-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
March 2nd Show - Dorothy Izatt
- Thread starter Miah
- Start date
Free episodes:
Schuyler
Misanthrope
Topic drift, I think. On the original show I was disappointed that the hosts seemed so accepting--not their usual skeptical outlook. They were almost fawning. It was so amazing! Gee whiz!! The events after the show are even more telling as Biedny finally takes a more skeptical view, and zap! What's this "I won't give you access" crap after Biedny says "The plot thickens." Big deal. If they can't take low burner heat, something's amiss. Maybe Dorothy does manifest something, but the crapola meter has gone to 99% on this one. Dorthy needs new handlers at the very least. Get the hook for this guy.
I went over all that on my MP3 that was posted here. Again, Peter Gutilla is not the case, Dorothy Izatt is. I've spoken to Frank personally, and he stressed he didn't want to be a gatekeeper to Dorothy. However it's fully within his right to keep the witnesses protected from people who possible are going to cause strife.
Phew! Just read many pages of this thread to catch up and it's one fascinating ride. I lost my computer to some problems when people were posting to page five so I'm happy to see how it's morphed for Jeremy and Jeff in particular.
Still don't have my sound working yet so I've bookmarked the MP3, Jeff. I hope it remains until I get this @#$%&**^% machine talking to me again.
Just had a few comments on the fear thing. I know a very interesting and learned fellow who suggested to me once that the next time I have a horrifying dream, (yes, I know, totally unrelated to your very real experiences, but the exercise may produce similar results,) that rather than running from a terrifying entity, if I can begin to lucidly control part of my dream, I might face him and just surrender to the fear, letting it wash all over me, so to speak. He said horrifying experiences or entities are a necessary obstacle created in each person new to shamanism, a test to forgo fear for learning something totally new.
The idea is that the dream entity can't really hurt me so I have nothing to lose. When the very worst fear is acknowledged and allowed it's full force and nothing changes while facing the entity, it becomes obvious finally that fear does nothing for one. It's useless. When that happens, it loses it's power and can't help but diminish. That's epiphany time, I think. Somehow, since you live to tell your sometimes brutal stories, I sort of equate that you are being tested in some rather unfathomable way too. We may all be reluctant shamans, who knows?
It doesn't matter if we help create these terror filled scenarios or if we have nothing to do with their creation. They happen so the question is what you or anyone else does to survive them and maybe even tame the beast in the process. (Except that the worst beast is your reaction to them.) At the very least, you are being shown that there is more to our so called reality than grandma or the scientist next door ever mentioned.
I don't think we can just dismiss fear with a new mindset although attempting to banish fear is a worthy effort. But because it is so very basic to human survival, instinctual, I think it may take some epiphany in order to actually let it go. I'm thinking now of the "death" Jeremy mentioned in his worthy argument for our looking within us for the demon.
A reminder, a quote from Jeremy's eloquent post:
Yeah, easy for me to say because I don't have your experiences. But the general rule for shamans may apply here since they deal in altered realities all the time. There's some old saying, maybe it's from Alcoholics Anonymous, that when you give something up, it creates a hole in you which is then quickly filled up with something much better. I have this feeling that you're a real shaman and you can't avoid passing that test, Jeff.
My best wishes to you and I really hope you get to talk to Dorothy Izatt.
Still don't have my sound working yet so I've bookmarked the MP3, Jeff. I hope it remains until I get this @#$%&**^% machine talking to me again.
Just had a few comments on the fear thing. I know a very interesting and learned fellow who suggested to me once that the next time I have a horrifying dream, (yes, I know, totally unrelated to your very real experiences, but the exercise may produce similar results,) that rather than running from a terrifying entity, if I can begin to lucidly control part of my dream, I might face him and just surrender to the fear, letting it wash all over me, so to speak. He said horrifying experiences or entities are a necessary obstacle created in each person new to shamanism, a test to forgo fear for learning something totally new.
The idea is that the dream entity can't really hurt me so I have nothing to lose. When the very worst fear is acknowledged and allowed it's full force and nothing changes while facing the entity, it becomes obvious finally that fear does nothing for one. It's useless. When that happens, it loses it's power and can't help but diminish. That's epiphany time, I think. Somehow, since you live to tell your sometimes brutal stories, I sort of equate that you are being tested in some rather unfathomable way too. We may all be reluctant shamans, who knows?
It doesn't matter if we help create these terror filled scenarios or if we have nothing to do with their creation. They happen so the question is what you or anyone else does to survive them and maybe even tame the beast in the process. (Except that the worst beast is your reaction to them.) At the very least, you are being shown that there is more to our so called reality than grandma or the scientist next door ever mentioned.
