A mobile phone in 1928...

[Squatchit]

This was on Yahoo News today. I've watched it over and over. It's interesting.

It's a clip from 1928 of a Charlie Chaplin premiere footage. It looks like someone in the background is walking along with a mobile phone in his hand.

Remember - this was 1928. :icon_eek:

Have a look and see what you make of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=852aqI2sBB0

That is the edited part.

Here is a little more detail about the guy who found it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6a4T2tJaSU

It kind of intrigues me because of my astral travels. I've traveled back in time and told entities that I'm from the year 2010. I was also a 'future' ghost once.

Enjoy!

Squelp

[innerlight]

Time travelling, doubtful. As back then there would not be the antenna to use the phone with. They would not have any reception, and would not be able to use the phone for a conversation.

[Squatchit]

Time travelling, doubtful. As back then there would not be the antenna to use the phone with. They would not have any reception, and would not be able to use the phone for a conversation.

'Back then' - you're talking about our dimension. Have you even considered 'their' dimension?

Come on. Let's not talk about this from our point of view (and our limitations). Just think of what might be going on that we know diddly squat about.

Expand your mind.

[innerlight]

'Back then' - you're talking about our dimension. Have you even considered 'their' dimension?

Come on. Let's not talk about this from our point of view (and our limitations). Just think of what might be going on that we know diddly squat about.

Expand your mind.

I would think then it would take more then a phone to go back and forth between the different dimensions. And if one was able to pierce such fabrics of time, and space, they would speak telepathically instead of through a mobile phone.

However, I do like the concept that such a thing could of happened. And does make you think.

[Squatchit]

I would think then it would take more then a phone to go back and forth between the different dimensions. And if one was able to piece such fabrics of time, and space, they would speak telepathically instead of through a mobile phone.

However, I do like the concept that such a thing could of happened. And does make you think.

I agree Inner. However, I also disagree. :D

If those 'higher' beings want us to cotton on to their ideas, then telepathy ain't going to work. We're too thick. :tongue:

A tardis is brill, but we'll miss it. Whereas a mobile phone back then is something we'll spot and wonder about.

As are crop circles (although I think they've been dis-mystified).

It's very rare I fall for stuff, but I've fallen for this one.

[innerlight]

I agree Inner. However, I also disagree. :D

If those 'higher' beings want us to cotton on to their ideas, then telepathy ain't going to work. We're too thick. :tongue:

A tardis is brill, but we'll miss it. Whereas a mobile phone back then is something we'll spot and wonder about.

As are crop circles (although I think they've been dis-mystified).

It's very rare I fall for stuff, but I've fallen for this one.

If you've ever seen Night At The Museum 2 it is very reminiscent of what you are saying.

It's a neat premise that they had a phone back then, we saw it, and reverse enginered it.. but for some reason we couldn't get it to that level for 60 plus years. We could also say that such things have always happened thoughout history. That it was "given" to us. Some feel the Pyramids are such things as well.

[Squatchit]

If you've ever seen Night At The Museum 2 it is very reminiscent of what you are saying.

I haven't seen that film. I will look out for it. :smile:

It's a neat premise that they had a phone back then, we saw it, and reverse enginered it.. but for some reason we couldn't get it to that level for 60 plus years. We could also say that such things have always happened thoughout history. That it was "given" to us. Some feel the Pyramids are such things as well.

Good call (the pyramids). I like the idea of that - it's puzzling. I suspect that the Chaplin thing is a hoax, but I love it just the same.

[celery]

I'm not too much into astral projection nor time traveling, and I have absolutely no idea how they work, what's impossible and what is not, but some people's comments on Youtube (like "How would she have a signal?") only show how closed-minded people can be.... whether the video is a prank or not.

So a BIG thank you Squatchit, not for sharing a 'proof' of time traveling, but for showing there's still a lot to work to do with humanity. :rolleyes:

[innerlight]

I'm not too much into astral projection nor time traveling, and I have absolutely no idea how they work, what's impossible and what is not, but some people's comments on Youtube (like "How would she have a signal?") only show how closed-minded people can be.... whether the video is a prank or not.

