Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time traveler caught on film in 1920?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5969
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 16 of 104 (588839)
10-28-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by subbie
10-28-2010 3:09 PM


Episode please.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 3:09 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1335 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 17 of 104 (588840)
10-28-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Artemis Entreri
10-28-2010 3:35 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-28-2010 3:35 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 10-28-2010 5:28 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 18 of 104 (588848)
10-28-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by subbie
10-28-2010 3:53 PM


Or just holding her hat on in a breeze.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 3:53 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2010 7:29 PM jar has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1547 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 104 (588867)
10-28-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
10-28-2010 5:28 PM


And talking into her hand for no reason?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 10-28-2010 5:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 10-28-2010 7:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 20 of 104 (588869)
10-28-2010 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
10-28-2010 7:29 PM


Been there, done that myself.
She could well be talking to anyone on the set or even not talking at all. Sure makes more sense than a time traveler.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2010 7:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 21 of 104 (588910)
10-28-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Species8472
10-28-2010 10:51 AM


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.
Edited by CosmicChimp, : More after thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Species8472, posted 10-28-2010 10:51 AM Species8472 has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 386 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 22 of 104 (588920)
10-29-2010 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Species8472
10-28-2010 10:51 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Species8472, posted 10-28-2010 10:51 AM Species8472 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 10-29-2010 9:43 AM frako has replied
 Message 30 by onifre, posted 10-29-2010 12:50 PM frako has not replied
 Message 47 by Just being real, posted 10-30-2010 2:45 AM frako has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3371 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 23 of 104 (588943)
10-29-2010 9:40 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Omnivorous, posted 10-29-2010 10:19 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3371 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 24 of 104 (588944)
10-29-2010 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by frako
10-29-2010 7:24 AM


frako writes:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by frako, posted 10-29-2010 7:24 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by frako, posted 10-29-2010 10:54 AM Taz has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 25 of 104 (588951)
10-29-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Species8472
10-28-2010 10:51 AM


The power of suggestion
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.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Species8472, posted 10-28-2010 10:51 AM Species8472 has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 26 of 104 (588952)
10-29-2010 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Taz
10-29-2010 9:40 AM


I'm amused that anyone thinks this film clip requires serious rebuttal.
I enjoy horror movies--without once thinking about proving it's nonsense.
Lighten up and laugh a little.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 10-29-2010 9:40 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 10-29-2010 9:11 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 104 (588956)
10-29-2010 10:27 AM


not hiding face, and something in the hand
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.
Doesn't it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2010 10:37 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 10-29-2010 2:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 28 of 104 (588957)
10-29-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
10-29-2010 10:27 AM


Re: not hiding face, and something in the hand
CS writes:
Doesn't it?
It looks like someone talking on a mobile phone.
But is anyone seriously suggesting that it actually is someone talking on a mobile phone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2010 10:27 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 386 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 29 of 104 (588961)
10-29-2010 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taz
10-29-2010 9:43 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 10-29-2010 9:43 AM Taz has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3031 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 30 of 104 (588985)
10-29-2010 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by frako
10-29-2010 7:24 AM


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.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by frako, posted 10-29-2010 7:24 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 4:58 PM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024