A film festival organizer in Belfast may have just stumbled across concrete proof that time traveling is possible: extra scenes from Charlie Chaplin’s 1928 “The Circus” show a woman speaking on a cell phone.
Since word of what the footage may show got out, short clip has gone viral, causing quite a stir with people online, regardless of whether they are Chaplin fans or not.
As NineMSN informs, the footage was discovered by George Clarke on a Charlie Chaplin DVD. It was shot in 1928.
The short clip, which you can also see embedded below, at the end of the article, shows a woman passing in front of the camera – or a figure that looks like a woman, more exactly.
She’s seen holding her hand up to her face as if she’s holding a cell phone in her hand – and she’s clearly talking to someone. She’s also seen smiling as she moves away.
There’s absolutely no doubt that she has something in her hand and that she’s speaking into the device. Plus, there’s no one else there for her to speak to, apart from a man who crosses the same frame seconds before her.
Because Mr. Clarke can come up with no possible reasonable explanation for what the woman is holding, he believes she’s a time traveler – and she’s actually having a conversation on a cell phone.
“Right now the only conclusion I can come to, which sounds absolutely ridiculous I’m sure to some people, but it’s a time traveler. It’s kind of strange, you can’t explain it,” Mr. Clarke says.
However, there might be an explanation for the odd cameo appearance after all. Since the video went viral, it has prompted quite a heated debate.
As expected, many hold the clip to be a fake, with the woman added sometime later. Others, though, think she may be using a 1920s-era hearing aid, which would have looked very much like one of today’s cell phones.
“The person probably had one of those old hearing aids (that were about the size of a modern Razor cell phone). I believe that the person was simply trying to test it out real quick while walking down the street. They were adjusting it to their ear, then speaking to see if they could hear themselves,” user LelouchXLamperouge says.
See the clip below for yourself and make up your mind afterwards.
even if she was a time traveler and even if it was a cell phone ... she wouldn't have had anybody else to talk to no connection cause of no antenas ;-)
Comment #1.1 by: Think on 27 Oct 2010, 22:15 GMT
Think before you type people. He didn't say it WAS a cell phone he said a "cell phone like device", meaning a communication device. I'm not saying I believe it but don't you think if someone from the future (future from now) has invented time travel that they also have invented new communication devices that don't need antena's or cell towers but rather use some other means of radial communication? Also, hearing aids of that time were either vaccum tubes or transistors which if covered up by your hand (like she/he is doing) would not function properly. Also, based on the size of the grip this item is much larger than the hearing aids of the time. Let me state this again so you don't rip me apart...I'm not saying I think this is authentic or a time traveler but please get all the facts before you dismiss something so easily.
Comment #1.2 by: Scientific on 27 Oct 2010, 23:58 GMT
You need to understand SATCOM and VSAT techology. If you have a way to create a wormhole in our space-time continuum...you can link that phone call through that open wormhole and communicate to your remaining future. Thus that link will still remain viable for a time-traveller to talk to his or people in the future even though they are in 1928.
Comment #1.3 by: Logan on 28 Oct 2010, 02:07 GMT
easy it's not a cell phone it's a device like a cell, but used to talk with someone else there yes if indeed it is real! There would be your proof! And if it was a Time Traveler and they could travel back, maybe they could use a cell phone in the past to talk with someone in the future! You just have t think past 3 Dimensional
Comment #1.4 by: Condor on 28 Oct 2010, 05:47 GMT
It looks like she is obviously talking into something and smiling at the same time. We must think about the possibility that if she really is a time traveler, she might have a device that hasn't been invented yet that allows two parties to speak to each other, WITHOUT the need of a service provider and/or a satellite. She may be from OUR future.
Comment #1.5 by: Ben on 28 Oct 2010, 19:13 GMT
No need to freak out. It's Martha DuPont. A Media-Cultural Scientist from the late 21st century doing her thesis work on Golden Age Films. We warned here about making contact in public but she never listened. We shall revoke her time travel privileges immediately. Of course, since none of you actually believe all this. Who cares. Just appreciate the films you have. We do!
Comment #1.6 by: Simon Barsinister on 28 Oct 2010, 20:43 GMT
You've never watched Doctor Who, have you?