So a BIG thank you Squatchit, not for sharing a 'proof' of time traveling, but for showing there's still a lot to work to do with humanity. :rolleyes:

It's not just a matter of close-mindedness it's just trying to understand how it would be possible. The past technology is still the same. Things that we have now are designed to work now. Such as a cell phone. Their were designed with the technology we have at present time. They also rely on a signal that we designed. Such as telephone antennas. A cell phone would not be able to get reception in the past because it is not setup that way. They didn't have the technology to make it possible. It's also like say going back in time to 1530 with your telephone and making a call. Who would you be calling you would have the only telephone available?

Unless we imagine that it's possible to be in the past, and to be able to call the future. I'd hate to see what the bill for that very long distance telephone call.

[celery]

First off, I apologize if you felt address or even worse, offended by what I said earlier.

Again, I don't know what's possible in AP or time traveling (Einstein and his twin theory should know more about this than anyone else), but if you could stop thinking with your mind stuck in 2010, knowing you need poles, and emmiters, receptors, an operator and a space satellite in order for a cellphone to work, and just think from a timeless objective point of view, for instance, like some AP stories I have read here, like traveling to other planes for just a few minutes, and that it doesn't matter if in other planes there is no bread or clean water to drink if you get hungry, then it's clear your mind is stuck somewhere betwen the time-dependent and the physical realm.

I replied here and won't reply in Youtube because I know it's going to be worthless there. :hug:

[innerlight]

First off, I apologize if you felt address or even worse, offended by what I said earlier.

Again, I don't know what's possible in AP or time traveling (Einstein and his twin theory should know more about this than anyone else), but if you could stop thinking with your mind stuck in 2010, knowing you need poles, and emmiters, receptors, an operator and a space satellite in order for a cellphone to work, and just think from a timeless objective point of view, for instance, like some AP stories I have read here, like traveling to other planes for just a few minutes, and that it doesn't matter if in other planes there is no bread or clean water to drink if you get hungry, then it's clear where your mind is stuck.

I replied here and won't reply in Youtube because I know it's going to be worthless there. :hug:

I wasn't offended by what you were saying, but just giving another pov. Now I'm not referring to other dimensions. As what happens in there may not completely coincide with what is happening here. However, the original post was a video of something that is happening in our dimension. In our universe. So what is relevant to have happened then is still happening then. That has not changed. For if the slightest change happened in 1928 it would reverberate to 2010. If you've ever seen the movie the butterfly effect they talk about such a concept.

Now we could argue that it's possible that they projected a shadow of themselves into the past, but were not actually in the past. It just appeared that way. Looking like they were having a conversation in the past, but were actually having a conversation in the present.

[celery]

However, the original post was a video of something that is happening in our dimension. In our universe. So what is relevant to have happened then is still happening then. That has not changed. For if the slightest change happened in 1928 it would reverberate to 2010. If you've ever seen the movie the butterfly effect they talk about such a concept.

Hmmm I remember watching the butterfly effect, but I already forgot the theory behind it (probably should watch it again this weekend). But again, trying to get rid of biases such as movies and AP (probably I gave a not-so-good example), the possibilities are endless. Trying to use another example, probably what happened there was a new phenomenon, I remember those stories about people watching ghosts jumping off into train rail, poor souls trapped into the moment of their suicide. Again, this might be another bad example, but from the beginning of this discussion, I was just trying to say that trying to explain something by only the things we already know (no matter how much or little you know about anything, whether it be AP, movies, physical theories, etc.) has a name, and IMHO the name is closed-mindedness.
Again, maybe what happened in that movie can be fake, maybe not, maybe it's a prank, maybe it's a phenomenon people call NOW time traveling, but in the future it will have another name because open-minded people will be able to tell the difference. Or you can continue trying to explain it by only the thing you already know.

This is off-topic, but I just realized that knowledge has its drawbacks, too. It can make you try to explain everything by what you know, and don't give room to the possibilities you don't. So thank you for that one. =)


Now we could argue that it's possible that they projected a shadow of themselves into the past, but were not actually in the past. It just appeared that way. Looking like they were having a conversation in the past, but were actually having a conversation in the present.

