March 2nd Show - Dorothy Izatt

[CapnG]

In the end, it always works out. So what the point of the pissing. There isn't one.

Release valve? Try not pissing about it for a day... I guarantee you'll crack.

I've said many times, "this world has made me pissed off all the time".

No, I have allowed it to.

That's new-age crap. People don't want to believe in luck or fate or destiny or whatever epithet suits you but I assure you it's real and easily observable. Some of us get an easy ride in life, some of us don't, most get a mixed bag and that's all there is to it. Here's a true story as an example...

I have a friend who has ABSURDLY good luck. One day he went to a bar and when he got up to leave he searched his pockets and thought "Crap! I've lost my keys!" He looked around the bar but eventually gave up and went home. On the way home, he noticed something on ground... $5! "Well, it's not a total wash of an evening" he thought to himself. When he got home, he hung up his jacket, turned around and there, on his dresser were the keys, which he had not in fact lost but had forgotten to take with him in the first place.

Now some would say "Well, see that proves it! He has a positive attitude and therefore the universe rewarded him." BULLSHIT. He has a positive attitude BECAUSE the universe rewards him... constantly and consistantly. It's EASY to be positive when good things keep happening to you and bad things turn out to be not-so-bad in the end. People say "If life gives you lemons, make lemonade!" I say "What if life freezes that lemon, sharpens it into a citrus-y stake and jabs you in the eye with it?" Or better yet, "What if life gives you a steaming pile of shit?" you gonna drink that down with a smile on your face? I don't f-ing think so.

If your life is crappy then it's crappy and you have every right to be bitter and negative. THERE's your cause and effect, not the other way around.

 

[mike]

the idea that Luck is a real factor in evolution isnt a new one

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIDGeneticdrift.shtml

 

[Graphimancer]

i think nuts and bolts are the key

I'm starting to think so too. I'm getting tired of quantum mysticism mental experiment, and I think I've about played it out.

Argument for Nuts & Bolts Ufology:

Multiple witnesses see the same ufo. If each person collapsed the wave, then one person would see an angel, another a ufo, another cthulhu, etc., etc. Or, if the first witness among many collapsed the wave, then everyone would see what he sees--but, what if it's cthulhu, or Ronald McDonald, or whatever that first witness believes in? Wave interference could not make everyone see the lowest common denomonater vision, even if that was a ufo ship.

So, logically, multiple witness sighting of ufo's must be A) a real thing, or B) an image chosen by the entity.

Quantum mysticism also does not explain all the trace evidence, government reports, etc. A simple mystic vision would not crash and leave parts to be reverse engineered.

So, there you have it--In one tasty bit of logic, I have proven ufo are indeed real phenomina, so we can but that to bed. (OK, I'm being a bit sarcastic, but I think the logic has something to it.)

 

[The Pair of Cats]

David.
I thought your handling of the guests and the interview in general was first class.

i thought your comments and opinions regarding the footage etc. was reasonable and fair minded coming from someone who is known for and admits to being highly skeptical about the voracity and claims of such images.

Gutilla came across as extremely defensive and somewhat argumentative and didn't appear to listen to what you were saying.
Longo sounded as though he was trying to be agreeable but when it came to Mrs Dorothy he sounded at all times as though he didn't want anybody else to talk to her and spent a great deal of effort in reminding you and Gene that "...she is an old lady now and her family are very protective...etc..etc.." it sounded more like he was jealously guarding her interests for his own means like he was expecting that you, or anyone else for that matte,r might muscle in on his little enterprise.
I don't blame you for distancing yourself from these two. It must be terribly disappointing to come across some stuff that looks, on the surface, to be extremely interesting and legit only to be faced with yet more egos and evasiveness.

 

[mike]

i think nuts and bolts are the key

I'm starting to think so too. I'm getting tired of quantum mysticism mental experiment, and I think I've about played it out.

