Slashdot Mirror


1928 Time Traveler Caught On Film?

Many of you have submitted a story about Irish filmmaker George Clarke, who claims to have found a person using a cellphone in the "unused footage" section of the DVD The Circus, a Charlie Chaplin movie filmed in 1928. To me the bigger mystery is how someone who appears to be the offspring of Ram-Man and The Penguin got into a movie in the first place, especially if they were talking to a little metal box on set. Watch the video and decide for yourself.

685 comments

  1. OK, I'll bite. by ThoughtMonster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who was she talking to? (considering the lack of cell-phone towers)

    Ugh.

    1. Re:OK, I'll bite. by nasta · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Yeah, that struck me as well. Where are all the cell towers?

    2. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe it's a satellite-phone...

    3. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously she must be connected though the time vortex to the phone network of her original time. She probably just told her mom that she saw Charlie Chaplin.

    4. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Bitch-Face+Jones · · Score: 1

      Well, back then everything that anyone said showed up on these big title cards, so the lack of a cell phone tower shouldn't have been a problem.

    5. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Doctor?

    6. Re:OK, I'll bite. by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it was one of those Nextel phones with the walky-talky feature? Clearly, we have either discovered an irresponsible time traveler, or that George is a raving crackpot and desperate for attention during these uncertain times.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    7. Re:OK, I'll bite. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Imagine the roaming charges on that call...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    8. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe it's a sat phone, like an Iridium phone?

      Either way, the roaming charges have got to be a royal bitch...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    9. Re:OK, I'll bite. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We totally need an 'Ahead of its time' moderation!

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    10. Re:OK, I'll bite. by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Nah. The caller just bought a couple penny stocks and used the proceeds to buy Verizon today.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    11. Re:OK, I'll bite. by ELitwin · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you can pretend that the technology for time travel actually exists in the distant future, then can't you pretend that the the technology for a communication device would be vastly different and not need cell-phone towers?

    12. Re:OK, I'll bite. by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Who was she talking to? (considering the lack of cell-phone towers)

      Ugh.

      It is entirely possible that the time travelling 'ship' could serve as a tower for this purpose. It could be relaying communications to her home time or to a fellow traveler.

    13. Re:OK, I'll bite. by mea37 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe it's not a cell phone as we know it. Maybe it allows communication through time. Maybe it isn't about time travel at all, but was an alien communicating with the mother ship.

      Or maybe the story is bs, and either the video was manipulated, you're not seeing what you think you see, or the guy was immitating "talking on a phone" with a small, boxy object that happened to be in reach (either for reasons you'd have to be in his converation to know, or because he's nuts). For that matter, maybe he was holding something cold to a bruise on the side of his head while takling to the person next to him.

      Even for Idle this is silly.

    14. Re:OK, I'll bite. by alen · · Score: 1

      a spaceship in orbit? like when kirk took the enterprise back in time and talked to spock while on earth of the 1960's

    15. Re:OK, I'll bite. by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      or the guy was immitating "talking on a phone" with a small, boxy object that happened to be in reach

      Wasn't the speaker separate from the receiver back then? Miming a phone conversation would have required both hands, if so.

      This is fun.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    16. Re:OK, I'll bite. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Probably Verizon, since by 2042 they'll have the best temporal coverage of any of the major providers. Their 3022G network isn't the fastest though.

    17. Re:OK, I'll bite. by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe we shouldn't pretend the need to hold a brick to your head either, especially in a society that would tend to notice that anomaly.

    18. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Littleman_TAMU · · Score: 1

      the technology for a communication device would be vastly different

      So why's she talking on a fairly large, conspicuous headset and not a small hidden device?

    19. Re:OK, I'll bite. by drpimp · · Score: 1

      And how come no hands free either?

      --
      -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
    20. Re:OK, I'll bite. by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      That is actually what he is talking about.

      He is telling his friend "hey, why don't we put the speaker and the microphone together on one piece like this" and the reason the footage was not used is due to the ensuing cheers of ingenuity that followed.

      --
      Bottles.
    21. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Nextel walky-talky still needs a cell tower ... how else could they work over hundreds of miles on a few milliwatts?

      To me it looks like someone holding their collar up to hide their face, who stops in-frame to look at the camera to see if they've gotten out-of-frame yet.

    22. Re:OK, I'll bite. by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Some were, some weren't. Among those that were, sometimes the mouthpiece was built into the base of the phone, so you might or might not use your other hand.

    23. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She was talking to Doc Brown, on her cheap little walkie-talkie.

    24. Re:OK, I'll bite. by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      Who was she talking to? (considering the lack of cell-phone towers)

      Ugh.

      Well obviously, it's not a cellphone, but a communicator. She's talking to her starship in orbit. Duh.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    25. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, she's obviously talking to the future.

    26. Re:OK, I'll bite. by somersault · · Score: 1

      She clearly just wanted to fuck with us!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    27. Re:OK, I'll bite. by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      Why, the ship in orbit of course.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    28. Re:OK, I'll bite. by KUHurdler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No theories? Really?
      Looks like shes shielding her face from the camera or trying to hold her hat on

      there's 2.

      --
      Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
    29. Re:OK, I'll bite. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The TARDIS, of course.

    30. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Youngbull · · Score: 1

      Aliens...

    31. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they are using a femtocell

    32. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Bezultek · · Score: 1

      Given the weird way in which she disappears, she's obviously asking Scotty to beam her up.

    33. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Third+Position · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There seem to be a lot of these cropping up lately. The other day I came across this picture.

      Something tells me this is going to be a new fad, like listening to records backwards to hear hidden messages. "Can You Find the Time Traveler in This Picture?".

      Hell, maybe it'll even become a game show.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    34. Re:OK, I'll bite. by modecx · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, I've always thought that a people capable of time travel would also develop what I see as final evolution of the cell phone: C.A.C.T.U.S. (Colonic Audio Conduction Technology, Ultimately Sadomasochistic), an inter-chronologic audio communication device, in convenient suppository form. It vibrates your colon such a manner that sound waves travel up your spine, resonating the inner ear. It is, unfortunately, quite uncomfortable to wear.

      We all know from the Terminator movies that inorganic materials aren't compatible with the time-matrix anomaly--unless they're wrapped in flesh. So, there you go. Billions of future humans are destined to ram CACTUSs up their asses.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    35. Re:OK, I'll bite. by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      Not to mention she's using her left hand. Cell phones can't even get reception now if you hold them in your left hand. They probably can't get a signal across that vast a timespace distance lefthanded.

    36. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who was she talking to?

      Billie Piper.

    37. Re:OK, I'll bite. by alienzed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Assuming trime travel is the issue here, does someone who can make a time travel machine need cell towers?

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    38. Re:OK, I'll bite. by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who was she talking to? (considering the lack of cell-phone towers)

      Ugh.

      Of all the reasons to suspect that this is not a time traveller, that is the dumbest one.

      First of all, cell-phone towers are not required for mobile communications. They are required for one particular kind of mobile communication that is widespread now, but there is no reason to believe that a time traveller would be using that particular kind of mobile communication. She could be using something akin to a walkie-talkie, which is point to point, and is being used to communicate to someone else nearby (or not nearby--she could get away with a very high power walkie-talkie without drawing attention to herself in 1928, it is not like now where it would quickly draw the attention of the FCC). Or she could be using something akin to pre-cell mobile phones, which had one base station serving a large area, with the base station at the time traveller's 1928 base location (surely you are not assuming that there is a single time traveller?).

      All of the above suggestions are realizable with technology we already have (and in fact is readily available). It is also reasonable that if someone has time travel, they have communication technology we don't have--such as mobile phones that communicate through time, so she could be talking to someone in the future or past.

    39. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      Maybe she was calling her alien friends for lunch. I hope they like soup.

      /TMBG: Nine Bowls of Soup
      //arranged in very special array.

    40. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if you read the lips of the caller you can just make out "Kirk to Enterpise, one to beam up. Get me outa this nuthouse."

    41. Re:OK, I'll bite. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Looks pretty clear to me that *something* is in her hand and she's talking.

      Could be portable music box maybe? pretty sure those things existed back then.

      Shielding her face is quite reasonable but she doesn't seem even aware of the camera so not sure if that's it. Shielding herself from something/someone else perhaps?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    42. Re:OK, I'll bite. by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can you hear me now?

      --
    43. Re:OK, I'll bite. by d3ac0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is something in her hand. And the object in her hand is...

      An early model Siemens hearing aid. While they gave a great boost in hearing quality, they tended to have feedback whine issues. You may notice that the person's mouth doesn't move until right at the end. Likely she is reacting to a feedback, possibly caused by someone yelling at her to "GET OUT OF THE SHOT YOU OLD BAG!"

      So despite all the hullaballo, it's just an ugly old lady with a hearing aid. Yeah, they had them then too.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    44. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who was she talking to?

      Hello, your auto warranty is about to expire...

    45. Re:OK, I'll bite. by kungfugleek · · Score: 5, Funny

      Given that it's a time traveler, I'd say, "Can you hear me then?

    46. Re:OK, I'll bite. by m2shariy · · Score: 1

      That's time-travel cell phone, it uses cell towers in the future, silly!

    47. Re:OK, I'll bite. by hahn · · Score: 1

      Adjusted for inflation? A penny or two?

      --
      "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
    48. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that Time Travel is impossible.

    49. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alien... satellite... UFO... ?... Profit!

    50. Re:OK, I'll bite. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      I was kind of hoping I'd see some guy dressed in a silver bodysuit ostentatiously waltzing across the screen yakking big 1980's brick phone.

    51. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT WAS ME!! I am the fat old lady who time traveled... please remain from insulting my butch appearance -.-

    52. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Trails · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, it's obvious, it's been fixed with a sonic screwdriver. Universal roaming, you know.

      But I must say the Doctor has really let his standards for Companions slide...

    53. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Hellpop · · Score: 1

      All it takes is a little jiggery-pokery...

      --
      "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
    54. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      the technology for a communication device would be vastly different

      So why's she talking on a fairly large, conspicuous headset and not a small hidden device?

      Maybe she didn't want to get locked into another contract?

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    55. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice one! even had a picture of a guy holding it like the woman in the movie.

    56. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      I think if you read the lips of the caller you can just make out "Kirk to Enterpise, one to beam up. Get me outa this nuthouse."

      Nah, he's not calling for a beam-up, he's calling for a crate of heaters to be beamed down. He wants a piece of the action!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    57. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Sigh. It's a communicator, not a cell phone. She's communicating with the Enterprise. All of you asking about cell phone towers in this thread, TURN IN YOUR GEEK CARDS NOW!!!

    58. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Rhaban · · Score: 1

      It works for the Doctor.

    59. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably, if one has obtained the ability to violate the known laws of physics and physically travel back in time (For a Charlie Chaplin film? Really?) and return home safely, transmission of communication signals should not pose a significant problem.

    60. Re:OK, I'll bite. by kellyb9 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine the roaming charges on that call...

      GREAT SCOTT!

    61. Re:OK, I'll bite. by nomorecwrd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Many people (specially singers and actors) cover their ears to "hear themselves"

      Why is she doing that for a silent movie escapes me.

    62. Re:OK, I'll bite. by axedog · · Score: 1

      Who was she talking to? (considering the lack of cell-phone towers)

      Ugh.

      Never mind the lack of cell-phone towers - sound hadn't even been invented back then!

      --
      Sent from my Tianhe-2 (MilkyWay-2).
    63. Re:OK, I'll bite. by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      I'll toss in another - she could be chuckling at or singing-along-with a music box...

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    64. Re:OK, I'll bite. by maliqua · · Score: 1

      So the idea of a cell phone being able to call the future is less ridiculous than the fact that there is a time traveller there in the first place?

    65. Re:OK, I'll bite. by VanGarrett · · Score: 3, Funny

      This person has a goddamned time machine, and you automatically assume that her cellphone also requires a tower to get a signal?

    66. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMFG the White iPhone!!! HOW?!?!

    67. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hang on, I'll go ask her......

    68. Re:OK, I'll bite. by antdude · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed reading and looking at the history like those pre-1900s ones. I wonder if there more details and photographs/photos. of them.

      I have been wearing an analog bone conduction hearing aid (380p model I think from Oticon) since I was a kid. These types haven't been updated for decades since all newer models are digital and require implants (don't want more surgeries and anything inside my body unless urgent, ugh).

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    69. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Looks like shes shielding her face from the camera or trying to hold her hat on

      How is this insightful? It looks nothing like that. It looks like someone on their mobile phone.

      However, just because it looks like that, doesn't mean it is that, and I don't for one minute think it is... d3ac0n gave a possible explanation below, or it could just be a crazy talking into a pack of cards.

      Don't say something looks like something it's not just as a kneejerk reaction to it being "impossible". You're desperately trying to explain something you can't with stupid explanations, and that does nothing for those who actually try to explain it, and those who say "don't know", and are entirely valid in their opinion.

    70. Re:OK, I'll bite. by AndGodSed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My wifes grandma, who is in her late eighties, has a hearing aid. She will sometimes talk to herself to "hear" if she has it adjusted properly.

      So there is the reason that the auntie was talking to herself - probably fiddling with her hearing aid to set it properly.

      I am with you on that.

      Now if anyone could explain how she managed to fade into thin air like that as soon as she noticed the camera...

    71. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      What we really need is a moderation for eight minutes of video with only ten interesting seconds in it.

      --
      No sig today...
    72. Re:OK, I'll bite. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Probably something more like here inter-dimensional communicator got borked and she had to pop into the 21st century to get a device capable of being made to work in its stead, then go back in time to get raw elements that have been outlawed for personal possession to make it actually feasible. A lot of common things in the past are outlawed for personal possession or you need to jump through hoops to ensure your not a terrorist to access today.

      I know this happened to me once.

    73. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      The cellphone towers are where you'd expect them to be, but in the year 2007. The person she is talking to, is actually a talking dog, in Middle Earth, several millennia earlier.

      After all, if you can time travel, why can't your cellphone signals time travel too? Once you accept ridiculously improbable things, it would be pretty silly to reject other ridiculously improbable things as out-of-hand.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    74. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Heretic2 · · Score: 1

      I hear walkie-talkies don't need towers.

    75. Re:OK, I'll bite. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      That would be "Chesapeake and Potomac (C & P) Telephone Company", you insensitive and anachronistic clod.

          The problem would be to show up with properly dated currency. If you show up with a 2010 currency and try to buy anything, you'd get laughed at, or end up in jail.

          You could set up a nice recursive loop though. Purchase one share, and compound the dividends and interest over 82 years. Go back with that money, and buy more shares. Lather, rinse, repeat, and you'd be primary share holder immediately (well, in quite a few loops, but it would appear to happen instantaneously. Lets not forget about that whole pesky "don't change the timeline" rule. When you (or your trust) ends up being the majority shareholder of every company that survives through 2010. Your decisions on buys and sells would make or break a company. "JWSmythe Industries bought their stock? BUY BUY!"

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    76. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Definitely a possibility - in 1929 (one year after the film) a company importing and installing Siemens hearing aids in the US forked off Sonotone to develop their own hearing aids (and the Sonotones looked a LOT like cell phones), so it seems a no-brainer to assume they were importing them prior to 1928 when the film was shot.

    77. Re:OK, I'll bite. by galvanash · · Score: 1

      Hey! No fair!!!

      This is slashdot you insensitive clod...

      Shame on you for posting a theory that perfectly explains the perceived anomaly - you have dashed the hopes of millions. Please turn in your geek card NOW!

      --
      - sigs are stupid
    78. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Smauler · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Seriously, whoosh...

      The Premise : Someone has time travelled back to 1928 and is inadventertly filmed using their "mobile phone - like" communications device.
      The Refutation : There wasn't a mobile phone network back then.

      Really? You're taking this seriously?

    79. Re:OK, I'll bite. by greyline · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty elaborate setup for what amounts to a butt joke.

    80. Re:OK, I'll bite. by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      I don't think that we can determine if there actually -is- anything in his/her hand. Take a walk around a city sometime and you'll see plenty of loonies holding the sides of their heads, talking back to the voices they 'hear' inside their mind. I'm guessing schizophrenia manifested itself the same way back then as it does now.

      Hell, there could have been a loud noise nearby. I make that move when an ambulance passes by.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    81. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Funny

      THEY HAVE A TIME MACHINE.

      They could get jobs at Siemens in the past and "develop" just such a hearing aid. Then it's a simple matter of vetting the ads until they get one that's juuust right.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    82. Re:OK, I'll bite. by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      http://hearing.siemens.com/ca/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924

      Nope, those things were much larger than what she had in her hand. They were more like small briefcases.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    83. Re:OK, I'll bite. by green1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      while this is actually irrelevant to this particular issue, as it's obviously not a cell phone, a quick explanation of some of those "walkie-talkie" phones.
      specifically some of the iDen phones, some of the models can in fact talk direct from one to the other in the absence of a cell tower, and yet still route the conversation through a cell tower when available.

      I've seen some of these phones in use by TELUS's "safety net" group (speciallizing in disaster communications), for example during a hurricane in the US a few years ago, while all communication was out, they shipped a couple of crates of these phones along with the first responding emergency workers coming from Canada to help, they then sent one of their SatCOLTs (Satellite Cellular On Light Truck) down to provide a cell tower. The phones worked properly between each other over short range, and once the truck got there the phones immediately picked up on it and were able to connect to the rest of the world. Rather a cool technology really.

    84. Re:OK, I'll bite. by green1 · · Score: 1

      and if there were no cell towers back then, what makes you think the iridium satellite constelation was up and working?

    85. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      For those who haven't watched it, it's a distance shot. The person is clearly talking, and has his/her hand in a very familiar phone position. Compelling evidence? Not really.

      I suppose that any time traveler would be actively avoiding paradox creating interaction. That would mean that they would need to avoid major historical events. When compared to all of history, a Charlie Chaplin movie premiere would probably be pretty safe.

      As far as cell towers go, anyone with sufficient technology to time-travel might very well have sufficient technology to communicate through time. Or, might be equally likely to bring a short range walkie talkie to communicate with traveling companions waiting back at the time machine.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    86. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you travel back in time to be in an old movie...and it doesn't make it into the movie? Seems like you'd pick a scene that would be IN the movie, since you came back TO BE IN THE MOVIE.

    87. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Kyle Reese: I don't know! I didn't build the fucking thing!

      If you can transmit matter through time, why not radio waves? ...and would a Time Phone have wires?

      I mean really.

    88. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, no bluetooth headset?

    89. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she's ringing up the guy walking in front of her, who can clearly be seen to take his ringing cell phone out of his pocket.

      now seriously, this can be anything. just ask my lawyer when the police stops me arguing that i was driving while talking on the cell phone, which is prohibited over here. maybe the lady has an aching tooth or two. maybe she can't stop laughing and doesn't want to spoil the take like she had been doing the ones before. maybe she's scratching her face. maybe it's a gesture of uncertainty.

      maybe it can be explained by the context of the film? did our scientist do that in his report (which was tl;dw)?

      .~.

    90. Re:OK, I'll bite. by kriston · · Score: 1

      First, who takes a video of a computer monitor?

      Second, she obviously has a toothache, which were more common than cell phones without any signals.

      --

      Kriston

    91. Re:OK, I'll bite. by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Doctor Who? He used his sonic screwdriver to give his companions unlimited roaming

    92. Re:OK, I'll bite. by bunratty · · Score: 1

      It must have been a Star Trek communicator. Maybe she was talking to Lt. Uhura?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    93. Re:OK, I'll bite. by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      The signal travels time too of course!

    94. Re:OK, I'll bite. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's nothing compared to the temporal charges

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    95. Re:OK, I'll bite. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      really? A time shift mother ship falls under the realm of 'entirely possible"? seriously?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    96. Re:OK, I'll bite. by FriendlyPrimate · · Score: 2, Funny

      How the heck did you figure that out? Only someone from that time period could have known that it was a hearing aid. Hrm...

    97. Re:OK, I'll bite. by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      really? A time shift mother ship falls under the realm of 'entirely possible"? seriously?

      Yep.

      In which manner would this not be possible? We're already taking for granted that the device is a cell phone, because we're trying to debunk that it would work. So wherein it is a cell phone, supporting technology could likewise have been brought back, clearly.

    98. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's a time traveler with a small hand held two way radio, instead of a cell phone. No cell tower would be needed for communication directly from radio to radio.

      What he is holding would be about the size of the typical small dual band, hand held, 2 meter/70 cm radios that ham radio operators use. The 2 m/ 70 cm hand held radios are much smaller than the ham's large HF radios with the huge antennas, which they use for communicating on the shortwave bands over hundreds or thousands of miles.

      Perhaps two hams from the future picked up a radio signal on a medium wave or short wave radio band from 1928. Then perhaps, using each of their directional antennas, they pinpointed where the signal was coming from. Then maybe they discovered a very small wormhole between 1928 and the future. Then perhaps, they got too close to the worm hole and accidentally fell through the wormhole back into the past in 1928. For a few hours after that, several of their local ham friends from the future were able to communicate with them through the wormhole, until it shrank to pinhole size and then eventually disappeared. Those several hams who remained in the future, probably discussed the unusual event at the next local ham radio club meeting.

      Fortunately, the two hams stuck in the past each had their 2 meter / 70 cm radio attached to their belt. They then probably decided to use the FM mode on the 70 cm band, assuming that no one back in 1928, would have the technology to listen in on an FM transmission on such a high frequency. Hopefully, they brought along a battery charger, or were able to build an appropriate battery charger.

      If they ended up in a nearby time line, perhaps they made some good investment decisions, based on their knowledge of events from their similar time line. They probably left a letter addressed to their ham friends from the future, with instructions to not open the letter until a certain year.

      On the other hand, a more likely alternative explanation would be that the guy in the photo is just holding some ice to reduce swelling, where he hit his head on something.

    99. Re:OK, I'll bite. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Is this it? if so, I say case closed:

      http://www.roger-russell.com/sonopg/soha40a.jpg

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    100. Re:OK, I'll bite. by doomcup · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, the Doctor's companion got away from him again. He's got to stop letting them take their phones with them when they leave the TARDIS.

    101. Re:OK, I'll bite. by nlawalker · · Score: 1

      No shit; everyone assumes it's a time traveler from 2010 with 2010 technology just because the footage was discovered recently.

      It's obviously a hearing aid, but from the perspective of "it might be a time traveler," for all we know it's someone from the year 30,000 with a radio that transmits and receives time-traveling transmissions.

    102. Re:OK, I'll bite. by nizo · · Score: 1

      It was going to be in the movie, but they decided to cut it since some crazy lady walked across the scene pretending to talk into a metal box.

    103. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Nabeel_co · · Score: 1

      Siemens carbon hearing aid.
      Is this really a story on slashdot?! Screw this, I'm going to reddit.

    104. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but in the 20s they would be at least the size of a very large suit case.

    105. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who was she talking to? (considering the lack of cell-phone towers)

      Ugh.

      The doctor just used some jiggery pokery to make it work anwhere anytime.

    106. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only shitty crApple phones don't work holding them in your left hand.

    107. Re:OK, I'll bite. by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Perhaps cell signals work across dimensionally folded time.
      It must be a phone from the future as time travel and cell phones that work across town haven't been invented yet.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    108. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Teancum · · Score: 1

      If you are going back in time, at least to America, gold is a good universal exchange medium. The only time you really have to worry about gold being a major issue is between the Franklin Roosevelt era and the Carter era, when owning gold was considered illegal except for small quantities for jewelry and perhaps electronics.