I think it's going to take me a while to compute this one, LOLOL hold on.... LOL

[Spiritlite]

Okay I've watched this over and over and to me it looks like someone on a cell phone, I can see an antenae. Then it appears the person dissapears. Looks like a time traveler to me.
Spiritlite.

[Spiritlite]

I'm also going to have a good friend of mine look at this who will be able to figure out if this is a prank I'll let you know.
Spiritlite.

[Squatchit]

I'm also going to have a good friend of mine look at this who will be able to figure out if this is a prank I'll let you know.
Spiritlite.

Thank Spiritlite. :smile:

I find it really fascinating...and I'm normally skeptical of these things. :tongue:

Squatch

[Orbie]

I reckon its a prank. The fact the speaker stops and turns slightly to face the camera. Also, isnt there another camera conveniently placed to get a close up later on... gosh wouldnt it be something though if it wasnt eh!

[celery]

I'm also going to have a good friend of mine look at this who will be able to figure out if this is a prank I'll let you know.
Spiritlite.

I'm looking forward to hearing what he/she will say. Thank you! :D Is s/he like a professional time traveler or something? lol

[abikisses]

Even if this is true, it'll be made out as a prank... all the wonderful and unexplainable things get covered up.

Thank you for sharing!

Blessings
Abikisses

[innerlight]

Hmmm I remember watching the butterfly effect, but I already forgot the theory behind it (probably should watch it again this weekend). But again, trying to get rid of biases such as movies and AP (probably I gave a not-so-good example), the possibilities are endless. Trying to use another example, probably what happened there was a new phenomenon, I remember those stories about people watching ghosts jumping off into train rail, poor souls trapped into the moment of their suicide. Again, this might be another bad example, but from the beginning of this discussion, I was just trying to say that trying to explain something by only the things we already know (no matter how much or little you know about anything, whether it be AP, movies, physical theories, etc.) has a name, and IMHO the name is closed-mindedness.
Again, maybe what happened in that movie can be fake, maybe not, maybe it's a prank, maybe it's a phenomenon people call NOW time traveling, but in the future it will have another name because open-minded people will be able to tell the difference. Or you can continue trying to explain it by only the thing you already know.

This is off-topic, but I just realized that knowledge has its drawbacks, too. It can make you try to explain everything by what you know, and don't give room to the possibilities you don't. So thank you for that one. =)



I think it's going to take me a while to compute this one, LOLOL hold on.... LOL

I'm not referring to movies, or say it's not possible to time travel. That may very well be true.. However time traveling will not change the way things actually are right now. If it did, we would already know of the change. for it would of reverberated throughout time and only the person that changed it would of known about the change.

I am saying visiting a different time period no matter how you did it would not make the time period different.

Now we could say that in the future they've managed to create a phone that does not work off of antenna's and a phone that would be able to go back and forth in time.

[Spiritlite]

No my friend just knows a lot about physics and such and is very good at watching movies to see if they are real or pranks. He's basically a genius I'll let you know what he says.
Spiritlite.

[Kapitan_Prien]

Cripes I lived in 1928 - I was 20 at the time...but of course spent most of my time out at sea. There was wireless on the ships to transmit signals (telegraph) and of course radio. We also had wires on our U-Boat during the war to transmit radio signals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_telegraphy

The term was initially applied to a variety of competing technologies to communicate messages encoded as symbols, without wires, around the turn of the 20th century, but radio emerged as the most significant. Wireless telegraphy rapidly came to mean Morse code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code) transmitted with Hertzian waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzian_waves) (electromagnetic waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_waves)) decades before it came to be associated with the term radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio). It declined in popularity after the invention of radiotelephony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotelephony), the ability to send sound by radio using amplitude modulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation), was introduced around 1920, sparking the beginning of broadcasting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting). Radiotelegraphy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotelegraphy) continued to be used for point-to-point business, governmental, and military communication, and evolved into radioteletype (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioteletype) networks.

Just an FYI post - no rebuttal or argument for the subject.