Argument for Nuts & Bolts Ufology:

Multiple witnesses see the same ufo. If each person collapsed the wave, then one person would see an angel, another a ufo, another cthulhu, etc., etc. Or, if the first witness among many collapsed the wave, then everyone would see what he sees--but, what if it's cthulhu, or Ronald McDonald, or whatever that first witness believes in? Wave interference could not make everyone see the lowest common denomonater vision, even if that was a ufo ship.

So, logically, multiple witness sighting of ufo's must be A) a real thing, or B) an image chosen by the entity.

Quantum mysticism also does not explain all the trace evidence, government reports, etc. A simple mystic vision would not crash and leave parts to be reverse engineered.

So, there you have it--In one tasty bit of logic, I have proven ufo are indeed real phenomina, so we can but that to bed. (OK, I'm being a bit sarcastic, but I think the logic has something to it.)

it makes sense that if you are a technically advanced entity and you want to have contact with a newly discovered bio sentient culture, in a manner that doesnt result in superstition and fear, you would need to give that culture the technological knowledge , the nuts and bolts language necessary in order to understand you as a reality.

"the little people who take you to faerie land where you loose time" might have been a reasonable explaination 200 years ago, but today we have the technological grounding to recognise the phenomena with more techno parity so to speak

for me its the nuts and bolts of this case that i seek to discover

 

[Graphimancer]

I do have to wonder if the Dorothy Izzat case is the right one to go after in a nuts & bolts fashion. What I've seen of the pictures are enticing, but as David puts it, in the end all you have is pictures of something you don't understand.

If Dorothy's visitors left trace evidence, be it radiation, or multiple witnesses, etc., then you could get all nuts & bolts.

At first when I heard about this, it reminded me of spirit photography, like that guy who would look into the camera and supposedly project images onto film. (I don't know if that was debunked or not, or if it still stands.) It seems like other people have witnessed stuff in Dorothy's presence, though, so that would rule out spirit photography.

It seems to me that her case is a better argument for real, intelligent astral entities than ufos.

 

[Koji K.]

Technology is a powerful tool, but it is only that, a tool. I think in the end coming closer to an understanding of this topic will be as much a matter of advancing "ourselves" as it will be of advancing our technology. We are a technological species, to be sure, so maybe we can do both in some harmony. I don't mean this to sound as new agey is it does, our technological abilities may one day be something of a "force-multiplier," to use the newspeak, in our coming to terms with the universe.

All the same, we should still be careful of placing the tools where our goals should be, or we will never really advance beyond a species of techno-priests with no real understanding beyond scientific rote.

 

[Graphimancer]

All the same, we should still be careful of placing the tools where our goals should be, or we will never really advance beyond a species of techno-priests with no real understanding beyond scientific rote.

You have too much faith in human nature, as far as I can see. Most weapons ever invented have been used.

 

[valiens]

Will, I'll say this and then drop it because it's way out of the boundary of the thread....

Their "oneness consciousness" may be a hive mind, it may be the spiritual merging with godhead (or Christ consciousness,) it may be some other thing. These are telepathic beings and so the odds of them still having a conscious/subconscious split seem low to me.

I'm saying this: whether their oneness point-of-view stems from the same type of spiritual potential in us or from some impersonal, perhaps malevolent borg collective--whatever the root of it--the reaction we have to any brand of oneness is going to be the same: to see what we're not and realize that we're covering up our true nature with these divisions.

I do think the make or break decision humanity has to make is: oneness or irrelevance. We can't keep going like this for much longer. That's my take.

So then for me the question is, Why do I give them the benefit of the doubt and put them on the same level as human spiritual masters? - Because I recognize that in none of my experiences (that I can remember anyway) has my fear been based on anything that's actually happening. What? Staring at me? Just existing? Really, what's this terror about? Is it something they're doing or just something that's there? Is the fear because they're sucking my emotions like vampires or because to be in their presence is to know the annihilation I have to undergo if I'm to be a complete being? If they can suck out my thoughts, my emotions, and I'm still here then I must not be those things. What am I? It truly does force out philosophy 101 in a real, working way, not just words that we ponder.

