Time Travel caught in 1928 Chaplin movie?

[Kind of Blue]

So my husband came home from work this morning talking about George Nouri, of Coast to Coast, talking about a person on a cell phone captured in a 1928 Chaplin movie. Found it on YouTube, of course! Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF8WF3vGUn8&NR=1

[OneGrassRoot]

1. Wow, I don't know, but I sure feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone...

On one hand we're all just barely surviving in so many ways...struggles and challenges and, yes, battles everywhere we turn (choose love! :)); on the other hand, there are fascinating sightings, things like this you've shared here, and "other-worldly" incidents that help to shift the focus of what's in front of us.

If full disclosure is coming soon and other huge evolutionary leap type of events, why are we working so hard right now on basic survival? Why are we attempting to do anything within the old world system?

:shrug:

Thanks for the uber cool video, KoB.

:loveya:

[Kind of Blue]

4. I know! I've been trying not to think about it.

:rofl: It's just too weird. It seems to me like at one point she looks directly at the camera, not on purpose, but just like someone who spots someone filming.

[Celebration]

2. Too cool!!

I love mysteries. This kind of reminds me of the classic movie "Blow Up." Not sure about whatever the truth is behind what we capture on film.............

[Kind of Blue]

6. Another movie mystery???

I have to look that movie up.
Thanks, Celebration!

[bigmonkey]

3. I love stuff like this.

I have no specific reason to think that time travel is impossible. But, but ...

This is footage from 1928. The medical situation was very different back then. I could easily see this as someone simply talking to themselves and covering their ear, perhaps because it's infected or deformed. Or, perhaps, just holding their hand there, saying to themselves "What am I going to do?" or some such.

Now that we see people on cell phones all the time, we see that in this footage, but I'm old enough to clearly remember that seeing someone talking to themselves was a strong sign to stay away. Nowadays you have to play the "Crazy, or talking on the phone?" game. :-)

The criticism that you need a cell phone tower and someone else to talk to seems kind of weak to me, given that we're starting with the assumption of a time traveller!

[Kind of Blue]

7. Yes, that was our conclusion - that she

is either hard of hearing or a crazy lady - or both, because who is she talking to? Giving into the cell phone theory is a little hard for me to accept but it sure is fun to speculate :)

Would be interesting if she said enough for someone who reads lips to figure out what she's saying or glean some words from the clip.

[kentauros]

9. One other important detail I've seen mentioned

is that we are talking about a movie. Actors aren't told to just walk across the set; they have to act like they aren't actors and are normal people walking on a sidewalk. With extras, you usually aren't privy to what directions they've been given beforehand by the director, even in modern movies (unless you were working on that particular set at the time.) Someone that wasn't an actor just walking onto the set wouldn't have been filmed or allowed in there.

The other big problem with this whole thing is how this guy has stretched a formerly almost square film format into HD 16 : 9 format. So, everyone and everything looks squashed and distorted. Show it in its original format and what she's doing might be clearer, at least visually. There's also specialized software out there that can give 'voice' to silent films, developed by a man that's deaf, if I recall correctly. If anyone has access to that program, they could find out just what she's saying and put this whole thing to rest :)

[Kind of Blue]

10. Kookaburra 's explanation of

a hearing aid is more likely to me, because I'm not too sure that it is part of the actual movie since he said - and I might be hard of hearing :) - that the footage is from the premier event in front of the Graumann's Theater in '28.

Wow, I had no idea about the voice to silent films software. My husband is a silent film buff and I can't watch them for long.

By the way, we watched "Ecstasy" the other night starring Hedy Lamarr (1933), that must have been in the very early years of "talkies." The dialogue was so sparse you'd think it was a silent film. When the actors first spoke - about 10minutes into the film - it took me by surprise.

[kentauros]

11. Perhaps it is a hearing aid, or another one that's very likely:

she's shielding her eyes from the sun or film light, which are pretty bright. As for why she's talking, well, even before cellphones, humans still talked to themselves, whether "mad" or not ;)

I didn't listen to the video because it is about a silent film, so I figured it was silent, too :P

Really, I just didn't care to hear his explanation. I don't buy that it's a time-traveler and so careless as to no notice what would have been a very obvious film camera (and cameraman) back then.