[celery]

I'm not referring to movies, or say it's not possible to time travel. That may very well be true..
Hi there. I've started to think we are speaking completely different languages, because I never claimed otherwise :confused2:

However time traveling will not change the way things actually are right now. If it did, we would already know of the change. for it would of reverberated throughout time and only the person that changed it would of known about the change. I am saying visiting a different time period no matter how you did it would not make the time period different. Now we could say that in the future they've managed to create a phone that does not work off of antenna's and a phone that would be able to go back and forth in time.
Hmm, that's a good theory!

[PrincessKLS]

I can understand the conspiracy theory of it being a cell phone but I've heard she was actually testing a hearing aid. Apparently they had big, blocky ear trumpets back then. Even if it was a time traveler, why is it, the lady is dressed in typical 20s clothing for her age?

[LightFilledHeart]

I can understand the conspiracy theory of it being a cell phone but I've heard she was actually testing a hearing aid. Apparently they had big, blocky ear trumpets back then. Even if it was a time traveler, why is it, the lady is dressed in typical 20s clothing for her age?

Frankly I couldn't make out whether that was a man or a woman, but the clothing bit is a good point, I think. Why WOULD a time traveler wear period clothing, unless he or she had gone to that time on purpose and had been there for awhile and was trying to fit in and look "normal"... guess that could be! As for what the device is, it's hard to say. You can't really get a good look at it. It might be a cell phone (the older style), or it could be a hearing aid, OR it could be a different device altogether... some sort of "walke talkie" communication device such as those used on Star Trek! I don't think we're going to be able to reach a definitive answer on this one, kids :D

[Rumar]

That'd be an amazing discovery if it were a cell phone, but then again, who would be able to even USE it? There was nothing supporting cell phones back then, there was no Verizon wireless, T-Mobile, Sprint, nor Cellular...

When did they start using the blocky handsets for radios in the battlefield? I remember seeing Vietnam documentaries where they were using big blocky cell phones... well... not exactly cell phones..

[Lovely]

It kind of intrigues me because of my astral travels. I've traveled back in time and told entities that I'm from the year 2010. I was also a 'future' ghost once.

Enjoy!

Squelp

omg That sounds like fun.
I would love to do that lol.

[Lovely]

My opinion of this is there's so many explanations of this that
time travel (of the body) is unrealistic at least in the computer age
which she would probably be in if she was a time traveler. And I don't understand
how someone could think she is. If you go to someones time your also going to what
the world was like back than. The person was in 1928.
They're was no satellites back than. It would be impossible to
talk on a cell phone back than.

She could have been hard of hearing
http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/ear-trumpet_604x341.jpg

That's an ear trumpet.
It looks similar to a cell phone (In size and color)
and was common back than especially for a woman her age.

Possibilities:
She could me scratching her ear.
Playing with her hair.
Had a habit of touching her head.
It could be an ear trumpet.
She was in a movie. Maybe she was giving a secret signal to a friend/family.
Again she was in a movie she could have an embarrassing scar/blemish and was hiding it from the camera.
She may have had glasses that could have broke with out warning and she didn't have time to fix them (It happens to me a lot) so she had to hold the arm of it to keep it together.
There could have been a lot of big lights on the set and she was shielding her eyes.
She was only an extra. She was probably nervous with all the noise and lights. And she was shielding herself as a nervous reaction.
It could of been loud. She could of trying to cover her ears with out look like she was.
She was in a Chaplin movie. He use to pretend random objects where phones and she was imitating him or the director told her to.
Look at her smile. Its awkward and embarrassed. She was probably camera shy and was shielding her face, Again she was only an extra.With many reasonable reasons
I don't get the random Time Travel thing.

The most supernatural possible reason is maybe she was a
physic and saw a vision of 2010 ish times and imitated
it for some reason. Maybe to mess with us! XD

There was no visible device in the video.
When she turns to the camera before she fades
away look at the distance between her hand and her face.
There about 2-3 inches apart. There's too much of gap
to hold a cellphone in. If she's holding anything it's not a
Cell phone because they're too thin to be held
in such a large gap.

BTW
If anyone can read lips
WATCH THAT VIDEO NOW
and tell us what she's saying.
PLEASE :D

[innerlight]

That'd be an amazing discovery if it were a cell phone, but then again, who would be able to even USE it? There was nothing supporting cell phones back then, there was no Verizon wireless, T-Mobile, Sprint, nor Cellular...