And what about any messages they've given? What have they told me?

Warnings of a coming ice age? Check.

A riddle about being able to step out of time through a perceptual shift? Check.

Being shown an abduction of a bunch of people because I always wanted to remember what one was like? Check.

And, yes, the big merging with godhead experience coupled with a completely simple (and to me, trite) contactee-style message? Check.

So my experience of them, while completely terrifying for no discernible reason, has shown me more than I'd ever have even bothered to contemplate or take seriously on my own.

That's my personal answer.

My less personal answer is that you are exactly right: We have been told this by spiritual masters throughout the ages and so from our point of view, there's no need for aliens or whatever to come here and repeat the same stuff. But if these spiritual truths are universal and not something humans made up but discovered, if this fully awakened state exists for all sentient species, not just humans, then what do you think the mission of such a species becomes when it does collectively wake up? Would the mission of oneness not be to wake oneself up wherever it finds other brains with the same capability in the universe?

How would they do it? Well, certainly not by having a sit down chat with us consciously, because, as we know, our minds are divided and the part of us that dominates in the world is the lesser, crappier conscious part. Is that the part they're going to speak to? The shallow, corrupted mask that believes it's the face, believes it's in control and is, in fact, holding back the evolution of the species because it doesn't want to die? Is that the thing they connect with? If it is, I submit to you, mass landings are on the way.

But no--our own basic psychology (pick any school you like) tells us that the real meat of our consciousness, if you will, lies in the unconscious. So I think the answer to all of this is simple (and trite): You want to know what the Unknown is, you've got to let go the known. You've got to die to psychological time, not drag the thing that is not of it into it. That kills it, makes it inauthentic immediately. We can go round and round all night about space brothers, demons, cryptos, evil doctors. It's all going to be a conversation contaminated by our limitations because we don't do what those human gurus discovered and tried to relate. We'd much rather turn them into holy men, or creatures of myth, or the thing that is debatable. Great. Let's debate our way to an early grave.

PS: George Bush, being the most retarded president of the most powerful country ever, controlled by the diabolical Dick Cheney, refusing to give up power or antiquated modes of energy, is a living metaphor for everything I just said. These people would take us to our graves before ever giving up their charade. This is why we haven't kicked them out of office.

 

[CapnG]

the real meat of our consciousness, if you will, lies in the unconscious. So I think the answer to all of this is simple (and trite): You want to know what the Unknown is, you've got to let go the known.

That sounds a little... off to me. Abandoning the concious mind in favour of the unconcious strikes me as readily available in a drug-of-your-choice format but it doesn't strike me as in any way a more "authentic" connection than the concious mind alone, it's just swapping one for the other. I get the feeling that the only way we will "get it" is by somehow hotwiring the subconcious and the concious mind together to create a "super concious" state, a condition of TOTAL AWARENESS. Problem is, I don't see it being possible without frying the brain of the individual. Odds are we simply haven't evolved to that point yet and may in fact be incapable of doing so without artificial interference. In such a scenario, we might find ourselves in a state of "oneness" by default, no spirituality required.

 

[mike]

Because I recognize that in none of my experiences (that I can remember anyway) has my fear been based on anything that's actually happening. What? Staring at me? Just existing? Really, what's this terror about? Is it something they're doing or just something that's there?

that rings some bells for me, my own experience which im still more than happy to accept was a self programmed episode of SP, was "invited" i had read plenty of books and figured whats so scary.
and in the light of day i can visualise sitting and playing 20 questions with a grey.
why then despite inviting the experience and being mentally fortified with knowledge and forethought, was the fear of such a depth as to be almost coming directly from one of the more primative cortex layers of my brain bypassing all "human" Function. i lost everything even language before mercifully loosing conciousness.

what im not sure about is whether this is a "natural" reaction or an intentionally induced one.
im going for the latter because i really think a person properly prepared for the event should be able to share a room with a grey without going uncontrolably apeshit.

for me the fact that i couldnt move anything except my eyes wasnt unbearable, i remember being concerned about it but not panicked
it wasnt until i actually saw what appeared to be a very tall grey that was moving, that all hell broke loose in my head.(the only place it could, considering i couldnt move)

what do others think ? is the "fear" a natural reation or an induced one, possibly as a by product of the necessity to imobilise a non hive entity possibly with a shotgun under his bed.

again im reminded of the zoo tigers dental plan, always starts with a dart gun and a fright

 

[Koji K.]

