Time Traveller Caught on 1928 Charlie Chaplin Film?

reply to post by abradley123


She's obviously picked up a call on her Bluetooth earpiece(s) and is answering it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a8a3041438ec.png[/atsimg]

Some people!!

-m0r

reply to post by abradley123


I don't think that is even remotely close to the first example given by the OP. She was excited to see her favorite actress or actor and felt glamorous and simply adjusted her hair or earring.

reply to post by Digital_Reality


While I don't disagree with the premise, his facts are wrong, as well as his literary skills.

"It turns out ... it's probably ..." What? "It turns out" is definitive usage. "Probably" is not. So, why would a "writer" use them in the same sentence? It's practically a double negative. Ugh.

Anyway ... as I've said many times already in this thread: This was NOT an actor. It was NOT an extra. It was NOT a movie set. There was NO casting calls. This is NOT a clip from the movie. It's a clip from a reel that was shot at the film's premiere at Mann's Chinese theater.

If I was that guy writing the Gizmoto article, first I'd do some English. After that, I'd find out the facts and do some of those. Then I'd write.

not sure what to make of all this...... does anyone know anything about the guy who found it ?

Sorry if this has been said already, I didn't read all of the 73 pages of the thread.
What is the point in having a cell phone in 1928? Unless his cell is some kind of a super cell that can send signals back to the future so he can talk to his buddies? If so, his technology must be very superb so if you have a cell which you can use to talk to people in the future, why not make if at least handsfree, would certainly seem less suspicious.

To be completely objective, chance that you found a time traveller on film are really slim. Chances a lady was scratching her face oddly or whatever else she might have been doing are a lot better bigger.
I mean....Dont you ever do something weird in public?

Originally posted by lymunn
Sorry if this has been said already, I didn't read all of the 73 pages of the thread.
What is the point in having a cell phone in 1928? Unless his cell is some kind of a super cell that can send signals back to the future so he can talk to his buddies? If so, his technology must be very superb so if you have a cell which you can use to talk to people in the future, why not make if at least handsfree, would certainly seem less suspicious.

To be completely objective, chance that you found a time traveller on film are really slim. Chances a lady was scratching her face oddly or whatever else she might have been doing are a lot better bigger.
I mean....Dont you ever do something weird in public?

Wait...You mean there were no cell phone towers back in 1928?
Why didn't anyone else think of that.

For gawd sake! somebody see's a clip of film from the 20's with a woman/man doing something unusual and decides that it must be a time traveller! Just because this person looks as if they are doing something which we, in 2010, percieve as being on a cell phone does not lend any credability to the idea that they are a time traveller, holy cow its unbelivable what folks come up with sometimes.

Fascinating,intriging & great fun to read,this is why i joined to ATS back in the day..good times.
after reading 73 pages which took me more than a week & taking in what i've seen i still don't really know what to think.
it could be a cellphone,hearing device,time traveller,mad person on a random loon walk down the street could be anything..i have a theory ( bit mad but stick with it)

this person if from the future knew this video would go viral 82 years later so put him/herself in it as a hint time travel is possible,just the way he looks at the camera at the end says somethign to me.
i'm thinking outloud here..the only place i feel i can do that

it's most probably is something really simple & easy to explain.

great thread op..this is just what ATS needed,something to get your brain working

Perhaps this "phone" is a walkie talkie and she/he is talking to someone else? That would at least work, a phone wouldn't work in 1928.

reply to post by zazzafrazz


maybe that was the time of the dinosaur phones

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


Tesla's early radios were about a foot square, and needed BIG batteries, i dont think it's a radio.
As for electronic hearing aids, the transistor was patented by Bell labs in 1945 i believe, a little too late for someone to make a hearing aid in time for this film!
Valve technology was everywhere then, but nothing you could describe as 'hand-held'
Either a mad person with trumpet (perfect Chaplin material) or a time traveller with really bad fashion sense.......
BTW a cosmic cell phone may be larger than our current day ones-it has a lot further to transmit

sitting in an office 1 block from mann's chinese theatre on hollywood blvd(where that was filmed I think) as I watched that. That is:

1) A man, not a woman. Men walk a certain way, it's unmistakable. that's a dude. not too many trannies about in 1928.

2) speaking into a device to someone. it doesn't matter what the device is, it's 1928, no such thing had been invented yet..

3) Either a time-traveler or a humanoid-ish alien.

Originally posted by harrytuttle
What we have here is a case of cultural projection. We don't actually "see" anything in the person's hands, but because we are conditioned to conclude that someone with their hand to their head must be talking on a cell phone, some people think they see just that.

To further scrutinize this guy's hypothesis, no one holds a cell phone in the manner the person's hand is displayed nor in the way the young man demonstrates in his own video. People hold cell phones with the ends of their fingers, not with their fingers wrapped around the phone.

In short, this guy is using his imagination to come to his conclusion, not observable fact.

Well, I watched that as objectively as I could..I'm an actor/filmmaker here in the 'wood, and I'm pretty good at reading body language. that person is clearly speaking into a device, and getting a response. the way the person is holding the device is to keep others from seeing it. there's even a bit of shadow on the face from the device. I'm able to be very objective. I know what I'm seeing, and what I'm seeing wasn't possible in 1928. no cell phones, no towers, no kind of radio small enough. nothing. We have ourselves an authentic "find". and, whether time-traveler, dimensional traveler, alien, or, (possibly) we DID have this technology back then, and that would mean that we've had major technological advancements withheld from us for decades, whatever it is, you can't look at the world the same way again.

reality as we know it is a lie.

reply to post by dragonseeker


Bravo

Second line...

This was already debunked a while ago. Here is a current article about it. celebrifi.com...

reply to post by sodakota
there were no portable radios in 1928. the only thing available not plugged in to an electrical outlet was a crystal radio, and they require an antenna.

reply to post by Ahmose
there were no portable radios in 1928. the only thing not requiring an electrical outlet was a crystal radio, which required an obvious antenna.

in the old days...

they didn't have that much budjet to creat a film, they have to be very resourceful..., the productor needed a big women actress because the day of the shooting, the one who was supposed to play the role wasn't present and there wasn't any one else available so he disquised a big guy as a women and simply tell him to partially hide his face with his hand to avoid to be noticed but today...we can replay and zoom...and someone with to much imagination, by pure coincidence noticed it and post it on youtube

sometimes a wave is created only with a breeze.....

Originally posted by dbrutocao
This was already debunked a while ago. Here is a current article about it. celebrifi.com...

That link doesn't debunk anything. Nobody has come of with an explanation as to why the wo/man is talking while listening to a hearing aid, and it wasn't done there either. It is possible that it could have been a confusing device to use for anyone technologically challenged, and that they would simply talk back to it, but that is a presumption, no more no less. As for the film itself, it is documentary, of the premiere of the film, "The circus" so no walk on actors necessarily, just passers by. The wo/man's appearance is almost normal viewed in the right format. There seems to be no provenace as to the filmaker, which is important in the first instance, as all Chaplin's movies belonged to him, and he did in later years play about with his stuff. As I see it so far, George Clarke's premise has not yet been made irrefutable.