March 2nd Show - Dorothy Izatt

[jritzmann]

Yeah, I think I might. And I think I get the "ramping up", too. But I shouldn't. You've had a non-trivial amount of experience with this sort of thing. Me? Zip. Zilch. Nada. This makes me feel a bit out of my element. If I have an element.

I'm glad ya get it, even though it'll make you somewhat uncomfortable. Be advised, the more you poke it the more brazen it'll get too. If I dont know anything (and largely I dont) about this, I do know that.

 

[Filer of False Complaints]

I bought the video... just watched it...

It wasn't anything special. Not worth the 32 bucks. Way to short for 30,000 feet of footage.

 

[Graphimancer]

I think "proof" and public acceptace are way overrated. They have little to no bearing on the things I've experienced, and would not change whether those things were better or worse. Once you've talked with a ghost, for example, it really doesn't matter to you anymore what science says about it.

 

[David Biedny]

Scott, you've eluded to some personal experiences, I was wondering if you might consider sharing some of the details. I'd love to know more about what you've seen.

dB

 

[Capnkumquat]

I just watched the DVD yesterday and thought I might comment about some aspects of the documentary that seemed to positively affect Dorothy's credibility.

1. There were several members of her family that initially seemed very skeptical of Dorothy's claims and if they had been able to "out" her...they would have done it. Thusly, any attempt to fake the footage like, swinging Christmas lights in front of a black background would have drawn the attention of the family and she would be "busted".

2. The light flashes seem somewhat possible to fake, until you start looking at some of the frames in which all of the background lights swoosh in a single direction with one foreground light that makes squiggles all on its own. There is no way that one person could wiggle the camera to make lights move in two different directions.

I have done some light writing on film way back in college, and you tend to get a streak effect with the head of light stoke being brighter than the trailing edge, there is none of that on Dorothy's work. Furthermore a light on a stick, no matter how dark the room tends to light things up, especially when doing a long exposure. You will see the stick, the hand, etc... Dorothy's stuff is clean. The length of exposure needed to fake this stuff would have turned night into twilight unless, the light "burst" was nearly instantaneous.

----------
A couple of disappointments on the DVD.

1. Better footage has been alluded to, why is it not on the DVD. If you are trying to make a case for Alien encounters, you should put your best evidence forward.

2. 45 min. for $25 is a bit much for the content. More footage please.

 

[Ankhes]

You're last comments, Underdog, is why I haven't purchased the DVD yet. $20-25 or so for not even an hour, and not even a hour of the best footage is too expensive for me right now. If another DVD comes out with more footage I'll reconsider.

This entire case is fascinating to me. But I keep in mind the old saying of "if it seems to good to be true it probably is." I keep hoping this may be the case that really turns out to be authentic. I wonder why, tho, the aliens came thru her ceiling? What the heck is wrong with the front door? Well, that wouldn't be as dramatic, I suppose. : )

 

[Apocalypto]

I guess I've become much more cynical in my old age, but... I don't think there's anything here.

 

[Rocketsauce]

I just watched the DVD yesterday and thought I might comment about some aspects of the documentary that seemed to positively affect Dorothy's credibility.

1. There were several members of her family that initially seemed very skeptical of Dorothy's claims and if they had been able to "out" her...they would have done it. Thusly, any attempt to fake the footage like, swinging Christmas lights in front of a black background would have drawn the attention of the family and she would be "busted".

2. The light flashes seem somewhat possible to fake, until you start looking at some of the frames in which all of the background lights swoosh in a single direction with one foreground light that makes squiggles all on its own. There is no way that one person could wiggle the camera to make lights move in two different directions.

I have done some light writing on film way back in college, and you tend to get a streak effect with the head of light stoke being brighter than the trailing edge, there is none of that on Dorothy's work. Furthermore a light on a stick, no matter how dark the room tends to light things up, especially when doing a long exposure. You will see the stick, the hand, etc... Dorothy's stuff is clean. The length of exposure needed to fake this stuff would have turned night into twilight unless, the light "burst" was nearly instantaneous.