When did they start using the blocky handsets for radios in the battlefield? I remember seeing Vietnam documentaries where they were using big blocky cell phones... well... not exactly cell phones..

That's exactly what I was getting at was the the technology was not supported back then. It's like going back in time taking a flash light with you and changing the batteries when it ran out.

[Squatchit]

It's like going back in time taking a flash light with you and changing the batteries when it ran out.
Hiya inner :smile:

I'm not fully getting you here. What if the traveller from the future took their own batteries...wouldn't that work?? What if the traveller laughed at batteries...there was technology so far advanced as to make us look like snails?

What if two tiny rolls of paper (or earplugs) did the same thing as batteries for the traveller from the future's flash light (because it relied on neither battery nor paper to shine).

What if, what if, what if?

Can you not think outside of the human 21st century box?

Squatch

[innerlight]

Hiya inner :smile:

I'm not fully getting you here. What if the traveller from the future took their own batteries...wouldn't that work?? What if the traveller laughed at batteries...there was technology so far advanced as to make us look like snails?

What if two tiny rolls of paper (or earplugs) did the same thing as batteries for the traveller from the future's flash light (because it relied on neither battery nor paper to shine).

What if, what if, what if?

Can you not think outside of the human 21st century box?

Squatch

Well they were holding their phone, and bluetooth is the trend now. So there technology is not all that advanced. :wink:

Yes, I know what you are saying that perhaps in the future there could be the possiblity that they have so far advanced technology that they need no batteries, or even to dial.

And a flashlight may not even need batteries in the future. They could fully run on a Quartz crystal.

So sure we could say that their phone does not need an antenna, or a phone provider. They would probably also be talking to someone in the future as I'm not sure if many people had phones in 1928. Really though for as far as we know they could of very well had cell phones back then. We just didn't know about it, or couldn't afford i.t

[innerlight]

My other question... If we haven't invented it could it exist now? Or do we have to invent it. In other words can the future interact with us even though we haven't gotten there yet. I know time is only linear to us, but would we still have to lay the ground work to reach that future?

[Squatchit]

Well they were holding their phone,

Hiya inner :smile:

I really don't want to labour this point, but if they wanted 'us' (as opposed to 'them') to notice something, then a cell/mobile phone in 1928 was a good bet. A bluetooth may not have been noticed as it didn't need hands. Likewise telepathy - too subtle for our stupid minds.

If they wanted to astound us with their technology, it would most likely have been missed. This way, we sit up and say, "hey what?".

Sadly we're too skeptical as a species to give it any credence.

I'm not sure how any futuristic intelligent species could make an impression on us without us being hugely skeptical.

Squiggle

[Squatchit]

My other question... If we haven't invented it could it exist now?

If we invented it "in the future" and as a collective entity turned back time (as time isn't linear, we just all changed our clocks back a few hours)...and had a ball with conspiracy theories...what fun?!

OK, I'm waaay leftfield and unusually non-Squatchit...but I like toying with these ideas.

:smile:

[Time]

THis caught me off guard when I seen this. I wasnt to sure what to make of it. After a few days ive come to the collowing conclusions:

IT may be faked. Photoshop, and many other programs could munipulate old footage just as well as these days. And black n white is much easier to deal with them 1000 different colours. Personaly, i think if it was faked, they did a very very good job in doing so.

It may be a rift, or ripple in time and space. It could just be a simple anomoly, which stephen hawking goes into detail about. They are something in physics or science, that has no real explination. Or it may be and extra, or unexpected answer to a question. WHen dealing with quantum science, and time travel, anomolies can be abundant.

We associate things with the familiar. To us it looks like shes on a phone. But mabey shes covering her ears for some reason? What if it is just a compact she has in her hand and she raised her arm over her ears?

The video itself is rather convincing. If it is time travel, i think that this means it isnt to far off.

[star-child]

Slightly off subject but this reminded me of something I saw in the newspaper about 3 years ago. A woman had written into the astrologer and said she got a text (I can't remember what the contents of it was, I don't think it was anything significant) the date received was 2023 or something. I wish I still had the newspaper cutting so I can give more details but that suggests there is a possibility that you can somehow connect with others through time. The astrologer was convinced it was from the future that somehow ended up on that womans phone.

