Chaplin's Time Traveller

[lazarusty]

Question: If it isn't a cell phone the old man or woman is talking into, then what is it?

[BertL]

What makes you think she's talking into whatever she's holding in her hand? What makes you think she is holding something in her hand?

[lazarusty]

Ummm...did you not SEE the video? What do you think he or she is doing then?

[laurel]

I see a hand next to an ear. I don't see a cell phone. And someone opening and closing their mouth doesn't necessarily indicate speech.

[gillianren]

If you can't tell if it's a man or a woman, how can you be expected to tell what that person does or does not have in their hand?

[lazarusty]

Well, my opinion it looks like a man in drag. I would guess that they were short of old women extras and asked an old man to dress up. So the next question is...what's he doing with his hand to his ear? Then, why are his lips moving? And finally, why does he turn to the camera at the end?

I would say that final action might be why this is an outtake and was not included in the actual film.

[LunarOrbit]

Siemens Hearing Instruments, circa 1924

For a while, the carbon amplifier patented by Siemens played a major role in hearing aid technology and significantly raised the volume of hearing aids.

The electrical energy controlled by the carbon microphone was not fed to the receiver directly. It first drove the diaphragm of an electromagnetic system connected to a carbon-granule chamber. Current was transmitted across this chamber from the vibrating diaphragm electrode to the fixed electrode plate.

The amplified current produced mechanical vibrations in the electromagnetic hearing diaphragm that were then transmitted to the ear as sound.

I wonder why some people, when they encounter something they can't explain, jump to the conclusion that it must be the absolute least likely possibility (like UFOs, time travelers, or ghosts)?

Here's a paradox for you Rusty. A time traveler shouldn't be able to make a mistake that big. She's famous now so she'd know about the camera before she traveled in time... but if she knew about the camera she wouldn't have walked in front of it... but then she wouldn't be famous and wouldn't have known about the camera... oh, great, now I have a headache.

[lazarusty]

Unless the time traveller died BEFORE she became famous.

Suppose she was part of a secret technology time travel experiment and went back from the year 2000 say. She's reporting via a cell phone that connects with her real present, and gets mischevious in front of the camera. When she returns, she dies later or soon afterwards. Maybe there are even fatal side effects to time travel that take a toll on the body. So she has no idea the effect she was going to have, or maybe she had a playful hope that she might somehow affect the future.

If you went back in time, could you resist the temptation to be a little mischevious? I wouldn't. I think I'd have some fun with it all.

[gillianren]

Oct 29, 2010 1:32:08 GMT -4 @lazarusty said:

Well, my opinion it looks like a man in drag. I would guess that they were short of old women extras and asked an old man to dress up.

Wow. You really don't know much about movie-making in the 1920s, do you?

[Ian Pearse]

I laughed when I first heard this Time Travel idea. My instant reaction was "who on Earth is she going to be calling?" Who else, in 1928, is going to have a mobile? Where is the mobile phone infrastructure required to make the things work? I haven't seen the video yet, it's blocked by our company firewall, but I will have a look later. Is the woman adjusting her hair? Getting an earring properly seated? Maybe she has an itch?

[echnaton]

So he can't explain it and the audience he badgered for a half an hour can't explain it, so let all assume it is a time traveler? He suffers from an over active imagination and an incredible lack of willingness to research his own questions.

[theteacher]

Oct 29, 2010 0:28:59 GMT -4 @lazarusty said:

Question: If it isn't a cell phone the old man or woman is talking into, then what is it?

It might be as simple as viral marketing:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_marketing
It's been watched by nearly 3 million and counting with accelerating numbers. Quite intelligent in fact.
And your reaction to it illustrates why a testimony from an eyewitness is often useless in a courtroom.

ETA: But maybe you are his accomplice? :-)

[Ian Pearse]

I can't shake the conviction that this is a stunt. The footage has been doctored using CGI to add the figure specifically to use as a vehicle to get this chap's company in the public eye. He starts off by introducing himself and his company and the work it does, and is posing in front of a poster advertising a film. Does anyone have access to an older copy of that Chaplin film and can have a look?

[BertL]

Oct 30, 2010 6:11:17 GMT -4 Ian Pearse said:

I can't shake the conviction that this is a stunt. The footage has been doctored using CGI to add the figure specifically to use as a vehicle to get this chap's company in the public eye. He starts off by introducing himself and his company and the work it does, and is posing in front of a poster advertising a film. Does anyone have access to an older copy of that Chaplin film and can have a look?

Here is (apparently) a clip of the original premiere footage.



Mind you, it was uploaded 3 days afer the original Time Traveller video (which I haven't watched myself), so it might be in on the conspiracy.

[carpediem]

DEBUNKED:
www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1028/Charlie-Chaplin-time-traveler-debunked-It-s-just-a-hearing-aid