----------
A couple of disappointments on the DVD.

1. Better footage has been alluded to, why is it not on the DVD. If you are trying to make a case for Alien encounters, you should put your best evidence forward.

2. 45 min. for $25 is a bit much for the content. More footage please.

Good balanced opinion. Seems like the movie isn't something people like us who follow the topic need to buy. Hearing other's opinions, particularly experts in film like David are good enough for me to believe the footage is real. If she had more detailed footage of actual beings then I would be tempted to buy it. But yes, my real question is about the 'other' footage she says she has. I wonder what's up with that? That should be a massive priority.

The book was pretty cheap and since most of her story checks out as far as we can tell, you might be willing to check it out and consider some of the more detailed strange stories that are shared in the book. I posted a bunch of the highlights earlier in this thread.

She definately paints a 'new agey' picture based on her story. Beings of light, past lives, ancient advanced civilizations, dimentional and off planet beings (including greys and many others), the contactee's mind set altering the types of experiences she has etc...

What she doesn't quite explain are the abductions. Yes, she says when she was thinking negatively she was visited by 'shadow entities', but that doesn't explain how happy go lucky people everyday get taken up in the craft and have tests done on them. She does say in the book she asked the beings of light about abductions and I think they said they weren't something that they were aware of or maybe they said it wasn't true, I don't remember but basically she said they dismissed it. If these are highly advanced beings within her premise, you'd think they would be aware of the thousands of abductions, unless they were being misleading. It would be interesting to hear more about her take on the subject of abductions.

 

[Anonymous22]

More proof that this phenomenon has nothing to do with extraterrestrials.

 

[nightlark]

It still sounded a bit BMish but, I haven’t seen any of the videos.

Agreed. I'm halfway through the podcast right now, and I got that thought too. I'll hold out final thoughts until seeing the footage or pics though.

Just on listening to the show, when I hear things like "They are here to help us ... but they can't interfere" (1:30:29); "The planet is getting old ... at some point in our planets future we are going to be given a bolt of light .. that is going to transform much of what is going on on this planet" (1:04:38 ); and lastly "all this has been part of the information and there has been so much of it given to Dorothy" (1:04:50).

This sounds like the FIGU documents that describe beings giving info to BM with future predictions. These documents supposedly are written from diaries of visits to BM over the years.

It sounds too similar. One person, given all this information - They are here to help us...

You know who needs to help us? We do. Us. We need to stop waiting, hoping for some one or thing to come and clean the mess up.

 

[TClaeys]

I guess I'll have to put this in the infamous "grey basket", but am close to kicking it out for a number of reasons.

1. Dorothy apparently doesn't claim to know what is exactly going on or why, but Peter or Frank claim that they KNOW what is happening and why. "Learn about why they are here and what their intentions are "
2. Peter seemed to welcome more investigation whole-heartedly, but as David offered to document and talk with Dorothy, they seemed to backpedal. Why?? I don't think they expected to find out the host was an experienced photo analyst and a person with experiences himself. And they likely didn't expect someone to say, "Yes, lets go there please" I doubt anyone else has ever offered up such a reasonable and valid meeting request.
3. 30,000 feet of film is the big hook, but what do you actually get to see?? 30 feet? Doesn't seem like much at all.
4. The "We can't interfere" thing I have problems with. Just by the very nature of communicating they are interfering. If it is a message that is supposed to get to the masses(therefore global), then I would call this interference. I wonder where this came from, Dorothy or Peter?
5. Peter has been investigating this for a decade. Why don't we see any different cameras film? Couldn't someone ask her to borrow this hi-def camera for a couple of weeks and send it off for analysis?? Seems Dorothy would be all for it. Why don't we have this??
6. These being come from everywhere. What??? A mish-mash of all theories combined. Is Dorothy some type of ultra-intelligence beacon of some sort??