I don't think we can just dismiss fear with a new mindset although attempting to banish fear is a worthy effort. But because it is so very basic to human survival, instinctual, I think it may take some epiphany in order to actually let it go. I'm thinking now of the "death" Jeremy mentioned in his worthy argument for our looking within us for the demon.
A reminder, a quote from Jeremy's eloquent post:
Yeah, easy for me to say because I don't have your experiences. But the general rule for shamans may apply here since they deal in altered realities all the time. There's some old saying, maybe it's from Alcoholics Anonymous, that when you give something up, it creates a hole in you which is then quickly filled up with something much better. I have this feeling that you're a real shaman and you can't avoid passing that test, Jeff.
My best wishes to you and I really hope you get to talk to Dorothy Izatt.
Hey, regarding the positive thinking stuff. If I wake up and I'm pissed off, I generally have a bad day. If I wake up happy, it's usually great. My mood directly affects my experiences throughout the day.
If trying to be calm and stable during an experiences (if you're going to have an experience anyway) changes your perception of the experience for the positive then I'd say its worthwhile.
If trying to be calm and stable during an experiences (if you're going to have an experience anyway) changes your perception of the experience for the positive then I'd say its worthwhile.
valiens said:
Those are my thoughts exactly. I once thought about what I would say if I had the chance to meet someone like Whitley Streiber and ask one question, and I finally decided that I would ask him "After all you've been through, who do you think we are?"
Rocketsauce
Haagen-Dazs Addict
well, after hearing David and Jeff's views on the Izatt case I had to go buy the book which I just finished reading yesterday.
Below are some bullet points. The book was filled with a lot of the high strangeness along with space brothers stuff and she actually doesn't believe the abduction stuff based on her experiences.
Keep in mind I'm just the messenger here who read a book. Here are some of the main things i picked up:
- there are many species that visit and watch over earth and have been since the beginning
- only some people can visually see the phenomena as she does. Why? There are many psychological, biological and metaphysical reasons why these phenomena are visible to some and not to others. She had many experiences in seeing things that others could not see when they were with her which would appear in her videos but not the other people who were also shooting at the same time.
- many "aliens" look very similar to us and could easily mingle in and no one would know
- most are telepathic and that's how they communicate
- she has encountered and filmed many species. From what most people would probably think of as 'angels' but are really high level spiritual beings of light to the greys.
- just like there are nice and indifferent humans, same goes with aliens
- some greys are basically indifferent androids doing someone elses work
- When Dorothy believed these things were 'Demons' after talking with her church friends, she started getting visited by very negative shadow entities. But when she was more positive and not fearful, her interactions with high level benevolent groups began again
- some aliens are from other 'dimensions' some are from other planets, it's every type of scenario you can think of
- the super advanced beings of light can travel through time/space/dimension - time does not exist outside our 'reality'
- she once went to Coney Island with 2 human looking aliens!
- her husband who is a hockey loving Canadian electrical engineer tells her to keep all this stuff to herself. He doesn't want to know about any of it even though she has had many experiences while her husband was watching hockey in the other room or was asleep next to her
- Dorothly was raised a very strong Catholic, so she had problems reconciling a lot of this stuff that she was experiencing.
- Her case has been reviewed by professors at a nearby college, Dr. Hynek (who believe she was legit and this is confirmed in writing), psychologists, and other 'experts' who were interested in researching her case. Seems like her case has been giving thorough study by various people over the years.
- The light beings told her they knew her from a past life so she did a regression session and the transcript is in the book.
-During the session she talked about living in a part of Greece 10,000 years ago where she had access to technology to communicate with these beings and lived in a cave with her people since they were in hiding from some kings who wanted to use the technology for weapons. Her father at the a time was a descendent of the "Atlans"
- After the regression session she called the Greek consulate and found out the town she named during regression is a real place and that the ancient people still live there to this day and speak their own language and still live in caves and avoid the outside world and strangers. The consulate said if she wants to visit there she should get a tour guide because they don't like outsiders.
- I don't believe Dorothy knew anything about greece or atlantis or anything of that nature before the regression, she doesn't seem to be a new age person at all until her experiences.
Here's is where you can buy the book, although it was written by the guy who David and Gene interviewed, so that is something to keep in mind since David in particular has issues with the guy. However there are a lot of her quotes in the book, particulary at the end of the book which is essentialy several chapters of her stories:
http://www.amazon.com/Contact-Beings-Light-Amazing-Wilkinson-Izatt/dp/1892264137/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205765390&sr=8-1
Below are some bullet points. The book was filled with a lot of the high strangeness along with space brothers stuff and she actually doesn't believe the abduction stuff based on her experiences.
Keep in mind I'm just the messenger here who read a book. Here are some of the main things i picked up:
- there are many species that visit and watch over earth and have been since the beginning
- only some people can visually see the phenomena as she does. Why? There are many psychological, biological and metaphysical reasons why these phenomena are visible to some and not to others. She had many experiences in seeing things that others could not see when they were with her which would appear in her videos but not the other people who were also shooting at the same time.