Comment #1.7 by: Calamity Jane on 28 Oct 2010, 23:26 GMT
Is it so difficult for you people to believe in things that are not tangible? You believe in God don't you? Who is to say that as we progress as a species, and intelligent beings, that we couldn't discover ways to breach the "untouchable" theory of relativity? Soon physics will be on it's ears when a new level of understanding is reached, and a new era of science will be ushered in with startling rapidity. Just because Einstein could not figure it out, doesn't mean that there are not, or will ever be, any humans smarter than old Al. So take a breath...use your faith, and do your best to perceive a Universe more complex than the Human brain, and yet so deceptively simple, it just might make your head explode.
Comment #1.8 by: Marty McFly on 31 Oct 2010, 02:28 GMT
OK. it was Dr. Emmett Brown dressed up as a woman, travelling back in time trying to locate a flux capacitor for his delorean.
its a fake the second person is really the first person with superimposed black dress. hat etc. look at the shows and walking motion. same as the guy in front. same face and his arm is up over his chest but you can't see woman's arm because of all the black dress
And what cell phone provider did she use? She talk to another time traveler? Through what network? Ridiculous ha, ha!!!
Comment #3.1 by: rebel on 27 Oct 2010, 19:40 GMT
are you serious ? if your arguing against the case of the woman being a time traveler then surely your gonna have to come up with something more substantial than there being no phone networks. if the person can indeed travel through time then surely that person maybe be in ownership of some kind of inter dimensional communication device. Just think before you type next time. I mean come on its not a time traveler, but can you offer any other explanation ?
wow people are stupid, if she is advanced enough into the future to time travel , don't you think what ever device she is using really needs antennas or satellite's ......... not saying its real just saying its a possibility times a very confusing thing, if you think about it the future is happening as every millisecond passes. Be more open minded people life is not just about the explainable or possible......
Comment #4.1 by: skeptic on 29 Oct 2010, 00:37 GMT
That's right, being from the future she would not need antennas or towers. Hell she may not even need a cell phone!!! :)
Seriously, how do we know she did not hit her face and is holding a cold compress or something like that to her face. When she opens her mouth she could be saying something to the guy that was walking in front of her.
You cannot see what's in her hand. Without seeing anything you can draw no conclusions. Least of all something as preposterous as a time traveler.
Much as we like to think it is, technology is not new to society. The object in question might well have been a small celluloid ear trumpet or ear horn, which were four inches in length, almost rectangular and dark. They were manufactured around 1920 and considered a fashionable ladies accessory. The fashionable older lady in the clip fits the profile of someone who used an ear trumpet. Here's a look and some more information: http://www.hearingaidmuseum.com/gallery/Non-Electric/EarTrumpets/Short Trumpets/info/ladiessmalleartrumpet.htm
Comment #7 by: master wasp on 27 Oct 2010, 23:16 UTC
Based on SATCOM technology of the future. If a time traveller can create a worm hole into 1928, why can't they keep it open for the phone to transmit through the open wormhole to their future, regardless of being in 1928. Additionally if they can insert a human in 1928, they can also insert a small satellite into orbit around the planet to relay phone communication, and transmit through an open wormhole in orbit around the Earth. The satellite could be concealed in stealth camouflage not to alarm the natives. When there is a will there is always a way...
Comment #11 by: LoveOldMovies on 28 Oct 2010, 00:46 UTC
Guys, Chaplin was very good about foretelling things that have yet to come. For example, when the film, The Great Dictator was released in 1940, Chaplin had no clue that he had hit the mark so closely with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis and their persecution of the Jews. It is quite possible that he set this up knowing that years later people would be perplexed by it. That's Chaplin for ya.
Comment #12 by: Babygirl on 28 Oct 2010, 01:12 UTC
Not a cell phone...look at how she is supposedly holding the cell phone...how awkward and towards the very of her scene her hands start to stretch out as if she is scratching her head....I think she was "hey youd" to be in the picture and she was embarrassed so she was trying to hide her face and was probably talking the whole way to the producer. Seriously use some logic about this time travel stuff. Even if she did time travel...no network to talk people. No infrastructure. Maybe she was an alien because they can talk anywhere anytime.....
You shouldnt base your skepticism on what we know today about technology, because that will change in the next six months. The greatest minds in the world used to think that the world was flat. Do you think they thought that the internet was possible 60 years ago. Anything is possible.
It is really preposterous to think that the woman is a time traveler. It's just another lame wild goose chase invented by some geek who is a fan of Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawkins, and Michio Kaku. How could a person with a cellphone in 1928 talk to anyone? The communication systems during that time were primitive.
Okay, some geek may say: maybe the "time traveller" uses a futuristic communicator which can transmit and receive calls through the fabric of time.