You have too much faith in human nature, as far as I can see. Most weapons ever invented have been used.

On the contrary, I admit things look pretty bleak, but still (as corny as this is going to sound) as much as we are violent and selfish creatures, we are a tenacious lot, we survive, we still feel the need to explore, to understand our universe, and we still are capable of love and empathy and weeping at beauty. Perhaps these latter things in the end will prove more powerful than any of our technological weaponry. Not in a trite "love conquers all" way (it doesn't), but in that these facets might be the key to our further evolution at some distant stage in our future.

But who knows, as I type this I realize how easy it is to type and how speculative and meaningless it could be.

We still have free will, also, and I'm not certain where that fits in to all this but it seems like a pretty important piece of the puzzle. It seems to be a prerequisite for deception.

OK, I need sleep now... I typed too much schmaltz for one day.

 

[Ally]

Mike,
That is a very good question.
Is the fear reaction a natural reaction or induced? I think probably a little if both.
They(frightening experiences) may not come from the same source though.

In my many experiences with thse type of phenomenon There seems to be more than group messing with our beings. I think one source is our own covert government. In the latter case the fear is most definatlely induced.

 

[jritzmann]

ya know what...it seems my post has been misunderstood by some. I've sat here the past hour since 3am trying to explain it better, and respond to a change of attitude being "new age crap" (wtf). So I'm gonna record a short mp3 or something and post that...there's too much to say and I don't feel like sitting here typing it. You all really need to understand this right out of my mouth. I'll get to that when I get home tonight and upload it. Just too much typing and I'd rather people get the fine points.

 

[Vinny DiNicola]

Everyone,
Plain and simple, "Capturing the Light" should be renamed "Capturing the Dollar", or "Capturing the Euro", or whatever because that is what it's all about, unfortunately. 8)

 

[SnakeOil]

Everyone,
Plain and simple, "Capturing the Light" should be renamed "Capturing the Dollar", or "Capturing the Euro", or whatever because that is what it's all about, unfortunately. 8)

Well, arguably for Peter and Frank (more Peter than Frank, and maybe not Frank at all, don't know), but the question is whether or not there's anything to Dorothy. We'll see.

JR, you're dead on about perception shaping reality. But regarding the previous poster that stated that there's only fate and no getting around it...eh...the two aren't mutually exclusive. And in my own tiny little life I've seen them both at work. Everybody's got there own path, and they don't all seem to lead to the same place. But I've known when I was off the path, and I've known when I was on. Now you all need to get straight with Jesus...no, no, no...enough with that BS.

FWIW, JR, I hope you find what you're looking for with Dorothy. But I'm thinking I hear a little bit of "I want her to be the real deal" coming from you. You can extrapolate the rest.

 

[Miah]

I've said many times, "this world has made me pissed off all the time".

No, I have allowed it to.

That's new-age crap. People don't want to believe in luck or fate or destiny or whatever epithet suits you but I assure you it's real and easily observable. Some of us get an easy ride in life, some of us don't, most get a mixed bag and that's all there is to it. Here's a true story as an example...

I have a friend who has ABSURDLY good luck. One day he went to a bar and when he got up to leave he searched his pockets and thought "Crap! I've lost my keys!" He looked around the bar but eventually gave up and went home. On the way home, he noticed something on ground... $5! "Well, it's not a total wash of an evening" he thought to himself. When he got home, he hung up his jacket, turned around and there, on his dresser were the keys, which he had not in fact lost but had forgotten to take with him in the first place.

