Time Traveller Caught on 1928 Charlie Chaplin Film?

Originally posted by Squillyskate
Didn't tesla and other government scientists discover mobile phones by then?

i'm starting to buy that idea more and more - Chaplin was good friends with Tesla apparently.

and when you think about it , Chaplin was on the extreme cutting edge of technology back then - the movie industry. The environment he worked in dripped with futurism. In our time, Chaplin would have founded Google or something like that.

This whole setup could have been a prank for Tesla's benefit - lets see if anyone notices Mr X in drag talking into one of Tesla's futuristic devices...

certainly a possibility.

MYSTERY SOLVED! My wife works with the mentally ill. She has determined that this person is displaying an absolute classic case of schizophrenia where the person is talking to an object believing that they are communicating with another person in that object. She appears paranoid when she sees that someone has noticed her,and tries to conceal that she is talking to someone. Her appearance is also a clue of a disturbed mental state (cross dressing) which can be seen in schizophrenics. So what's more likely, a time traveler, or a mentally disturbed person? Trust my wife, she has a degree in psychology!

Seems like a simple walkie talkie to me they have had them for a looooong time maybe not the time we think of but the government has had gadgets before it's release to the public. They have aircraft now that we see all the time that they tell us they don't have. Maybe they are part of the freakshow in the circus and this guy was paid to put this in the movie the idea of a cell phone has been around for a while the implemation of it was the tricky part...

I think that some posters may be too literal in their critique of this clip.

What we appear to see is a woman/man walking down a sidewalk, happily conversing with what appears to be a cellphone that would appear to date from the early 2000's (the phone appears to be slightly larger than modern ones and appears to have a short antenae). She turns her head and does have a surprised look upon her face, then it looks as if she starts to remove the device from her ear.

I haven't read this entire thread, only about 10 pages of it, but I see a lot of people discounting the cell phone theory because of a generalized lack of cell towers at the time, or from the notion that a time traveller would surely have a hands-free headset or blue-tooth like device. I think that premise is faulty, just as faulty as the early hearing aid box theory.

While one might argue that a lack of towers preclude the use of a cell phone, who's to say that it is a cell phone and not just a simple communication tool. If a team of time travellers were sent back to a different time period, surely they would have a means of communicating with each other - like inexpensive walkie talkies (in fact, the device pictured looks remarkably like an old motorolla walkie talkie I have in the garage). If a team of time travellers were sent back in time, is it not likely that to reduce paradoxes or to reduce the likelihood of far too advanced technology falling into the wrong hands, that older, easily explainable technology would be used just in case of dire events or discovery.

1) If the lady was using a hearing horn, 1) she would be constantly be repositionig it towards the direction of the sound she is listening to 2) would not be talking into it, 3) would not be using it on a busy street with lots of ambient noise - they were designed to amplify individual conversations directed at short range to the receiver.

2) The tooth ache/bag of ice theory does not hold up either - 1) she is talking, 2) ice is cold, so a user of a ice bag or block would palm it and not curl their (much more temperature sensitive) fingers around it, 3) she does not have an antalgic head carriage or gait.

3) I am not so sure that it is a man in drag. I've seen my share of photos from the turn of the century. Life was hard and many women in their 40's and 50's had that square, mannish look about them. I don't know what the benefit of a time traveller would be to appear in drag. While women are more approachable, surely a man in drag would stand out more so than a 'strange man'. Maybe someone here with government ops experience can comment on if drag disguises are a commonly used effect.

reply to post by zazzafrazz


Very interesting indeed. At first glance, I thought maybe the person ( I dont really think it matters whether its a man or a woman) was holding up something to block their face from the sunlight, which is clearly coming from the same direction as the camera. But then I saw how the hand was curled around the object in that now classic cell phone embrace.

That certainly is a large coat, for Los Angeles anytime of the year. I have lived here my entire life, and in the dead of winter regularly wear a t-shirt outside with no problems. A heavy coat as depicted in the video is very odd for October. Even in January it would be overkill. It makes me think its someone out of their element. Or someone trying to hide their body.