Maybe the "time traveller" is simply a person with impaired hearing and is using and testing her big hearing aid unit.
Or maybe the person is Dr. Emmett Brown talking to Marty McFly. Happy 25th anniversary to "Back To The Future".
1.) Not a woman. See: Feet, hand, walking gait.
2.) Walking like people do when talking on a cell phone, stops during conversation.
3.) Last frame appears to be saying "yes"
4.) If someone had time-travel tech, they would also have unlimited cellphone tech.
5.) If it is a hearing device, who is "she" talking to? Why would "she" try it out in a noisy place?
Comment #25 by: Future Mrs. H on 28 Oct 2010, 04:32 UTC
some say fake while others say time travel i think that maybe it was time travel and people just have a fear of wgat hey dont understand as well as the fear of the unknown but i do feel that it ver well could be time travel
Navywife wichita kansas
Comment #28 by: silverfox05 on 28 Oct 2010, 04:49 UTC
Assuming the footage is not hoaxed either by the person who brought it to all of our attention or by the person who put the old film stock on to DVD format let us evaluate every potential possibility:
Cell phone... as has been pointed out no infrastructure... so not a cell phone.
Time traveler... even a time traveler would not be able to use a cell phone in 1928 without the infrastructure, and if a time traveler from beyond our current time then the communication device he/she is using could be made much smaller. Obviously this person, if time traveler using communication device must be communicating to someone else who has a similar device/technology, but would need to bring the infrastructure to operate the devices with them which may cause the devices to need to be larger than our blue tooth type devices... not eliminated as possibility.
Space traveler/ time traveler... if this individual is from a distant civilization they would likely need to travel through both space and time to arrive in Hollywood in 1928, and the ship they traveled in could be used to relay the communication signal if it remains in geosynchronous orbit over the users of the device... more likely than a time traveler from our future.
Insane person... in 1928 if this individual was seen by people in authority, time traveler or not, they would be escorted to the mental institution where they would likely need to be rescued by their fellow travelers because the doctors would declare them insane and treat them with crude methods used in that time... not likely at all.
As far as it being a 1922 model Beaver Baby Grand radio (the size of about 6 quarters touching each other in a six-pack formation)... http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/beaver_mac_baby_grand_crystal.html the specks show that a headset or speaker is required so a person would not hold it up to their ear, they would hold the speaker or headset to their ear, and I don’t think it worked on batteries so it would need a power source connection... so not a Baby Grand radio or Baby Grand 2 (1925 and slightly larger).
Hearing aid… obviously she is moving quickly and is not accompanied, he/she is speaking but not yelling to a person outside of the camera shot that she is hearing with the hearing aid. The hearing aids of the time were small enough to be the device in the film however the part that was that size was not the part that went to your ear, a cord attached to it and an earpiece went to your ear… not likely a hearing aid.
Time traveler would know not to be in front of camera because before the traveler went back in time he/she would be told by someone to not go in front of that camera due to the current attention the footage is getting… however how else would you be able to test the first attempt at time travel with actual evidence.
Conclusion this is either a space traveler, a test run of a future time traveler or a hoax.
The film has been edited and cuts away right as the person comes in good view, I would like to see the full length of the original stock film before it was put on DVD to help validate my conclusion. The only way to narrow down these possible conclusions or expand the possibilities is to get the original stock film analyze it frame by frame with a Sears and Robuck catalog from each year from say 1918 to 1929. And take those frames to a deaf person to see if the lips could be read. Or find a rich old lady born prior to 1918 who could afford the expensive shoes this person is wearing and see what they think of the footage. Someone should research who put the stock film on DVD and see if they had something up their sleeve.
Comment #30 by: Mike Poska on 28 Oct 2010, 11:07 UTC
Buddy you had me until you showed the extreme slow-mo close up. The woman is shielding her face from the camera or from the very big and bright lights that would have been set up (look at the shadows on the ground. There are multiple shadows going in different directions). She's not holding anything because during the last dissolve, that shows a close up of her hand, you can see her moving her fore finger to straighten it out and the ring finger is also just starting to move. She's either chewing gum or grumbling about the camera (which would have been fairly large) pointing in her direction. The dark object she is holding is the tight curls of her hair at the back and her hand shadow on her face at the front from the very bright movie lights. Your fifteen minutes of fame are up! Next!
Doesnt make any sense that it would be a time traveler on a cell phone since even if time travel were possible there were no cell towers or sattelites to make communication with said device possible.Plus who would she be talking too? Another time traveler.No.I dont have the explaination of what it is but I know what it is NOT.