Now some would say "Well, see that proves it! He has a positive attitude and therefore the universe rewarded him." BULLSHIT. He has a positive attitude BECAUSE the universe rewards him... constantly and consistantly. It's EASY to be positive when good things keep happening to you and bad things turn out to be not-so-bad in the end. People say "If life gives you lemons, make lemonade!" I say "What if life freezes that lemon, sharpens it into a citrus-y stake and jabs you in the eye with it?" Or better yet, "What if life gives you a steaming pile of shit?" you gonna drink that down with a smile on your face? I don't f-ing think so.

If your life is crappy then it's crappy and you have every right to be bitter and negative. THERE's your cause and effect, not the other way around.

I have to say that I agree for the most part.

Why does it seem there are so many people with perfect lives. You know the ones, they came from a wealthy family, look great, got put into college and partied all the way through, wealthy from job after college (many times from the family business), got married and lived happily ever after.

Then there are others of us, born with the not-so-wealthy family with weight problems, no chance of college, fights for every little bit they get in life only to have everything they try f*ck up somehow. Can't find true happiness in any direction.

What's that all about? Is it really all their fault? It's at least clear that life is truly not fair.

Why do the good guys always lose, and evil people prosper with ease?

P.S. I don't know if this will help anyone, just saw it on Digg and was going to share it with Jeff and David, but it seems the rest of you might enjoy it also: http://zenhabits.net/2008/03/flip-your-karma-8-tricks-to-turn-the-bad-into-the-awesome/

 

[Miah]

I asked this question in the initial post of this thread, so now that the full video of the Stephenville lights has been leaked, it's hard to deny the likeness to the Dorothy Izatt case. Have a look for yourself.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/caronvideo.html

A thread has been started on this footage here:
http://theparacast.com/forums/stephenville-video-finally-leaked-t-1746.html

 

[jritzmann]

FWIW, JR, I hope you find what you're looking for with Dorothy. But I'm thinking I hear a little bit of "I want her to be the real deal" coming from you. You can extrapolate the rest.

No, moreover I'm going on whatever she might have to reply to me with after I write, which I been trying to finish for 2 days in the evenings.

Do I find it highly intriguing...hell yes. But, never make the mistake with me that I *want* anything to be the "real deal". I haven't examined her footage for myself first hand, only a DVD. I'm interested. I think she's got something...but I don't know what. Something just resonates...and I wanna know why.

Thats all.

 

[DVS]

I listened to another interview that someone posted with just the documentary film maker and Dorothy herself along with her daughter and I will have to say I'm totally intrigued from what I have heard, not what I've seen (yet). From what I've heard, this is just one of those amazing cases that really need 'proven' and I think it can be based on what I have heard. I guess a lot more needs to be released and studied.

I think Frank (?) did the case a disservice, at least on the Paracast by being way too defensive and just kind making it about himself possibly because he witnessed something as well. I think David was right about reigning him in early because its important to just get the basic info out to the listeners first before talking about angels, etc..

David & Gene should at least try to have the film maker on the show again, he is a great guest and very grounded and reasonable. It also doesn't seem impossible to actually interview Dorothy. Frank is just ruining her case (in my eyes) by acting as her 'keeper' or 'representative' by denying David access to her, which obviously leads to the one armed farmer analogies. Plus, David was on the right track with his questions and they need to be asked.

This case is right up David & Jeff's alley and I really hope they get to analyze as much footage as possible. The story itself just sounds convincing, but other parts are just almost impossible to 'believe' and really do need to be 'proven'. That is just the way it is for us listeners, we want to believe this but we have to be convinced. We just can't accept that 'they saw it and believe it' is enough for us to follow suit.

edit: Oh yeah, this also reminds of someone else's experience that is very similar with the lights in the sky. I think her name was Thornberry and she also released a book or a DVD.