      Going back in time 82 years? A few gold coins weighing 1 troy ounce each would be very much welcomed. Then again, you would have to ask how many gold coins it would take to buy enough shares of stock to make a difference.

      If you subscribe to the theory that going back in time actually takes you to a "parallel universe" which is similar but not exactly the same as our own universe, you don't have to worry about the grandfather paradox. Killing your own grandpa will only mean that you won't be born in that alternate universe. That could have some significant impact upon world events, but causality wouldn't necessarily be violated. You could even go "looping" back to another very similar universe with your billions that you got from investing in Apple Computer & Microsoft back when they IPO'd.

    109. Re:OK, I'll bite. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Now if anyone could explain how she managed to fade into thin air like that as soon as she noticed the camera..."

      I can read lips, just before 'she' vanishes she says; "Beam me up Scotty, this disguise is embarrasing."

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    110. Re:OK, I'll bite. by teslafreak · · Score: 1

      Why are so many people suggesting that a sat phone is possible? Much like the lack of cell towers, there weren't satellites for that in that time period either.

    111. Re:OK, I'll bite. by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Interesting

          What I'd be curious about is to do the math and figure out if it would be cost effective, accounting for inflation.

          According to the National Mining Association, in 1928, 1 troy ounce was $20.66. In 2008, it was $871.96. Today it was trading at $1343.32. Would it be financially wise to buy gold at $1343? Adjusting for inflation, what can be purchased now for $1343 would cost approximately $108.22 in 1928. Since the loss would be a net gain over time (82 years, as we're presuming), it wouldn't matter much.

          But there is the power aspect of it. What if you had a controlling interest in major industry (manufacturing of all sorts, including automotive), technology, and had a controlling or strong interest in every company, which in turn would give you a strong negotiation position with political figures world wide. Political leaders simply won't say no to someone who can honestly say "I have controlling interest in 90% of the business and industry in your [city/state/region/country]. Do what I say, or I will depopulate your entire country and bankrupt you. You will be the king of your kitchen staff, because there won't be anyone left." Greed and corruption falls out of the picture, when corporations aren't fighting against each other, and everyone has open access to everything they need or want. Sorry for the socialist ring to that, it's totally unintentional.

          Imagine every war starting at WWII never happened. No nukes. No cold war. No traumatized (physically and mentally) war veterans. No starving people. No overworked, underpaid slaves in sweat shops.

          That's something the world needs. Rather than letting politicians fight over things, and start wars, things could be settled in a good business manner. Keep the people happy. Happy workers are productive workers. And we could avoid so many things that are obviously not right. The massive pollution that we've spewed from the beginning of the industrial age is senseless, but could be fixed. The same recursive loop that would set the position of power could also bring back technologies from 2010 to 1928, in turn having better technologies to bring back on the next trip.

          Dammit, and I can't find the keys to my time machine. Anyone know how to hot wire a DeLorean?

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    112. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perfect! But wait, maybe the phone is not a "cell phone", but a super advanced "time phone" used to communicate through time and the time travelers are not advanced to 2010 standards and do not have access to EEG Brain Computer Interface devices worn by the REALLY ADVANCED time travelers.

    113. Re:OK, I'll bite. by shugah · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why not, she's got 3000 "anytime" minutes.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    114. Re:OK, I'll bite. by hackus · · Score: 1

      If it is someone simply there to observe, they are _not_ using radio waves to transmit the information, probably not even the electromagnetic spectrum.

      I find it odd too though, that someone is walking around, talking with nobody around them, holding up something to their ear as they speak.

      They are speaking into something. Whoever it is, they do not look like an idiot and are dressed very nicely for the time.

      Which is what you would expect if you want to blend in.

      But, they are also displaying this device in broad day light and talking into it, which I would think a Time Traveler would not want to attract attention.

      The shoes though are_very_ odd. The feet are huge. Very uncharacteristic of a female.
      (Maybe she is from Wisconsin. Our women are corn fed and with plenty of butter. Huge women. Ginourmous. Bigger is beautiful so that is OK.) ;-)

      -Hack

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    115. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Plus people talking to themselves are not all that rare today, and weren't that rare in 1928 either. It's a lot more likely that someone is acting weird, rubbing their cheek or covering their aching ear and muttering to themselves than someone talking on a cell phone at a time it hadn't been invented yet.

    116. Re:OK, I'll bite. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      mod points if I had them

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    117. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's still "Can you hear me now?"

    118. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is something in her hand. And the object in her hand is...

      A Hot Compress

      A Cold Compress

      A piece of her wig that she's trying to hold on to.

      An intriguing McGuffin

      Anyone else want to take a shot at an explanation that's not totally fucking impossible (like time travel)?

    119. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe he didn't manage to use the expression "talking out of their asses" in all that.

    120. Re:OK, I'll bite. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Quit being so anal retentive.

    121. Re:OK, I'll bite. by BananaSlug · · Score: 1

      She was following the preceding gentleman sharing a pace and they appear of a compatible age. Complaining of an earache and stopping suddenly, her companion's pace too quick for comfort. I'd vote for a perforated eardrum which can be painful when draining while walking in particular before the widespread use of Penicillin, attributed to Alexander Fleming that same year.

      Somehow I doubt Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes would have immediately jumped to the notion of extemporaneous behavior, despite Doyle also having been a Science Fiction author.

    122. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, it wasn't. She's a time traveler, and she's talking into a communicator (to her fellow time-travelers, possibly in orbit) that is disguised as an early model Siemens hearing aid. The time traveler is dressed as an ugly old lady to avoid arousing suspicion.

    123. Re:OK, I'll bite. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      "Beam me up Scotty, they don't even have audio in their films yet."

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    124. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was obviously one of Tesla's early beta testers.

      Can ya hear me now? ... now?

    125. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If time travel technology exists in the distant future, then it exists at any point in time, since someone somewhere eventually will travel to the past and at least has the potential to exist at any point in time once it's been developed. And if someone from the future can show up in the past, that means the future exists which means time travel already exists and the distant future is irrelevant. Therefore, time travel is impossible since it would exist all the time and that would be pretty hard to keep secret.

      And some advice to the kids: don't smoke pot. It results in ramblings like the above.

    126. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it wasn't the Doctor at all but the Master in his latest form!

      But why has the Master returned, and why pick a Charlie Chaplain movie?

    127. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who was she talking to? (considering the lack of cell-phone towers)

      Ugh.

      Of all the reasons to suspect that this is not a time traveller, that is the dumbest one.

      It seems like a fine reason to me. Look: Is the bitch using technology of our era or not? If so, then the lack of cellphone towers is an issue. If not, then what reason do we have to think she's using a mobile phone? The people of 2578 can make a mobile communication device that supports trans-temporal operation, but you still have to look like a jackass walking around with one hand stuck to the side of your face?

    128. Re:OK, I'll bite. by samcan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While cell phones over the past twenty years have gotten smaller, obviously they're going to have to get larger to accomodate the temporal circuitry.

    129. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Teancum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is the possibility that whatever changes you might try to make to change history would only backfire and cause many more problems.

      Back in the 1920's there was a very strong pacifists movement including some attempts at very high levels of government to "outlaw war" through treaty and other means. This included naval armament limitations on the major world powers (Germany and Japan got the short end of the stick on these efforts... a lot of good that did) and doing things like the Geneva Convention.

      If you really think you could have done better than some of the best minds and diplomats in the world to stop World War II, I would love to see you try. Assassinating Adolph Hitler right after the Beer Putsch might have helped a little bit, but even that wouldn't necessarily have fixed the problems of the era.

      You might make a small difference on some key thing, and perhaps get some "green" technologies funded and developed a bit earlier if you went back in time, but I think it would be much harder to make a difference even if you tried.

      I'm not saying that an individual can't make a difference, but it often is much harder than it seems and there certainly are social forces at play over history that often need to be resolved... and those methods of getting resolved often aren't pretty either. In going back in time the only advantage you would be able to have is some 20/20 hindsight on some key issues and some foreknowledge of what would be coming. If you read history, many of the crazy ideas you are suggesting were even tried... often by people who were quite wealthy. An easy way to lose money is to invest in something prematurely that is "ahead of its time".

    130. Re:OK, I'll bite. by davidbofinger · · Score: 1

      And if you're talking to someone and they don't say anything for a while, you might ask, "Are you shitting me?"

    131. Re:OK, I'll bite. by beav007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is most likely a Western Electric Model 34A "Audiphone" Carbon Hearing Aid, which was commercially available from 1925. The lady in question was probably talking into it to adjust the volume, or see if it was still working.

      Hooray for the publicity grab!

    132. Re:OK, I'll bite. by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      So they can send a person back in time, but yet can't connect a cell phone signal through said time travel mechanism?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    133. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. But apparently that version is too subtle for slashdot moderators, who need to be hit over the head with a joke repeatedly in order to find it funny.

    134. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      Here is another wild improbable thought that I wanted to add. This is of course assuming that the guy is not just someone holding ice up to where he hit his head.

      As long as they were stuck back in 1928 anyway, perhaps they might have decided to capture some good clear footage of missing scenes from old movies. Many old movies from that time period no longer exist, because the fragile old film has crumbled. In other movies, some portions of the movies have survived, but not other portions. That would explain what a time traveler was doing hanging around while a movie was being filmed. Perhaps he had also brought his small, well disguised, camcorder with him and was secretly capturing the footage.

      Perhaps, every few days, the two time travelers might have tossed a small package, with what they have recorded, back through the wormhole, before it closes for good. In return, their amateur radio operator friends from the future could have tossed some more memory cards for their camcorder back through, to 1928.

      While they were at it, the two guys back in 1928 could have also captured and tossed through a few not yet extinct live male and female specimens of several species of birds and animals which later became extinct.

      I realize that I have let my imagination go a little wild, when the guy in the old photo is probably just holding some ice up against a bump on his head.

    135. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Maestro4k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've always thought that a people capable of time travel would also develop what I see as final evolution of the cell phone: C.A.C.T.U.S. (Colonic Audio Conduction Technology, Ultimately Sadomasochistic), an inter-chronologic audio communication device, in convenient suppository form. It vibrates your colon such a manner that sound waves travel up your spine, resonating the inner ear. It is, unfortunately, quite uncomfortable to wear.

      Not exactly the same thing, but the opening of John Scalzi's The Android's Dream starts out with a guy farting his way into creating an interstellar incident. The aliens communicate among themselves partially with scent and he had a device installed in his colon to allow him to dial up insults and such and have the odors emitted. Hilarious book actually.

    136. Re:OK, I'll bite. by flewp · · Score: 1

      Take a walk around a city sometime and you'll see plenty of loonies holding the sides of their heads, talking back to the voices they 'hear' inside their mind. I'm guessing schizophrenia manifested itself the same way back then as it does now.

      You actually hit on a good point. Schizophrenia manifested itself the same way back then as it does now...and in the future. So clearly, she's a schizophrenic..... FROM THE FUTURE!

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    137. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Yaur · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that it is at least as likely that the lack of time travelers simply means that we will wipe ourselves out before we get around to inventing time travel. Also its possible that there has to be some sort of device at the destination, in which case time travel to any point before time travel was invented would be impossible.

    138. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      and if there were no cell towers back then, what makes you think the iridium satellite constelation was up and working?

      And what makes you think it WASN'T?

      *crazy look in eyes*

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    139. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone remember the John Tittor story? Time_Traveler_0 was his log on name.

    140. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She is talking to the past! Isn't that obvious?

    141. Re:OK, I'll bite. by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Just for a moment, lets postulate that time travel is possible.
      The people who keep a eye on such things, to prevent discovery before it's time, notice that someone has posted on the internet that they have discovered an anachronism.

      Thinking quickly, the agency in question pops back to circa 1926, and creates a hearing aid that makes the best possible use of 1926 technology, and packages it in an appropriate casing. it costs the equivalent of 6 new cars, and is so fragile that the thought of it functioning for more than a few hours is ridiculous, but it's possible. they contact a hearing aid manufacturer, get them to use the device in a couple of advertisements, and Voila! temporal anachronism explained away.

      But it leaves one question; someone had to have been instructed to dig through the brittle yellowing remains of 1920's advertisements to locate this "reasonable explanation"; is that someone actually in the agencies employ, or did they just receive a anonymous tip?

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    142. Re:OK, I'll bite. by bocin · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you've nailed that one....Good call!

    143. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 1

      THIS is the perfect opportunity for someone to use the phrase "When are you?"

      --
      Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
    144. Re:OK, I'll bite. by SudoGhost · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but it looks to me like she's trying to cover her face. The "small black device" I can't see for the life of me, all I see is the shadow of her hand. When she looks over and says something, it's very possible that the director (or whoever) was trying to get her to remove her hand (after all, why show people in a movie if they won't show their faces?)

      But yeah...a cell phone is much more likely.

    145. Re:OK, I'll bite. by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      The Tardis. Duh

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    146. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey maybe she is holding one of these....

      http://hearing.siemens.com/sg/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924

    147. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      asperger's is a son of a bitch ain't it?

    148. Re:OK, I'll bite. by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Doctor gave her an add-on like he did with Rose so that the phone would relay through the TARDIS. It would appear he has fixed its chameleon circuit too (or else it was the Master).

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    149. Re:OK, I'll bite. by jimnorcal · · Score: 1

      The other day I came across this picture.

      That was fun. Kind of like a where's waldo fad. Reminds me of the fad of the guy standing on one of the twin towers with the plane in the background right before it hit then the same guy showing up all over the net just for the fun of it. Now it's time for the Time Travelers Fad. Cool!

    150. Re:OK, I'll bite. by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      The dude walking in front of her. She is using an earphone. What this film needs is a bigger earphone. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qoUwETXaAb0/Sfpx3qpsY0I/AAAAAAAADEw/qZ2KJgIZzrw/s1600-h/bigger-ear-horn.gif

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    151. Re:OK, I'll bite. by bandmassa · · Score: 1

      It's debunkable by considering early carbon mic hearing aids, therapeutic heat packs, you name it.

      --
      "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
    152. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      consider the lack of satellites then?

    153. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever had really bad toothache?

      It hurts like hell - not in your tooth but the jam bone between the back of your mouth and your ear.
      Pressing the effected area hard would help relieve the pain - which would explain why her hand is clenched, and why her face is contorted.

    154. Re:OK, I'll bite. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Take a walk around a city sometime and you'll see plenty of loonies holding the sides of their heads, talking back to the voices

      That's because they're using their mobile phones.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    155. Re:OK, I'll bite. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      multiple *whooshes* for you

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    156. Re:OK, I'll bite. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      http://www.365tomorrows.com/08/10/fleet-of-ages/ about bringing technology back through time.
      http://www.365tomorrows.com/05/31/suspension-of-disbelief/ About time machines as a force for good.

    157. Re:OK, I'll bite. by mewrei · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'm going to be a buzz kill and respond with a non-sarcastic idea, but maybe it was a device that communicates via quantum entanglement. Technically those could communicate without regard to time as well, and entanglement communications is dirt simple compared to the massive effort of time travel.

    158. Re:OK, I'll bite. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that it is at least as likely that the lack of time travelers simply means that we will wipe ourselves out before we get around to inventing time travel. Also its possible that there has to be some sort of device at the destination, in which case time travel to any point before time travel was invented would be impossible.

      I am deeply suspicious that you have such detailed and profound knowledge of time travel. I suspect you must be an alien from another dimension. Or something.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    159. Re:OK, I'll bite. by mewrei · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Ok, I'm going to be a buzz kill and respond with a non-sarcastic idea, but maybe it was a device that communicates via quantum entanglement. Technically those could communicate without regard to time as well, and entanglement communications is dirt simple compared to the massive effort of time travel.

    160. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from the Siemens website, the hearing aid, without the earplug, is plausible, or would be except that the hearing aid has a looped carrying handle at top of it.

      This handle would have appeared at in the video, which it doesn't seem to do so. The video is grainy.

      Most 'hand-held' hearing aids at that time where quite large, about the size of an early cassette walkman, and most used ear plugs. i.e you pointed the carbon microphone towards the person you wanted to hear, and had the ear plug in your ear.

      The video clearly shows the person holding something, and talking at the same time. I think that the hearing aid can be debunked, successfully, from lack of earplugs, carrying handles, as well as her behaviour.

    161. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was there any cell-phone towers?

    162. Re:OK, I'll bite. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          It would have required the whole scenario that suggested. Basically own a controlling interest in every company in the world. :)

          Hitler (Godwin law safe, since it is in the timeline we are discussing) would have an awful hard time fighting a war, if he couldn't buy and sustain the equipment for his miltary. There is historical proof that it his side of the war was close to failure just on the fact they were having a hard time getting fuel for the vehicles. Just as you could prevent a company from doing bad things by crippling it by preventing them from getting raw materials, you can stop a war from happening. If you ordered a stop of distribution for raw weapons materials, and finished products, he would have just been a crazed militant without an army. They're pretty benign without the required support.

          Of course, that would change other things. If WWII never happened, Einstein wouldn't have made it to America. Nuclear technologies would likely have never been invented, so there would have been no nuclear weapons, but it's also likely that nuclear power would have never been invented.

          If WWII never happened, those who died in the war would have survived and some would have reproduced. The timeline would have changed significantly, and the population of the world today wouldn't be the same population as exists now.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    163. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like your magic entanglement speaking box needs some attention

    164. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Muros · · Score: 1

      That was a link to the patent. From another page on the same site:
      "1929 The first portable hearing instrument with amplifying tube, built into a suitcase. With further advancements in amplifier technology, vacuum tubes were used. These permitted high amplification, which meant a distinct improvement in the quality of sound reproduction. The first hearing aids to fit inside a case or lady's handbag were produced in about 1934. However, these were still extremely unwieldy. But miniaturization was also advancing, finally resulting in hearing aids that were small enough to fit into a pocket."
      1928 woild be a little too early it would appear.

    165. Re:OK, I'll bite. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          The Fleet Of Ages story is interesting. That would make for an interesting book or movie. It has so much to explain, that it eluded to in so few words.

          Why did the future become barren? Could it be corrected by eliminating the future tech that had been brought back? Is Earth barren because humanity moved on to a higher plane of existance, or went to colonize the stars? Or was it because a person or group that was to have never existed was created (cure cancer, two patients reproduced, now you have a family tree where it would have simply ended?), who did something disastrous? Did an advancement in technology cause and end to the population (Stargate SG-1 S04E16 or Stargate SG-1 S10E20)? Did the final travel to future Earth simply land at a location that was populated, but is now abandon (i.e., the Manhattan National Forest, rather than the metropolis Manhattan, New York)?

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    166. Re:OK, I'll bite. by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      I don't think that we can determine if there actually -is- anything in his/her hand. Take a walk around a city sometime and you'll see plenty of loonies holding the sides of their heads, talking back to the voices they 'hear' inside their mind. I'm guessing schizophrenia manifested itself the same way back then as it does now.

      Hell, there could have been a loud noise nearby. I make that move when an ambulance passes by.

      And folks with bluetool earpieces look even loonier than the rest of us who still hold our cell phones to our heads

    167. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Who was she talking to? (considering the lack of cell-phone towers)

      Duh, it's a satellite phone.

      Some people are so dumb.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    168. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome Thoughts,

      i will get some Uranium from the Libyans for you man, and by the way, i think is only an advertising trick for sell the video in e-bay/Amazon, remember that CGI allows to do a lot of things, do you remember when Forest Gump meets John F. Kennedy:

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

    169. Re:OK, I'll bite. by poslfit · · Score: 1

      Was anyone else living in a timeline where Siemens didn't make hearing aids in the 1920s until yesterday?

    170. Re:OK, I'll bite. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      I like it (much more than the other one) for its bleakness and because it leaves the details up to your imagination. I think the protagonist is experiencing humanity having destroyed itself, but he might of course be mistaken. I always thought of a parallel to the first nuclear explosion lighting the atmosphere on fire, or to the case if we had used bromoflourocarbons in stead of chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) (by the time we would have noticed something being wrong, we would have released enough to eat away the entire ozone layer, the only thing that saved us was the price of bromine compared to chlorine). We have done incredibly stupid things where we should have known better (see Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000)

    171. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I'm reading: "Mission Control, this is Delphar 7 - my mission is in jeopardy! Destroy the planet! Repeat: DESTROY the planet!!"

    172. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL!

      Mystery cracked.

    173. Re:OK, I'll bite. by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      So you really think that you had to hold a small briefcase up to your ear? If you look at the picture you will see it had an earphone on a wire.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    174. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or will you hear me now.

    175. Re:OK, I'll bite. by duh+P3rf3ss3r · · Score: 1

      All of this is somewhat simplistic speculation. If you'd refused to sell oil to Hitler he'd have been forced to launch for the Caucusus sooner, maybe even before the Western front had been opened. For sure, Hitler burned up a lot of oil before Barbarossa in 1942; oil that he'd have had to take by force if you controlled supplies and refused to sell to him.

      So, after the Anschluss and the taking of Poland, maybe he'd have just rolled on into Russia instead of turning to fight France. If Hitler had gone east first, he'd have pissed off a whole lot fewer people who mattered. The only real reason the Yanks supported the war in Europe at all was because of Britain and France. If it was just a war against Stalin, lots of people would have just figured "Hell, let 'em go at it."

      As for the nuclear program, the Germans had a well developed nuclear program without Einstein. They may have been just months away from developing a full-blown nuclear weapon when the end rained down upon them. If VE Day had been delayed by even a few months, the Germans might well have beaten the US to the bomb.

      Consequently, all the rest of your post about WWII never happening might also be just a fantastical contruction. There are those who have speculated that time is less like an arrow and more like a meandering river, with currents and eddies.

      At the end of the day, though, your post can really be summed up as: "If things had been different, they might not have turned out the same." That's trivially true but the radical departures from the historical timeline are not at all demonstrable by the type of argument you've launched here.

      --
      Give a man a match: warm him for an instant. Douse him in petrol and set him aflame: warm him for the rest of his life.
    176. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOT A CHANCE!!!

      The deminsions, assuming accurate on you link would make the device the size of an envelope.
      Put an envelope to your ear with you first two fingers over the top edge as shown at 6:27 on the video.

      Unless this woMAN is Andre the giant and has 9" hands the object in them is WAY TO SMALL to be what you have suggested.
      There would be at least 2-3 inches - probably 3-4" sticking out the bottom of the hand in front of her face with the grip she has. This would clearly indicate that there was something flat and long (8" is long) is in her hand and against her ear. THe device would cover and obstuct her face.

      This just isn't the case - it's something else.

    177. Re:OK, I'll bite. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Well, if you had a well established controlling interest in all industries world wide, it wouldn't just be an oil supply that you could cut him from. They needed manufacturing or at least raw materials for guns, tanks, uniforms, ammunition, supplies, etc, etc.

          But we could play the what if game all day. I was simply proposing ... well ... I was making fun of TFA. :) .. and so far there has been no real evidence of a Nazi nuclear weapons program. They knew we had one. They wanted one too. It was a race. I've read the rumors and speculation, but in reality no test sites have been found. No remains of the sites required to build such a weapon have been found. No prototype nor anything close to a prototype has been found. There have been a few things vaguely resembling notes, but they're as significant as if I drew a sketch of a saucer shaped UFO, labeled it "Secret US Gov't Space Craft", and gave it to someone else. Sketches don't mean you have a prototype or finished product.

