Dorothy
Dorothy
Dorothy

Look closely. Again. Single frame.

No I didn't realize that!!! Thanks for pointing that out! I was going to say I watched the whole "Capturing the light" video and never saw the

Dorothy
Dorothy
Dorothy

Image, but that's it? Wow I never would have guessed. Well there's actually a 4th light but it's blinking so it doesn't match the other 3 exactly. But if this is that image, I have to say, I'm not impressed with the handwriting skills of the "aliens" Unless someone told me that says Dorothy 3 times I wouldn't have guessed. Now that you've told me, I must say it still doesn't look much like "Dorothy". Seems like quite a stretch to me to make that claim.

Now that I know that's the "Dorothy" image, this guys explanation seems a little more credible. He buys broken cameras on ebay and fixes them up so he knows a lot about the inner workings: www.democraticunderground.com...

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
Poor choice of pics by the way. You do realize that that is the frame grab of the Light Beings spelling her name in the sky?

Dorothy
Dorothy
Dorothy

Look closely. Again. Single frame.

No I didn't realize that!!! Thanks for pointing that out! I was going to say I watched the whole "Capturing the light" video and never saw the

Dorothy
Dorothy
Dorothy

Image, but that's it? Wow I never would have guessed. Well there's actually a 4th light but it's blinking so it doesn't match the other 3 exactly. But if this is that image, I have to say, I'm not impressed with the handwriting skills of the "aliens"

Unless someone told me that says Dorothy 3 times I wouldn't have guessed. Now that you've told me, I must say it still doesn't look much like "Dorothy". Seems like quite a stretch to me to make that claim.

Now that I know that's the "Dorothy" image, this guys explanation seems a little more credible. He buys broken cameras on ebay and fixes them up so he knows a lot about the inner workings: www.democraticunderground.com...

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Ok, Buddy. Last time. This time not so subtle. You don't understand subtle. You are grossly off topic. If you are again, I will bring this thread to the attention of the MODs. Discuss Dorothy Izatt on the appropriate thread. Not here. Discuss only the OP here. Clear?! Good.

Cheers,

Erik

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
Now I must know how you did that with your camera.

The camera has a light-enhancing system for low light conditions.

The problem is that the system is based on the adding of several frames, so while the camera is adding the frames, if the image changes the result is what we can see in the video.

I haven't timed it, but I think it's something like half a second, and at 30 frames per second that means 15 images superimposed on each other to create the final image.

PS: The camera has a tape, but I used the built-in memory card.

Edited to remove a reference to the end of the video, I did not included that part, sorry.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by ArMaP]

Thanks for that ArMaP. Do you think that this is indicative to the technique of the OP or could this same effect be recreated with other techniques?

Sounds like you are creating a type of Image Delay of sorts. Interesting.

Cheers,

Erik

reply to post by redwoodjedi


that is a interesting video in your opening post

i would agree with ArMaP , the adding frames while the actual picture is changing does explain the squiggly lines but there is a light source there in the video that is unidentified.

here in this Stephenville Texas video you can see the same thing




there is also a unidentified light source in that video as well but these videos cannot be used to compare to Dorothy's video because the application and technology used by her camera is completely different from digital and vhs cameras. ( you probably already know that ) just saying

there are parts of Dorothy's video that i have seen where the squiggly lines occur as the footage is rolling and i thought that might be explained by the film getting stuck on the sprocket but after watching the video many more times i realized that in certain portions of the video , one particular frame had squiggly lines and lights that did not do that. both were present in one frame. knowing it was super 8 film , i couldn't come up with an explanation for that.

regardless , there are some unidentified lights in these videos












[edit on 3-10-2009 by easynow]

reply to post by easynow


There still seems to be some sort of Image Delay process going on that might be inherent with the digital processing in low light conditions. Does that make since?

I also noted how easy it is to let the mind play with pareidolia as the various images morph and shift about the screen. It's not that hard to see "faces" and "scripting" of sorts as the light moves around.

I will attest to this. The light is anomalous. It is unexplained. Therefore it is until proven otherwise a UFO in the true sense.

Thanks for the vid, Easy.

Cheers,

Erik

reply to post by redwoodjedi

It's not that hard to see "faces" and "scripting" of sorts as the light moves around.

i understand and i believe most of the time when that happens it's artifacts from shaking the camera and our imagination. but who really knows for sure ? maybe there is something more to it that we don't understand yet. i would say Dorothy's videos have kept me open minded about those kinda possibility's.


just for fun i thought i would post this picture. it's different parts of the Texas video and the guy that put this together was speculating that the ufo might be trying to send some kind of message with writing or language with these different shapes and designs.














[edit on 4-10-2009 by easynow]