BREAKING - Time Traveler Caught On Charlie Chaplin 1928 Film "The Circus"

ive checked the other thread and it is NOT repeat NOT thoroughly debunked..

NICE TRY BUT YOU FAIL!

ive checked the other thread and it is NOT repeat NOT thoroughly debunked..

NICE TRY BUT YOU FAIL!

b]

2. You cannot say she is talking. There is no sound. Her mouth appears to be moving. She may be talking but there are many reasons why someone's mouth moves.

3. Is there something in her hand? I dont know. The images are not clear enough. Even if there is something in her hand you surely cannot say it is a device.

4. Her hand is not positioned they way a normal person grasps a cell phone while it is in use.

5. Whether it is a man or a woman is irrelevant. Irrelevant data used to cloud the issue.

6. The surprised look on her face. So what? You would be surprised too if you realized someone was filming you.

1.1. The guy plays an old magic trick. He tells you what you are going to see before you see it. Power of suggestion. If he was really interested in knowing what you think, he would not tell you what you will see/think.

The same "magic" trick used in the preface of every instructional manuel ever printed in the history of the world? The same "magic" used at the beginning of every rudimentary educational class--pick a topic--in the history of the world?

Oh, yeah--that "magic".

It´s one of these guys.... [link to www.youtube.com]

b]

2. You cannot say she is talking. There is no sound. Her mouth appears to be moving. She may be talking but there are many reasons why someone's mouth moves.

3. Is there something in her hand? I dont know. The images are not clear enough. Even if there is something in her hand you surely cannot say it is a device.

4. Her hand is not positioned they way a normal person grasps a cell phone while it is in use.5. Whether it is a man or a woman is irrelevant. Irrelevant data used to cloud the issue.

6. The surprised look on her face. So what? You would be surprised too if you realized someone was filming you.

1.1. The guy plays an old magic trick. He tells you what you are going to see before you see it. Power of suggestion. If he was really interested in knowing what you think, he would not tell you what you will see/think.

The same "magic" trick used in the preface of every instructional manuel ever printed in the history of the world? The same "magic" used at the beginning of every rudimentary educational class--pick a topic--in the history of the world?

Oh, yeah--that "magic".

2.2 You cannot say she is talking. There is no sound. Her mouth appears to be moving. She may be talking but there are many reasons why someone's mouth moves.

One may easily surmise that she's talking, without stretching either logic or credibility. The movement of the mouth-muscles seem rather limited to talking--in it's various manifestations of conversation, screaming, whispering, singing--or to eating, vomiting, or the production of various communicative-grimaces, smiling being but one.

She's not vomiting. Nor is she eating.

She's definitely making communicative grimaces. Is she communicating with a mental illness--itself as hypothetical as the alleged cellphone--or with another entity via something being held to her head in the general area of her ear?

She is, however, making communicative-grimaces, not the least of which is the surprise she clearly exhibits when she realizes that she's in the camera's field as she's making facial grimaces while clutching something in her hand at the side of her head (a pose which is commonplace nowadays, and generally--in theory and in practice--linked to the useage of a CELLPHONE as one walks down the street.

3.3 Is there something in her hand? I dont know. The images are not clear enough. Even if there is something in her hand you surely cannot say it is a device.

Equally, and just as surely, you cannot say that it isn't a device.

Whatever it is, it's smaller than a bread-box.

4. Her hand is not positioned they way a normal person grasps a cell phone while it is in use.

Indeed? It looks remarkably standard to me. And I suspect that the majority of cellphone users have, at one time or another, held their cellphones EXACTLY as that person appears to be doing...not at all a non-standard or gymnastic poise of the hand to the head. Quite the contrary.

5. Whether it is a man or a woman is irrelevant. Irrelevant data used to cloud the issue.

I agree it's irrelevant data.

But I disagree that it's in any way STRONG enough to have been purposively introduced to cloud the data surrounding the issue. It's a puerile observation, probably attesting more to an aspect of the psychology of the presenter than to any purposeful introduction to "cloud the issue".

Also, the REPEATED closeups and reruns of the person focused almost entirely upon the head/hands/face without comment regarding specific morphology. There was no attempt to cloud the issue thru distraction due to the mention of possible gender-confusion. It was a subsidiary observation made by the presenter, perhaps more indicative of an aspect of his psychology than pertinent to the fact.

6. The surprised look on her face. So what? You would be surprised too if you realized someone was filming you.

The surprised look and the moment of it's exhibition is significant for several reasons.

It strongly indicates that the person was not an EXTRA OR STAGEHAND associated with the filming of the piece. (They might well know or expect that filming would be underway if they were associated with the production, no?)

The surprise look indicates both dawning realization of the filming, as the person momentarily rises from the distraction of whatever is going on with their hand. The facial grimaces before this moment of realization indicate a strong probability of communication, either with oneself, or with someone absent but communicating through whatever may be clutched in the hand.

i think the device could be some sort of teleportation or time machine, think about it,, a hand held time machine, voice operated. .....

Didn't they have those pocket radios back than?
She/He could be listening to their favorite song and singing to it.

didnt the first cell phones debute on the original startrek series they even fliped open like my razor does??? so i guess capt kirk was a real person oh i amaze myself sometimes.

It´s one of these guys.... [link to www.youtube.com]

it`s obvious that she`s loony

"My only theory - as well as many others - is simple... a time traveler on a mobile phone."


Simple?

"My only theory - as well as many others - is simple... a time traveler on a mobile phone."


Simple?

"Simple" doesn't necessarily equate to "fallacious".

shes talking on her early model farnsworth

Plus if this lady comes from a time when time travel is so frequent that out of shape old ladies can scoot back to the 20's then how come she's carrying a phone that big?

how could he be on a mobile phone in 1928 when there is no infastructure no cell towers no satellites absoultuely no service provider and absoulutely no computer infastrucutre to support its operation.

how could he be on a mobile phone in 1928 when there is no infastructure no cell towers no satellites absoultuely no service provider and absoulutely no computer infastrucutre to support its operation.



Maybe its not a Cell phone as we know them? We all use our ears to hear, so perhaps its another type of communications device that is the same size as a phone.