If the story is meant to come out, then let it happen. It doesn't happen by showing 1% of all the footage that has been carefully selected. It doesn't happen by bulldog guarding of Dorothy. It doesn't happen by making proclamations of the experience with no further scrutiny. It doesn't happen by visiting every paranormal podcast in an effort to sell DVD's. Whats important here, Dorothy's story or story telling second hand via DVD and book??

If this is a real thing happening then then I don't think the researchers and film-maker could ask for more reasonable and sincere people to help corroborate and bring out the story than David and Jeff. They are quite interested in the truth, are respected in their fields, and have been subjects of very weird stuff. If Bill Birnes has gets involved, then God help us all.

Jeff, I sincerely hope you get the chance to speak with her, because all we seem to be getting is more questions.

Ooops, the case just fell out of my grey basket.

 

[Rocketsauce]

Seems like most of your suspicions are with Peter or the other guy, not with dorothy, so that doesn't hurt her case IMO.

30,000 feet of film is a bit of a marketing ploy surely, I bet that was the filmaker not Dorothy who came up with the phrase, but it can probably be argued loosely based on the definition of evidence.

Her case has been reviewed many many times by experts like David, so the fact that Peter or even Dorothly don't want to deal with David is not abnormal in my view. Why would an 82 year old not out for attention want her case reviewed for the 100th time when it's already been confirmed by Hynek and many other 'experts'. How many experts over 30 years does it take to screw in a lightbulb...........

 

[TClaeys]

Why would an 82 year old not out for attention want her case reviewed for the 100th time when it's already been confirmed by Hynek and many other 'experts'.

I guess I've not read of any other investigations in this case, although I hear Hynek did investigate and one other(can't remember the name, but apparently the first investigator of the case)

. Could someone point me where exactly to look at this stuff, I'm too busy right now to search for it. I mean the investigations where the case was confirmed. Please. and thanks.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I guess I'll have to put this in the infamous "grey basket", but am close to kicking it out for a number of reasons.

1. Dorothy apparently doesn't claim to know what is exactly going on or why, but Peter or Frank claim that they KNOW what is happening and why. "Learn about why they are here and what their intentions are "
2. Peter seemed to welcome more investigation whole-heartedly, but as David offered to document and talk with Dorothy, they seemed to backpedal. Why?? I don't think they expected to find out the host was an experienced photo analyst and a person with experiences himself. And they likely didn't expect someone to say, "Yes, lets go there please" I doubt anyone else has ever offered up such a reasonable and valid meeting request.
3. 30,000 feet of film is the big hook, but what do you actually get to see?? 30 feet? Doesn't seem like much at all.
4. The "We can't interfere" thing I have problems with. Just by the very nature of communicating they are interfering. If it is a message that is supposed to get to the masses(therefore global), then I would call this interference. I wonder where this came from, Dorothy or Peter?
5. Peter has been investigating this for a decade. Why don't we see any different cameras film? Couldn't someone ask her to borrow this hi-def camera for a couple of weeks and send it off for analysis?? Seems Dorothy would be all for it. Why don't we have this??
6. These being come from everywhere. What??? A mish-mash of all theories combined. Is Dorothy some type of ultra-intelligence beacon of some sort??

If the story is meant to come out, then let it happen. It doesn't happen by showing 1% of all the footage that has been carefully selected. It doesn't happen by bulldog guarding of Dorothy. It doesn't happen by making proclamations of the experience with no further scrutiny. It doesn't happen by visiting every paranormal podcast in an effort to sell DVD's. Whats important here, Dorothy's story or story telling second hand via DVD and book??

If this is a real thing happening then then I don't think the researchers and film-maker could ask for more reasonable and sincere people to help corroborate and bring out the story than David and Jeff. They are quite interested in the truth, are respected in their fields, and have been subjects of very weird stuff. If Bill Birnes has gets involved, then God help us all.

Jeff, I sincerely hope you get the chance to speak with her, because all we seem to be getting is more questions.

Ooops, the case just fell out of my grey basket.

This case is at best in my grey basket. I have more research i need to do on it. However I would like to comment on your comments.