Next are the shoes. If you do a quick search, you will find that in the 20's all shoes had heels. Even mens shoes. Many men today wear shoes with heels, although its not common place. Rockstars, motorcycle boots, cowboy boots etc.... Yes, those heels in the video are a tad larger than the ones regularly seen on the classic 1920's gangster style dress shoe, but are also in no way anything close to a womans fashionable high heel. Looks to me like "witch shoes"

The hat is somewhat odd as well. Men and women during the 1920's generally didnt wear hats of that style. The fedora hat was popular of course for men. Women liked the flapper hats, or if you could afford it, the wide brimmed Chanel style hats.
The hat in the video is more of "bowler style top hat" which was common place in the 1800's......

Very odd clothing ensemble to say the least. Each article of clothing is out of place and doesn't seem to belong in this time frame, or in this geographical region.

Then of course, the person is talking on some sort of device. We refer to it as a "cell phone" because thats what immediately comes to mind. Doubters keep sarcastically referring to the lack of cell towers and satellites for that time period. This is going on the assumption that its a CELL phone. Clearly there are many options for communication devices that dont require cell service. An easy example would be a "walkie talkie" or two way radio.

Is it so hard to believe that whoever this person was, might have had a device that doesnt use the typical means of communication that we have grown accustomed to?

This person wasnt an actor in my opinion. This wasnt a film shoot. This was a movie premiere. Either this person was just in the vicinity and happened to be caught on film (which the person notices) or they were someone prominent and had an invite to the premiere event.

Of course, this could simply be some eccentric person with quirky habits and style. Or, it could be someone who doesnt belong and is trying (and failing) to appear that they do

In any event, the more analytical you get, the more the plot seems to thicken....

I just realized where I had seen this woman before!!!

Think about it!!

"ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW."

She was the maid!!

That means the show was based on reality, and Tim Curry could pop up anywhere.

reply to post by WhiteDevil013


A heavy coat as depicted in the video is very odd for October. Even in January it would be overkill. It makes me think its
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really?
I guess you haven't noticed that because it's been raining the last few days, some people are wearing stocking caps, scarves, parkas etc. And the women here that wear fur boots all winter? The other day it was a bone chilling 67 degrees when I left work, I saw a woman with a fur lined coat with her fur hood tied around her face.
Come on kids!
Page after page of amusingly earnest analysis of pure silliness.

reply to post by zazzafrazz


FAIL!

there's no evidence of any phone here. The person is holding his hand against his head while talking. maybe to keep out of the shot?

Also, they had small, portable talking devices way before cell phones. you remember them, right? walkie-talkie's? like the kind they'd be using on a film set?

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by WhiteDevil013

 

A heavy coat as depicted in the video is very odd for October. Even in January it would be overkill. It makes me think its
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really?
I guess you haven't noticed that because it's been raining the last few days, some people are wearing stocking caps, scarves, parkas etc. And the women here that wear fur boots all winter? The other day it was a bone chilling 67 degrees when I left work, I saw a woman with a fur lined coat with her fur hood tied around her face.
Come on kids!
Page after page of amusingly earnest analysis of pure silliness.

Bone chilling 67 degrees?!?!?

And you accuse me of silliness?! Interesting.....

Well I dont know which part of Los Angeles you reside in, but I dont see anyone wearing huge coats. Maybe a light jacket, or some light snow jacket ( because its probably the only thing they have that's water proof ) And yes, women wear UGGS year long. But thats not the same as wearing a giant coat as you would see people wearing in New York in the dead of winter. In the video, it was clearly a sunny day, you can see the other people in the area aren't dressed like that.

And dont even start on the scarves. Have you ever been to Silver Lake? The artist community wear scarves year round, often with a t-shirt.

The woman you saw with the hood tied around her face was either trying to be humorous, looking like the kid from "A Christmas Story", or quite possibly has some mental problems.

Originally posted by sstark
reply to post by zazzafrazz

 

FAIL!

there's no evidence of any phone here. The person is holding his hand against his head while talking. maybe to keep out of the shot?

Also, they had small, portable talking devices way before cell phones. you remember them, right? walkie-talkie's? like the kind they'd be using on a film set?