          If you can take that evidence as proof, then we have proof that we're just a few months away from seeing Duke Nukem Forever, and have been for over a decade. :)

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    178. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicely done. I was leaning towards hoax, but I think you're spot on.

    179. Re:OK, I'll bite. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Did you just say... meow?

    180. Re:OK, I'll bite. by serutan · · Score: 1

      She might have just been shielding her eyes from the glare of the sun. I don't really see anything in her hand. It looks like the shadow of her fingers are falling on her face but I see no box-like object.

    181. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, her time boss sitting in the future saw the movie and saw her walking into the shot, so he called he to tell her get out of it and leave no documentary evidence of time travel. She didn't quite get it until way into the shot, so her boss tried calling her again but the number was busy.

    182. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except those hearing aids had an ear piece on a wire. No need to hold it up to their ear.

    183. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is most likely a Western Electric Model 34A "Audiphone" Carbon Hearing Aid, which was commercially available from 1925. The lady in question was probably talking into it to adjust the volume, or see if it was still working.

      Hooray for the publicity grab!

      That hearing aid unit is nearly 8" long and much bulkier than what appears to be in the ladies hand.

    184. Re:OK, I'll bite. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      "Can you hear me NOW?"

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    185. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      film came out in 1923 2 years early for that piece of equipment. Does it scare you to think something we have been told is impossible might actually be possible. Please be skeptical but also be open minded. I mean are you a person who believes in god? if so then look at the comparision of possibility.

    186. Re:OK, I'll bite. by duh+P3rf3ss3r · · Score: 1

      Well, okay. You're right, it's all just fun and games at this point.

      In any case, Einstein was not the issue. Everything that Einstein knew, the Germans knew since it had all been published in readily-available journals. Einstein really had nothing to do with the development of the bomb aside from the theoretical underpinnings, known to the Germans, and a letter he wrote to the POTUS.

      Now, if you had spoken in the same terms of Oppenheimer, I might have said, "Game on!" :-)

      --
      Give a man a match: warm him for an instant. Douse him in petrol and set him aflame: warm him for the rest of his life.
    187. Re:OK, I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah that makes sense....except wheres the microphone that you're assuming shes speaking into? she isn't holding it...if it were 1928 it would be taboo for a woman in the street at a premiere to a) play and expose her hearing aid and b )a def no no to clip something to her fur coat.

  2. Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And uh, what network was this cell phone connecting to? Because you know there's a series of cell towers and satellites that need to be in place for cell phones to work and I don't recall anyone having the foresight to erect such towers in 1928.

    This is such utter drivel. The person in the picture could be scratching his/her head or shielding their ear from a breeze with something (my grandmother does similar things when the wind is strong and she wears a shawl). I don't see a black object, I see two of the fingers around what would be the 'top' of the phone which is uncharacteristically how people hold cell phones. I don't see any shock or expression on the face as they turn it just seems like Clarke is projecting what he wants on the viewer. It could just be a schizophrenic wandering around who is used to shielding their face and mouth when they can't control what they are saying.

    It's ridiculous that time traveling is even suggested, let alone continually reinforced by George Clarke.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow. They really should create a separate section of Slashdot for these ridiculous stories.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      While silly, we can still speculate...

      Nikola Tesla came to mind when you said "tower" - even though his towers were trying to transmit free electricity, Heaven only knows what else he was playing with (a fire in his home/lab had destroyed a shitload of notes and ideas of things he was working on).

      Maybe the era which the time-traveling chick came from doesn't need no stinkin' cell towers. :)

      ...or maybe she's just using something to pick out ear wax. *shrug*.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Zeek40 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, if they can send one person back in time, why couldn't they send all the towers, lines, servers, power plants running them and support staff necessary to operate those phones back?
      Once we master time travel, moving several million tons of copper, steel, electronics, generators, etc. through the time portal should be easy.

      The real question is why is my cell phone bill so high when that film demonstrates that it's obviously 80+ year old technology.

    4. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Abstrackt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow. They really should create a separate section of Slashdot for these ridiculous stories.

      Great idea! Maybe we could even give it a descriptive name like "Idle" so people know to avoid it.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    5. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by mini+me · · Score: 1

      It could be a peer-to-peer phone (i.e. a two way radio), and the person in the video is talking with another time traveller who was also present in that time. Or perhaps the time travel machine acts as its own cell station, relaying the data forward in time. The lack of infrastructure does not really discredit the theory.

    6. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      The lack of infrastructure does not really discredit the theory.

      The theory of it being a cell phone?

      Yes, yes it does.

    7. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Oceanplexian · · Score: 1

      I think we know there weren't cell towers in 1928, but I also don't assume the limits of uninvented technology. If you've invented a time machine it's not unrealistic to think you could have invented a radio that works wherever you are in spacetime. In fact, the latter is probably easier than the former.

    8. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by ColdCuts · · Score: 3, Funny

      Worse would be the cell phone company's charges. The minutes would certianly be billed under a time 'roaming' plan. But worse, they would be instantly overdue, and with interest and late fees accumulating, a 300 year trip to the past with a quick call to brag about your journey would bankrupt the poor traveler.

    9. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      And uh, what network was this cell phone connecting to? Because you know there's a series of cell towers and satellites that need to be in place for cell phones to work and I don't recall anyone having the foresight to erect such towers in 1928.

      Clearly, they were testing for network continuity.

      "Can you hear me now?"

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    10. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they did that, only idiots would read it!

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    11. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      I saw the footage yesterday. It was incredibly grainy, but to me, it looked like she was holding an ice pack (package of meat maybe?) to her jaw. She possibly could have just had a tooth pulled.

      Seriously, a time traveler with a cell phone? This wouldn't have even made sense in the 60s, as the car-phone technology used at the time is not compatable with modern day cells.

    12. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Your explanation makes perfect sense - and I agree that he/she was probably just shielding their ear from the wind. On the other hand, the Time Tourism Council have gone on a wide campaign through all of recorded history to install discrete, nearly undetectable devices to facilitate modern conveniences for the future Time Tourist.

    13. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. Who are these people who seem to willingly stipulate to time travel but then say, 'wireless communications without a cumbersome terrestrial grid of 20th century retransmitters? Never!' Does your suspension of disbelief not work if the relevant object is governed by a two-year plan?

    14. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time travel IS possible. There is one well documented case that I know of, but most people blow it off as a fairy tale.

    15. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by gmb61 · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that somebody who has the technology to travel back in time would be connecting to something as primitive as a cell phone network? Presumably, if they could send people through time then they can send communications through time as well. Such a communications network would make our current cell phone network seem like AM radio.

    16. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're missing the point here. He's getting some great publicity for his movie that he names and shows the poster for at the beginning. Acting like he honestly believes there can be no other answer than that being a mobile phone is just making the clip spread all the faster.

      And there being no phone towers is the first thing you think of when presented with video proof of and actual real-life time traveller? Really? :p

    17. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with this and most claims of the paranormal is that people just don't understand how common coincidences are. The woman in that film is just holding her hand coincidentally like the modern cellphone.

      What's funny is that this was never noticed before because cell phones never looked like that until fairly recently. If it was 1983 then that wouldn't look like a phone at all, it would look like a woman holding her scarf funny because cell phones were twice to three times the size with big honking antennas. Or if it was 2030 it wouldn't look like a phone at all, we'd probably just have them implanted into our bodies.

      This is an old sci-fi trope which I like to call the "unsophisticated sophisticate." A time traveler would of course know not to use a piece of technology like that in public or even possess it, but audiences like the idea of "Aha! I caught the time traveler because I'm smart and the traveler is dumb or careless!" We see this also when aliens step out of their spaceships and die from the common cold or future archeologists can't fathom what a 'car' is or when aliens land and don't know what love is, etc. In other words, conspiracy theories not only exploit of ignorance but more so our vanity. It makes us feel good to "know whats really going on" or feel superior to threatening things. Unfortunately, humans seem drawn to feel good bullshit and sometimes go to war about said bullshit.

    18. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Morky · · Score: 1

      Cell tower? Ever think he could be talking to his crew on the time machine, smart boy? It's clear to me from the video that is exactly what is happening.

    19. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell phone is just the word we have to call whatever the device is. Obviously it would be way more advanced then a "cell phone", but we couldn't possibly know what the technology is called if it hasn't been invented yet.

      It's like in the bible and other historical texts when UFOs and aliens came to visit the Earth. The book of Ezekiel in the bible is a good example. He sees a UFO. But he doesn't describe it as a "rotating hybrid alloy craft with ion propulsion engines, possibly powered by a particle accelerated reactor" because the words didn't exits. He described it using the terms if his time. Bright fire in the sky, with strange moving faces.

      Go back 2000 years ago with a simple light bulb. How would people describe it? They'd probably say it was "fire in bottle" or something.

    20. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by nu1x · · Score: 1

      Obviously, it is not needed.

      Just use the time machine as a relay to communicate with fellow travelers with a portable radio - or just mod a cellphone - bring an ad-hoc tower with you. A tower is just an omnidirectional antenna.

      It's not like there would be any interference. The spectrum is all free and unclaimed.

      --
      I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
    21. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by gznork26 · · Score: 1

      Not Tesla, Farnsworth. According to the time traveler from Westercon 100 that I met at the Seattle Westercon 50 Science Fiction Convention in 1997, Philo T. Farnsworth not only invented TV, but in 1927 he invented the time machine. If you don't believe me, ask Dr. Robert Forward; his grandson from the future was on some of the panels.

      --
      Read my short stories at klurgsheld.wordpress.com

    22. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lack of infrastructure does not really discredit the theory.

      The theory of it being a cell phone?

      Yes, yes it does.

      No, no, it doesn't.

      A cell site is more or less a specialized form of a radio transceiver. It could be (as others have stated) that a single cell site was created along with a time traveler, and that site then transmitted the communications to another time through an unknown means. Technically, several cell sites could have been set up so the user(s) could have some freedom of movement around a particular area.

      You could even set up your own private cellular network now, with money and time.

      So, lack of existing infrastructure in 1928 really means nothing, since we're already assuming the very improbable.

      Carp.

    23. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by qoncept · · Score: 1

      This person is clearly talking on a cell phone. I don't understand your reluctance to accept it. You're obviously the kind of person who thinks the moon landing was faked, too. What you can't see is that this woman is simultaneously receiving cunnilingus from Caligula. Must have swung by 40 (AD) on her way.

      --
      Whale
    24. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Rand+Race · · Score: 1

      Yes, time travelers will almost certainly be limited to early 21st century communications technology.

      Why? Because time travelers are probably pretty stupid. I mean, aside from inventing TIME TRAVEL!!!!!!!!!

      Methinks the Occam's razor argument against this drivel is a wee bit stronger than the "where are the cell towers?" argument here. I can imagine a man from 1928 seeing a picture of what looks like a man holding a phone from, say, 1840 wondering "if he's a time traveler, where's the wire?". Well, if he's traveling from 2010 instead of 1928 ...

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    25. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

      There is also the idea that no one noticed it for 70+ years because it up until now we didn't recognize what it was. In 1983, if we saw that footage,well, we wouldn't really know what was on the film and not give it a second thought. No we've come to a point in time where we recognize what she is doing.

      Imagine for a minute that the lady was talking with sign language. Real internationally know sign language. So let's say/pretend in 1928 we know there was no sign language. Ok, now we pretend sign language was invented until 1990. So 1990 was the first use of sign language.

      Now it's 1983, we see the footage of this lady doing all this weird stuff with her hands. Would we think twice about it? No. We don't know what she is doing. She could be having a seizure for all we know. Maybe she had a bug on her hand, or something sticky and she was trying to get it off. No one would think twice about the footage. Why would they?
      Now in 2010, some one sees the footage. It would be a whole different story, because now we know what technology that looks like she is using. ie. sign language. We could see what she was saying so to speak. So we come to a point in time where we realize she is using something that didn't exist in 1928. Our 1983 selves, would have know way to know she was a time traveler.

    26. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by ChinggisK · · Score: 1

      She's just futzing with something around her ear, either a hearing aid or maybe an earing. When she stops to talk she is either swearing because she can't get whatever it is to adjust right, or telling her husband, the guy walking in front of her, to wait up for a second.

    27. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 1

      agreed,

      the most interesting part about this whole discussion is that people are challenging more the idea of a cell-phone tower in 1928 rather than time traveling itself.

      personally, were i to admit the possibility of time travel, i could just myself believe that she was holding some sort of device that works across time. i mean, come on. if you can carry a physical body across time, how trivial is it to carry an RF signal.

      also, were i to admit time travel, my first thought would be that this is a recorder, much less than a cell phone. tho it could be both.

      and finally, as occam's razor law aptly puts it. all hypotheses being equal (in offering no real truth), the simplest must be true. the (butch) lady could be holding a bandage or warm cloth against her mouth for tooth ache while cursing at her teeth or dentist's availability. (because she is clearly holding something)

      --
      If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
    28. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by nu1x · · Score: 1

      Well documented ?

      I am all ears.

      --
      I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
    29. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      I don't see a black object, I see two of the fingers around what would be the 'top' of the phone which is uncharacteristically how people hold cell phones.

      Well that proves it, then. You can hardly expect someone from 1928 to know how to hold a cell phone.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    30. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Determinator · · Score: 1

      Can you hear me now? ...... GOOD!

    31. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by 2names · · Score: 1

      I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but...what case are you speaking of?

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    32. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 1

      You know mobile networks don't need satellites, do you?

    33. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Good point, but sign language would be unambiguous as we'd see letters, words, meaning, etc. What we have here is highly ambiguous. Its a hand in a certain position. Occam's razor suggests this is just a person holding a showl funny.

      If this video showed a keypad, dialing, etc then it would be comparable to your example, but it doesn't. Its just an artifact that looks kinda sorta like something we use nowadays the same way Christians find Jesus images on potato chips or how a water stain on a bridge near my home is considered a miracle. Its just meaningless simulacrum.

    34. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by webmosher · · Score: 1

      Any future society capable of devising the technology required to time travel into the past is not going to bother with anything as quaint as a cell phone. There are sufficiently capable in-ear devices in use even today that are capable of audio based communication and are much less conspicuous than holding a box to your head. Are we to think that we'll still be slugging around cell phones in our distant future, when sci-fi writers would have us believe that in-eye HUDs will be supplementing our realities? What is the point of toting around technology, when its built right into us?

      Now, I know what you're thinking: BUT Doctor Who replaces the SIM card for each of his companions so they have a time-travelling cell phone. Yes, that's right, but its also because that's what that person's time is comfortable using. Heck, the form of the TARDIS itself is a throwback to this same idea. It was a comfortable icon at the time the series was actually created.

      Now, yes, maybe this time traveler is "lost" and is improvising a makeshift communicator with readily available materials. I mean, that's what Data would do.

    35. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well the network provided by the time traveling company of course. and was dialing the helpline due to delay in traveling back in to the future.

      and she is very angry because the big mega corporation decided to outsource the call center to Mars, and we all know that they are very nice people but we don't understand a word of what they are saying!

    36. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

      I agree it is ambiguous and this footage could be anything.

      But if there really was a time traveler the fact that we didn't recognize it until now would actually be very plausible.

    37. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a riot at parties, aren't you?

      Sheesh.

    38. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by GoatCheez · · Score: 1

      Quantum entangled communication device? Think of a walkie-talkie set, but instead of radio waves each has one of a pair of entangled photons or electrons. How are we to know that the entangled state isn't lost when traveling back in time?

    39. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by nine-times · · Score: 1

      And uh, what network was this cell phone connecting to? Because you know there's a series of cell towers and satellites that need to be in place for cell phones to work and I don't recall anyone having the foresight to erect such towers in 1928.

      The cell phones of the future don't require cell towers.

      oops... I've said too much.

    40. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by plopez · · Score: 1

      Tesla was on the other end of the phone. She was clearly saying "Can you hear me know?"

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    41. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by plopez · · Score: 1

      She was probably saying, "Can you here me now Nikola?"

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    42. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by plopez · · Score: 1

      because in 2012 the human race went extinct.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    43. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by plopez · · Score: 1

      I agree. The tower is obviously in the future. They are testing time traveling cell phones that work across the time jump divide. So you can jump back in time from 2012 to 1928 and talk to someone in 1948. Ow... this is making my head hurt.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    44. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      This is an old sci-fi trope which I like to call the "unsophisticated sophisticate." A time traveler would of course know not to use a piece of technology like that in public or even possess it...

      Why not? Is the universe going to unravel now that we've seen their picture?

      Your making several huge, unjustified assumptions behind that "of course". There's no reason to be certain there would be negative consequences to doing what you say they "of course" would not do, nor is there any reason to presume this particular person would care even if there was, as long as he or she isn't personally affected by them.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    45. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by yotto · · Score: 1

      I see two of the fingers around what would be the 'top' of the phone which is uncharacteristically how people hold cell phones.

      Maybe it's an iPhone

    46. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      In other words, conspiracy theories not only exploit of ignorance but more so our vanity. It makes us feel good to "know whats really going on" or feel superior to threatening things. Unfortunately, humans seem drawn to feel good bullshit and sometimes go to war about said bullshit.

      So, when we eventually invade Iran, it will be because of time traveling cell phone users with bad taste in clothing?

      I'm so confused.

    47. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Cicada7 · · Score: 1

      Alternately, time travelers from far off in the future making their initial runs ( aka 'learning curve' ) may not have enough anthrolopogical data to make an accurate assumption about styles and devices of the time period they entered.
      ---
      In the 20th through early 21st centuries, people carried around large computers equipped with 'radio wave' transmitters, then called 'cellular phones', which allowed them to speak with eachother at a distance. This was of course long before telepathy was perfected and shortly before the advent of the global computing chip insertion process had come to fruition. The 20th century was surely the turn of the tide toward the exponential techonological growth leading toward this golden age!

      For references to this device, please access the global directory tree 'historic communication' or 'historic computation'. It is recommended when collecting props for your venture to maintain a generic yet authentic presence. See the files under 'Android' for examples of common characteristics of these devices.
      ---

    48. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      That was a reference to religious warfare that is crippling the mideast and Africa, as well as a commentary on terrorism justified with religion. Not to mention how often pro-war jingoism is also tied up in religion.

    49. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Any future society capable of devising the technology required to time travel into the past is not going to bother with anything as quaint as a cell phone. There are sufficiently capable in-ear devices in use even today that are capable of audio based communication and are much less conspicuous than holding a box to your head. Are we to think that we'll still be slugging around cell phones in our distant future, when sci-fi writers would have us believe that in-eye HUDs will be supplementing our realities? What is the point of toting around technology, when its built right into us?

      This entire argument collapses due to the unjustified assumption in the first sentence. Unless you are already familiar with the details of time travel technology, you have no basis for the the assumption that a society capable of building it would have already invented in-eye HUDs, in-ear devices, etc. Without knowing how its done, we have no reason to believe the serendipitous discovery that enables it won't happen next week, and the rest of the technology is already in our hands today. We could very well be seeing a time-traveller from the year 2012 who doesn't feel any terrible need for discretion, given we're all going to know it's possible in a few weeks, so who cares if the picture gets noticed in late 2010, a month before the announcement from UChicago/Fermilab or whereever?

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    50. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rule number 1 of slashdot: ANY thread can be twisted into a bash of microsoft. no exceptions.

      Go for it.

    51. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      That was a rant.

      Gotcha.

    52. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Actually people make mistakes all the times. So assuming the time traveler is human, then yes, that CAN make those mistake. Not that I believe this whackoloons premise.

      On top of that, it's a hearing aid. these aid at that time where help to the ear...like a cell phone.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    53. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Anything? the footage could be seven bananas and a bandito?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    54. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because if you are so advanced to possess time travel technology, you are going to be using a 2009 era GSM cell phone (that need cell towers).....

    55. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Myopic · · Score: 1

      1. Yes, this is drivel.
      2. But if the person were from the future, I can certainly imagine their phones working without nearby cell towers. Maybe it's a phone that can transmit through time. What are you saying, that the technology is indistinguishable from magic?

    56. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

      Context.

    57. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Punctuation. I should have ended it with a ~

      I'm a little punchy today.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    58. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by corbettw · · Score: 1

      They should name the section "Microsoft", since it sucks so much (hint: read the GP's sig).

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    59. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

      Context~

      :)

    60. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      And uh, what network was this cell phone connecting to? Because you know there's a series of cell towers and satellites that need to be in place for cell phones to work and I don't recall anyone having the foresight to erect such towers in 1928.

      If she has the tech to travel back in time, then having the tech to set up an ad hoc cell or satellite network would be fairly trivial. For that matter, it might just be direct connect like a walkie talkie with her other time travelers and not need any sort of network.

    61. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      There is also the idea that no one noticed it for 70+ years because it up until now we didn't recognize what it was. In 1983, if we saw that footage,well, we wouldn't really know what was on the film and not give it a second thought. No we've come to a point in time where we recognize what she is doing.
      ...

      Now in 2010, some one sees the footage. It would be a whole different story, because now we know what technology that looks like she is using. ie. sign language. We could see what she was saying so to speak. So we come to a point in time where we realize she is using something that didn't exist in 1928. Our 1983 selves, would have know way to know she was a time traveler.

      Yep. And obviously, if time travel were possible, someone from >2010 would have known about this footage, and gone back in time and prevented her from walking in front of the camera with the phone!

      Er, I mean WILL go back in time... Will have gone..? Will be going to went..? Dang. :-/

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    62. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Teancum · · Score: 1

      This would be a perfect thread to "confess" to being a time traveler. I even thought of trying to come up with a much better "future history" story than "John Titor".

      I figure it isn't worth my time to come up with such a story although it would sure be a whole lot of fun just to see the chain of a bunch of nerds yanked real hard.

    63. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I went back in time I'd want to do disrupt someone's photo by doing something in the background as much as the next guy.

    64. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Because you know there's a series of cell towers and satellites that need to be in place for cell phones to work and I don't recall anyone having the foresight to erect such towers in 1928.

      The Eiffel Tower was erected in 1889. It had a radio transmitter added in 1914 that was used for jamming German radio communication.

      I don't see a black object, I see two of the fingers around what would be the 'top' of the phone which is uncharacteristically how people hold cell phones.

      Maybe it's an iPhone 4.

    65. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shh! If they here you talking about their magic book like that, they'll string you up!

    66. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 1

      k, next time, why dontcha upload some napkins, i just spilled coffee from my nose. and now i am holding my face too because it burns!

      good one tho.

      --
      If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
    67. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by anegg · · Score: 1

      A cellular telephone system is termed cellular (i.e., being made up of cells) because it is designed to have small mobile radio transceivers that operate over a limited range, combined with a large number of small transmission/reception zones called "cells." If a "cell phone" is being used, it would require "cells," which would mean a large number of radio transceiver installations complete with antennas of some sort plus a backhaul capability to link all of the cells together (the backhaul may itself be wired or wireless).

      So its a bit pedantic, but valid to question the use of the term "cell phone" when the cellular infrastructure is highly unlikely to be present. Unless, of course, it is being suggested that in addition to this "time traveler," a complete cellular telephone network has been transported into the past and hidden amongst the natives of that time.