Try not to fault the case due to the investigators. As an example, Lloyd Pye has his share of critics, but I recommend others to not overlook the actual skull, which is real.

I have only seen stills of some of the film and a handful of pics. So far nothing mind blowing, only some anomalies dealing with frames and light. The beings that I've seen is the equivalent to the typical blobsquatching.

ATS interviewed Dorothy and it's at their site still. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread326166/pg1. I wasn't too impressed with it, and some dark pink flags went off a few times. I won't go into details as to put any ideas in people's heads before they listen. Listen to it, and judge for yourself.

I am pleased David and Jeff offered to meet with Dorothy. The case is worth checking out.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Here are some images/stills pertaining to some of what Dorothy has got over the years.
http://www.timelessvoyager.com/cwbol2.html

If it's been posted all ready, sorry. I'm behind on a lot of posts here.

 

[Rocketsauce]

Why would an 82 year old not out for attention want her case reviewed for the 100th time when it's already been confirmed by Hynek and many other 'experts'.

I guess I've not read of any other investigations in this case, although I hear Hynek did investigate and one other(can't remember the name, but apparently the first investigator of the case)

. Could someone point me where exactly to look at this stuff, I'm too busy right now to search for it. I mean the investigations where the case was confirmed. Please. and thanks.

Off the top of my head I don't know the specific names, but in the actual book which I think Peter wrote there are mentions of the case being looked over by several different researches over the years including professors from the local university in Canada where she lived as well as Hynek, some shrinks and journalists as well. I'd have to look over the book again to get the names, but Hynek was definitely the most well known in the field, I think most of the other researchers were not 'UFO field investigators' but secular skeptics.

I think the photos from the movie (based on the preview) are pretty under-whelming for anyone that is not a graphic expert so I would never point to her films to skeptics. However, the analysis by image experts is pretty amazing I think. So anyone that posts that the pictures don't prove anything, I would agree that from my eyes they don't, however, based on the reactions from 'experts' I think they mean a lot.

Honestly though, what type of movie would be convincing? If there was a clear video of a grey alien I would probably think it was CGI anyway It is more revealing to me to have people from DreamWorks say her video can not be explained than to have a clear video of an alien. She apparently has much better footage than what is in the movie, lets hope that footage sees the light of day.

Is her story crazy and outside the realm of what we know? Yes. Can she prove to a skeptical person that her story is absolutely true? No. Does this mean she is lying? No.

I think her case seems as legit as anything else out there so I am inclined to seriously consider it. I just finished reading Jim Sparks book, that book was equally crazy but he doesn't have any video to back it up. I'll have to listen to the old Sparks interviews on the paracast this week.

Joe Montaldo the fringe man on the street abduction guru and Jon Mack both vouch for Sparks, so IMO something is definitely happening with him and is also worth consideration, however that is before I listen to the paracast interviews which could change my opinion very quickly, to be continued...

Based on Dorothy's transcript of her regression which is featured in the book and mention "Atlans" which could possibly be 'Atlantis', I am now reading an Edgar Cayce book. Not sure what to make of all the Atlantis and Cayce stuff, seems standard new age speculation, but who knows, the level of high strangeness in all this certainly makes it hard to dismiss a lot of things particularly the highly strange stuff.

 

[Rocketsauce]

Ever have one of those weeks where you just keep thinking about the paranormal? Well, seems like April is my month.

Anywho, not to go all Coast to Coast about Izatt but.......... I am finding many parallels between the past life 'regression' transcript in the book that was written about her with the readings of Edgar Casey which I just started reading.

Specifically, in the Izzatt book under hypnosis she talks about using crystals to communicate with 'light beings' in ancient times while living in greece. She goes on to say under regression that is how the 'light beings' know her and why they communicated with her in this current life. Additionally under regression she describes how her people were hiding out in caves to hide these powerful crystals from a king who wanted to use them as a weapon and how her father at the time was a descendant of the 'Atlans'. I'm not making this up, it's in the book for better or worse.