[Kapitan_Prien]

I was just on Fox News and saw this film in their films section...so, yeah it's been posted on their site too...and they were wondering about it as well.

[Rumar]

I was just on Fox News and saw this film in their films section...so, yeah it's been posted on their site too...and they were wondering about it as well.
They were pondering the same exact question??? :confused:

[Kapitan_Prien]

*laughs* Yeah they were...on Fox News of all places! I didn't expect to see it there but they were discussing what type of technology would have been around back then (walkie-talkies, etc.) but they weren't developed until later.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4392185/time-traveler-caught-on-tape/?playlist_id=86871

[Nevair]

if you believe that the gov hides high end tech then it not hard to believe a cell phone existed back then, we allegedly have free energy and the tech to build cars with magnetic engines as well as wireless energy transfers

[Lonely Soul]

This is only my own opinion, but to me that person with thier hand covering their ear the cheek simply looks embarressed to be walking past a camera, and shyly turns it's way briefly at the end.
Looks most likely they'rs hiding this identity, or just holding up one side of thier scarf.
They might even have had a dressing over a wound they were hoilding in place, or over the ear due an ear infection.
I've watched the whole clip, and have seen it before on TV, and see nothing of any interest in the clip (apart from that zebra).

[LadyVirgoxoxo]

So even if it was a time traveler, why would he/she/it be stupid enough to go in front of a camera with an alleged mobile phone?

[Gem]

'Back then' - you're talking about our dimension. Have you even considered 'their' dimension?

Come on. Let's not talk about this from our point of view (and our limitations). Just think of what might be going on that we know diddly squat about.

Expand your mind.

Diddly squat is what we know. I can't see if it's a phone or not sosome weirdo's u-tube speculations seem very stupid to me. If some time traveller was there some article of clothing would be remarkable, but her attire conforms to the era.

Really... a mobile phone is a real leap into what might be yet is extremely unlikely.

The lady in theis vid, has a rather reasonable explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si6EmFi8ZUM&feature=fvwrel

Maybe open to your mind to what is plain simple explanation of what is a lot more likely.

[MoonDancer]

Ah, I remember seeing this video before. It is interesting to think about. What is that man holding?

[Student4Life1975]

i wish photoshop didnt exist for this very reason...

[dream jo]

This was on Yahoo News today. I've watched it over and over. It's interesting.

It's a clip from 1928 of a Charlie Chaplin premiere footage. It looks like someone in the background is walking along with a mobile phone in his hand.

Remember - this was 1928. :icon_eek:

Have a look and see what you make of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=852aqI2sBB0

That is the edited part.

Here is a little more detail about the guy who found it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6a4T2tJaSU

It kind of intrigues me because of my astral travels. I've traveled back in time and told entities that I'm from the year 2010. I was also a 'future' ghost once.

Enjoy!

Squelp



hi i beleb it i do evn thm days any thng cud haoen it can

[Squatchit]

But it wouldn't have been 'them days'. It would have been fairly recently (as the 'phone looked quite modern if I recall - I can't actually remember as I posted it years ago!). So it would have been in these modern years that we invented time travel and went back to Chaplin's era. Unlikely given we haven't yet invented time travel - or have we and no-one is telling us...? :D

[Gem]

But it wouldn't have been 'them days'. It would have been fairly recently (as the 'phone looked quite modern if I recall - I can't actually remember as I posted it years ago!). So it would have been in these modern years that we invented time travel and went back to Chaplin's era. Unlikely given we haven't yet invented time travel - or have we and no-one is telling us...? :D



Critique here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKHXoSN-_fA

[Squatchit]

I like a good debunk. (oh my, that sounds a bit rude) :D

The thing is, the guy in this video is now telling us what to see.

Next time I see a duck, I think I'll laugh my head off! :duckie:

Thanks Gem. :smile:

[Gem]

I like a good debunk. (oh my, that sounds a bit rude) :D

The thing is, the guy in this video is now telling us what to see.