Walkie Talkies were invented for the Military in the 1940s, werent they?

reply to post by sstark


the footage was not from a film set it was a film of random people just walking around in everyday life, during the premier of the circus film.

it has been mentioned throughout the thread and in the O.P. video, this is not a film set, it is just filming real people in real life(not acting).

Gary Owens...time traveller on "Laugh-In"


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c9c61d5f0c40.jpg[/atsimg]

I haven't read all the posts here but do we have any else who can verify this footage exists on the dvd? Reason I'm asking is that the youtube clip is filmed from a tv with a camera and then compressed by youtube to boot. That's very bad quality there. Considering that and also that this guy is a film maker then my first thought is that he faked to promote his own films / festival. Also we need that clip in HD quality straight from the dvd for a better look.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I haven't read all the posts here but do we have any else who can verify this footage exists on the dvd? Reason I'm asking is that the youtube clip is filmed from a tv with a camera and then compressed by youtube to boot. That's very bad quality there. Considering that and also that this guy is a film maker then my first thought is that he faked to promote his own films / festival. Also we need that clip in HD quality straight from the dvd for a better look.

Yeah, I posted a page or two back confirming that this footage does exist on the DVD release of The Circus. The version of the DVD that I own is quite a few years older than the one he shows as mine comes in a more 'deluxe' packging style and was one of the first releases back in 2003, but the premiere footage is on there, it's about six minutes in length and the 'time travel' woman appears within the first minute of the footage.

ok i was making my way through this thread trying to read every last post, before i made my comment, but dang it i just cant do it any more i honestly think if i read one more person talking about cell towers i was going to do great bodily harm to myself.

That theory is flawed, your premis, a phone from the future must use cell or radio towers to work, ok sounds logical right, well here is the problem that i see, i imagine that if said future people garnerd enough know how to send some one back in time they might have found a way to "fix" that issue. A time traveler in theory anyways would have to have a way to comunicate with the future, other wise the person would have no way to signal when he/she/it was ready to return. if you take the basic theory of time travel, you would know it is most commonly theorized that you would first need to produce a tear in the space time continuem, i imagine to do something of this nature would take large quantities of power, so most likely not something you would actualy be able to cary back with you. so you see where im going with this to be able to make your return trip home you would have to have a way to communicate with your base of operations, well either that or there only able to make one way trips into time and if thats the case i wouldnt imagine you would have to many volunteers.

if you told some one from the early 20th century that one day we would have cell phones and video phones that could allow you to talk to some one half way around the world with little or no delays, or complex machines (computers) that allow us to do well just about anything, they would have discredited you and most likely locked you up in a looney bin.
so just because the technology isnt around now for this to work why is it so hard to beleive that its not possibly coming in the future? just saying


thank you and good day night depending on your location in this universe. Crimsongod.


ps. sorry for the ranting, rampant mispelling, and multiple grammer mistakes.

Originally posted by MadBrad
MYSTERY SOLVED! My wife works with the mentally ill. She has determined that this person is displaying an absolute classic case of schizophrenia where the person is talking to an object believing that they are communicating with another person in that object..

Actually, I agree.

Logically speaking, an opposite to my 'dimensional crossover' theory would be your statement if we apply Occams Razor your's stands up because we have information that supports (or props up) the theory of a mental illness.

My autisim is interesting as one of the things I tend to do is split up my central mind and voice and create other 'characters' in my mind that I talk to when I need to analyse, understand or solve a complex problem (work and personal related).

I personally believe there are people who do not realise they do this or end up doing this 'fracture' as a reaction to some trauma end up, as we perceive them to be, mentally ill (and to some degree they are).

But I also believe they are sometimes 'tainted' by other entities who inhabit the area in the mind where electrical signals flow (as electrons or in the same space), often causing a degradation (over time) of the mental processes and functions (another aspect is possible exposure to waves, rays, energies that result in mental illnesses or symptoms, like an over use of electrical technology e.g. cellular phones).

The scientist in me is saying that it is most likely a box the woman is holding, believing she is talking to her husband (who is probably dead)...a result of some trauma like a death in the family or depression over a number of years.

Perplexing video all the same!