- many "aliens" look very similar to us and could easily mingle in and no one would know
- most are telepathic and that's how they communicate
- she has encountered and filmed many species. From what most people would probably think of as 'angels' but are really high level spiritual beings of light to the greys.
- just like there are nice and indifferent humans, same goes with aliens
- some greys are basically indifferent androids doing someone elses work
- When Dorothy believed these things were 'Demons' after talking with her church friends, she started getting visited by very negative shadow entities. But when she was more positive and not fearful, her interactions with high level benevolent groups began again
- some aliens are from other 'dimensions' some are from other planets, it's every type of scenario you can think of
- the super advanced beings of light can travel through time/space/dimension - time does not exist outside our 'reality'
- she once went to Coney Island with 2 human looking aliens!
- her husband who is a hockey loving Canadian electrical engineer tells her to keep all this stuff to herself. He doesn't want to know about any of it even though she has had many experiences while her husband was watching hockey in the other room or was asleep next to her
- Dorothly was raised a very strong Catholic, so she had problems reconciling a lot of this stuff that she was experiencing.
- Her case has been reviewed by professors at a nearby college, Dr. Hynek (who believe she was legit and this is confirmed in writing), psychologists, and other 'experts' who were interested in researching her case. Seems like her case has been giving thorough study by various people over the years.
- The light beings told her they knew her from a past life so she did a regression session and the transcript is in the book.
-During the session she talked about living in a part of Greece 10,000 years ago where she had access to technology to communicate with these beings and lived in a cave with her people since they were in hiding from some kings who wanted to use the technology for weapons. Her father at the a time was a descendent of the "Atlans"
- After the regression session she called the Greek consulate and found out the town she named during regression is a real place and that the ancient people still live there to this day and speak their own language and still live in caves and avoid the outside world and strangers. The consulate said if she wants to visit there she should get a tour guide because they don't like outsiders.
- I don't believe Dorothy knew anything about greece or atlantis or anything of that nature before the regression, she doesn't seem to be a new age person at all until her experiences.
Here's is where you can buy the book, although it was written by the guy who David and Gene interviewed, so that is something to keep in mind since David in particular has issues with the guy. However there are a lot of her quotes in the book, particulary at the end of the book which is essentialy several chapters of her stories:
http://www.amazon.com/Contact-Beings-Light-Amazing-Wilkinson-Izatt/dp/1892264137/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205765390&sr=8-1
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Schuyler said:
as i recall they did this with the ol' country doctor too.
Rocketsauce
Haagen-Dazs Addict
pixelsmith said:
After reading the book about her, it seems like her case is fairly old and has been looked at by several researchers including Hynek.
So it doesn't appear that this case has something to 'hide' from researchers, for years it seems like it was open to anyone who wanted to review the evidence. She hosted several events where she openly showed her videos to anyone that wanted to attend.
But being 82, unless 60 minutes wanted to get in touch with her, I don't know if having another paranormal show confirm her evidence would do much for anyone, although it would be entertaining for us to hear what David says!
That's just my opinion, it seems like the Paracast in this instance is just the latest group of people to take an interest in a case that was open for a long time to researchers. There is nothing stopping anyone from trying to get in touch with Dorothy or her family, hence Jeff has been reaching out to them.
If I was in my 80's and had been experiencing this stuff my whole life and had met with many researchers over the years who failed to debunk anything and was constantly having to prove myself when I have no interest in gaining any public exposure and then big aggressive New York David wants to come over and be the 'first person' to ever really get to the bottom of this after I've already gotten the official thumbs up from Hynek decades ago, then maybe I would think I have nothing to gain anymore from this so I wouldn't bother. In this case you can't blame David for being annoyed, but I can't blame them if she doesn't want to deal with the strong personalities of the paracast.
The larger thing IMO is getting her unreleased footage that she claims she has out there to the people. I hope they can accomplish that if in fact this other footage of 'entities' etc... does really exist.
SnakeOil
Skilled Investigator
So...
I ordered "Capturing the Light", got it yesterday, watched it last night.
The single-frame light show freak-out bits weren't impressive to me at first. It looks like a mechanical failure of some optical bit, maybe going into some kind of oscillation for a frame to make all that jazz. But then they had somebody inspect the camera, got the same results with other cameras...and looking closer at the single frames, you can see that different light sources are doing different things. I can’t think of anything ordinary that would account for that.
Then there’s the stuff at the end where the daughter is getting interviewed by the kitchen window. That is some wiggy shit.