In the Cayce readings which I am a complete newcomer to and the only preconceived notions I have in reading it are that I've heard his name dropped in the new age circles of C2C, hence I usually ignored it, the same type of details are described. The only reason I even bothered to get the Cayce book was directly because of the Izatt book.

Cayce, during his meditations, relayed that the ancient Atlantans (spelling?) used crystals to contact higher level light beings and a certain tribe/group of people wanted to use that some technology as a weapon, namely the "Children of 'Belial". To me this sounds like some Dungeons and Dragons legend of zelda stuff, but that's what his readings say.

Now it's entirely possible that the author of the Izzatt book who David and Gene have issues with and seems a bit of a crumudgeon seeded this into the book because he was a Cayce guru, that is possible. But, I seem to remember that the book merely contained a transcript from her regression session and it seemed like Dorothy had no prior knowledge about this new age stuff and Cayce. I could be wrong, but I'm too lazy to go back and flip through the book again, but I trust I'm correct about this. Forgot to mention the accuracy or effectiveness of any regression reading is highly questionable IMO anyways.

So it is possible, however slight, that you have 2 corroborating regression sessions about an ancient civilization that used technology to contact higher level beings which was being pursued by a more militant group to use for power from 2 people (Cayce and Izzatt) who both had the ability during their lifetimes to tap into this world.

Time to take further leaps into speculation. So, if this is actually true and believe you me this is a massive leap based on completely weak evidence, then that means humans were in fact more advanced than we know in an ancient time, that there has been contact with intelligent life outside of earth in past times, that there is technology that we don't use commonly today as far as we know which can be used to contact these being, that something happened to this technology and this civilization to wipe them off mainstream history, and that reincarnation is real (which I believe anyway) and that there is despite abductions, some form of intelligent benevolent life out (whoopeee!). But at the end of the day, who the hell knows! Certainly would change the context IMO of many ancient writings, like the Old Testement.

Just some fun new age food for thought, certainly not something that would hold up in court, but something I found interesting. We'll see where my new age commute readings take me next......

 

[andersonglk]

I got the DVD last week, and watched it with my girlfriend. She has absolutely no interest in the subject whatsoever. However, we live together in a one room apartment, so if I was watching it she was watching it. I might also add that I ordered it to my work address here in South Korea, and it came very fast. Great work on the shipping.

Now on to the content. I agree with TClaeys on pretty much every point. Sorry to reiterate, but for the sake of the investigators/film makers (if they happen to be reading this thread), I feel it is justified.

Mr. Peter Gutilla did not need to be in this film AT ALL. He completely destroyed the credibility of the film for my viewing partner. His viewpoint and remarks were so blatantly biased and leading (respectively) that we both instinctively felt that he, simply put, was being intentionally deceiving. Of course, these were just our opinions, take them as you will... but when he started talking about them being "Light Beings" and having a message for all of us, I felt like he was no longer worth taking seriously. The absolute icing on the cake was when he said that everybody looking at the pictures would experience their effects throughout their life and blah blah blah.

Even more importantly, the severe lack of footage shown. I really felt like a sucker after hearing about all this great footage, paying good money to see it, and then slowly realizing that the good stuff is "yet to come," if at all. This is NO WAY reflects on Dorothy Izatt, her videos, or the authenticity of her experiences. However, if the purpose of the video is SPECIFICALLY to show the world about this amazing woman and her experiences, why (other than MONETARY reasons) would you withhold footage?

 

[David Biedny]

andersonglk,

I edited your post to correct the name - It's Gutilla, not Longo, who is in the film.

dB

 

[banning]

This is really sad i've fallen behind on the show and was catching up and listened to the Dorothy Izatt episode. I finished it and was really excited go 'ol DB was gonna get down on some amazing sh*t. But yeah, I ran across this forum and its unfortunate... I usually dont join discussions but yeah i just really was let down on this one. Anyway yeah, keep up the good work Gene & David... you 2 give hope to people that really are after truth and not just amazing stories.