Time Traveller Caught on 1928 Charlie Chaplin Film?

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
Okay, we both agree this is not a 'time traveler' but your 'cupping' explanation doesn't work either. I'm a singer, we either close and ear but pressing an earlobe in or cup our ear entirely differently. The first method is to see if your 'true' tone matches what you're hearing out of the open ear.

I've seen no singer ever 'cup' like her, ever.

here's the Bee Gees cupping.
Look, he's doing the same thing
she's doing in the video

Ya know I thought it might be a walkie-talkie but they weren't invented until 1938.

2nd line? Blasphemy!

reply to post by boondock-saint


You do know that 'cupping' is when the index finger is pressing down on the earlobe?
The lady isn't even touching her ears. Some singers use ONE finger too. But singers looked 'cool' by doing the Bee Gee style check.

And it also mimics headphone studios . Many people leave one side off to hear the vibration from their own bones compared to outside sound.


She's NOT 'cupping'. If she was, then she is borderline retarded.

ETA:sorry not the 'earlobe" the piece in front of your ear. (forgot name) Singers don't sing INTO their hands, it makes no sense. And people don't look like they're grasping something.

Please let it go man.

Sure looks like it, but i'm not a firm believer in time travel...not in this sense anyway. I showed it to my wife, she immediately said "Oh my gosh, he's on a cell phone!", so validity as far as appearance goes is high. Of course there are no towers, if I wanted to reach i'd say it was more likely an ET using a communication device similar to a cell phone, than I would claim it to be a time traveler.

I just want to say that ATS is the only place on the internet where the debunking theories are more rediculous than the conspiracy theories.

reply to post by boondock-saint


I would have agreed with you but i tried it and they are two different hand movements/ways to hold your hand..

i brought my wife and 20 yr old daughter in here and only showed them the footage and asked them what they saw

guess what,,they both saw a man talking on a cell phone...creepy huh?

Well----

It's not a transistor radio, weren't developed till '47 (yeah, I caught that too)

And it's not a walkie-talkie, weren't developed till 1940....

I'm going with:

This is a man in drag, either inserted by Chaplain himself as an inside joke - maybe one of his pals that lost a bet..."If the Dodgers lose, I'll appear on camera in drag, Chuckie"

There is nothing in the guy's hand, just a camera illusion of the sort we see in the Zapruder (sp?) film where the passenger's head looks like an automatic weapon. He's embarassed, trying to cover his face, just as Charlie and the crew just off camera stop him and say, "Not so fast, Tito, turn and look at the camera...hahahaha" and Tito turns and replies: "F&$# You, Charlie!" Fade out. Next scene.

so far, this thread consists of 99% of people thinking they're witty and responding with things like "ITS NOT A CELL PHONE THERE WERE NO TOWERS!!!!"

you know what, instead of stating excruciatingly painful obvious statements like this why don't we discuss what it COULD be? Stop trying to feel important and intelligent and just go with the conversation or get out and find another thread.

Now - there's been plenty of good ideas so far, and the trolls that be have successfully buried them amidst a dozen or so pages of horse dung.

Anyone wanna discuss the topic, or do we wanna keep having eureka moments and talking about no towers in the past?

To avoid not giving my first impression, I've only read the first two pages of this thread. Here's my take:

I think it is a large lady, not a man. Moves like a woman from the waist up.
I think the black "thing" is the shadow of her hand. I think what she is holding is the rim of her hat, a common sight seen when women wore hats. They were usually considered to be for "good" and treasured like we would do "real" jewelry over costume stuff. A slight breeze could ruin something that was bought with several days of work...they were a luxury.
My impression of her "talking" changed in a closeup. It looks like she has no teeth, or at least is missing more than half of them. This would also be common for the era. Her face is shortened between chin and nose, and sunken cheeks, like she is missing her dentures......which makes you rub your gums together. Think of the older people you've spent time with without their teeth. Their mouths move constantly, like they are chewing gum or tobacco.
So, large ugly woman, with a "good" hat but bad teeth. Fits the posture, the dress, and the era with regards to both fashion and dental care.

Now I'll finish reading the other people's comments. Just wanted my first impression, well, first.

Why does it seem that only a few people are using logical deductive reasoning?