Last night I saw that single-frame flashing in my dreams. Lots of it, like to the point where it woke me up. That stuff didn’t make much of an impression on me, so I’m a bit surprised that it would invade my sleep like that.
Meh. Maybe I’m blowing this out of proportion. But something in me is reacting to this and I’m not sure what to make of it.
I ordered "Capturing the Light", got it yesterday, watched it last night.
The single-frame light show freak-out bits weren't impressive to me at first. It looks like a mechanical failure of some optical bit, maybe going into some kind of oscillation for a frame to make all that jazz. But then they had somebody inspect the camera, got the same results with other cameras...and looking closer at the single frames, you can see that different light sources are doing different things. I can’t think of anything ordinary that would account for that.
Then there’s the stuff at the end where the daughter is getting interviewed by the kitchen window. That is some wiggy shit.
Last night I saw that single-frame flashing in my dreams. Lots of it, like to the point where it woke me up. That stuff didn’t make much of an impression on me, so I’m a bit surprised that it would invade my sleep like that.
Meh. Maybe I’m blowing this out of proportion. But something in me is reacting to this and I’m not sure what to make of it.
Rocketsauce
Haagen-Dazs Addict
SnakeOil said:
I agree with you in that the short clips of the video that are shown in the movie trailer (I haven't seen the movie) and the pictures in the actual book don't initially capture anything very obvious for someone is not really into studying images. It seems like there is some creative interpretations when describing what the 'slides' show, particularly in the book (which is black and white).
The book indicates she has a lot more film of actual entities and in the interview as well on the Paracast it is hinted that she has not made all of her film available to the film maker. So I hope more of this type of footage comes out - footage that has closeups of entities and stuff that is easier to interpret immediately. Maybe the phenomena doesn't lend itself to Sears family portraits, so any footage may be hard to get a firm grasp on regardless of the circumstances.
The fact that the anomalies of the footage they do show threw David, Hynek and the people at DreamWorks for a loop, does indicate that something very strange is going on with her and from all accounts she doesn't seem to be the type of person who is out to create a niche market to sell stuff. So I think she is telling reality as she sees it, which might be different than how others see it, I don't know.
Certainly it seems like her case is strongly worth considering since there are no obvious red flags as far as I can tell except for how wild her stories are to our normal paradigm and she preaches the space brothers somewhat. Thus, I felt I had to read the book about her to get a better picture of what might actually be going on. The next book I got is the Jim Sparks book. I don't know what to think of Jim Sparks at all. He doesn't seem as credible as Dorothy (no film footage!) and his story is more the 'abduction' type versus Dorothly's experience of 'non intrusive communication', but I think there are probably elements of truth to Jims story so I think it's worth reading and considering.
lotusland
Paranormal Novice
Rocketsauce said:
You've articulated that so well. If Hynek and others have already confirmed that she's not hoaxing the material, that angle is really non-productive to pursue. Not to mention insulting to Dorothy's integrity.
The unreleased footage of the entities, Dorothy's perspective and what's she's learned about them (and us) should be the focus of the pursuit now. She is really the only one able to narrate these experiences and explain the footage, and time is running out. We're about to lose a very valuable piece of the phenomenon here and people are quibbling about whether or not she manipulated exposures on the film.
Stand back, get a larger perspective and pursue the story that matters.
This is a first post for me.I've listened and read for the last 8months but for the first time I have felt the need to inject a comment.I was actually encouraged to do so by reading the previous poster that admitted to being drawn to this story but wasn't sure why.Being a grandmother myself I feel that I do "share" a connection with Dorothy.There is something compelling in her story and it seems alot of people DO want a follow-up and any information that may come from Jeff's quest to gain insight.From reading these forums and listening to the shows I do understand that HARD SCIENCE is what most people here are seeking,but I do wonder if there is no such thing as HARD SCIENCE(or at least known science)in such a realm as the one Dorothy is experiencing.
seagreen said:
Hi there, and welcome.
I have resigned myself many years ago to just what you mention...the lack and probable impossibility of any scientific "proof", at least as we may know it now. The facts are there's no scientific proof of this in all the years since the "modern age" of UFOlogy began.
You all pretty much know that I don't subscribe to the "nuts and bolts" theories, but more to a paranormal manifestation direction. Years ago my research partner and I used to refer to this as the "spiritual angle", because we didn't know what else to call it. If this were the direction that research took, we knew full well that there wouldn't be the "proof", that everyone wanted...the brass ring everyone tries to reach for and some lie endlessly about. Really? Ya cant ever make the mistake that this is a study of UFOs/aliens. It's a study of reports and data, by *people*. So, in the end it's a study of people, and at least in my opinion thats where "proof" is going to be...but it may never be the proof everyone desires.
At some point maybe science will take note of other more "edge of perception" things like this, maybe thats the direction. Til then, you just plug away as best you can.