Mobile phone call for Mr Chaplin.....?

[David]

You decide... ;D

[glennr]

That is actually quite bizarre. I have watched it a few times and still can't work out what it may of been

[stevew]

Maybe some older members may know, but I'm sure they wouldn't have any transmission masts way back then, so he/she couldn't have been talking to anyone on a mobile.
Maybe it's a personal communicator like Captain Kirks ?
Wow trippy man

[David]

Ah, but ask yourself who would be on the other end

[johnwp5bcoupe]

Nov 1, 2010 15:33:07 GMT @stevew said:

Maybe some older members may know, but I'm sure they wouldn't have any transmission masts way back then, so he/she couldn't have been talking to anyone on a mobile.
Maybe it's a personal communicator like Captain Kirks ?
Wow trippy man

Having used one of the first Analogue Mobile Phones you would need more than one hand
Quite a butch Lady though! it could have been a Leprechaun to be sure

[Colin McA]

very spooky. Just did a quick trawl of the net and found some info on this virral.

It was suggested that she is using and early hearing aid and talking to the guy infront. I would buy the hearing aid but looks like she is talking to herself especially the turn. My money is on some kind of doctoring of the footage. I Like it though.



hearing.siemens.com/sg/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1910

[Warwick]

Come on fellas; let's get real.

It's an old woman talking to herself while holding her hand against the side of her face - with her fingers bent. So you are saying that no-one has ever done this before ... until the mobile phone was invented?
It's a grainy old movie from the '20s with light and shade and movement; and you see what you want to see.

So nobody ever used their right hand to slide back their left sleeve and then glanced at their wrist ... until the wrist watch was invented? Never, ever, before that?

Nobody ever pressed on the top of their pen or pencil with their thumb ... until the retractable ball-point pen was invented?

Nobody ever held a small box at arms length and stared at it ... until the digital camera was invented?

We see things in the light of our own experiences. Someone before the mobile phone era would have looked at that footage and perhaps thought the poor old woman looked like she's got toothache.

Seeing shouldn't be believing. The amount of processing power that the brain requires to run colour vision at the level we have is quite high, so short-cuts are taken. As babies, we have to learn to see. The image from our eyes has to be associated with what is actually around us. A ball cannot be seen to be spherical until it is touched and explored by hand or the mouth.

We have to learn what the images we see mean. Trees, cars, dogs, fences, ... everything. Most of the time we are moving around in a world with which we are extremely familiar. We don't have to study everything around us to know what it is. There isn't any need to put that much effort into processing the info coming from the eyes. You glance around and see green and you are in a place where it would not be unusual to have trees, so your brain fills in the detail from past experience. You saw a tree.

You glance out the window and see a dog at the edge of the garden. You look back again because it shouldn't be there. When you focus your attention on it and make the brain process the image fully, it's a shadow. But because of its size, colour, approximate shape, location, etc., the brain initially provided the detail for a dog. Saves time and processing energy.

This is why eye witnesses can't always be reliable. You see what you think you saw or should have seen.

It's not a mobile phone.

[Deleted]

I asked my deaf friend to lip read this. Apparently she's on a conference call to an Irish guy in a room with 100 people and she's saying "and you with the Chinese t-shirt what do you mean the D pillar's also rusted?"
The gsm mast is obviously part of the Mann's chinese entrance brickwork.

Problem solved. Warwick is just being cynical.

[glennr]

Phew, thank the Lord Peter has put that one to bed.

[stevew]

I glanced out of my window and saw my beautiful rover p5b, when in actual fact i know it's a pile of rust.
Doh

[Deleted]

Nov 2, 2010 0:09:50 GMT Warwick said:

Come on fellas; let's get real.

........ you see what you want to see.

It's not a mobile phone.

+1

[Warwick]

Nov 2, 2010 8:01:47 GMT @glennr said:

... Lord Peter has put that one to bed.

Good grief!! And I've just been calling him Peter! I feel such a fool. And you guys knew all along I'll bet and didn't say.

What's his full title? Lord Peter of The Netherlands? Or is it something less obvious?

[glennr]

Nice one ;D, Peter, you shall now be known as Lord Peter of Holland

[Deleted]

Glen I did ask to keep this quiet so that I could just mail normally like everyone else.
As long as you don't start on about the Baroness and her Australian trips otherwise you may offend another well known contributor.

[glennr]

Sorry my Lord

[Warwick]

What!! I'll bet she was here for the running of the Melbourne Cup on Tuesday!

[glennr]

Yeah, she was one of the Jockeys. I backed her at 20-1, she come in at half past three.

[Deleted]

She enjoys a good ride.
(I have been told).
Rumoured to have camped out in the Melbourne tram system for days without ticket.

Met her in Bath (at a P5 meeting).
Said she was interested in David's car but he'll only sell it as a package deal with three Saabs.

[David]

She told me the same Peter.

[glennr]

Why she's not a time traveler:

As has been stated by many, it's absurd to think that she is talking on a cell phone because a cell phone infrastructure did not exist in 1928. No cell towers. No network. So who would she be talking to and how? So despite appearances, she's not talking on a cell phone.
Besides, do you think cell phones as we know them today will even exist in just 20 years from now? Probably not. There will be some other, more advanced form of communication that does not require the user to hold the device up to her ear. (We already have the hands-free Bluetooth devices.)
Even if it were not a cell phone, but some other type of communications device, it seems logical to assume that a person from the future would have a means of communication that did not require something as crude as a box you hold to your ear.
Some have argued that a person from the future would not be so conspicuous as to talk on a high-tech device, lest she be found out. On the other hand, in 1920 no one would know what she was doing and wouldn't -- maybe couldn't -- even imagine that she was talking to someone with such a wireless device.
I think we can safely conclude with a very high degree of certainly that this is not a time traveler.

So what is she doing?
There are a few plausible possibilities:
The idea that seems most likely is that the old woman is hard of hearing and is using a small, box-like hearing amplifier, which were available at the time.
She has a toothache and is holding a compress on her jaw to ease the pain.
She's just a bit looney and is talking to herself.
Those who have suggested that it's a portable radio or tape recorder... well, those did not exist yet either.

And let's not forget that this could all be a hoax.

[Warwick]

Glenn,

If you took the time to check, you would have seen that I only said that it wasn't a mobile phone. I didn't say she wasn't a time traveller.

Why is it that people automatically assume that someone from the future would be from our future? She could well be a time traveller from the 1930s ... who has a toothache.

She may also be from our more distant future where we can't even imagine the technology available. She could be doing her laundry.

[glennr]

Nothing like a topic to stimulate a debate.

[Deleted]

this sort of thing is not unusual at all.
t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTL4hqMQllw40IaeVrybfgMM9SbUR9SXlPs7cTkwBp8NhK6Q4U&t=1&usg=__B5j3_gJKdUIPOoXJ4MYdv_2MGrc=

[glennr]

Nice one Centurion, nice one. ;D