Why does it seem that even some 'debunkers' get thrown into chasing their own tails?
Deductive reasoning is your friend.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
lol
I haven't looked through all 12 pages
but I can tell ya it's not a cell phone
and I think I know exactly what she's
doing.

Professional singers call it "cupping".
I use to do it all the time.

When you're in a noisy environment,
the noise tends to be louder than you're
voice. So, you cup your hand from your
mouth to your ear so the sound waves from
your mouth goes directly into your ear.
It's a very simple way of amplifying your
voice. Go ahead and try yourself right now.

She is singing into her hand so she can
hear it better. That gives her the appearance
she is talking on the phone. She is walking
down a busy noisy street singing. When you
find out who she really is. I bet her resume
will include singing on it. Most amateurs
do not know about this technique.
It actually started back during the
barber shop quartet days. Cupping
allowed you to hear your voice over the
other singers around you.

Debunked: No time traveler
Just a singer using the cupping technique.

Sorry to spoil it for ya

boon

You hit a home run with that post how ever once I viewed the exploded picture below I wondered why they would be spread open and not in a cup configuration like you state.

great post im still scratching thy head to figure it out perhaps a iphone had such messed up reception it sent it self back through time upon a whimsical adventure lol

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
Why does it seem that only a few people are using logical deductive reasoning?

Why does it seem that even some 'debunkers' get thrown into chasing their own tails?
Deductive reasoning is your friend.

Aww cmon people are having fun.
Its nice to have people discussing this rather than fighting each other which I hope we keep the thread this way

And what is your deductive reasoning?

reply to post by DJM8507


So would he be talking with someone else who had traveled with him or someone back at homeworld/time?

I believe there were towers for radar, as well as military communications and such in the twenties. Could it be they tweeked one (there is an military airfield near Hollywood) they could have been testing secretively this "New Technology". Personally, I am not deaf, nor any kind of real expert in lip reading, but I am pretty good(proven this to friends in the past) and it looks to me' in the order as follows, she/he walks talking into the phone turns and sees the camera makes an "O" surprised face then the wo/man says "F***" and stalls...then he/she turns away and begins talking again. And cross dressers weren't unheard of then, I think they beleive Woodrow Wilson and FDR were beleived to have dressed up in women's clothing?

Originally posted by Cole DeSteele
Well----

It's not a transistor radio, weren't developed till '47 (yeah, I caught that too)

And it's not a walkie-talkie, weren't developed till 1940....

I'm going with:

This is a man in drag, either inserted by Chaplain himself as an inside joke - maybe one of his pals that lost a bet..."If the Dodgers lose, I'll appear on camera in drag, Chuckie"

There is nothing in the guy's hand, just a camera illusion of the sort we see in the Zapruder (sp?) film where the passenger's head looks like an automatic weapon. He's embarassed, trying to cover his face, just as Charlie and the crew just off camera stop him and say, "Not so fast, Tito, turn and look at the camera...hahahaha" and Tito turns and replies: "F&$# You, Charlie!" Fade out. Next scene.

That's not true, though.

As we see in the picture on the top of this page that Zazzafrazz gave, we can see the outline of the object. It's black, and it's long. The person's hand is cupping around the object. The person's hand is nowhere near their head or ear.

They're clearly holding something to their ear, and talking into.

Except, it's 1928...

reply to post by rushunt


I was thinking the same thing. I hope that "lady" is never on the web, or never sees her picture being used, or isn't a real portrait shot of the OP. ++shudder++

1) She appears to be grasping something. Knuckles crooked like something is in her hand

2) Appears to be middle aged (for that time period) 50's or 60's.

3) Wearing traditional dress, shoes.

4) Has a gait of a heavy set old women.

5) Has the body and shape of heavy set older woman.

6) Has a facial structure of older woman of that time period.

7) Is talking or talking loudly, or murmuring words.

8) Is in PUBLIC....(time traveler in public?)

9) Nothing can definitively be seen in her hand until the video is filtered or enhanced.



Does any of this say "time traveler" to you?

reply to post by Prove_It_NOW


Prolly not
But..members ARE asking, what does talking into a device and looking at the camera by possibly a OLd version of Charlie Chaplin in drag look like to them....
They can ask