As for that software I mentioned, it may be more than just a program, like a full "workstation" as the only time I've seen it used was on the History Channel where they were putting sound to old "home movies" of Hitler's. The system used 3D analysis of the human head to determine what muscles were being used and in what way to make sound. It could even work almost from behind, where the mouth and lips couldn't be seen, but the jaw and cheek muscles were still in the frame. Pretty amazing what the program could do, so maybe it's been released or improved now for home use.

You should try some of the surrealist films sometime, like from the Mexican director, Buñuel :)

[Kind of Blue]

12. Aha, method to her madness LOLOL...

Yeah, that sounds plausible too.
I love the early surrealists, Dada - painters, photographers, installations - but haven't seen any films.
Thanks, Kentauros. I'll start with Buñuel.

[Kookaburra]

5. As much as I soooo want to believe it's a mobile phone,

I think it's probably a hearing aid.

It would be so very cool if it were a mobile with someone talking on the other end, though.

[Kind of Blue]

8. You're probably right on the money.

Just looked up hearing aids from the 1920s that were portable but some of the articles said the devices "missed functionality." So it could be she had trouble with it.
This page loaded faster than the others I tried http://beckerexhibits.wustl.edu/did/20thcent/index.htm

[BlancheSplanchnik]

13. hearing aids at that time were huge clunky things

Didn't even become portable until batteries became smaller in the 1930's!

Even in the 1960's, hearing aids were large devices with "plugs" in the ears and wires from them to a battery pack worn in a halter on the chest.

She doesn't look like a guy in drag or butch either, as the film guy thinks. She looks like a matronly woman...you can see her cheeks, mouth and chin, which look like a woman's features.

Interesting how her mannerisms are very modern looking, like those of someone talking on a cell phone, smiling and absorbed in the conversation!

Very cool!

[Kind of Blue]

15. Not all of them...

From the photos here http://beckerexhibits.wustl.edu/did/20thcent/index.htm there is one that was not easily transportable - 1928, and a wallet-size one made by Siemens for carrying in handbags - 1920s.

That's the kicker, hearing aid or not, who is she talking to and what is she saying.

BTW, she looks like a matronly woman to me too.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

18. Wow, well that's pretty cool!

My hearing aid knowledge is from personal experience in the Deaf community, and a google search, but I hadn't typed in history of **Portable** hearing aids.

Very interesting; and I noticed the portable ones available in the 20's were made in Berlin....I seem to remember from the movie (with the HAWT Robert Downey Jr ;) ), that Chaplin's partner (was it his brother or a frined? I can't remember) lived in Germany.....


If it was a hearing aid, there still is no reason to be talking on it like it appeared she was doing.... unless she was testing, listening to herself talk.... which doesn't make sense either, since in that case I just don't imagine that look of CONVERSATION that she had.

:shrug:


about the guy being convinced that the woman was a guy in drag....hmmmm... he must not get out much and see the diversity of real, actual women....

[Kind of Blue]

19. Ain't that the truth. Diversity is key.

That rubbed me the wrong way too.

I remember reading the biography of Winston Churchill's mother. She was part Native-American, and her mother (Churchill's grandma) was half-Iroquois. The things they said about the elderly woman back in the day really ruffled my feathers. Not unlike what this chap said.

My MIL is of Spanish/Native American descent. Late FIL, Belgian descent. One of the craziest arguments they told us about during the '40s against their marriage was that she would age and look like Sitting Bull and could he deal with that. It hurt MY feelings but I figured, well, that was back in the day.

*sigh* sometimes it seems the more things change the more they stay the same.

[BlueIris]

14. I love the comments at the YouTube link.

"Who the fuck would she be talking to??"

Sorry, I think it's probably something else.

[Kind of Blue]

16. No need to apologize. It's just fun to speculate.

:hi:

[Myrina]

17. Devil's Advocate here ...

... I think the 'woman' looks suspiciously like the dude who introduces the whole bit.
What's the possibility (thinking of Forrest Gump-type-movie tricks here) that he - being a film maker himself - somehow edited himself into the scene?

Does anyone have access to another copy of the movie to compare it against to see if that's really the original scene?

:shrug: