This is topic Time traveller spotted at Chaplin premiere? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006290

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 10-31-2010, 10:05 AM:
 
Artical from yahoo movies
Link

-----------------------------------------------------

Time traveller spotted at Chaplin premiere?
Has the first real evidence of time travelling been found? A video on YouTube seems to think so.

On the DVD extras for Charlie Chaplin's 'The Circus', a woman is spotted in the background at the movie's premiere in 1928 and appears to be talking on a mobile phone.
Stunned by what he saw, Irish filmmaker George Clarke consulted experts on his find, and has since posted it on YouTube. He claims that the video has not been tampered with in any way.

The footage does seem to show a lady nattering on a mobile phone, but if you thought your phone reception was bad at normal times, we hate to think what it would have been like in the ‘20s.

Cynics have scoffed at the footage, asking, if you were a time traveller, would you openly show off the amazing gadget? Others have asked why you would go to a Chaplin premiere if you could go back to any point in time?

Clarke replied, "Who says the person in question went back to see the Chaplin premiere? How about, the person went back to an earlier period and got stuck there or was in town doing something else and just happened to stroll on by."

Have a look and see for yourselves. (link to video in artical)

------------
So what do we think? I'd probably agree that she is just scratching her ear or something.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-31-2010, 10:10 AM:
 
She's obviously not getting any reception because she's in 1928. So that means she's an iPhone 4 user who can't tell the difference since it can't even get reception in 2010.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 10-31-2010, 10:47 AM:
 
1920s Hearing Aid

Nonsense.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-31-2010, 12:09 PM:
 
This was posted on Slashdot a few days ago. I looked at the video of the film clip and was unimpressed. To me, it is much more likely that a person in the 1920's would have been suspicious of the movie camera than holding something up to his ear, much less a cell phone. Look closely. You'll see he is wearing a mask. Could he have been holding onto the mask?

I say that the more likely explanation is that the person was clutching onto his hat or pulling up his coat collar to hide from the camera. Maybe he thought he could hide behind the statue of the zebra but, when he came to the other side and saw that he was in full view of the camera, he turned, muttered some obscenity and quickly moved on.

The person turned and seems to mutter something. Isn't it possible that somebody off-camera hollered something and that he turned to hear what was being said?

It certainly seems like a person with a cell phone at first but, on closer examination, I don't think that explanation holds water. Like others said, if it was a cell phone, how could he have been talking to anybody? There would be no cell towers or satellites for the phone to communicate with in the 1920's.

The "technological" explanation might be that he had a hearing aid or some kind of recorder or microphone but even that is not likely. It is wise to apply Occam's Razor to the question. What is the most likely answer?

Unfortunately, the most likely answer is also the most mundane.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-31-2010, 12:23 PM:
 
I can't believe this stupid news story has now made it to FT.

quote: Randy Stankey

---

There would be no cell towers or satellites for the phone to communicate with in the 1920's.

---

And that folks is the obvious DUH!!!
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 5226) on 11-01-2010, 05:47 PM:
 
After some serious investigation and thought on the matter "and go where no man has gone before" its an "Electronic Communicator".
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-02-2010, 01:26 PM:
 
That's no woman, that's a MAN, baby! Yeah!!!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-02-2010, 01:45 PM:
 

quote: Randy Stankey

---

There would be no cell towers or satellites for the phone to communicate with in the 1920's.

---

quote: Graham Ritchie

---

its an "Electronic Communicator".

---

Then it must be a Version 1. With Version 2 you talk to your shirt.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 11-04-2010, 07:22 AM:
 
"12 Monkeys"
 

---