Comment #31.1 by: Think on 28 Oct 2010, 21:11 GMT
Once again you idiots don't read anything. See my response to the first post.
Comment #32 by: 15yrstudent on 28 Oct 2010, 13:10 UTC
its acually understandable that someone would like to go back to that peirod time to be in the video so maby that was the mission for the time traveler to be on it or somthing im not saying it is but just think about it if you were a charlie chaplin fan you would want to be in a screen cast of it but there are some more pictures that can not be explained if you have any oppinions email me firstname.lastname@example.org
Dr Who modified a cell phone so it could make calls to anywhere and anytime. So who is to say that it is a time travler, why not an alien? Captin Kirk routinely talked into his hand communicating to a ship in orbit.
Or it could be something else, an old lady who saw the camera and didn't want to be on it using her hand to shield her face and was just babbling to herself and at the end checking to see if she is out of camra range yet.
Comment #34 by: homebody315 on 28 Oct 2010, 16:01 UTC
Looks kind of fake to me - the "woman" seems more like a man. Note the size of "her" feet! And the profile doesn't look very feminine. With the current state of computer generated imagery, someone probably altered the original film just to see if they could stir something up - and it sure appears they accomplished their mission! lol
It's the same guy super-imposed in two different outfits. Look at height and walk of both people. They are identical. BUT the real clue is the guy in the white shirt in the background. Watch before the first guy passes him, the elbow is up BUT when he actually passes him, all of a sudden the elbow snaps down. It's a total edit.
Comment #37 by: StevoSaber on 28 Oct 2010, 16:39 UTC
What a sad commentary on our society that we believe that anyone holding their hand to their ear is obviously using a cell phone. There were no cell phone towers in 1928 nor
anyone to call on a cell phone. The reception is still spotty in 2010 (can you hear me now?) Who is gullible enough to think it would work in 1928? Back then, people shielded their eyes and ears from bright and loud things like the lights and sounds of a movie set. Anyway, why would a time traveler in 1928 be wasting their time being in a movie in Hollywood? Anyone who went to the trouble of going back to that time would be on Wall Street-- short selling stocks in anticipation of the crash of 1929--that would be where the money was. It is wrong to decide you saw a zebra, when it could easily have been a simple horse.
Comment #44 by: Bill in NJ on 28 Oct 2010, 19:59 UTC
You can't tell, from the quality of this picture, what it is she has in her hand.
Comment #44.1 by: Rod on 28 Oct 2010, 23:53 GMT
Okay I'm not here to argue fake,time traveler or just a normal misunderstood thing she was doing.But what I want to point out is this fact.Now I don't know squat about faking video footage on or with a computer....but did anyone else notice how the woman was in step military style with the man in front of her?Maybe this is proof of someone faking the shot I don't know?
Is there anything else in the clip that can equate this to the actual movie? Another possible scenario is the so called deleted scene was created just to give the DVD some "bonus features"and this one participant forgot what year she was supposed to be in and made a phone call and got overlooked
Comment #46 by: applejuice11 on 28 Oct 2010, 21:54 UTC
Since I cannot tell what the object is that he/she is holding up to their ear I am just going to say yes it looks odd but honestly I am sure there is a way to have added this into the scene? The phone if thats what it is looks to be one of the first ones that came out? I am just guessing.... I do not think it is a time traveler at all.
Comment #47 by: Cranston on 28 Oct 2010, 23:36 UTC
saw an interesting theory on another message board. was someone playing a joke on someone..?`occams razor theory`..the simplest explanation is usually the right one..its def a guy in a drag....someone who was involved in the film kept the rouse up, or it would have been cut out..maybe a friend of the director?....home phones were getting very popular back then..how funny and/or startling would it have been to make the rest of the world think that the u.s. had wireless phones for its citizens..( back then american newsreels were viewed as propaganda in certain circles)..seems to me that we are all the victims of some people messing with us..which has echoed through time..( time traveled..lol..)...g.l..
Comment #49 by: Victor laszlo on 29 Oct 2010, 12:14 UTC
I find the body language interesting and consistent with someone talking on a cell phone. The person pauses and turns slightly as if in reaction to a comment heard. At the same time, their expression changes to amusement and then she continues walking just as the camera fades to the next scene.
But, if it is a phone, it begs the question: who's she talking to?