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
My apologies if this has been mentioned already because I haven't read the whole thread ...

One thing that strikes me as odd is that the man/woman in question seems to be dressed awfully 'wintery' for October in Los Angeles ... from what I gather the average temp there at this time of year is mid 70s.

Don't know if this is something or nothing but I thought it was worth noting.

I agree I think we need to put it all together,first we a man who looks like a lady,she/he has an rectangular object in hand and speaking into said object,she/he has enormously large feet,that keep right in pace with the gentleman in front who looks strange(some say reptilian)who also has no ear.The she/he is wearing large coat in mild to warm climate. Someone else stated this is not actually part of the movie itself but a shot in hollywood(not actors)This is also was supposed to be in 1928,there were no walkie talkies,hearing aide a possibility,but she is not talking to a person that we know of.If anyone would like to add to this please do so we can figure this out and get on with our lives!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by old_god

Originally posted by MadBrad
MYSTERY SOLVED! My wife works with the mentally ill. She has determined that this person is displaying an absolute classic case of schizophrenia where the person is talking to an object believing that they are communicating with another person in that object..

Actually, I agree.

Logically speaking, an opposite to my 'dimensional crossover' theory would be your statement if we apply Occams Razor your's stands up because we have information that supports (or props up) the theory of a mental illness.

My autisim is interesting as one of the things I tend to do is split up my central mind and voice and create other 'characters' in my mind that I talk to when I need to analyse, understand or solve a complex problem (work and personal related).

I personally believe there are people who do not realise they do this or end up doing this 'fracture' as a reaction to some trauma end up, as we perceive them to be, mentally ill (and to some degree they are).

But I also believe they are sometimes 'tainted' by other entities who inhabit the area in the mind where electrical signals flow (as electrons or in the same space), often causing a degradation (over time) of the mental processes and functions (another aspect is possible exposure to waves, rays, energies that result in mental illnesses or symptoms, like an over use of electrical technology e.g. cellular phones).

The scientist in me is saying that it is most likely a box the woman is holding, believing she is talking to her husband (who is probably dead)...a result of some trauma like a death in the family or depression over a number of years.

Perplexing video all the same!

edit on 22-10-2010 by old_god because: typo

edit on 22-10-2010 by old_god because: (no reason given)

autism wasn't invented yet!! just joking

I find it easier to believe in the cross-dressing time traveler then in people thinking portable handheld electronic com devices, (covert or overt) existed in the 20's.

That device would need microchips... you know, integrated circuits. Which wern't around until the late 40's early 50's (conservatively). As for Tesla, sure he was a genius and was ahead of his day in understanding RF engineering, but his equipment was MASSIVE in scale compared to this supposed device. He may have had the capability and expertise but not the miniaturized components required.

I doubt it was a secret government device since the infrastructure for black-ops wasn't yet consolidated by the Illuminati. This is pre-Eisenhower 1961 speech warning of the mofos that would eventually succeded in consolidating powers to support "black-budget" tech development. Not saying the govt. wasn't into R&D, just that no way in hell they were as far ahead of consumer tech then as they are now.

As for the "crazy lady/schizophrenic" theory I'm no expert but I believe they would lock you up in an asylum back then. Not much was known about mental disease and even less known about drugs to treat mental illness. If you seemed crazy, your ass would be locked up and you'd be lucky not to be lobotomized. Wouldn't there be a police presence there too? In those days any cross-dresser talking to themself wouldn't be wandering around for long before being picked-up by the cops, or getting their ass kicked, or both.

It looks SO much like a pedestrian on a cell that I'm having a hard time letting logic prevail. Occam says crazy transvestite, my eyes say time traveling cross-dressing cell phone user. It'd be nice to get a hold of the DVD and get a better look, do a few screen-caps and see what can be found. Even better how about a digitally enhanced re-master.

Buren of you're still reading this thread any way you can upload a higher-res clip of that vid so we can see it better? Considering the guy in the video took that clip by videotaping his monitor, getting a better look at "cleaner" material would be the next best step to seriously put this to bed.

This must be Nokias comeback. Viral marketing since 1928. I'll bet it's N8 and that woman is Pamela Andersson.