Next time I see a duck, I think I'll laugh my head off! :duckie:

Thanks Gem. :smile:

Yes; the duck in a dog-mask. Cracker!

I can't see hide nor 'hair' of a phone m'self so I consider it to be a tall story, but wouldn't it be cool if...

[Andyvilson]

Maybe fake photo...

[7luminaries]

Hey Squatchit, I think this is very interesting. Of course we can always debunk this in some fashion...that neither proves nor disproves anything.

But the fact is, this piece of vid clip was of no interest for nearly 100 years...because it had no particular meaning to folks from past decades. Not until recently, now that we have realised this modern behaviour (talking into a small handheld wireless device as shown, whilst walking) appears in the vid and is out of place, i.e., in a very different era than we would expect. Without the modern reference, there was no way to assess or put this into context. We would not even have known what to look for, nor would it have jumped out at us.

That is what is so fascinating. If cell phones and similar had not been invented in their current form (small, thin, and of a certain dimension -- rather than in some other shape or dimension) for another 50 yrs, say...then it is very possible we would be having this discussion only at that time, rather than now.

Thanks for sharing :)

Peace & blessings,
7L

[falcor]

ive heard suggestions that it could possibly be an ear trumpet.

[7luminaries]

That is true - anything is possible. Perhaps he has some other reason for cupping his hand just so and/or perhaps talking to himself.

But the cellphone option seems equally reasonable to me :D

[running]

Does anybody actually see a phone? Watched the clip and i see the hand and talking but i cant see a phone.
Without seeing the phone its just somebody that looks similiar to somebody on a cell phone imo. There is no cell phone coverage in 1928. So nobody to talk to.

[Gem]

That is true - anything is possible. Perhaps he has some other reason for cupping his hand just so and/or perhaps talking to himself.

But the cellphone option seems equally reasonable to me :D

A cellphone conversation in 1928 seems reasonable? hahaha.

[7luminaries]

Yep...a reasonable enough possibility, or of similar technology anyway, from our modern perspective, if you view the clip. AND if you assume that it might also be possible for someone to show up with technology that appears out-of-place for the era and/or culture. In this case, for the era. That final assumption is key. It may not be the most probable explanation...and I'm not sure we can definitively say what that would be anyway...but I would not strike it from the list without having all the facts.

I generally take the most broad-minded scientific view that there is an explanation, but also allow that the explanation will not necessarily be contained within the bounds of our current scope of knowledge or understandings.

Peace & blessings.
7L

[Squatchit]

I still like the idea of people from the future mooching about the past. And vice versa.

Funnily enough Gem, I dreamed about you last night. We were talking about bridges in London (UK). :tongue:

[Gem]

Yep...a reasonable enough possibility, or of similar technology anyway, from our modern perspective, if you view the clip. AND if you assume that it might also be possible for someone to show up with technology that appears out-of-place for the era and/or culture. In this case, for the era. That final assumption is key. It may not be the most probable explanation...and I'm not sure we can definitively say what that would be anyway...but I would not strike it from the list without having all the facts.
Seems highly unlikely, and there is no phone visible in the clip, of course (let alone the absence of infrastructure for that technology).

I generally take the most broad-minded scientific view that there is an explanation, but also allow that the explanation will not necessarily be contained within the bounds of our current scope of knowledge or understandings.

Peace & blessings.
7L
Most unlikely scenario indeed, all things reasonably considered.

[Gem]

I still like the idea of people from the future mooching about the past. And vice versa.

Funnily enough Gem, I dreamed about you last night. We were talking about bridges in London (UK). :tongue:

I like the idea too, but am too reasonably minded to become fanciful over it.

Sounds like an awesome dream hahaha.

[7luminaries]

Seems highly unlikely, and there is no phone visible in the clip, of course (let alone the absence of infrastructure for that technology).

LOL...err...if the phone were visible, then I think we'd have our answer, probable or not. In the absence of full visibility and all info, however, then we may speculate!

Most unlikely scenario indeed, all things reasonably considered.

Agreed...though not impossible, and that is where I leave it.

Peace & blessings,
7L

[The Taoist]

Hello' squatchit:



This appears to be an accurate account of a time travelling individual.



Best wishes....


The Taoist