Comment #49.1 by: vic on 29 Oct 2010, 17:31 GMT
it was me
Comment #49.2 by: AB on 29 Oct 2010, 17:39 GMT
First, Cell Phones were around in 1928, although they did need wires to make it work, so I dont believe the woman in this video is using one of those (Unless they improved greatly a few years later) here is the video from 1922 http://www.ablogabouthistory.com/2010/05/26/footage-of-the-worlds-first-cellphone-from-1922/
The best explanation I heard is perhaps its cold out or she doesnt want to be on video so she is pulling her collar up to cover her face and is talking to the director as shes walking. She does turn and acknowledges him at the very end.
Comment #49.3 by: Pepsigirl on 30 Oct 2010, 13:59 GMT
I just think society must have gotten bored why would someone promote a hoax and if in fact it is real why has the Government let this leak out in this way I think if time travel was possible the Government would not want us to know about it lol.
First, the lady is holding a hand wallet...a small formal purse...my grandmother had several of these 4x6 formal little hand bags.
Second, watch the video....she's obviously henpecking and chewing out her husband...the man who storms through the scene ahead of her. He rushes through the scene angry and determined. She, being aware of the camera across the street, holds her handbag up to hide her face as she is chewing his * out while following behind him. She is obviously angry at him as evidenced by how aggressively she is clutching her wallet...and the fact she won't stop yelling at him.
My brother believes that it could have been a Siemens Hearing Instrument she was trying out to see if she could hear and perhaps was in amazement at how well it worked. The Siemens device was patented in 1924; a pocket sized carbon microphone/amplifier device suitable for pocket instruments.
Simple...... The same foot step she is also following like the front man...It may be animated. their both foot steps are same .....i think people are thinking to invent the Time machine.... so we can say this will be the step of imagination..........
Comment #53 by: Jemccauley on 31 Oct 2010, 14:18 UTC
To the person who put in subject "Think". There is no new technoligy needed. Have you ever heard of "walkie talkies". You don't need satellites or cell tower. Just two or more devices that can recieve and transmit transmissions Have you ever heard of a CB Radio? Same thing.
Isn’t it a little Stupid to assume that there is something called a time travel… ok.. assuming that the woman was talking on a cellphone, that means that there should have been other people using cellphones to.. at least one other person. if she was indeed talking on a cellphone, WHERE ON EARTH WAS THE GODDARNED CELL TOWER? the woman may have been doing whatever she wanted to do… why make such a hype out of nothing. arfe we all idiots… and the person who started this thing and assumed that the woman was talking on a cellphone, must have been one * of an idiot. DUDE, Cellphones do not work without a cell tower. and in and cell waves, as far as i know, cannot travel time. you cannot have a celltower here in 2010 and talk in 1920′s. stop making a hype out of this and let the woman be. if she is no more, let her soul rest in peace
Comment #55 by: pirry malo on 05 Nov 2010, 15:34 UTC
eso debe ser para ganar publicidad es todo menos un celular
la verdad que a mi manera de pensar los viajes en el tiempo no son ni seran posible en el futuro no se si an oido de la parabola de el joven que viaja al pasado y mata a su abuelo antes de que el tuviera a su padre si su papa no nace el tampoco entonces quien viaja a matarlo si el nunca nacio
although it would be like amazing if it was a time traveler but when u think about it today we have have satalites that are needed to make a phone call and in 1928 they couldnt have possibly have such satalites so maybe if its sumthin else well probaly never know
perhaps in the future we dont need sattelites to make a phone call . also there are people saying why would she be wasting her time just showing it on a hollywood film perhaps as she could have been labeled as crazy as that probaly would happen today and she probaly just showed on a hollywood film so she could just reveal it to the world slowly and maybe in the future there could be more time traveler footage.
whoever said that its a fake because "the guy who is seen seconds before the person on the 'cell phone' is the same person".. wouldnt time traveling explain that too? if you open your mind and just for a second let yourself believe, it is sort of frightening. im a rational person and i don't believe in things like big foot or the tooth fairy. but i also don't believe in ignorance. thats what the world is and has been through out time. people once thought the world was round and Christopher Columbus was crazy/suicidal to try to cross the ocean. "everyone knew if you were to go so far you would fall into space." time travel is not impossible. it has actually happened. only by seconds though, by our astronauts.
-If one were able to move information or matter from one point to another faster than light, then according to special relativity, there would be some inertial frame of reference in which the signal or object was moving backward in time.
*there is no such thing as impossible, just our limited perception of what is possible.