      The principle of Occam's Razor needs to be applied here... the folks that are pointing out that it can't be a cell phone without cell equipment are indirectly pointing out that the assumption that its a cell phone (or even another micro-miniature mobile communications device, possibly using direct satellite reception etc.), while perfectly reasonable and fairly parsimonious for our time, is extremely unlikely for that time as it requires the postulation of ever more complicated scenarios in order to make it work.

      The idea that its either a person shielding their face from the novelty of being recorded or someone using a handheld hearing aid requires far less in the way of assumptions and what have become all-out flights of fancy. Occam's Razor is just a guiding principle and not a strict scientific law, but extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof, and such proof just isn't here.

    68. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Yes. The first thing that leapt to my mind when I saw the footage is that the person is scratching their head with their hand held in a slightly off way. The black around the hand is just shadow. As the person turns round, their hand appears to be moving back and forth a little as if they were... scratching their head.

      I'm scratching my head right now at why so many people are giving this ludicrous time traveler theory some consideration. lol.

    69. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by anegg · · Score: 1

      The argument advanced above seems to assume the existence of that which is supposed to be proven. It is not known that a time machine has been invented - it is being suggested that a time machine must have been invented in order to explain the appearance of someone apparently talking on a cell phone in a 1928 recording, when cell phones were not known to exist. To use the idea that if the time machine exists it would be easy to have a communicator that would work across time/space (remember that the earth, solar system, and even the galaxy are in constant motion and are now far removed from where they were at the moment of that recording in 1928) is assuming the likely impossible to prove the highly improbable, and making a circular argument. The presence of the "cell phone" is being used to claim support for the theory that there is a time machine, not the other way around. The fact that the concept that the person is talking on a cell phone is extremely unlikely makes it virtually useless as any kind of argument in favor of a time machine which is even more unlikely.

    70. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by luciferxe · · Score: 0

      just to point out. one thing is back then they did not need as many towers. second the first cellphones were invented in 1919. as for the network we all know it would have been ma bell. also back then their werent so many radio signals being broadcast so the waves were clearer. meaning you would get good reception at a long distance. i believe they use to use UHF.

    71. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by luciferxe · · Score: 0

      nothing on your blog about it. but you got a hit from me. too bad that doesnt mean anything now. its all about the backlinks

    72. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by luciferxe · · Score: 0

      that is quite rite. back then they used UHF which can travel much further. it could also be her leaving a message for the future to pick up. since radio-waves can last for hundreds of years. i do not know why everyone here thinks cellphones are only digital now. they still use analog in most of the world for talking.

    73. Re:Verizon's Network Was So Terrible in 1928 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This exactly. This is a clear cut case of The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (google it). This no name film maker has just drawn a bullseye over the coincidence ignoring the other 100 holes in his barn door, such as the hearing aid etc.

  3. No carrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine this alleged time traveler's reception must have been terrible

    1. Re:No carrier by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I imagine this alleged time traveler's reception must have been terrible

      The reception is fine. The lag is a bitch though.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:No carrier by flappinbooger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Totally adds a new dimension to the "can you hear me now" bit.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  4. Prime Directive! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    If so he did an awesome job of protecting the continuity of the timeline by not leaving many traces!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    1. Re:Prime Directive! by mea37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you know? Maybe without his involvement the Depression would've played out differently. Maybe he set events in motion that changed the outcome of WWII so that the Allies would win. Could've changed anything or everything; it's not like any of us would "remember" how it was "supposed to be".

      Actually, if he was so open about using anachronistic technology that he got caught on film on a movie set, I'd say he did a pretty piss poor job with the whole 'leaving no trace' thing.

    2. Re:Prime Directive! by psyclone · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not only that, but his disguise was a woman!

    3. Re:Prime Directive! by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Maybe he tried to change the timeline so that the Nazis would win, but failed.

  5. Huh by Markvs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder what network the were using in 1928? Marconi Wireless? (snicker)
    Seriously, this has been in the media for days now. It's almost certainly someone using an old-style hearing aid.

    --
    46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
    1. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a Starfleet communicator from the 22nd century.

    2. Re:Huh by werdnapk · · Score: 1

      Or they're simply covering their face with their hand. Looking at the footage, I see nothing in the persons hand. What looks like something black in the ladies hand is just her hair. Nothing to see here folks.

    3. Re:Huh by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I wonder what network the were using in 1928? Marconi Wireless? (snicker)

      At least texting would only require one key to pound out the morse code. ;)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, she's shielding her eyes from the (probably VERY bright, since film was less sensitive back then) studio lights. If you look at the shadows, that is exactly where the light is coming from. But it's funny nonetheless.

    5. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why a lot of people think it's a hearing aid.

      Why in the world would an old lady speak into her hearing aid? The video shows that she's clearly speaking and there is no nobody near her.

      Can someone please explain that to me?

    6. Re:Huh by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      Yes, she's shielding her eyes from the (probably VERY bright, since film was less sensitive back then) studio lights. If you look at the shadows, that is exactly where the light is coming from. But it's funny nonetheless.

      Indeed. And the shadows are very dark with really well-defined edges, further suggesting very bright light. Now, the narrator says it is from the footage of the Hollywood premiere of the movie at Mann's Chinese Theatre in 1928, so it's probably bright sunlight that she's shielding her eyes from. This being Hollywood, the talking she's doing is probably just practicing lines. We see her turn, look at the camera and then the footage fades to the next shot. I wonder if, immediately after that, this aspiring actress (actor?) approached the camera looking to be "discovered". Pure speculation of course, but more likely than time travel, no?.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    7. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice catch.

      Also...if time travel to the past were even a physical possibility, it would be perfected so far out in the future that cell phones your hold up to your ear would be considered quaint archaic antiques.

    8. Re:Huh by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why a lot of people think it's a hearing aid.

      Why in the world would an old lady speak into her hearing aid? The video shows that she's clearly speaking and there is no nobody near her.

      Can someone please explain that to me?

      Someone mentioned that some people do it to test whether the hearing aid volume is fine.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    9. Re:Huh by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      The Tesla network. She was probably one of Tesla's lab assistants and went out to laugh at the primitive other people with their "moving pictures" while she was busy researching holographic projection and advanced wireless technology. Unfortunately the CIA burned down the lab while she was out and about, and she herself had to destroy the phone prototype before she got caught. Ultimately, she goes on to control the satellite systems of the world using her advanced knowledge of nanotechnology and self-replicating nanobots.

      The world is in good hands.

  6. Looks like a hearing aid. by Shadmere · · Score: 3, Informative

    Obviously it's not clear what kind of aid it is, specifically, but it looks like an old ear trumpet.

    Like this thing.

  7. /. at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On their best day, Slashdot readers would think of cell phone towers. I don't think there are any days this rabble would be intelligent enough to realize that any species or members of humanity from a time traveling society wouldn't need towers for their communication devices. Or would have very rapid means of deploying them from relatively small devices.

    Slashdot reminds me of ignorant atheists who attack creationism on the same logical level that creationists attack atheism on.

    1. Re:/. at its best by X.25 · · Score: 1

      On their best day, Slashdot readers would think of cell phone towers. I don't think there are any days this rabble would be intelligent enough to realize that any species or members of humanity from a time traveling society wouldn't need towers for their communication devices. Or would have very rapid means of deploying them from relatively small devices.

      Slashdot reminds me of ignorant atheists who attack creationism on the same logical level that creationists attack atheism on.

      Ah, right. But while they have all of that, they'd still need to press the thing against their ear, right?

      Right?

    2. Re:/. at its best by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Or would have very rapid means of deploying them from relatively small devices.

      Come on, is there anyone here who hasn't seen the first episode of South Park?

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  8. Not a cell phone. by davev2.0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is an early carbonic (electric) hearing aid.

    1. Re:Not a cell phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IM not defending time travel by any means, but does this device require someone to talk TO it? is that how it works?

    2. Re:Not a cell phone. by ebuck · · Score: 1

      I love how a person can't think of any reasonable alternative so it must be time travel. I mean, this guy can't even be certain if it's a woman or a man (which it's obviously a woman), but he KNOWS it's a cell phone.

  9. Not likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If arbitrary time travel is possible (which I personally highly doubt), by the time our technology advances to that level cell phones will be considered as ancient as the telegraph is today.

    1. Re:Not likely by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Someone might invent such a time machine tomorrow. Reality doesn't have a tech tree like a game, it's very likely that we could develop a few things "out of order". Plus, who is to say that our technology isn't right on the verge of that discovery, it's not like anyone knows the prerequisites for the "breakthrough". Fifty years ago people would've expected us to have fusion reactors, a colony on Mars and android servants by this point, but Google would probably blow their mind. The future has a way of being unpredictable.

    2. Re:Not likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you see it's not a cellphone like we have nowadays. It's some sort of time-crossing or interstellar communication device. That's why it's so big. Their super communications devices are about the same size as our crappy cellphones.

    3. Re:Not likely by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      Yes, to some extent.

      If the form factor is external and held in our hands they will *look* like cell phones, though would be called something else (much as if someone in the 90's saw a blu-ray they would call it a "cd" - not correct but not exactly wrong either). Cell phones have become about as small and thin as is realistically usable by humans (in the early 2000's there were some fairly funny comedic sketches about it) - indeed with smart phones the trend is *larger* phones. There is no reason to think that if we can time travel that we can't have a device that communicates back to our "real" time. There is perfectly good reasons to think that they would look and basically function (with respect t how one holds it and talks into it) like a cell phone. There are many technologies that reach that point, that is where development either has to shift totally away from that (say creating implants - which who knows if they would be popular or not) or to areas that aren't about functionality (say getting rid of the cell towers and moving to something better). My current set of winter clothes is WAY more sophisticated than even something worn ten years ago let alone 150 - yet I'm sure people even 5000 years ago could figure out what they were and how to use them, development was in materials, not functionality.

      There is nothing about what happens that particularly excludes or even makes it unlikely to be a time traveler *in the film* or even given logic assuming time travel is possible. Its just that time travel is, most likely as you say, not going to be possible and even it is then it was still more likely that they either filmed some person a little of their rocker that just happens to be talking into an inert device or it is something we haven't thought of. The person is making that mistake that if the two options are "time traveler" and "I do not know, something else" that means there is a 50/50 chance of either when in reality "I do not know" is orders of magnitude more likely. The person in question certainly looks to be talking on a cell phone, but as stated above there were similar shaped hearing aids there were around then - much more likely something like that than time travel.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
  10. Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Grandma Titor was likely using one of these:

    http://www.hearingaidmuseum.com/gallery/Carbon/WesternElectric/info/westelect34a.htm

    It still doesn't explain why the person she's conversing with is INVISIBLE!!!

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    1. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      We just slashdotted the hearing aid museum...

    2. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by nschubach · · Score: 2, Funny

      They may need some kind of device to filter out the excess noise so people can clearly read the site.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Why the person she's conversing with is invisible? Quick top 3 possibilities:

      1) She's talking to herself
      2) The person is behind her or otherwise out of view
      3) She, and all the extras, are just wandering around chattering to produce the illusion of a background crowd, and it happens she moved into a position where the illusion breaks down if you focus on her

    4. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by amliebsch · · Score: 5, Funny

      4) She's talking to a hologram of a man from her own time that only she can see and hear, as she puts right what once went wrong.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    5. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Um, is that WE 34A user interface prior art for Apple's 'click-wheel' ??

    6. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's probably talking to the man who was walking in front of her. I know when I'm doing something mechanical, while trying to walk and talk, I tend to slow down or stop, then just keep talking (or yelling) to the person I was with as they get farther away.

    7. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by samjam · · Score: 1

      She has a pocket hearing aid, and she said: "Come on, Johnny, keep up or you'll get lost in the crowds"

    8. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by Xiver · · Score: 1

      She's talking to herself and listening to what she sounds like in the device. She probably just purchased it and it was still a novelty to her.

      --
      10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
      20: GOTO 10
    9. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    10. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Wow, and given that she can only travel to times within her own lifetime, she must be frickin' old!

      "Granny Leap" probably wouldn't have done so well in the ratings.

    11. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by md65536 · · Score: 1

      Grandma Titor was likely using one of these:

      http://www.hearingaidmuseum.com/gallery/Carbon/WesternElectric/info/westelect34a.htm

      It still doesn't explain why the person she's conversing with is INVISIBLE!!!

      I've asked a hundred people and nobody could give me an answer. The only reasonable explanation is that the person is a vampire and their image can't be captured on film.

      It still doesn't explain why the time-traveling tranny's vampire friend is NAKED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT!!!

    12. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by TilJ · · Score: 1

      WHAT?

      --
      "The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
    13. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Re 3)

      This is not the movie but people attending the premiere.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    14. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by znerk · · Score: 1

      4) She's talking to a hologram of a man from her own time that only she can see and hear, as she puts right what once went wrong.

      Oh boy.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    15. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

      OH BOY!

    16. Re:Western Electric Hearing Aid ca. 1925 by hardeep1singh · · Score: 1

      Grandma Titor was likely using one of these:

      http://www.hearingaidmuseum.com/gallery/Carbon/WesternElectric/info/westelect34a.htm

      It still doesn't explain why the person she's conversing with is INVISIBLE!!!

      But if she's using this, she'd only have the earplug in her hear and the device in her pocket. She wouldn't keep the whole device next to her ear.

  11. Nice attention for an unknown filmmaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I have to watch all his movies!

  12. Conspiracy theories are for gullible idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is no clear device in the hand. It looks like they're talking to someone in front of them or themselves while holding their hat.

    1. Re:Conspiracy theories are for gullible idiots. by DudeTheMath · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. One finger is clearly above the hat brim, and the next one is below. She's just holding her hat on her head. And, you know, back then people on the street actually talked to one another.

      --
      You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
    2. Re:Conspiracy theories are for gullible idiots. by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      She's telling the guy ahead of her to get the tickets while she powders her nose, extracts her hatpins, and signs the film crew's waiver forms.

    3. Re:Conspiracy theories are for gullible idiots. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      And, you know, back then people on the street actually talked to one another.

      Now that's just crazy-talk... :p

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  13. OCCAM'S RAZOR, MAN by gaspar+ilom · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nuh-uh: "Time traveler w/ cell phone" is the simplest explanation.

    1. Re:OCCAM'S RAZOR, MAN by Macrat · · Score: 1

      Nuh-uh: "Time traveler w/ cell phone" is the simplest explanation.

      Doctor Who does it all the time.

    2. Re:OCCAM'S RAZOR, MAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What blows my mind is he says it can't be a AM or an FM radio because they weren't around in 1920. So the obvious choice is then to assume it's a cell phone? How did you make that jump when a radio was too unreal to be plausible?

    3. Re:OCCAM'S RAZOR, MAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, an alien covering the zipper that holds his face on is the simplest explanation. Duh!

    4. Re:OCCAM'S RAZOR, MAN by dnahelicase · · Score: 1

      Nuh-uh: "Time traveler w/ cell phone" is the simplest explanation.

      This has to be the simplest explanation. Some old lady that isn't a professional time traveler went back and thinks she's in the clear because she looked up the 20th century on the future wikipedia. It said "20th century - Moving pictures, Big War, Internet, Cellular Telephones"

      Since she's most likely going on a time traveling vacation, she thought she was in the norm. She looked up cell phone and it referenced the iPhone. I imagine someone soon corrected her when they asked her why she was talking and she realized her communicator disguised as an iPhone wasn't yet "hip".

  14. It was a hearing aid by Valiss · · Score: 5, Informative

    This was released in 1924:

    http://hearing.siemens.com/sg/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924

    Seems like it could easily be that.

    --

    -Valiss
    1. Re:It was a hearing aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the first occurrence of Product Placement???

    2. Re:It was a hearing aid by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1
      If you were going back into time, you would want your cell phone to look like something contemporary , d'uh! Which means you still haven't proved that the person in the photo isn't using a cell phone.

      The only option so far is that the person is in fact a time traveler using a disguised cell phone that uses some as yet unknown signaling medium that can travel through time - tachyons or something?

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    3. Re:It was a hearing aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm inclined to agree with you. Judging from from outfit, to me it seams she's well layered against the temperature. I figure then she's got a bit of money, and thus quite easily afford a piece of new technology like a hearing aid. Because of the lines on her face, and the likely observation it is a hearing aid, being an older lady it's quite easily possible that's she's just repeating what she's hearing, so she can remember it.

    4. Re:It was a hearing aid by treeves · · Score: 1

      It would be nice to know how large the device in that very small photo is. It looks much larger than something that would easily fit in the palm of one's hand, judging by the attached wire and earpiece (or microphone?). Also note the strap handle on top, sized for a hand. I don't think they made anything nearly as small as whatever the person in the film is supposedly holding.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    5. Re:It was a hearing aid by lordmage · · Score: 1

      Good try. I tend to think its an actual handkerchief. Something as simple as that where she was just convering up for heat or something.

      --
      I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
    6. Re:It was a hearing aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes no sense. Why would a time traveler use such a bulky device? I would think they would use a less conspicuous hearing aid.

    7. Re:It was a hearing aid by Presence2 · · Score: 1

      This seems the best explanation - certainly more plausible. Someone attending a film opening event then would most likely have the means to acquire and use such a device.

    8. Re:It was a hearing aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or she is pulling up the collar on her coat to hide her face from the camera.

    9. Re:It was a hearing aid by geekoid · · Score: 1

      so you're saying she hid her cell phone in one of those hearing aids~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:It was a hearing aid by arose · · Score: 1

      Look at the picture of the guy using one...

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    11. Re:It was a hearing aid by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

      Why then, would she be holding the microphone of the device to her ear? This one comes with a connected piece that fits into the ear to be able to hear. I am not completely sure what I saw, but I am sure that it is some other explanation.

    12. Re:It was a hearing aid by hardeep1singh · · Score: 1

      This was released in 1924:

      http://hearing.siemens.com/sg/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924

      Seems like it could easily be that.

      Earplug goes into her ear, the device goes into her pocket. so this can't be it.

    13. Re:It was a hearing aid by anegg · · Score: 1

      This argument confused who needs to prove what. It is impossible to prove that the object isn't a cell phone, assuming that you need to prove it to people who seem quite willing to accept what science and physics so far tells us is impossible. However, no one needs to prove that it isn't a cell phone. In order to make an argument that time travel has occurred, it is necessary to show that the object *is* a cell phone, or at least some sort of mobile communications device, and that there is no more likely explanation for it than that. Since there have been a number of fairly credible alternative explanations given already, it is necessary for those who want to pursue the time travel option to show that those explanations are in fact less likely than the idea that it is a "cell phone." So far no one seems to have done that. Coming up with more and more far-fetched explanations of how it could still possibly be a cell phone is just, well, silly. Sounds like something out of Monty Python, in fact.

  15. tachyon communication device by danlip · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clear not an actual cell phone, but a tachyon communication device that allowed her to communicate with her native time frame. Duh.

    1. Re:tachyon communication device by Demablogia · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree with you : it's possible to be . I thought that could be a transistor radio, but was developed in 1954 ( Wikipedia dixit )

    2. Re:tachyon communication device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did it also have A Chorus Line's I Hope I Get It as a ringtone?

    3. Re:tachyon communication device by Slutticus · · Score: 0

      But wouldn't this only allow one way communication (from "back home" to the traveller)?

    4. Re:tachyon communication device by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      faster than light thats silly tachyons travel

    5. Re:tachyon communication device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly...sheesh...we seem to be the only ones with an imagination on this forum. Everyone else thinks so 21st Century...towers...pffffft...it's obviously a tachyon based communication device. :-)

    6. Re:tachyon communication device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tachyons are highly unstable and were banned from communications devices in the Blurg 5209. It is more likely a transendential ignormorator (sp?).

    7. Re:tachyon communication device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clear not an actual cell phone, but a tachyon communication device that allowed her to communicate with her native time frame. Duh.

      Excellently put!

  16. What device? by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

    I do not see a black device. I see an empty hand and a shadow.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    1. Re:What device? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Could also be the person holding up the collar of whatever is being worn, for some reason.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    2. Re:What device? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Ditto there.

          There were some pretty harsh shadows, so there would have been some pretty bright lighting (or a bright morning/evening) when it was filmed.

          They could have been shielding their eyes from the light, holding their wig on, or as others suggested, an early hearing aide.

          Talking to yourself isn't all that uncommon. Sometimes you're just reminding yourself what the grocery list is. Sometimes you're talking to voices in your head.

          Or lets go with the conspiracy. They were on a cell phone, with no cell towers. They were on a satellite phone without any satellites (or at least that humans put there?).

          We'll apply Occam's Razor to figure this one out. It's obvious that a wormhole was opened through time and space. This allowed the future traveler to "accidentally" walk in front of the camera, while talking on his cell phone, which did have service through the wormhole. He was here to show past generations that there is hope for the future of humanity, regardless of the darkness that will be falling upon us soon. Fear not linear time travelers, some of you will survive.

          Or it was just an old guy with primitive but contemporary hearing aide.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:What device? by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I saw. It almost looked like she was moving her mouth, but that I think is caused by her walking through light and shadow that are behind her. If there is a box there, I'll go with the hearing aide option.

    4. Re:What device? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      There is what appears to be a device in her hand for most of the scene, then she reaches a couple of fingers up towards her hat and at that point her hand appears to be empty (although I won't entirely rule out the one hearing aid device that someone else in this thread suggested).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:What device? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Talking to yourself isn't all that uncommon. Sometimes you're just reminding yourself what the grocery list is. Sometimes you're talking to voices in your head.

      Sometimes you're berating the voices in your head for forgetting what was on the grocery list.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    6. Re:What device? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Well, the voices in my head usually sound like Casey Kasem. I can't always hear the words, but there's something about counting down, and top something list... I may be telepathically listening to terrorists. At least the demons are gone. One place I lived, I could hear talking, and then I could hear Alice Cooper and Black Sabbath a lot.

          Thinking about it, I haven't heard them since I had some dental work done about a year ago.

          (just kidding, I just like feeding urban legends)

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  17. Schizophrenia? by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They had to have Schizophrenics back in the 20s, didn't they? Maybe she was just talking to herself and cupping her hands over her ears in an attempt to block out the voices?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Schizophrenia? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Schizophrenics in that time era were institutionalized. It used to be common to simply place anyone with a mental disorder into some institution to be out of sight and out of mind. Unruly children of the rich and powerful were often institutionalized in this manner with the objective of not embarrassing the family or hurting someone's political efforts. It wasn't until in the mid 1970's to early 1980's that the US Supreme Court ruled they couldn't be locked away unless they were a threat to themselves or others.

    2. Re:Schizophrenia? by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was common for "actors" to talk (also the Director, etc.) during filming, seeing as there was no sound, direction could be given second by second, and she could have been answering the Director or telling them something. Also, her hand seems, to me, to be shielding the early morning sun from her eyes more than just the hat was able to. I have also seen older people (70's+) hold their hand like this, as somewhat of a precursor to Arthritis.

      --
      Stone
  18. no by Fict · · Score: 1

    hint: not a time traveler.

  19. I saw that episode by praedictus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't worry!!! She will get hit by a car and Kirk cant save her or else the Nazis will take over.

    --
    Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
    1. Re:I saw that episode by oldmac31310 · · Score: 2

      Well said. Or she (he) was covering up her (his) pointy ears.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    2. Re:I saw that episode by dimm0k · · Score: 2

      That was an amusing episode!

