Considering that all my tapes (yes, VHS tapes) are at home and I will have very little spare time for the next few weeks, your request may take some time to meet. But the images are very definitely in my memory, including the memory of noting that he was using it like a cell phone, which in turn had sparked the memory of Nimoy on a Star Trek retrospective mentioning one day talking on his cell phone and everybody in a car passing by were pointing at him and laughing, whereupon he realized that he was like Spock using a communicator (though it's uncertain whether his placing it to his right ear had anything to do with his story).
One scene that comes to mind is in a episode that they had filmed outdoors on location and which I think involved Spock just barely being able to beam down. That could make it Shore Leave. {strike through}Another scene was indoors on a set in which their communicators had been confiscated and disassembled so Spock had to reassemble one out of the parts while Kirk was off doing his thing. Patterns of Force, maybe?{end strike through} Another scene was indoors on a set in which I think Spock had to convert a native communicator to work for them; I think Uhura asks why he's on such a low frequency. Might have been A Taste of Armeggedon.
Certainly not the first pilot, The Cage, at which time they were still in the habit of shouting into it while looking up.
Edited by dwise1, : qs
Edited by dwise1, : Patterns of Force would have been wrong
I don't think it's either fake or a hoax. I suspect it's someone from that era doing something that looks like talking on a cell phone. Wounded King's suggestion that she's shielding her face from the camera is quite plausible.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
She's shy as could easily be expected from a modest woman like herself. The camera would have been on a tripod and huge, as were the boxy motion picture cameras from that era. A man would have been busily turning the crank as well. That type of motion is eye catching. She would have never missed the spectacle off to her left. She is, as WoundedKing suggested above, covering her face in modesty. That she didn't tip her hat to the side to cover more is even perhaps more surprising. Furthermore, I can't detect any object in her hand. How else would an elderly lady hold her hand up to her face? Maybe she has arthritis. BTW, I don't see much to deter the obvious idea that she is a SHE and not as the narrator would suggest a man, I think that is a red herring designed to increase the spooky factor, and ad to the suspension of disbelief in his tall tale.
ABE: Let's face it the narrator is really biased, He's had a year to cook up a story. This is sensational fluff for people that want to believe. Many if not all of his statements are truly non objective. There's a slant and an element of "pulling the audience in." The guy must be a great fisherman.
I doubt time travle is possible to many paradoxses.
go back in time and destroy the primordial soup, what happens if it is gone humans cannot exsist and time travle does not happen if time travle does not accure the soup cannot be destroyed.
My fellow skeptics, please shut the hell up be quiet for a moment and listen to me. There are plenty of alternative explanations. You don't need to be grasping at straws to rebut this. For example...
subbie writes:
Someone talking on a cell phone in 1928? When there were no other cell phones to talk to.
When there were no cell towers to transmit a signal.
Ever heard of a walkie talkie? Or she could have been talking to her starship or something. You're seriously going to rebut this by presenting a strawman?
And why did she absolutely have to be talking to someone in the future? Couldn't it just be the case that she, a time traveler, be talking to someone from her own time but were at that moment in another city in the same time as she was? What about cell phone towers, you asked. What if it was a satellite phone and the people of the future had a satellite orbitting Earth at the time?
The point is when we talk to creationists we already get enough headaches when they try to make rebuttals that completely miss the main points. And in this particular case, the main point this guy in the video was trying to make WASN'T that the woman was holding specifically a cell phone that required towers. The point was that she was holding a communication device and dabbling away wirelessly, something that she couldn't have been doing in 1928. Try to rebut that.
So, again, my fellow skeptics, please don't sink down to the level of creationists on this. There are plenty of alternative explanations that make more sense. We don't need to sink down to the level of creationists and just throw out anything that comes to our mind.
I doubt time travle is possible to many paradoxses. go back in time and destroy the primordial soup, what happens if it is gone humans cannot exsist and time travle does not happen if time travle does not accure the soup cannot be destroyed.
I doubt that we could ever fly. Too many complications. For one, we'd have to be flapping our wings just like the birds, and people aren't birds.
It would be interesting to know how many of us, if we were shown that clip without having been primed as to what we are expected to see, would have concluded that what we were seeing was a woman talking on a mobile phone on our own.
I don't think they were hiding their face, there does seem to be something in their hand, and they do look like they're talking.
Here's a shorter video of just the film clip:
At 0:37 it goes to a zoomed-in version.
I don't think they were hiding their face because they stop and turn towards the camera rather than looking away and hurrying off.
Not only does the shape of their hand make it look like they're holding something, but it also looks like there's somethign in their hand because, at 0:57, after they turn towards the camera there is an odd shadow on their face that looks like the corner of a small rectangular shaped object that is in their hand.
Here's an image of what I'm talking about:
You have to watch it in the video to really see it, though. And its kinda during a fade to a different shot, but I think you can tell that there's something there and it looks like they're talking into it, especially after they turn towards the camera and their hand starts moving downward.
I doubt that we could ever fly. Too many complications. For one, we'd have to be flapping our wings just like the birds, and people aren't birds.
i said i doubt it not that im sure it is impossible. there are lots of things that can manipulate time gravity for one though what happens when you start manipulating the time line. If it were possible i would be the first to go and start a new nation and whit modern knowlage of tech stop all the bloodshed that was done in the name of religions, and stop all the polution problems before they began. Though what would then happen whit this time line would it change would i never be borne and never go back in to the past would i stat a diferent time line in its own universe seperate from our own if so what is then the point if there are infinite universes whit infinite timelines one like that should alredy exsist.
I doubt time travle is possible to many paradoxses.
There is no such thing as a universal time to travel from or to. It's not that time travel is impossible, it's that there is no such thing as time outside of experienced time to travel to or from. It's nonsensical.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