    3. Re:I saw that episode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, Kirk's standards have really dropped.

    4. Re:I saw that episode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he will define anguish!

  20. like cave men trying to explain a TV by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "cell phone" theory is a golden example of people projecting their own limited conception of the world onto something they don't recognize. Someone 40 years ago probably would've imagined that they saw someone singing along to a transistor radio. Someone from 120 years ago would've thought they saw someone listening to a seashell and chewing gum. If she's really holding something (IMO the video isn't clear enough to be sure), it's almost certainly a contemporary hearing aid.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yes but you'll never convince some people regardless of what evidence you have. Remember the moon landings were faked, and 9/11 was the work of the Bush administration. Logic need not apply when it comes to conspiracies.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The "cell phone" theory is a golden example of people projecting their own limited conception of the world onto something they don't recognize.

      And rather poorly too - bluetooth headsets are abusrdly common today. If time-travel existed whatever communications device they used - cell phone or otherwise, would certainly use a mini-headset of some-sort if for no other reason than to make it less obvious to the locals.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by teslar · · Score: 1

      Someone 40 years ago probably would've imagined that they saw someone singing along to a transistor radio.

      Or, you know, someone using one of those communicators like on that relatively recent Star Trek show...

      Why does everyone go on about cellphones while that person's clearly just checking in with the mothership in orbit?

      And why does it have to be a time traveller at all? Why not an alien disguising said communicator as one of those hearing aids that everyone thinks this is.

      Not saying I actually believe that. Just saying the time traveler with cellphone idea doesn't really strike me as the most obvious scifi explanation here...

    4. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      See this picture of a fellow time traveler for another example. Modern people see a guy with a printed T-Shirt, modern sunglasses, and an SLR camera. However, the printed T could just as easily be a sweater with a college logo on it, the 'modern' sunglasses were in fact available in 1940, and the SLR camera is almost definitely a Kodak model that would have been old even at the time the picture was taken.

    5. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      it's almost certainly a contemporary hearing aid.

      Well, the one thing we do know is that its extremely unlikely to be that.

      Back then, all hearing aids that I'm aware of (I'm certainly no expert) were of a trumpet design; which were typically larger than your hand. Furthermore, you typically did not hold it up to your ear unless you were in conversation.

      Given that she's simply strolling down the street, its just not probable its a hearing aid of some type.

      To be clear, I'm not advocating its a cell phone, but I am advocating its unlikely to be a hearing aid.

    6. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone from 120 years ago would've thought they saw someone doing something that wouldn't happen for almost 40 years. Clearly that someone is a time traveller.

    7. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by danlip · · Score: 1

      Actually 9/11 was actually the work of the Obama administration in collusion with time-traveling communists. So were the fake moon landings - they were created with modern CGI graphics and shipped back in time. Obama's time-traveling comrades are also to blame for the 2008 economic collapse (which is obvious since he couldn't have won without it). The time travel aspect means you also should not trust any birth certificate Obama presents as "evidence".

    8. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why did Captain Kirk carry that walkie-talkie around? Huh?

    9. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mom's a contemporary hearing adi

    10. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I had no idea they had electronic hearing aids back then.

      +1 Informative! Please mod up.

    11. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by brusk · · Score: 1

      Back then, all hearing aids that I'm aware of (I'm certainly no expert) were of a trumpet design; which were typically larger than your hand.

      Looks like a trumpet to me.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    12. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      ... if for no other reason than to make it less obvious to the locals.

      If there is no other reason, your argument is pretty weak. There's no reason to assume this particular individual gives a rat's ass what the locals think (or for that matter, what we think decades later).

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    13. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      There's no reason to assume this particular individual gives a rat's ass what the locals think

      Because walking around with a box held up to the side your face is in no way conspicuous.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    14. Re:like cave men trying to explain a TV by arose · · Score: 1
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  21. guy never shuts up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck i stopped watching after 2.5 minutes becuse he never shut up and just kept repeating himself. This whole thins is like 8.5 minutes? wtf.

  22. Not practical by Palestrina · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do have any idea what the per-minute fees are for time travel voice plans? And let's not talk about the data rates. The person on the film is clearly connecting via a local Wifi hotspot.

    1. Re:Not practical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, If her plan is charged per-minute, it will cost a lot for a call, let's say, 100 years in the future. OTH, should she be reimbursed on calls to past?

  23. radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a portable radio.

  24. Not impressed at all. by Darth_brooks · · Score: 4, Funny

    Completely unimpressive. can't tell if it's a phone or not.

    Although, the blue police call box that the person walked in to was interesting. Seemed bigger on the inside than on the outside....

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:Not impressed at all. by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 1

      I thought the Doctor only visited badly-designed World War 2 earth sets?

      At least that's my memory of 80's era Who. I'm so glad he finally went to the future and kidnapped someone with set design/CGI skills.

      -Matt

      --
      --- Need web hosting?
  25. Ancient Hearing Aid by HighOrbit · · Score: 2, Informative

    It looks to be an old lady, so its entirely possible that what he is seeing is something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ardent_hearing_aid.JPG which is part of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkney_Wireless_Museum also seen here http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/objects/display.aspx?id=6713

    1. Re:Ancient Hearing Aid by r0n0c · · Score: 1

      I found this hearing aid made in 1925 which would line up with the time period http://www.hearingaidmuseum.com/gallery/Carbon/WesternElectric/info/westelect34a.htm She/he was probably incorrectly using this new device her kids gave her. I know my grandma would talk to an iPod if I gave her one.

  26. And we all know what she was saying... by dpilot · · Score: 1

    Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:And we all know what she was saying... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      No, more like "have you found enough plutonium yet to get us back to the future, I can't find a damn vegan restaurant anywhere!"

  27. Horn hearing aid? by guantamanera · · Score: 1

    Maybe she is adjusting one of those horn looking hearing aids from back in the days. like this one

  28. Where's your imaginiation? by maddogkistler · · Score: 1

    Could be a Time phone, or an alien dressed in an old lady human suit....

  29. Non-public technology? by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

    From some quick Googling:

    Telephone invented: 1876 (Alexander Graham Bell)
    Cellphone concept: 1915 (American Telephone and Telegraph)
    Cellphone invented: 1973 (Motorola)

    Looking at those dates, it doesn't seem out-of-the-question that some kind of wireless telephone could have been around by 1928, albeit not used by the public. I'm sure there are technologies currently in use by our security services, law enforcement agencies, etc, that won't reach the public market for many years. And I'm sure the same was happening back in 1928.

    Perhaps the person in the video was, for example, a detective following someone and reporting their whereabouts. Less exciting that a time traveler, alien or some kind of covert military "black ops" explanation. But an explanation all the same.

    1. Re:Non-public technology? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      it doesn't seem out-of-the-question that some kind of wireless telephone could have been around by 1928

      It is. The technology simply did not exist to get a transceiver into a package one person could carry. In 1928 receive-only radios in police cars were experimental.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  30. French Electric 'Camera' ? by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    It appears to me after doing a 5 minute google search, that this appears to be a French Electric "Camera" as seen in the middle of this page.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  31. Not a time traveller by meerling · · Score: 1

    People get freaked out be imagining or misidentifying things in old images all the time. Remember people freaking out over a sweater in an old picture? Yeah, sweaters have been around for a long time.
    Somebody holding their hand up near their hat and their fingers crooked and moving, no biggie either. I didn't see any shot clear enough to make out something in the hand, just a shadow under the hat.
    Now if you want to analyze that, why would a time traveler blatantly use advanced tech while knowingly being recorded? Why would someone holding a phone/radio/other audio based gadget be wiggling the fingers like that? As this was a film, they are filming people they know and have instructed to do those things in front of the camera, why would someone who doesn't fit in be allowed to wander through a closed set in front of the camera during filming while apparently talking to themselves while holding something near their head when film was very expensive, and the film cameras of the time could only record for a few minutes at a time?

    There's no freaking way that was a time traveler, or a cell phone, or a walkie talkie, or anything else that is chronologically displaced, other than some peoples imagination.

    If there are any time travelers reading this, please come and tell me how wrong I am. Let's meet up at the Carl's Junior in the food court of the Gateway mall at 3:30pm last monday. Don't be late, I was there.
    PS: bring strawberries.

    1. Re:Not a time traveller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You weren't there...

    2. Re:Not a time traveller by meerling · · Score: 1

      Yes I was, why else would I chose a location and time I've verified, anything else would be as dumb as asking someone to call you and giving them a random phone number. Either you weren't there, or you are a time traveler which was late, which is of course absurd, so you weren't there. If you're going to make a smart@ss comment, try to remember the smart part. :)

  32. Something is really wrong ... by sammyF70 · · Score: 1

    THIS isn't from the documentary about The Circus, it was actually filmed in 1929 by the famous filmmaker Colin McKenzy. The woman is really talking into the 20s equivalent of a cellphone. The (tense) dual hemp line connecting her ~phone~ to that of a person probably trailing 10 or so meter behind her can clearly be seen in some of the slow motion. It was just another of McKenzy's innovations. The "circus" sign in the background was clearly shopped into the picture! Check Peter Jackson's documentary about Colin McKenzy called "Forgotten Silver" if you don't believe me.

    --
    "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
  33. you see what you are accustomed to see by Tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, that would mean that time travel is so close that cell phones won't change considerably. The chance of that is even smaller than that for time travel per se.

    We are pattern-matching machines. We see and interpret in practically the same thought. We are used to people using cell phones like that, so that is what we think we see.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:you see what you are accustomed to see by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Seriously, that would mean that time travel is so close that cell phones won't change considerably. The chance of that is even smaller than that for time travel per se.

      We are pattern-matching machines. We see and interpret in practically the same thought. We are used to people using cell phones like that, so that is what we think we see.

      I assume that the distance between the human ear and the human mouth simply hadn't changed much in the intervening years. That is, after all, the base design for the size of the device.

    2. Re:you see what you are accustomed to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a good point if we didn't already have bluetooth handsfree devices that work just fine while being smaller than distance from ear to mouth.

      In a few years we can probably fit the entire phone in an earplug.

    3. Re:you see what you are accustomed to see by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Seriously, that would mean that time travel is so close that cell phones won't change considerably."

      It also could mean that we're stuck with iPhones forever.

    4. Re:you see what you are accustomed to see by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      That would be a good point if we didn't already have bluetooth handsfree devices that work just fine while being smaller than distance from ear to mouth.

      In a few years we can probably fit the entire phone in an earplug.

      While the peripheral is that small, the phone, generally, is not.

    5. Re:you see what you are accustomed to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but more so than pattern-matching machines we are dream-making machines and "time travel" is a thoroughly established and popular dream easily embellished upon at opportunity.

    6. Re:you see what you are accustomed to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With voice-dialing, it could be.
      Of course, that might also eliminate most of the "smart phone" features, turning it into (in essence) an earpiece comm-link.
      Then again, if you implant a small LED screen into someone's cornea...

      Personal YouTube videos, licensed on a per-blink basis!

    7. Re:you see what you are accustomed to see by Tom · · Score: 1

      You assume that will matter.

      I assume it won't. Look how far cell phones have come in the past 20 years. Since time travel is nowhere in sight, let's assume that it will be at least 50 years. That is 2.5 times the evolution from suitcase-sized phones to today. I don't think it is much of an exaggeration to assume you'll probably have a tiny speaker in your ear, much like a hearing aid today, wirelessly connected to a microphone that's implanted in a tooth or in your neck clothes as it's no larger than a pinhead, wirelessly connected to the actual phone that is somewhere on your body (probably the size of a button).

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  34. Genius Marketing... by gauauu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is genius. I've never heard of this guy, George Clarke, but now by mentioning his work at the beginning of the video, he's got a great viral marketing campaign!

    Of course he doesn't believe a word of it, but he managed to get word to spread of his silly little video, and thus free advertising for his work. Pure genius!

    1. Re:Genius Marketing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that but he seems to be able to take 1923 film and focus in at any zoom level that he wants and get a relatively clear picture. This may be real film footage, and if it is then I did not realize how good their film really is. Either that or CSI is not really the fiction that I thought it was.

    2. Re:Genius Marketing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And everybody's paying attention to the mystery person in the video, and nobody gives a shit about him.

      The plan was clearly flawless.

    3. Re:Genius Marketing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should've changed his first name to Arthur C. before going public.

    4. Re:Genius Marketing... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was the first thing I thought of, when he started talking about who he is and how he's got movies or whatever coming out.

      The second thing I thought of is that it looked cold. Everyone was dressed in bulky winter clothes. Then I thought about how when the wind is blowing, I will shield my ear exactly the same way as the lady, and sometimes I mutter to myself about how cold it is during a particularly cold gust. I imagine old ladies are more likely to do both of those things. In fact, I've seen it numerous times.

      There was no device in the hand, and her ankles looked fine.

      Clever viral marketing gimmick though, but if his movies are as disorganized as his introduction, they're probably not very good.

    5. Re:Genius Marketing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who?

    6. Re:Genius Marketing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree it's an elaborate marketing stunt, but in all seriousness George isn't that genius. He is in breach of copyright for publicly playing the DVD to an audience. Moreover, he admitted to such breach on his viral marketing video. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot with incriminating evidence!

      Send in the FBI and fine his sorry ass!

  35. Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If time travel existed then poeple in the future would already know to go back in time a day and tell Jill not to get caught on film.

  36. It's not a cell phone by pickens · · Score: 1

    It's a transistor radio.

    1. Re:It's not a cell phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transistors did not exist at that time.

    2. Re:It's not a cell phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a joke. Duh.

    3. Re:It's not a cell phone by techsyslonghorn · · Score: 1

      transistor radios didn't start coming out until the early to mid 1950s. they still used vacuum tubes in the twenty's and thirtie's.

  37. Why Not? by jesseck · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Why can't this be a cell phone? Of course, now that this has been discovered, someone from the future will travel back in time to stop this from happening...

    It reminds me of an occurrence one night while I was working as a hospital security officer on nights. A man came in breathless to our office, and asked to speak to Sergeant D* (I don't recall the full last name). We told him he didn't work with us. The man said that the Sergeant was supposed to be there, he was running from the CIA, and had to speak to him. We responded that Sergeant didn't exist. The man then bolted and ran away from us. It kind of shook my world, and I can't stop thinking... did I just ensure the destruction of mankind, by running this guy off?

    1. Re:Why Not? by mangu · · Score: 1

      The man said that the Sergeant was supposed to be there, he was running from the CIA, and had to speak to him. We responded that Sergeant didn't exist. The man then bolted and ran away from us. It kind of shook my world, and I can't stop thinking... did I just ensure the destruction of mankind, by running this guy off?

      No, it was quite the opposite. Sargent Darling was the one who had the launch codes and was supposed to press the red button, but he got cold feet and ran away. Thanks to you, he was never caught and we all survived.

    2. Re:Why Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, now that this has been discovered, someone from the future will travel back in time to stop this from happening...

      How long until they arrive?

  38. Lip reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Looks like he's saying "Sam, why haven't I leaped?!"

    1. Re:Lip reading by c4tp · · Score: 1

      That was going to be my time traveler reference of choice. Sorry to nitpick, but Sam was the time traveler and Al was his invisible hologram buddy.

  39. Silly Theories by j_kenpo · · Score: 1

    Simple solutions... shes either a crazy old lady talking to herself with her hand up for whatever reason, shes chewing gum, or this is "B" roll that the DVD authors used for the extra feature, and this particular footage just happened to have some women on her phone.

    It would make a good aspect of a Sci-Fi story, cell phones function on their time of origin, regardless of what time the physical handset is in.

  40. Reward: 10$ for samzenpus's head on a stake* by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Won't someone close to 'that' which calls itself 'samzenpus' please end our suffering and remove that hack from this plane of existence?
    For fucks sake, it is a constant barrage of chewed over, stale, incorrect, unchecked, "Bigfoot-sighting", irrelevant, pathetic excuse for "news" not even fit for a schoolgirl's blog.

    What's next? That story about that guy who recently found the image of Jesus (that looks like a Dalek) in the rings of a fallen tree?
    Or a "news story" about canals on Mars?
    How about a link to a blog claiming a scientific basis to the reading of tea leaves?

    Jon Katz was at least... well... you could laugh at him.
    This pus guy on the other hand is simply intellectually insulting.

     
     
      *Stakes are free and biodegradable. Plates, silver or otherwise are neither.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Reward: 10$ for samzenpus's head on a stake* by Matt_Bennett · · Score: 1

      What's worse than samzenpus is that this bit of dreck is getting repeated, over, and over again. Now this guy will be probably be posting lens flares as UFOs and "rods" as an undiscovered lifeform.

    2. Re:Reward: 10$ for samzenpus's head on a stake* by denzacar · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't surprise me one bit.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:Reward: 10$ for samzenpus's head on a stake* by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps they could create a section of Slashdot just for all these stupid movies and "news" stories. So that you could ignore them if you wanted to...

    4. Re:Reward: 10$ for samzenpus's head on a stake* by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      So because you're not able to skip past a tabloid-style story that results in some harmless speculation about time travel, you're advocating that someone kill the slashdot employee?

      Really??

    5. Re:Reward: 10$ for samzenpus's head on a stake* by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you could. You could also ignore just stories posted by samzenpus - there's a check-box for that.
      Or you could go somewhere else for your "all things nerdy" news, stories and discussions.

      But that would be purposefully ignoring a chunk of Slashdot and something like reverse self-censorship.
      And I don't want even my "silly news" to be censored.
      Hell, there are days when half the stories on Slashdot are "idle" stories.

      What I DO want is for ALL OF MY NEWS to be at least not pointlessly stale (if not actually new) and with SOME level of logic/quality control implemented during the picking of the stories.
      NOT reading on Slashdot something that could be seen on youtube 10 days ago or a week ago in local papers.
      Or a story about something that has been around for TWO FUCKING YEARS like that Thumbler replica the other day.

      If I want clueless people who have no contact with the outside world dumping nonsense disguised as news in front of my eyeballs I'll go browse digg or watch some TV.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  41. Dementia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Grandmother who died in 1996 at the age of 92 would do the exact same thing. She would press two fingers to the temple of her head and mutter something unintelligible when she was trying to think. The woman probably walked onto the set and forgot what she was supposed to do once she got there. She pressed her fingers to her temple muttered something to herself and then walked out of the frame.

    That is it... nothing more.

  42. A lot of problems with this conspiracy theory. by DrPeper · · Score: 1

    Precisely! There are no cell towers in 1928, not to mention no technology capable of even remotely replicating one, so it couldn't be a cell phone. That's not to say it's not (possibly) some form of small communication device. But there's no clear image of what's in his/her/it's hand. Now if there was a Motorola or Nokia logo clearly visible, I'd be singing a different tune!

    Assuming it is a time traveler, they would probably have had to originate before todays date, because after todays date they'd know about this issue and be able to avoid it. I just don't think we have the technology for manipulating gravity, much less space time.

    Another issue is that people have been getting taller evolution-wize over the past roughly 100 years. So you most likely wouldn't see someone VERY short and chubby from the future. Actually the build of the person is pretty much exactly what one would expect for that time period.

    If they had Nike's on then it would be a whole other story. But all I see is someone from a silent film pretending to talk while holding something to their ear, which looks to me to possibly be a small portable radio. But I don't think battery or radio technology was at that level for that time either.

    1. Re:A lot of problems with this conspiracy theory. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Precisely! There are no cell towers in 1928, not to mention no technology capable of even remotely replicating one, so it couldn't be a cell phone. That's not to say it's not (possibly) some form of small communication device. But there's no clear image of what's in his/her/it's hand. Now if there was a Motorola or Nokia logo clearly visible, I'd be singing a different tune!

      For that matter, there's not even any evidence that there was an actual conversation going on, either. That's what acting is about.

      Besides, is it really so much of a stretch to believe that the idea of a phone without wires was not in people's minds in the late 1920s, almost two decades after the first commercial radio broadcast, two decades after the first wireless phone patent, and almost fifty years after the first wireless phone call? :-)

      There were already radio phones on trains and aircraft by the mid-1920s. Granted, they were not handheld devices (except perhaps for the handset part), but it's naive to assume that the idea of a handheld radio phone was beyond the conception of people at that time. It merely was not practical yet with the technology available at the time, in much the same way as the ideas of force fields, antigravity, artificial gravity, tractor beams, FTL travel, and teleportation are not beyond our comprehension, but the technology needed to make them happen is decades away, if not centuries.

      By this same standard, someone might look at the hardware in Star Trek and assume that somebody had traveled back in time with a Palm Pilot. By this same standard, perhaps somebody traveled back in time and brought the creator of Dick Tracy one of the new cell phone watches that just came out a couple of years ago, some sixty-plus years after the concept first appeared in those comics.

      Ideas always lead feasibility by a fair margin. The only thing that defines commercial success these days is correctly gauging when an idea's time has finally come and applying for a patent. One should never assume that the lack of a working product at any given point in history means that nobody had thought of it at the time, for to do so is quite frequently in error.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:A lot of problems with this conspiracy theory. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Another issue is that people have been getting taller evolution-wize over the past roughly 100 years.

      No, they haven't. People have been getting taller thanks to medical, sanitation, and most importantly, nutritional improvements. Their genetics have not changed significantly, and thus, have not gotten any taller evolution-wise.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:A lot of problems with this conspiracy theory. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      There are no cell towers in 1928, not to mention no technology capable of even remotely replicating one,

      Stone knives and bear skins, I tell ya.

    4. Re:A lot of problems with this conspiracy theory. by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Precisely! There are no cell towers in 1928, not to mention no technology capable of even remotely replicating one, so it couldn't be a cell phone. That's not to say it's not (possibly) some form of small communication device. But there's no clear image of what's in his/her/it's hand. Now if there was a Motorola or Nokia logo clearly visible, I'd be singing a different tune!

      it's naive to assume that the idea of a handheld radio phone was beyond the conception of people at that time. It merely was not practical yet with the technology available at the time, in much the same way as the ideas of force fields, antigravity, artificial gravity, tractor beams, FTL travel, and teleportation are not beyond our comprehension, but the technology needed to make them happen is decades away, if not centuries.

      By this same standard, someone might look at the hardware in Star Trek and assume that somebody had traveled back in time with a Palm Pilot. By this same standard, perhaps somebody traveled back in time and brought the creator of Dick Tracy one of the new cell phone watches that just came out a couple of years ago, some sixty-plus years after the concept first appeared in those comics.

      There is a world of difference between a radio telephone and something like anti-gravity, tractor beams, and FTL travel. Radios were common and personal two-way communication was already happening over the air waves, although it was mostly experimentation by Ham Radio operators who came up with all kinds of crazy schemes for communications systems of a more personal level. Other than the miniaturization of electronic components, at least a simple cell phone circuit for at least the headset wouldn't have even been much of a stretch of the imagination for an electrical engineer of the era.

      On the other hand, most of these other technologies that you mention are so far "out there" that the raw physics of how they could even work is either fringe science or simple unknown. By fringe I'm talking people who are totally discredited and generally considered cranks to even come up with some crazy and wild explanation for how they work. About the only thing you mention here that is even somewhat remotely feasible is teleportation.... something that has only recently been discovered and right now is only transporting a few atoms at a time... certainly not whole people or objects. I suppose a tera-Q-bit quantum computer might be able to teleport something macroscopic, and that is at least in the realm of something theoretically possible a couple of centuries of millennia from now. I would give even odds or worse that it will be functioning in the 23rd Century beyond a technical curiosity like how fusors currently allow desktop fusion reactors.

      The one "Star Trek" invention that I never expected to see in my lifetime was the iPad... a flat screen portable computer running on its own power supply and being networked "wirelessly" to other computing devices, capable of voice input but a stylus could also be used directly on the screen instead if desired. The Star Trek writers called it a "Padd Computer".

  43. Or... by hades.himself · · Score: 0

    the person is just plain mad.

  44. My favorite quote ... by blandthrax · · Score: 1

    I stopped watching when he said: "it can't be an AM/FM radio, obviously, because it's 1928" ... so obviously it's a time traveler with a cell phone, that's the only logical conclusion.

    1. Re:My favorite quote ... by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      Just wait, in another 100 years time people will think that we needed help from aliens to dig the Channel Tunnel (and others like it) because navigating underground over such a long distance whilst our GPS tech at the time could not penetrate the earth's crust must mean it was otherwise IMPOSSIBLE!

      (see also: Roman Roads, Pyramids, etc)

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  45. Human nature by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

    It is part of human nature to see patterns in randomness. We see someone talking with their hand to their ear, and we automatically think, cell phone. In the 1928, they would have thought, mental patient. For all we know this person is heading to the doctor because of an ear ache. As others have pointed out, there are no cell phone towers. If I must defy logic, then I would say this person is talking to their mothership, and telling them it's too soon to cause the stock market to crash. Give it a year.

  46. Over what network? by walmass · · Score: 1

    That dude is a moron. Unless there was another traveler, and they took a cellphone network (tower and all) who was she talking to, and over what?

    1. Re:Over what network? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Ironically, you conclusion, and the many similar ones poste, are really not a way of proving it's not.

      If she is a time traveler(she's not) then who says her device needs towers? Who says their would only be one? Walkie talkies don't require towers.

      Really, there is nothing unexplainable in the picture at all, so there isn't anything to 'prove'.

      Yes, the guy is either a moron, and attempting viral marketing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  47. Simple explanation by LateArthurDent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who was she talking to? (considering the lack of cell-phone towers)

    Ugh.

    Not that I believe in this, but if you were time-traveling to the past to be an extra in a Charlie Chaplin movie (which is a plausible thing for any film buff), it's perfectly reasonable that such a person would whip out their cell phones just to be filmed pretending to talk on it. They could then point it out to their friends once they return to their time.

    1. Re:Simple explanation by Kagura · · Score: 1

      If the Charlie Chaplin movie already had the time traveling as an extra in the background (since it happened decades ago), why would the time traveler need to travel back in time to put himself in the movie?

    2. Re:Simple explanation by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      If the Charlie Chaplin movie already had the time traveling as an extra in the background (since it happened decades ago), why would the time traveler need to travel back in time to put himself in the movie?

      Time travel paradoxes...yay. Well, maybe they were using the time-travel equation tatooed to Fry's butt in that futurama movie, which is paradox-free. In which case, the paradox resolved itself in that the filmmakers never decided to use that footage. In fact, it's in the DVD's "unused footage" sections. So the time-traveler, who had seen the movie, but never checked out the extras, traveled back in time to insert himself in the movie, but was only partially successful, as he came to find out only after his return.

      I mean, do you really want me to sit here and keep coming out with plausible explanations? As long as they're not falsifiable, I can do it all day :)

    3. Re:Simple explanation by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 4, Informative

      FWIW, according to the video, this isn't actually the movie.
      This is a historical piece of the time showing people going into the Hollywood premiere of the film.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    4. Re:Simple explanation by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      Mod this guy up!

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    5. Re:Simple explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't to be an extra in a Charlie Chaplin film, but a more devious plot to start a ridiculous thread on /.

    6. Re:Simple explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we're supposed to be "open minded" on the subject, I'll say that I'd believe more in the "it's an alien in disguise" theory.

      But I don't believe in either. People who live in big town see strange people doing strange things all the time.
      The fact that the strange thing looks familiar to someone 80 years later is irrelevant.

    7. Re:Simple explanation by harl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you mean? They're in the movie because they went back and got caught on film. If they already went back then why would they have to not go back? That's nonsensical.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    8. Re:Simple explanation by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Because the event was real in the past and only happened because of time travel to the past.

      And to avoid a paradox, it's possible that the future time traveler didn't know she was going to be in the certain movie until after she committed to doing it. All this talk of it today could be dismissed as bunk and not even be legend by the time the time is traveled. It could have been an excuse to revive interest in some of the oldies but goodies and some one else randomly picked the time and movie..

    9. Re:Simple explanation by jrade · · Score: 0
      --

      Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at Sig.setCleverSig(Sig.java:42)
    10. Re:Simple explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also like how you can hypothetically consider time travel, yet in the same context not think a time traveler might have a cell phone like device for communication.

    11. Re:Simple explanation by davidbofinger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps they are from the distant future and think mobile phones are more or less the right level of technology, so they brought one to blend in.

    12. Re:Simple explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no doubt about it, its time travel

    13. Re:Simple explanation by RichiH · · Score: 1

      And are too stupid to not whip them out unless they see a few other people talking on one.

      And as they are used to technology changing even faster, they will surely not have a concept of a few decades making any difference.

    14. Re:Simple explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what's the point? When you go to a movie premiere, don't you talk over a cellphone?

    15. Re:Simple explanation by serutan · · Score: 1

      So maybe this woman is camera shy and she's just holding up her hand so as not to be photographed. I don't actually see anything gripped in her hand, just the shadow of her fingers on her face.

    16. Re:Simple explanation by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      I was just correcting the speculation about "desire to appear in a movie"

      Maybe it was "desire to go to the hollywood premiere of one of the world's early movies"

      Whatever, was just noting it wasn't a staged set.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
  48. Its a Tesla Prototype by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 1

    that got killed like all his stuff. It utilized his one tower in Wardenclyffe that would provide coverage for the entire world. Edison developed a competing product that would rely on Wall St. providers (ie; future carriers). The woman is talking to Nikola himself (the only other device owner) and he is explaining his premonition that AT&T service is going to suck.

    1. Re:Its a Tesla Prototype by geekoid · · Score: 1
      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  49. Laugh-In by boristdog · · Score: 1

    Next thing you know he'll say Garry Owen was using a cell phone during Laugh-In.

  50. Slashdot - copying the Internets by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    I don't frequent all that many news aggregator sites, but it seems that lately, most of the submissions getting through to the front page were on other sites days or weeks before.

    This article, the ones from earlier today on the 'liberal gene', the primate fossils in Asia, CIA investments, the first photograph of a human, the home-built Batmobile, the Australian impact crater - and so on. I've seen these all on one of the following sites in the past week or so on either digg, fark or extragoodshit.phlap.net (which is quite NSFW, but still a very good news/aggregator site, and currently my favorite; the boobies don't hurt his cause any. I highly recommend it with or without the boobies).

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:Slashdot - copying the Internets by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      I don't frequent all that many news aggregator sites, but it seems that lately, most of the submissions getting through to the front page were on other sites days or weeks before.

      If by "lately" you mean since the late 90's, then yes, indeed, nearly all submissions on Slashdot since the late 90's were on other sites before, and usually include a link or two to other sites where the story previously appeared.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  51. Can you hear me now? by joeyblades · · Score: 1

    OK, it's clearly not a cell phone since, as others have pointed out there was no network. She might as well be talking into her purse.

    Probably not a hearing device of any sort, since there was no one else in the vacinity that she could have been talking to.

    Most likely explanation:

    • Old lady walking down the street and spots a film crew across the street.
    • "Oh my, I don't want to be in the movies... must hide my face."
    • "I'll just hold my clutch (small purse) up in front of my face as I walk by and mutter to myself how horrible this is..."
    • "Am I in the clear yet?" Stop and turn slightly... "Oh my, not yet..."
    1. Re:Can you hear me now? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Yes of course that is exactly what happened! And the reason she didn't want to be on film is because she's a TIME TRAVELER!

  52. Time travel film by __aavqan3009 · · Score: 1

    Scarier even still is the fact that CNN devoted air-time to this joke of a story.

    1. Re:Time travel film by Duradin · · Score: 1

      CNN and Fox are trying to break into Comedy Central's market. Sooner or later they'll even be having news and interviews.

  53. toothache by nomoreunusednickname · · Score: 1

    could she be holding a bag of ice to her aching tooth?

  54. Three rebuttals by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    I'm just going to re-post these here, because everyone has their own thread going on...

    A) Cell Service - It is entirely plausible that the time travel 'ship' is providing the service for the device. She could be talking to either another traveler on a similar device or the ship could be relaying the signals back home.

    B) Hearing Aid - While this is possible, you can pretty clearly see that she at least thinks that the device is interactive. Body language at 4:12 looks conversational to me. Something caused her to break her stride, speak more emphatically, and resume. Hard to imagine a hearing aid doing that. If one were surprised by the output from a hearing device, one would likely make LESS sound, rather than more. Right?

    C) Device Age/Design/etc - The distance between the ear and the mouth defines the size of a cell phone, as modified by other features like fitting comfortably in the hand or pocket. None of these things are likely to change for humans, well, ever. You'd have to go far enough into the future where we'd no longer recognize the species for it to change the size of a cell phone. It isn't like people can't or don't make dime-sized phones (there's even talk of one in a tooth). They are just a bitch to actually use.

    1. Re:Three rebuttals by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      D) Conspicuous Use - I don't generally think she cared or was even aware of the recording at the time. I don't think there is any reason to believe that someone would need to go back again and modify this event. As you can easily see here in the comments above mine, few are willing to believe that this was unusual even in an age where such devices are common. Let alone back then. And by the time technology enabling time travel would be common place, this could well be featured on someone's 'blooper reel'. America's Funnies Time Travel Mistakes...

      E) Possibly an alien - Yes. Less plausible than a human, but still possible.

  55. thin black device? by mestar · · Score: 1

    There is no thin black device in her/his hands, the guy is full of bullshit.

  56. iphone 4G!!! by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nope. It's clearly an iphone 4G. See how s/he is holding it!!

    1. Re:iphone 4G!!! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      WTF is an iPhone 4G, time traveler?

  57. iPhone 4 by Kaldesh · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, we can clearly see that it's not an iPhone 4, else holding it with her left hand would kill the signal.

    1. Re:iPhone 4 by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      Holly shit! Did we just screw up space-time vortex by commenting exactly at the same time but with exactly opposite conclusions??

      http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1843876&cid=34054126

    2. Re:iPhone 4 by Kaldesh · · Score: 2, Funny

      *facepalm* That would explain the black hole that just formed in my office and consumed my co-worker. Poor fool, that's what he gets for taking my seat!

  58. I can't believe nobody posted this yet by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

    Your Memories Will Be Rewritten: http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/memory/

  59. Unrecognisable by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

    "A person in the background holding what some say is a cell phone in this still from Charlie Chaplin's 1928 film The Circus. "

    I hardly recognise a person in it, that's how bad the quality is. And then those two pixels would be a cellphone?

  60. Time Travel in less than 20 years.... by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Because everyone knows that the direct neural interfaces for Cell Phones will show up in the early 2030's. So this time traveller is probably from the late 2020's or very early 2030's.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  61. Can you hear me now? by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    It's the Verizon guy's grandfather.
    Apparently the grandfather has the has the same congenital malformation that worked to the advantage of his grandson, Mr. "Can you hear me now".

  62. We moved to mesh by Doug77 · · Score: 1

    When we ran out of IPv4 address we realize it would be easier to scrap everything and create a new mesh based network to run IPv6. So really this movie proves that there were at least two time travelers!

  63. Glasses by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

    He's adjusting his glasses. He's holding the bar on the left that connects the lookamajigs to the ear-holder-onners.

    However the glasses appear to be Mary Kate and Ashley brand, so he's still from the future.

  64. "Nobody can give me an explanation..." by Slutticus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Really? Really???? Just scanning the multitude of /. posts I see at least three plausible possibilities. Are slashdotters that much smarter or are people in Belfast mentally defective?

    1. Re:"Nobody can give me an explanation..." by smolloy · · Score: 1

      Or maybe there's a guy in Belfast wanting to advertise his films, and he's smart enough to get posted to slashdot?

      Can you imagine his disappointment when he realises he only made it to Idle?

  65. I'm more worried about... by seyyah · · Score: 1

    I'm more worried about the giant, 8ft tall zebra standing there.

    What? Perspective is important these days?

  66. Marketing ploy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this is a marketing ploy for Back to the Future. I don't think it's a coincidence that this came out around the same time as the Back To The Future blu-ray release (Oct 26).

  67. Pay attention to these instructions... by rwrife · · Score: 1

    ...when you get to the past, call me and I'll tell you how to get back!

  68. Old-style hearing aid? by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    By old-style hearing aid you mean: cup your hand at your ear and shout "EEH! What was that, sonny?"

  69. iPhone by andrewa · · Score: 2, Funny

    it can't be an iPhone, she's holding it wrong....

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  70. It's a man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's clearly a cross-dresser hiding their face from the camera. They needed a shot of a woman walking but back then they didn't let women on camera.

  71. My Plan to confuse future people... by jameskojiro · · Score: 3, Funny

    1. Go to Vancouver or LA.
    2. Find a scene that is being shot in some random TV show.
    3. Walk by the scene pretending to use some futuristic device.
    4. Repeat this several times with different looking "devices", ie polished pieces of dark coloured plexiglass.
    5. Wait 80 years...
    6. Laugh my head in a jar off when I get the Slashdot brain download that proof of time travelers exist in old footage of CSI: New York.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  72. Best coverage by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

    Can you hear me now?

    --
    The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  73. Viral advertizing. by BenFenner · · Score: 1

    Winner for "Best Viral Advertisement for a Charlie Chaplin Film"?

  74. Boost Mobile - iDen by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

    If you have an iDen phones and you are were there is no towers then you can still use them "ad-hoc" for lack of knowing the technical term.

    I know people are saying that most likely a time traveler would have a smaller hidden phone, which just 5 years ago I think is the direction everybody pictured the phone of the future to be, i.e. hidden in our teeth or built into our body somehow, or even a simple cell phone watch. Reality is that we moved in a different direction and that is an all in one computing device/phone. If you are going to have a small iPhone/Droid sized device as a computer anyway why have a second phone device, even if it was built into a tooth or something.

    Now you could argue that phones will be integrated into our heads and computer screens into our eyeballs . But in the near future I don't think it is that unrealistic to think communication and computing devices will be one device. Think it will taken something interesting to get us to use 2 separate devices again.

  75. Think of the paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Let's assume that it is a time traveler with some sort of communication device... for communicating through time or with a fellow time traveler. Wouldn't the same time traveler have seen this story, and then not make the same mistake so that the story wouldn't exist?

  76. TARDIS by Windwraith · · Score: 1

    Look around for a blue box.
    Alternatively....a DeLorean.

  77. Headset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am i the only one who clearly would wear a headset if travelling back in time and feeling an urge to bring my cellphone?

  78. It's a hearing aid. by CherniyVolk · · Score: 1

    http://hearing.siemens.com/sg/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924

    Sorry, probably not time travel.

  79. Two Words ... by ninjagin · · Score: 2

    EAR TRUMPET.
    http://www.oldsouthbooks.com/images/DSC00481.JPG
    You are welcome.

    --
    .. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
    1. Re:Two Words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words should bring terror to everyone, spit valve.

  80. Fringe fans put your hands up.. by sosaited · · Score: 1
    Too bad he wasn't bald and wearing a suit, otherwise Fringe could have used that picture and advertised :

    Observers were here

  81. Undercover security with portable tube radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    That is an undercover policeman or security guard talking into the handpiece of a portable tube radio. The main radio is concealed in either the handbag or under the bulky costume. No time traveller needed.

    Admittedly, the first record I can find of portable tube radios is from 1936 in England, but at this time multiple people in multiple countries were independently inventing the same things at nearly the same time. As you know, often technology used by police and defence forces is not well publicised because "secret weapons against crime" get a lot of power from being secret.

  82. Reminds me... by baKanale · · Score: 1

    That reminds me of that picture of the time traveling hipster from 1941 we saw back in April.

    http://forgetomori.com/2010/fortean/time-traveler-caught-in-museum-photo/

  83. Not a cell phone... by SolarStorm · · Score: 1

    I don't know what it is, but I know its not a cell phone. The lady in question appears to be the same age as my mother. She lives in the era of cell phones and has trouble because there is no rotary thing, just buttons; ergo, this old lady can not be using a cell phone or a time travel device. (unless the buttons were really big)

  84. Ok, the time continuum... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 2

    So let's say for the sake of just going through this exercise without debunking the movie or photos, or whatever, and we all accept that this is real.
    We now know in the nearby future (as in the far future we will all be using devices smaller then cell phones to communicate),
    we will have been able to time travel.

    1) we need to start setting up programs and international laws built to supervise and control who can time travel and to what purpose...
          going back to get better grades grades so that you could get into harvard instead of a dumb college.....or to avoid that collision which took your legs, or
          (fill in your case here) seems to me would cause unimaginable harm to the present time line, creating deviations upon deviations.

    2) once a governing body is in place to secure time traveling as a whole....we need to start trying to set up a plan to figure out which disaster we can go
          back and help avoid or improve upon....like the gulf BP oil spill, which can be avoided if we ....do not let the fire happen on the platform, and set up
          better security polices back then before the spill happened and nip it in the bud.

    3) we also need to decide do we allow to go into our future, and thereby again creating special time paradoxes,
            where someone brings back the formula for a new type of steel (1000 times cheaper and stronger then regular steel)
            or do we block all future time travel all together.

    I think we have seen a big lack of time traveling movies lately, because there is a sort of taboo now associated with it, maybe because
    the government wants us to not think about that possibility too much....and avoid pondering those cases altogether.
    They will push everything for getting space travel, let you build your own rocket in your backyard if you want...(billy bob)
    but so far, the last movie I saw where the time travel repercussions were visible was an old movie with edward burns
    where they touch something in the past, and contaminate the environment with a future microbe, which changes everything as they know it...

    Anyways....funny if this were a joke, but everyone accepted it was real!

    1. Re:Ok, the time continuum... by laejoh · · Score: 1

      The major problem with time travel is quite simply one of grammar!

    2. Re:Ok, the time continuum... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Oh my, I had not even thought about how mixed up the communication process could become if we actually did time travel and had to explain to our old self that our new self (the present self) did not want to become like the new self (future self) being grossly overweight and therefor refrain myself (all the selves) from ever eating another chocolate bar again, past present or future.

  85. Blocking camera w/ wallet by Nylathotep · · Score: 1

    She probably sees the camera, doesn't want to be filmed, and is holding her wallet up to cover her face.

    Or perhaps they are using some big ass lighting and its blinding her.

    But I think a wallet is more sensible an answer than a cellphone.

    Besides, this thing SCREAMS viral marketing.

    I'll give it 7 out of 10 for being an interesting hook.

  86. Or when it comes to denying them by justinlee37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You've got to admit that the circumstances of the 9/11 incident were fairly suspicious. A few days prior to the attack they had an evacuation drill in the towers that was out of the ordinary, the attack occurred during a time of day when most of the people who worked in the towers were not in the building, another building that was not struck by a plane collapsed, and the buildings collapsed in a way that was consistent with the way that buildings collapsed during controlled demolitions when there are explosives planted on each floor at key structural points.

    I would seriously not be surprised if the Bush family helped the terrorists co-ordinate their attack in order to create a pretense for war that would allow them to tighten the federal government's hold on national security and drive oil prices through the roof.

    1. Re:Or when it comes to denying them by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      "You've got to admit that the circumstances of the 9/11 incident were fairly suspicious."

      No, I really don't.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    2. Re:Or when it comes to denying them by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Thanks for providing an example that drives home the parent's point.

    3. Re:Or when it comes to denying them by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      another building that was not struck by a plane collapsed

      If you are referring to WTC 7, the wikipedia article explains the collapse in detail. "In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting."

      Couple of points: WTC 7 was unique in that it was built over an electrical substation. The substation was not removed; trusses in floors 5 -7 were designed to distribute the load around the substation. Debris from the north tower did hit WTC 7. WTC 7 was evacuated after WTC 1 and 2 collapsed. Due to water pressure problems, and the building was empty, and collapse of WTC 1 and 2, fire crews placed less emphasis on putting out the fire in favor of search and rescue for WTC victims in the ruble. So they did not fight the fire as vigorously as they would have if it were an isolated incident. In hindsight, I don't blame them.

      To explain how fire can collapse the building, there are a few things to understand about steel. Steel weakens as temperature increases and does not need to melt before failure. A fire can range from 800F to 2000F depending on fuel sources. At 1100F, steel loses 50% of it's strength. Even with safety factors built-in, most steel buildings cannot survive an uncontrolled fire raging for almost 8 hours.

      and the buildings collapsed in a way that was consistent with the way that buildings collapsed during controlled demolitions when there are explosives planted on each floor at key structural points.

      From wikipedia's entry about the structural design: "The structural engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson worked to implement Yamasaki's design, developing the tube-frame structural system used in the twin towers." Unlike other building which may use a lattice of steel supports, WTC 1 and 2's load was entirely on the inner tube and the outer shell. The outer shell was severely compromised by the collision with the planes. So the structural integrity was weakened. Due to the explosions, there were fires that further weakened the remaining structural steel. When a floor collapsed, the ones below it would not be able to handle the weight. This video explains in detail how this occurs.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Or when it comes to denying them by Smauler · · Score: 1

      I hate conspiracies as much as the next man... I'm not Alex Jones. I personally believe that terrorists did attack and down the twin towers. What who knew when, I don't know, but I doubt the US administation knew about it prior to the attack. Building 7, however, should not have fallen down. I don't care about Juliani's pull comments.... the building was just not damaged enough to go down as it did. I've seen all the damage photos after the 2 towers went down, and there just is not enough damage for it to fall as it did.

      YMMV

    5. Re:Or when it comes to denying them by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The wikipedia about WTC 7 details why it collapsed. The problem is people keeping concluding that there was not enough damage to cause collapse therefore there was no explanation. They have considered that there are plausible explanations. North tower debris did hit WTC 7. Some of the debris was flaming and caused fire. Due to problems with water pressure, it was hard to put the fire out. Since WTC 7 had been evacuated and there were possible survivors in the rubble of WTC 1 and 2, the decision was made to search for victims with a higher priority than putting out the fire. The most structurally sensitive parts of WTC 7 were on floors 5-7 which had evidence of fire. The fire burned for 8 hours and weakened the structure enough to cause collapse. Most steel supported buildings cannot sustain uncontrolled fire for that long.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:Or when it comes to denying them by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for contributing nothing to the discussion.

    7. Re:Or when it comes to denying them by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      We can't all play the conspiracy theorist. Some of us have to remain rooted in reality.

    8. Re:Or when it comes to denying them by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Outright denying the possibility of someone's illicit involvement in the tragedy isn't remaining rooted in reality, it's sticking your head in the sand and telling yourself that everything is O.K.

    9. Re:Or when it comes to denying them by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Clinging to fantasy isn't insight. By your reasoning, one is "sticking your head in the sand" if one doesn't entertain the idea that orcs and elves were responsible.

      All the "suspicious" circumstances have been addressed time and time again. The only ones who still list them as something strange are the ones who want to believe in conspiracy itself. At which point, you might as well spend the same amount of energy on The Time Cube for all the good it will do you or anyone else.

    10. Re:Or when it comes to denying them by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      I'm not Alex Jones either. :)
      (I think one of the big problems with conspiracy theorists is that they tend to promulgate non-falsifiable concepts)

      Anyhoo, even if I also doubt pre-attack collusion, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened and the powers that be decided to abuse it after the fact.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  87. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is heavy

  88. Obviously what? by treeves · · Score: 1

    He says it's obviously not an AM/FM radio because it's 1928. That's a strange thing to say considering he thinks it might be a cell phone.
    She's certainly dressed like she belongs in 1928.
    Anyway, Doctor Who was able to let Rose Tyler call her mom from like 10 million years in the future...maybe she's a different incarnation of The Doctor.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  89. All I saw was some dork... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    ...mugging the camera and yammering. I gave up before the end.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  90. Protecting the face from the Sun by NFJ25 · · Score: 1

    At first look it appears to be someone calling in a cell phone. However there many simpler and better explanations for the women's posture.

  91. what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think if he figured out the time traveling thing, getting a wireless phone to work without cell towers, may not be that difficult of a nut to crack.

  92. It was a cell phone ! by alexhs · · Score: 1

    Seems like someone picked the "Leave behind a blatant anachronism" option two polls ago.
    Do you notice how that story only appears after that poll ?
    Obviously, that poll gave ideas to some slashdotter with a time machine. And the cell phone couldn't be seen before because it simply wasn't there in the original timeline.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  93. Intresting.... by boxxa · · Score: 1

    It is pretty wild to see but come on, if she was really talking on a cell phone/satellite phone: a) was there capable towers and satellites at that time to even communicate with b) why isn't no one freaking out that some lady is talking on a "future device" It was probably a two way radio or other device. Most of that stuff was around in the early 1920's.

    --
    Bryan
  94. A practical Joke? by nanospook · · Score: 1

    One possibility is that Charlie Chaplan filmed this to make it appear that someone was doing what was impossible back then. They did have phones so the idea of a communication device you carry isn't improbable in that year. Maybe he was doing this as gag and it's taken people this long to notice it..?

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  95. blu8503 by blu8503 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They were making hearing aids years and years before this footage was shot, considering the age of the person I would place my bet on that.

    1. Re:blu8503 by shugah · · Score: 1

      Ever seen anyone talking into their own hearing aid?

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
  96. If you look closely at the window... by agw · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you look closely at the window in the background, you will see the reflection of a DeLorean parked on the other side of the street.

  97. If I had the tecnology to travel in time... by goffster · · Score: 1

    I would think the problem of *holding* something to my ear would
    have been solved already.

  98. Re:OK, the answer by dreadlocks · · Score: 1

    I was going to reply that is was the Doctor, but someone could type faster than me. Unfortunately they didn't note that the person is the 15th Doctor's companion. "When" I'm typing this from, we're on the 15th one. "Googletime" beta tester

  99. Time traveler ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The simplest answer is probably correct. She's more than likely holding up an ear piece to her hearing aid and she's talking to herself to adjust the volume. Sorry to disappoint anybody.

  100. Re:OK, I'll bite. - How Sci Fi gets it wrong by w0mprat · · Score: 0

    If someone had the technology level to be able to travel in time and the computional power to manage such technology, then presumably it wouldn't be necessary to hold a small metal and plastic box next to your head to communicate with your mothership.

    Something like a implant wired directly into brain is far more believable. Even then, that may be a inexplicably low level of technology.

    Like using a morse code telegraph in todays era. Try neural link to the mothership, or a uploaded human mind or a sentient AI remote controlling a body. Ironically that would be a more plausible claim than this absurd crap. It also means we'd be unable to detect time travellers.

    Technology is incremental there are no leaps and short circuits and any advancement is necessarily standing on the shoulders of many small advances previously.

    If you can transport a whole human an arbitrary distance through spacetime then way out things such as nanotechnology perhaps even sentient AIs are a given. If you can transport a whole human with any precision. Then surely you can transport sound waves or even neural impulses back and forth. Which would require a billion zillion times less energy. See E=MC^2(Frakking with spacetime necessarily would require an enormous ammount of energy, it may be to move a given mass FTL you may require more than that in energy mass equivelent).

    Indeed it'd be far easier just to take over the mind of someone in the past.

    I'd point out that time travel is a technology that means FTL travel (the two are essientially the same thing) along with being able to maniuplate spacetime arbitrarily.

    I doubt such future humans or whoever would be so interested in the past, when you have the ability to pretty snap a new universe off our own and travel into it.

    In our own future we'd sooner have sentient AIs and nanotechnolgy than time travel.

    So, if time travel is real or ever possible in any way, we wouldn't necessarily be aware of it or be able to detect it let alone spot someone playing Angry Birds on their smartphone in old film or photography.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  101. Where's the ORIGINAL footage? by MadCow42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The DVD conversion certainly is a lossy process... if they could get the original film to look at frame-by-frame, you could certainly see a ton more detail, which might let you clarify if she's holding anything at all.

    Contact the studio. It'd be great promo for them!

    MadCow.

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    1. Re:Where's the ORIGINAL footage? by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

      you had me up until MadCow

    2. Re:Where's the ORIGINAL footage? by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      If the original was shot like many other films, it may very well be dust by now. The actual material that records analog (i.e. non-digital) motion picture has a shelf life of a few decades.

      (I learned about this from Lessig lectures about those who are trying to archive old films and documentaries. Basically, they're at risk of being lost forever because the conversion process trips copyright law, and often there's someone who prohibits the process from going forward.)

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  102. Nonsense! by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You would think people with the technology to travel through time wouldn't even need a phone. Hell, we don't even need to hold a phone to our heads today. A nearly invisible headset will do the job just fine. I suppose it could have been a voice recorder, but again why the need to hold a device to the head?

    What it looks to me is like an older woman shielding her eyes from the sun and some guy with a hyperactive imagination. Or a guy with quite a talent at special effects and a good sense for keeping things just subtle enough that people wont be quick to dismiss it. And in either case the guy is likely looking for his 15 minutes of fame and a springboard for his career.

    1. Re:Nonsense! by Metrathon · · Score: 1

      why would she shield her eyes from the guy with the imagination?

  103. Sonic Screwdriver by Digicrat · · Score: 1

    The answer is obvious. Dr. Who used his Sonic Screwdriver to modify the phone so that this previously unknown companion of his could talk to her family back in his own time. The odd appearance of the phone was the result of the Doctor's failed attempt to disguise it...

    1. Re:Sonic Screwdriver by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Funny

      The answer is obvious. Dr. Who used his Sonic Screwdriver to modify the phone so that this previously unknown companion of his could talk to her family back in his own time. The odd appearance of the phone was the result of the Doctor's failed attempt to disguise it...

      It's not that he failed, really. It's a perception filter. It psychologically tricks the viewer into overlooking the device... But it has no effect on film cameras, of course.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    2. Re:Sonic Screwdriver by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      He is The Doctor, not Doctor Who.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
  104. National Enquirer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't this be posted with National Enquirer rather than /.?

  105. Why a network? So we can pay people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The network, is for billing us. Ya that's the important part.

    We had two way radios long before we had a network. We don't need no stinking network. Digital traffic only needs a lot of routers on roof tops. Just bandwidth and rules to play fair. The FCC is not our friend. And do not tell me there is no bandwidth, Do tell me what 4G is? Now get the there hand out of my wallet and we are all set. Its about time we got a level playing field for ISP's. and not just one or two pigs with right of way.

    BTW. The Walkie-talkie seems to date back to 1940. So we are most likely not looking at a radio. I go with the hearing aid. That is if the man was in the original footage.

  106. Paradox by nimrod108 · · Score: 1

    There is also the time travel paradox that if someone did time travel (I personally don't think they did) and was seen on video, they could simply go back in time again and get themselves out of the video thus it would have never happened and YouTube would happily go on showing stupid cat tricks today. IF (and that is a bing IF) this is some sort of communication device then I would assume it was an alien in disguise. The fellow does point out that it is a very 'butch' woman. I think a little grey could easily sneak under that heavy coat. Personally I think it is something mundane that is common in the era. The guy who walks past her doesn't bat an eye. I still give a double take to people on Bluetooth headset when I don't see it so I am sure a lady talking into an ear box would turn some heads.

    --
    $2.50 for a decade.
  107. Since we're making silly claims... by rokstar · · Score: 1

    I'm going with, she is holding a cell phone and the footage is fake and was included as the "bonus" material to get the super deluxe extreme edition of the DVD.

  108. The Real Doctor Who! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the BBC got it wrong... The Doctor is actually a woman.

  109. 1928 Time Traveler Caught On Film? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.

    But I did like this bit:

    "The clip from the 1928 film has been posted online by Irish filmmaker George Clarke and begs the question did someone travel back in time to appear outside Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, while Chaplin was shooting the movie?"

    Closer to the correct usage of the term than the writer realises.

    David

  110. not for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Occams Razor, I say. The director said "go out and do something ridiculous" to one of the extras and that is what occurred. We can assume that while the camera was rolling there was no random pedestrian walking along the sidewalk, it would have most likely been "roped" off (or whatever the 1920's term would be) for screening. If we assume the security was doing their job and keeping the sidewalk and/or set clear clear of anybody but actors, then whatever was in her hand was a prop. My 2cents

  111. NO TOWERS!!! by Linux_ho · · Score: 1

    Like, I can totally accept the possibility of time travel, but a mobile communication device with no cell towers? Unpossible.

    --
    include $sig;
    1;
  112. Uh, Oh. The temporal commission... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2, Funny

    is going to have a cow over this one. Even records of Twonkies are a *big* no-no. People will be wiped out of existence. Verizon will revert back to GTE. Microsoft will have go out of business in the eighties and... H-e-e-e-e-y...

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Uh, Oh. The temporal commission... by nauseum_dot · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Year of the Linux Desktop was supposed to happen, now Titor doesn't have to get his IBM 5100 because we are all going to use Macs in the future, and the iPhone and GTE (I mean Verizon) becomes reality.

      --
      Crap! I just kissed my karma good-bye.
  113. "Can you hear me then?" by single_malt_steve · · Score: 1

    What's even more incredible is the zebra standing there the entire time.

    --
    Do radioactive cats have 18 half lives?
  114. Why not a piece of ice wrapped in a handkerchief? by cyfer2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And what the woman was saying was "Oh my teesh, hurt sho mush. "

    --
    There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
  115. It's the person's fingers scratching their head! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It truely looks like the 'person' is extending their middle finger and pointer finger under the hat scratching. Right befores teh image fades, you can see the fingers extended. Simple, done. Walk away.

  116. Clearly... by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

    “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    It is the Napoleon of time crime: Moriarty!

  117. What's so unusual about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alfred Hitchcock often appeared in his movies at one point or another. This could most simply have been a man making a subtle appearance in the movie by dressing in a drag disguise.

  118. You people, by Rhadamanthos · · Score: 1

    How about a wireless transmitter/receiver? did they have handheld walkie talkies around this time?

    1. Re:You people, by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      They could just about fit a receiver into a car. A transmitter would have required a large truck.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  119. I hereby renounce my /. association. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of all of the websites on the Internet, /. should be the last to get seduced by a viral marketing campaign. Idiots. Good day.

  120. Guy doesn't notice? by Elwar123 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So if it was a cell phone, the guy walking in front of her doesn't notice her talking to somebody? This day and age, someone just talking and nobody is there you readily assume that they're on their phone. Back in the 1920s she would have been considered a mad woman talking to spirits.

    1. Re:Guy doesn't notice? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And she would also be ignored, as propriety dictated.

      Or she was removed to a sanitarium moments after the shot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Guy doesn't notice? by laejoh · · Score: 1

      She's a witch! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!

  121. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time traveling and cell phone, that's what people come up with? How about, it looks like it's cold and the person might be holding a hand-warmer up to their face. Jaw moving? Chewing gum. Done deal, next please.

  122. Time travel isn't the only unrealistic explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Theoretical physics would suggest it is an inter-dimensional traveler rather than a time traveler. Not that there is any evidence either is possible. In theory it takes an enormous amount of negative energy to time travel. It would be conceivable to punch through to an alternative dimension with less work. Basically I'm not aware of any theories about inter-dimensional travel that don't involve becoming evil, cheesy beards and reversing your clothes. The other dimension may have developed cell phones, or equivalent, and inter-dimensional travel before 1920's. Then the cell phone would obviously be connected through the rift to the other dimensions towers. This also limits roaming charges as there is no requirement that the tower be physically a far.

  123. Universal Roaming by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, that struck me as well. Where are all the cell towers?

    What, you never heard of Universal Roaming? She was calling via the time vortex, obviously...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  124. Nikolai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nikolai Tesla

  125. could be totally different in the future by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Mobile communication devices 100 years or even 20 years from now may look substantially different than the current cellphone. Remember the getting-of-prison joke in Wall Street 2? I suspect they'll be arbitrarily small, embedded, and voice-controlled. Similar to the difference between original and new-generation Star Trek communicators.

    1. Re:could be totally different in the future by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      cochlear implant using the mandible as amplifier+microphone

  126. Why not an Easter Egg? by Blitz22 · · Score: 1

    Could this be just a bored film transfer tech inserting a bit of an anachronism into this extra footage?

    --
    If I went around claiming I was an emperor...they'd put me away!
  127. Concealed hearing aid by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    http://beckerexhibits.wustl.edu/did/20thcent/index.htm

    Although from the video it does look like shes smiling/talking to the device?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  128. Camera at TV? Honestly! by sitharus · · Score: 1

    We give time to someone who isn't even smart enough to rip a DVD?

    --
    --sitharus
  129. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or perhaps a radio. Radio shows were quite popular back then.

  130. Talking to an Orbiting Thingy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A box is not necessarily a cellphone. If the guy is a time traveler, he may be talking to an ship in Orbit OR he may be a visitor talking to another visitor or a ship in Orbit.

    I, however, will not waste any time on this media stunt...

  131. I love Joss Whedon! by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But if this really was a time traveler on a cell phone in 1928, isn't that how it would work out?

    What if the footage was of a lady wearing a "I love Joss Whedon" baby doll t-shirt, or a shirt that said "All your base are belong to us!" or t-shirt that said, "I'm a Slashdot Karma Whore!"?

    30 to 40 years ago we wouldn't have thought anything about a t-shirt like the above if we saw it in old footage. We'd probably just assume it was some saying or something from back in the day.

    If there was a time traveler, there's a span of time where we wouldn't see anything out of place with the footage, but then we pass a point in time where we would recognize that their is something in the footage that is out of place. Then our brains would recognize the t-shirt for what it is and say "How did that get to 1928?"

    1. Re:I love Joss Whedon! by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      What if the footage was of a lady wearing a ... t-shirt that said, "I'm a Slashdot Karma Whore!"?

      Then I'm pretty sure that in 1928 she would have been arrested for public indecency. :)

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  132. Poor actors by maliqua · · Score: 1

    bad actors never know what to do with there hands

  133. The Doctor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I traveled with The Doctor, he fixed up my telly to work no matter where or when I was. It always called the time that I was relevant to.

  134. My Grandpa used to say ... by DangerousDriver · · Score: 1

    Never trust a woman with large feet ...

    1. Re:My Grandpa used to say ... by whatthef*ck · · Score: 1

      Never trust a woman with large feet ...

      Or an adam's apple, for that matter.

  135. Doctor Who? by woboyle · · Score: 1

    Note that the current Doctor Who has gear which allow his companions to use their cell phones no matter where/when they are... :-) Also, I have the same collection as shown on the clip and it really DOES look like someone today talking on their mobile! I just now checked it out... LOL!

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
  136. Re:Occam's Razor be damned! by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Wow, and given that she can only travel to times within her own lifetime, she must be frickin' old!

    "Granny Leap" probably wouldn't have done so well in the ratings.

    She's not actually from Quantum Leap, though: she's from the crappy trial version they did on Battlestar Galactica. Things work mostly the same as on Quantum Leap, except she can't actually see her assumed face when she looks in the mirror, and her invisible friend is a largely-useless alien who has transcended physical form, she blows her cover immediately and only manages to set things right by ending the entire charade.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  137. A woman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One problem... Female. Surely statistics and history favorably indicate that a male would invent this tech. Reminds me of a line from Titanic: "Like I always say, women and machinery don't mix"

  138. Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's an iphone and proves that if she could get service there we are doing it wrong...

  139. Apparent overdose of"Thrill Seekers"+nice PR stunt by D4C5CE · · Score: 1
  140. Other non solutions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just an ice sack or she has an arm problem or she is hiding her face from the camera's / lights.

    Time travel? One direction please, backwards metabolism is gross.

  141. Maybe it was a Dr Who companion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    //Unit Price //Total Amount Paid

  142. She knows she's on camera by imp7 · · Score: 1

    This is a woman walking behind her husband. She is covering her face because she sees the camera and is telling her husband to slow down. He of course walks faster because she's talking again.

  143. blocking light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....or maybe she's just trying to keep the light out of her eyes.

  144. Re:OK, I'll bite. - How Sci Fi gets it wrong by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

    The problem is all those cool techs are patented. This was open source time travel.

  145. Doctor Who episode: Blink by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

    Remember how The Doctor left messages for Sally Sparrow in the...future..no..past..well, anyway...time is confusing, wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey etc.. Anyway, he hid an Easter Egg in the extra features of all the DVDs that she owned. And of course, he only knew which DVDs she owned because she gave him a list after he'd done it in her timeline, but before he'd done it in his timeline, and the only reason she had the list was because someone else had noticed the Easter Eggs, not her...

  146. aspect ratio is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the presenter had actually bothered to set the CORRECT ASPECT RATIO for the video, things would not look so weird to him, including her shoes and hands.

  147. Am I the only one who immediately realized . . . by twoDigitIq · · Score: 0

    that this guy George Clarke is describing this world changing, totally internet-worthy discovery while STANDING IN FRONT OF A MOVIE POSTER FOR HIS OWN LOW BUDGET FILM?

  148. bunk by grikdog · · Score: 1

    Think 1920. She's adjusting a hatpin. As for the talking, to someone out of frame.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  149. doctor who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure plenty of people visiting have watched doctor who. Maybee she gotten a special sim/battery like rose did to speak to her mother at the end of the world episode HAHA
    no idea whats going on in the video - but the simplest explanation is probably the truth NOT TIME TRAVEL

  150. Lets assume for a minute that this WAS a cell.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    phone, and that this woman was a time traveler. Here are some random thoughts.

    * If she wanted to prove her existence to her future friends, why would she risk being caught in public with such a strange device. I would assume that the time travel cannot interfere with the past.
    * If time travel was possible, the device can probably talk into the future. She might need to call ahead for a pickup.
    * Don't you think that if we had time travel, smaller cell phones would be available (or implants)? Even my old android phone is smaller than that (but it can't talk to people in the future until I upgrade to 2.2 probably).

    Fun stuff!

  151. That's actually Steve Jobs by melted · · Score: 1

    And he's testing iPhone 7, which has been in development for a while now.

  152. It's a hearing aid by JavaBear · · Score: 1

    a 1924 Siemens was held the same way: http://hearing.siemens.com/sg/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924

  153. Buy my movies by Sean_Inconsequential · · Score: 3, Informative

    All I got from that video was "I hope this video goes viral so I can use it to advertise my movies."

  154. Re:Why not a piece of ice wrapped in a handkerchie by Poorcku · · Score: 1

    to whom was she saying that? there was nobody in the vicinity.

    --
    I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
  155. Definitely from the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can tell she's from the future...look at how fat she is!

    And it's not a cell phone, it's an ansible.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansible

  156. because people are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people aren't trained to think with philosophical and scientific rigor. And fewer still do this naturally.

    So, people think time travel might be possible, and find stories about it interesting.

  157. Hearing aid... by rojaro · · Score: 1

    in a silent movie. Now that is funny :-)

  158. 1920s' hearing aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://hearing.siemens.com/sg/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924

  159. It isn't a phone - it is an ear trumpet by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 1

    In the days before electronic hearing aids, they used ear trumpets.

    It looks odd to us because noone uses them anymore, but back then they would have been common for deaf people.

    She is probably listening to the film crew telling her what to do.

  160. Did anyone by Valcrus · · Score: 1

    think that she might just be a crazy lady holding a small hair brush and talking to herself? I mean we have plenty of people downtown by me that do stuff like that all the time.

  161. It definitely is a time traveler! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And from far, far away in the future! How do I know? Because it is a white iPhone!

  162. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you've heard of the obscure political group "Nazi" means there must have been a severe disruption in this timeline. Brace yourself for emergency realignment!

  163. Theories by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    Did anyone see "The Messenger"? I know someone here must have, it had Milla Jovovitch as Joan of Arc. In her prison cell, Joan is talking to Dustin Hoffman, who is, I suppose, the Devil or something. She explains that she found a sword in a field, and it must be a sign from God. The Devil -- or at least his advocate -- puts forth a number of theories from the plausible to the ridiculous that would also explain the finding without resorting to a supernatural explanation.

    This scene is about all I could think of as this "filmmaker" states that an anachronistic cell phone is the only possible explanation for a woman with her hand to her head, perhaps with an object in it.

    But now that I think of it, the Devil arguing against the supernatural is sort of strange, too.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  164. Modern Times by rlseaman · · Score: 1

    But the crossdressing time traveler had the great benefit of reading this trenchant thread on /. while in grade school. S/he is reading this message right now while looking forward to the finale of Project Runway tonight. Oh the horror of the fashion choices that await her in the future in the past!

  165. If True by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

    We should have time travel soon. I bet the iPhone5 will have an app for that.

  166. Nooooo... You got me all wrong there. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    So because you're not able to skip past a tabloid-style story that results in some harmless speculation about time travel, you're advocating that someone kill the slashdot employee?

    Really??

    It's because I'm too far away to do that myself.
    Also, I do believe that there are people out there who would do it for free. $10 is more like for beer or coffee afterwards.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  167. Why not time-travel? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

    Seems everyone is trying to explain this away as not possibly being time travel.

    Haven't any of you seen Forest Gump?

    Explain to me how Tom Hanks managed to make THAT movie if not via time travel!

    I rest my case!

    --
    Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
  168. Re:Why not a piece of ice wrapped in a handkerchie by tchi.keufte · · Score: 1

    Nothing surprising to me in this video. I also saw a woman pressing her jaw with a handkerchief, and I thought "This person just got out from the dentist's cabinet".

  169. Hard of hearing... by Annorax · · Score: 1

    She is clearly cupping her ear in order to hear the person speaking to her off camera.

    She's hard of hearing -- not a time traveler.

  170. picture of what she has in her hand by ourcraft · · Score: 1

    small ear trumpet as hearing aid, she isn't "talking" she is saying, "what? what? what? I BEG you Pardon!??!" http://www.phisick.com/images/ent/silver-ear-trumpet-small-102.jpg

  171. It is an ear trumpet, an old hearing aid by ourcraft · · Score: 1
  172. Thinking so flawed it has a name by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

    This mode of thinking is so common it has a name, the logical fallacy represented here is called "The Argument from Ignorance".

    Basically it's summed up by saying "we can't say for sure what "x" is, therefore I know exactly what "x" is"

    There is ZERO evidence that the person is holding ANYTHING to his/her ear, no less an electronic device, no less a cell phone, and no less by a time traveler.

    I would advocate applying the logical principle of Occams Razor, but it's not even useful here either, because there's no question beyond "what is that person holding" and the only reasonable answer is "how the hell should I know?"

  173. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we accept that there is a civilization that is sufficiently evolved that it has discovered time travel, why in the world would they still be using something as relatively primitive as cell-phones?

  174. All of this will be undone shortly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know .. now that this story made slashdot were all going to be undone (unborn) by this traveler!! Stop reading right now .. look behind you!!!!

  175. Quantum Pairing Timespace Tunel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quantum pairs spans both time and space. Power and information traverses quantum pairs. Quantum pair thyself and Q you become.

  176. I know that person!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is my aunt betty lou who died a decade ago. She told me she was on film in a Charlie Chaplin movie when she was younger and heavier. She was talking into a device called the PRT or portable radio transmitter that Uncle sam aka the GOV built for intelligent gathering. The device was later renamed to BFL to detour the Russians from stealing the gold. Uncle larry used to tell us children not to play with fire as it would cause a serious headache if one would light up the elements that require the fuel. Its not what man kind can do for you but what kind men can do for me. What time is it GMT in the past when your from the future? Tell Stevie I'll be home for christmas.

  177. FIX THE FUCKING CSS ALREADY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    idle.slashdot.org is still broken

  178. Errr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's a hearing aid - google 1920's hearing aids. speculative bullshit, he didn't even research radio's correctly, they do exist

  179. Arthritis by STRICQ · · Score: 1

    Looks pretty obvious to me the lady has arthritis and is scratching her temple just where her hat touches. Not an uncommon act. The arthritis explains the shape her fingers take. Nothing to see here, move along...

  180. It's a guy in woman's clothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have thought a director would have been able to spot that.
    Look at the facial features and the enormous size of the feet.

    Obviously they wanted woman walking through the shot and did not have any extras available.

  181. Meh ... by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    Saw the same thing over at Geekologie a couple of days ago.

    What surprised me more is how out-of-place the large pic at http://planet-flipside.com/index.php/paranormallink/60-timetraveller looks (lower right corner, next to the old guy).

  182. iPhone by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    I see two of the fingers around what would be the 'top' of the phone which is uncharacteristically how people hold cell phones.

    Maybe she is a relative of Steve Jobs.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  183. Never been to Hollywood? by abbynormal+brain · · Score: 1

    The dude with the crown and cell-phone made out of Coke cans is *obviously* talking to someone.

    --
    L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
  184. iTime Phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If being a communication device of a time traveler, wouldn't it plausible that this device actually connects to a "temporal" cell site in the future. Seriously, why would a time traveler travel through time without being able to contact anyone from where/when they came from.
    A time traveler obviously needs an "iTime Phone".

  185. I can't believe this by rax313 · · Score: 1

    I can't believe that slashdot posts stories like this. It is obviously fake and just a case of a good coincidence that people read to much into. That is all

  186. time travel is so ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's clearly a cross dressing schizophrenic witch using a contemporary hearing aid.

  187. No need for the most improbable explanation .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no need to lurch into the most improbable explanation. To propose a 'cellphone' is not necessary. It would be much more probably (yet still unlikely, agreed) that the person is using some primitive audio recorder. In fact, its several orders of magnitude more likely.

    Any propensity to judge that the person is a woman is also conjecture .. i see nothing supporting that other than footwear.

    The history of recording audio might be useful here:
    Googling for: first wire recorder
    yielded:

    "The first wire recorder was the Valdemar Poulsen Telegraphone of the late 1890s, and wire recorders for law/office dictation and telephone recording were made almost continuously by various companies (mainly the American Telegraphone Company) through the 1920s and 1930s. These devices were mostly sold as consumer technologies after World War II."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_recording#History

    Now, 38 year's time available for such an advance in audio recording (ie, small, hand-held) is not at all unreasonable; it is not unlikely, either , that such a device (perhaps powered by a handcrank?) would have existed.

    Further excerpts from the above article include:

    "Compared to later tape recorders, wire recording devices had a high media speed, made necessary because of the use of the solid metal medium. The wire reels were recorded or listened at nominally 24 inches per second (610 mm/s), making a typical one-hour reel 7,200 feet (approx. 2195 m) long. This enormous length was possible on a spool of under 3 inches in diameter because the wire was nearly as fine as hair. Since the wire was pulled past the head by the take up spool, the wire speed increased as the diameter of the spool increased.

    Wires also came in different lengths, such as 15 or 30 minutes. After recording or playback, the reel had to be rewound, because, unlike the later tape recorders, the take up reel on most wire recorders was not removable. "

    So, a 3" reel could easily have been in a hand-held device.

    Why go to extremes when much more likely possibilities are evident?

    j.a., m.e., m.d.
    tkjtkj@gmail.com

       

  188. Wow by scotty.m · · Score: 1

    I wonder... if I hold my foot to my head, will someone in 100 years think I'm a time traveller too?!

    --
    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
    [ST8Z6FR57ABE6A8RE9UF]
  189. It's not a phone. by camperdave · · Score: 1

    It's actually gun. They photoshopped it to look like a cell phone for the re-release.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  190. In public? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People around her doesn't seem to give a shit.

  191. Occams razor (yes, I am an Intellectual) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, using Occams razor methodology, I believe there is a plausible explanation for this. The 'hearing aid' theory is a little bit unlikely - for instance , walking and listening at the same time are skills we take for granted in the modern age, but were considered 'fancy learning' back then.
    More likely it is a traveler from the constellation Syrius 5, who intercepted a radio broadcast of the movie "Contact ", and decoded the movie intro (i.e. the bit that shows the chronological order of radio signals escaping from the solar system). This traveler more than likely wanted to find Adolf Hilter , in order to understand better the rousing speech that was broadcast. A slight defect in his time-travel flux capacitor meant that he arrived a few years early ,and his mission was also compromised by taking the form of an inconsequential old lady rather than Keanu Reaves. The thing he was listening to was a Sony Walkman , of the type that has recently been discontinued. Actually, now I believe this story may have a Sony element to it - it must be a marketing campaign ! Eureka !

  192. Mission accomplished! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at all the free press this guy got == duh

    u idiots

  193. Skip straight to the content by drafalski · · Score: 1

    The footage starts around 2:40 - I can't believed he managed to stretch almost 3 minutes of boring in to lead up to it.

  194. Here is another one...in 1936 by Loge · · Score: 1
  195. Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funniest part of the video is when he acts all baffled that his audience at the screening couldn't come up with any explanation.
    If I had to sit there and listen to this idiot try to convince me that the person in the footage was holding a phone while playing it over and over again for half an hour, not only would I not be trying to offer supportive theories, I would probably throw a beer bottle at his head.

  196. Re: I'll parry instead.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who was she talking to? (considering the lack of cell-phone towers)

    Ugh.

    I didn't pay too much attention to the lighting, it was hard for me to pin point were the source was (when first pushed through the footage). The lighting appeared to be intense/ some-what washed. I would guess it was a fairly sunny day at that moment. My general impression the second time I watched it was that the person was holding the collar of a their shirt or coat to block the sun from their eyes, The turning toward the camera could likely be the sign of an amateur cast member that was looking to see if they had cleared the view of the camera.

    Everyone wants to jump to the tin-foil hat conclusion.....(sigh)

  197. Not a mobile phone... by coalrestall · · Score: 1

    When time travel eventually becomes possible, I'm quite sure we'll have progressed past hand-held mobile communicators of this sort (like we did a long time ago, and only use them now for convenience really), and any savvy time traveller would know not to use one in public anyway. So what has obviously happened here is that at some point in the future, there's some kind of Y2K type disaster waiting to happen and the only way they can avert it is to use a specific kind of technology only used in the original 1924 Siemens carbon amplifier. So the time traveller went back to 1928 (a few years after release so she could be sure there'd be sufficient availability), and wanted to test it to make sure it was working before bringing it back to the future. And that's when she was caught on film! In your face, time traveller!!

  198. It's probably just Sam Beckett by xandercash · · Score: 1

    talking to Al.

  199. No way... by EricX2 · · Score: 1

    If she is from the future, why is she in black and white? She should be in color.

    My idea, she is a crazy person. Yes, there were crazy people... prior to cell phones causing brain damage. :D

  200. Newton's Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well i have a theory, A Secret Government branch in the US which has acquired advanced technology though aliens!! then following the course time from between then and now the technology has been released in stages which then gradually made it seem as it was a normal process of evolution of technology in todays developing world.

    I'm telling you the government has held such devices since god knows when. Bet you the same with laptops!!

    Just a thought, Same concept as that TV Program Warehouse 13 :P or that new program "The Event" where aliens advanced our knowledge of nuclear fusion without us knowing from the time they landed!

  201. radio by Tiago23 · · Score: 1

    it can be a little radio device and the man is listen a baseball game or a comedy show

  202. Time v.s. Speed-of-Light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to theory IF one could time-travel one would not be able to travel to their own past, but to a past of a different dimension. Perhaps a dimension that only differs from this one in a vary minute way. The further back you go in time the larger the deviation is away from the original time that was left. If this were true then I suppose it is time protecting it self as a law of physics.

    The time protects the speed of light barrier by ALWAYS slowing down matter in the speed of light realm that is moving closer and closer to the speed of light in.

    Here is a much more in detail paper I wrote a while back explaining how this works.

    http://tinyurl.com/speed-of-light-and-time

  203. Re:Why not a piece of ice wrapped in a handkerchie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Swearing relieves pain. You should try it.

  204. Marconi's wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, the "mystery woman" is in fact Nikola Tesla in drag, travelling back in time to examine Marconi's wireless technology.

      Of course this is because Marconi was the only one to understand the significance of the hidden network of transmission towers built by Jules Verne and HG Wells to guide the Nautilus when it went about its hidden business under the great continental shelves.

    posting as Anonymous so as not to be killed by the Illuminati.

  205. reasonable epSos.de said: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It i clearer from the context of the comedy.
    It is a male actor who dressed up as a woman to play a crazy person that is pretending to speak on the phone.
    Even now comedians use this for telephone sketches.

    The guy looked into the camera and smiled, because he was not professional.
    Maybe he was so bad that the scene was deleted from the movie.

  206. Covering her face with collar of her coat by youngcho · · Score: 1

    It is obvious that she is covering her face either away from the camera or from sun light. And what she's holding is the collar of her coat.

  207. It could also be that it was too cold by youngcho · · Score: 1

    I see people do that in cold places... pull up their collar to keep warm

  208. Hearing aid. by seebs · · Score: 1

    There were hearing aids at the time which were large (compared to a modern hearing aid) things you held up to your ear. Large, rectangular, metal things. Shaped a bit like a cell phone.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  209. Not a fan of Occam, but by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    Given the era and what appears to be clothing for a cold season, let us hypothesize for a moment that old methods of survival have been forgotten with the advent of newer technology.

    I have personally sewn the coils of a battery powered electric blanket into the lining of one of my jackets to make winter in Norway a bit more tolerable. I even ran some of them into the hood of the jacket. This keeps me nice and warm so long as the batteries last all through winter. I have the ability to run it on AA batteries as well as a few different rechargeable batteries. Thus far, I have had great success in temperatures well below zero degrees (you choose C or F).

    If I were to stay warm on a old day in the 20's, while acid cells were in existence, they we huge, expensive, and frankly, not very powerful. The fact is, the warmth they might provide you would probably be gained just from the exertion of carrying enough of them to run the blanket jacket for 10 minutes. Let's also point out that nichrome wire was not being produced as of yet. So, if you happened to have a means of generating heat, it most likely was through an extremely heavy, wire wound resister. Again, not likely useful for flexibility.

    Let us instead suggest that a few enterprising people who wanted to escape the heat would use the technology available and common for the era.

    In this case, I suggest the popular method of heating a stone, a nice smooth one if you could find one, a chunk of coal if you couldn't in a cloth until it's cooled down so much that it no longer holds enough heat to be felt through the cloth. Then after it has cooled, you might remove it from the cloth. Given the quality of the clothing on the person, I suspect that it was likely that they might even have a nicely polished stone, maybe even a lava rock for the purpose. Based on modern prices, I suspect she might have paid the equivalent of $5 U.S. 2010 currency.

    What's best is, next time she passed a stove, oven, etc... she might ask whoever was there to reheat her stone for her.

    If you've ever enjoyed being out on a cold day, then you probably know that holding something nice and warm against your face can make the whole rest of your body feel warm for a little while.... well until you start freezing everywhere else that is :)

    If you were an extra on a film set... and you knew you'd be out in the cold for some time. Wouldn't you like to be a little warmer?

    1. Re:Not a fan of Occam, but by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 1

      well, good, lengthy, point. i think this holds up just as well as any.

      i think it goes to show that this clip will allow you to believe whatever it is you are more inclined to believe.

      Say what you will, think what might you, it is also possible that this is a time traveler. i mean. the shoes, they're clearly from the future! Besides, all hypotheses brought are only that, hypotheses based on educated guesses but just because we can't time travel yet, it doesn't mean it will never be done in the future.

      Time is an essence that cannot be really grasped, thus manipulated. but what if, 100 years from now, we find that time is a form of energy and that this energy can be bent or altered? whether im right or wrong doesn't really matter, its still nice to entertain the idea.

       

      --
      If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
  210. Worrying by codeButcher · · Score: 1
    What worries me most is not that somebody in the future would invent a way to travel to the past, but that of all the places they could choose to travel too, they would choose the film set of a bad jewish parody of Adolf Hitler.

    Oh wait, he became well known only a few years later.... Well, maybe they are so bored in the future that they play something like russian time traveller roulette.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  211. Dictaphone handset ??? by FragHARD · · Score: 1

    well since they obviously had recording devices in that era... hence the motion picture, I know they also had sound recording instruments way(20-30 yrs.) before this film was made I am sure some company had a portable(think compaq) version of it for people on the go if you didn't mind lugging around a 15-30 pound device(explains the bulky clothes look) ans if you remember the older dictaphone handsets they were similar shape to a telephone handset...

    --
    FragHARD or don't frag at all
  212. This is what he is doing: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what he is doing:

    1. Return in time to an old movieset.
    2. Call your friend a week from your normal time.
    3. Go home.
    4. Plan a screening of the old movie with your friend.
    5. Time it, so the call will come at exactly the same time, as you see it in the movie.
    6. Enjoy your friends confusion, when he realyses, that he is talking to you, live from an old movie he is watching on blue-ray.

  213. 1999 called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... they want their paranoia back.

  214. Song Chan (Charles) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How could she make a call if there is no satellite and networks available at that time?!

  215. Women on a phone in '20s...? by ProgramErgoSum · · Score: 1

    There is an app for that !

  216. Or how about this... by avtchillsboro · · Score: 1

    She is a delusional old lady who thinks she hears voices...

  217. Picture of the device by Auger+Duval · · Score: 1
    --
    --AD
  218. You guys are missing something here... by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

    How do we know we aren't that world that the crew of the Enterprise (or some other "real" ship) visits that happens to be identical to some earlier stage of "their" existence and evolution? How do we know that isn't actually an alien and not a time traveler at all?

  219. No, it's a tinfoil hat by ricksmith · · Score: 1

    Actually, let's say it's an early version of a tinfoil hat - lacking hat-ness, though it may contain tinfoil.

    The extra had obviously heard that photographic film can steal one's soul. The object is a shield to protect the face against this threat.

    In any case, no doubt someone else has noted that a cell phone wouldn't work in the 1920s. There are no towers to connect to the wired system. There's no one to speak to on this alleged "cell phone." Old Twilight Zone episodes notwithstanding, no one has reliably communicated with the past or future using radio waves.

  220. it is not an AM/FM radio... obviously! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFV: "...it is not an AM/FM radio, 'cause obviously it's 1928..." wait, what?

    He showed this to over 100 people, and none of them where skeptical? Really? REALLY?

  221. Reasonable Explanation by ChrisBader · · Score: 1

    Now I'm not sure exactly when hand held tape recorders started to come out but I do know that original recorders have been around since the 1800s, it could quite possibly be just that, a tape recorder. It would explain the position of her (or of what you think his) hand, and would even explain why they had it neir their mouth.

  222. Adjusting her hat by grikdog · · Score: 1

    She seems to have the brim of her hat in hand. Occam's Razor would suggest 21st century conspiracy theorists as the mostly likely source of confusion.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  223. It was Prob a hearing aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People...come on....

    http://hearing.siemens.com/en/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924

  224. Aliens thye are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems everyone totally ignored the first man. Get a good look at him and he might answer the question. Ugly! He certainly looks alien to me. I would say they are together and their ship does not require a cell phone tower. Perhaps she is asking to be beamed up as her cover has been blown. As for her walking all that distance to listen to herself talk to her hearing aid? Not hardly. She would not hold the receiver up to the earphone as it would cause a hell of a feedback! The old lady would have been tip toeing through the tulips with that loud screech in her ear.

    They are just aliens mate and wanted to be in the movies!

  225. gr8lady by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the old lady was carrying a hand bag and she was covering her face, I remember that some people looks like chewing or speaking but maybe she was having problems with her teeth...

  226. Debunked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.suite101.com/content/the-cell-phone-time-traveler-we-want-to-believe-a302362

  227. Cell phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it was a cell phone or some other futuristic device, don't you think the other people walking around would be a bit more interested in her?

  228. So many more plausible explanations by Dabido · · Score: 1

    Gees, as I've commented on other sites over the last few days concerning this.

    1. Who was the old lady talking to? Well, plenty of people off screen for her to be talking to. She was probably blabbering to the old man in front of her even.

    2. What does she have in her hand? Well, I can't see anything in her hand. The darkness might just be shadow. She might have had a tooth ache, she might have been holding her hand like that to hear the gentleman in front of her talking to her. There are so many different reasons why people hold their hand to their ear other than talking on a mobile phone.

    3. She stops, turns and looks in shock at the camera. Well, someone off screen, possibly the cameraman, might have said something to her to cause her to stop and look his way. It's not exactly easy to see if she did look in shock because most of her head is in the shadow of her hat etc.

    If you came from the future why would you walk around using a communications device openly anyway? That's the sort of thing to get you locked up in an asylum for 'hearing peoples voices coming out of a little box.'

    Most plausible explanation I can think of is a certain film maker is trying to raise their profile by making a story out of nothing. He really should become a journalist.

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  229. Probably related to the South Fork Bridge guy by mdl4 · · Score: 1

    Remember the stoner college time traveler from the 1941 South Fork Bridge reopening photo? These time traveling claims are not the childish misapplication of Occam's Razor everyone claims them to be. They are real, this is proof: http://www.mdl4.com/2010/10/time-travelers-caught-on-tape/ They're probably related.

  230. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it was a man like he said. I would imagine that futuristic trannys would look better than that. (they don't look that bad now) (but where did she fins shoes?)

  231. Time Traveler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi. My name is Kristen. My sense of it is that - Charlie Chaplan being a comedian - it was put into the film as an out-of-place comic touch. Someone was given a phone handset and asked to walk by talking into the receiver. It's just like what those comedians would have added. Something which, at the time, looked very funny, ridiculous and out of place. Added to see how many people would catch it in the background.

    Kristen

  232. Anupam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://picasaweb.google.com/kanupam2004/Mysterycell?authkey=Gv1sRgCNOk4NG81MW61QE#slideshow/5533955867202923602

  233. Anupam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://picasaweb.google.com/kanupam2004/Mysterycell?authkey=Gv1sRgCNOk4NG81MW61QE#slideshow/5533955867202923602

    This is what i feel

  234. Lazy thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Her facial expressions register the same sort of reactions one would have during a conversation. She may be talking, in a raised voice, to the man walking in front of her (possibly her companion). The time traveler thing is just lazy thinking, and the idea that this is a man in drag is insulting. She doesn't look butch, just matronly. The contemporary sight of someone walking down the street using a cell phone is so common that we would immediately project it onto that scene. Yet, it tells us nothing about what was really taking place.

  235. anonymus coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a Western Electric Model 34A "Audiphone" Carbon Hearing Aid

    The Western Electric 34A carbon hearing aid was manufactured by the Western Electric Company in 1925. Western Electric marketed these early hearing aids under the "Audiphone" trade name.

    It was one of the few 1-piece carbon hearing aids of the time. The unit measured 7¾" by 4" by 1½" and weighed just under 2 lbs. when fitted with batteries.

  236. Simpler explanation by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    It's an iPhone 5, duh. It's obvious -- Apple's been porting parts of OS X to iOS for a while now; did you think they wouldn't eventually port Time Machine?

  237. Irish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy is Northern Irish, not Irish.

  238. re: shoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So far, no one has commented on the shoes. Look at those monstrous things. If that's truly a woman: wow.

  239. time traveler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think you are soooooooo right! she is talking on a cell phone. if u look at it in the end she looks like she is laughing and smiling. if i created a time machine that worked i know i would be smiling! and she is so not talking to the guy in front of her because it looks to me he is just going for a cigarette! I also know that it should be a cell phone because people say how can she geta signal but if it is a time traveler they should get a tad better singnal! if i were you i would go to a person that could get rid of the blurryness and see it better. i would also go to a person who can read lips. that would be really helpful! and if it is a time traveler that means that we are NOT going to all die in2012. PLEASE keep working on trying to see if it is a cell phone!!!!!!!! i would LOVE to see if it real! thanks for takeing your time to read my 100% true letter!

  240. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the time traveler is from a time that just got the technology (hence, few laws to stop this from happening), and they don't have the ability yet to make small phones that talk through time without a radio tower. Does this not make sense? And maybe she tried feebly to disguise it as 1920s technology.

  241. Consequences are Aversion-therapy: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UNTIL someone has had the worth of something beaten into them by experience, they don't truly value it, because their non profound-experience of it makes it impossible.

    When someone is at the end of their life, simply walking around, experiencing sights & sounds is so incredibly precious, if they've got enough energy to do that... but only because they now understand their life's worth better.

    To someone who's never earned their own life, taking the lives of others can be automatic...
    ( they are in the way, aren't they? but, no-one is allowed to have the same logic against them, of course... )

    Humanity will learn, but should anyone bet on Humanity's SURVIVING the experience?

    If someone turns their food-chain into a cesspit, and then they've no food, they'll tantrum.

    If they've got guns, they'll tantrum against whomever it is that is "in their face".

    All the genocide against women by those who insist they need to "protect" women...

    Actions, not words, show truth...

    ONLY when Humanity has lost its life *almost*, will Humanity unconsciously-understand what incredibly precious treasure it is: unconsciousness is THAT intractable ( just try getting an alcoholic out of addiction's grip: you'll see how intractable it is ).

    IF you want to accelerate the growing-aware among your unconscious-mind, to help tip the balance, then slow-down, push out the distractions, and do everything you can to break your unconsciousness's grip on your eternity: no-one can start with others, it has to get the root mind of one's own life/meaning/eternity.

    Given enough experience, one understands, that someones & souls are entirely-different levels, like surface-waves & deep-sea-currents, and the deliberate mindlessness of one is just a symptom/consequence of the fundamentaller level's condition, is all...

    and then one can understand that treating the *problem* means digging into one's unconscious-assumptions/motivations/determinations, and ripping one's life from them.

    Pursue contemplation, still your mind with deep tranquility, be your being & breathing, & dig DEEP, hacking the ignorance-currents that throw/buck your balance, until you gain such deep owning of you that the world no-longer stampedes your life with its "urgencies" and "fads"...

    THEN you will own more of your meaning, and will recognize it in others, whenever you encounter it...

    Dig & never stop digging into the fundamental meaning...