Solve the Chaplin Film Mystery on YouTube

[alt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6a4T2tJaSU&feature=player_embedded

Just for fun, more than anything.

But you got to admit, it is intriguing, particularly if you watch the scene more than a couple of times. It does seem that she (he ?) is talking into a cell phone .. in 1928. And no, I am not suggesting that that is the case. Interested in others opinions as to what she might be doing. I would guess something with some hearing aid .. but why talk to IT ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Moved from S&D. This is a curiosity, not an unexplained phenomenon.

 

[turbo]

She has her hand cupped over her ear. Not an unnatural thing for a hearing-impaired person to do in the years before hearing aids. In the 60's hearing aids were expensive and were the size of transistor radios with that ubiquitous large "flesh" colored ear-plug. I had elderly relatives who cupped their ears to try to follow conversations. Considering this footage was shot ~40 years before then, it doesn't seem so odd to me.

 

[Evo]

If you notice her mouth is gaped open the entire time, no movement of lips. There is obviously no talking. It appears to me that the person is holding their hand up to their face like they are in pain, perhaps even holding something to it. Maybe the person is going to or just returned from the dentist, has a headache. The scratching or rubbing with the fingers tends to lose the impression that they are holding anything though.

 

[turbo]

If you notice her mouth is gaped open the entire time, no movement of lips. There is obviously no talking. It appears to me that the person is holding their hand up to their face like they are in pain, perhaps even holding something to it. Maybe the person is going to or just returned from the dentist, has a headache. The scratching or rubbing with the fingers tends to lose the impression that they are holding anything though.

Could be a passer-by that was having a bad earache. Hand to ear and gaping mouth (to reduce pressure on a Eustachian tube) would be a pretty good sign.

 

[Evo]

Could be a passer-by that was having a bad earache. Hand to ear and gaping mouth (to reduce pressure on a Eustachian tube) would be a pretty good sign.

Oh yes, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[turbo]

Oh yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Too much "House" I fear. My wife is hooked on that twisty diagnostician show.

 

[alt]

If you notice her mouth is gaped open the entire time, no movement of lips. There is obviously no talking. It appears to me that the person is holding their hand up to their face like they are in pain, perhaps even holding something to it. Maybe the person is going to or just returned from the dentist, has a headache. The scratching or rubbing with the fingers tends to lose the impression that they are holding anything though.

But it does look like the lips move in the act of talking, especially in tha last couple of frames. And the hand seems clenched - an unusual way to rub ones face, and more appropriately done with an open hand.

Still, I'm not in any way suggesting what the film maker suggets, ie, a cell phone conversation in 1928. I think it is a good example of how something quite likely mundane, though fleeting and ambiguous, can be stretched to the fantasic by ones imagination and wishful thinking.

 

[Evo]

Of course there is the obvious, there were no cell phone towers, even if you could travel back in time and took a cell phone with you, you wouldn't have anything to connect to.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Is it really more likely that she was talking on a cell phone or that she just had her hand up next to her head for no apparent reason while moving her mouth?
The first part is impossible, the second part isn't. Since you don't actually see a cell phone, it's completely possible that she just had her hand next to her head and moved her mouth at the same time. I can do that right now to prove that it's possible.

 

[FlexGunship]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6a4T2tJaSU&feature=player_embedded

Just for fun, more than anything.

But you got to admit, it is intriguing, particularly if you watch the scene more than a couple of times. It does seem that she (he ?) is talking into a cell phone .. in 1928. And no, I am not suggesting that that is the case. Interested in others opinions as to what she might be doing. I would guess something with some hearing aid .. but why talk to IT ?

Have no fear, Flex is here to dismantle the conspiracy. It's a hearing aid by Siemens. Released in 1924. Notice the ridiculously similar hand position!

[PLAIN]http://hearing.siemens.com/_resources-re/files/10-about-us/01-our-history/_resources/pictures/1924-pic01.jpg

[PLAIN]http://hearing.siemens.com/_resources-re/files/10-about-us/01-our-history/_resources/pictures/1924-pic02.jpg

(Source: http://hearing.siemens.com/sg/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924 )

EDIT: Also, I see no evidence that she is talking. Perhaps at the end, when she turns her head, she says: "What?" or something similar. Prior to that there might be an aliasing problem with the low quality film played on an HDTV recorded back on to a low quality hand camera. If you look in the background you can see similar artifacts on inanimate objects as the camera pans to the left.

FLEXGUNSHIP... AWAY!

[URL]http://files.air-attack.com/MIL/ac130/ac130_header.jpg[/URL]

 

[leroyjenkens]

Have no fear, Flex is here to dismantle the conspiracy. It's a hearing aid by Siemens. Released in 1924. Notice the ridiculously similar hand position!

Or she and someone else time traveled together and they're talking to each other on cell phones.

Remember the conspiracy theorist motto (other than "there are no coincidences"): "the most exciting explanation is always the correct explanation."

 

[FlexGunship]

Remember the conspiracy theorist motto (other than "there are no coincidences"): "the most exciting explanation is always the correct explanation."

Geeze, I thought it was pretty exciting that she was using a Siemens hearing aid! She would've been an early adopter and she purchased it on the salary of an extra. Furthermore, look at how that technology has proliferated! This might be the first example seen in film. I think it's quite a find.

Still not exciting enough?

 

[Evo]

Geeze, I thought it was pretty exciting that she was using a Siemens hearing aid! She would've been an early adopter and she purchased it on the salary of an extra. Furthermore, look at how that technology has proliferated! This might be the first example seen in film. I think it's quite a find.

Still not exciting enough?

That was a great find. But why go with the most likely solution when you can make stuff up?

But perhaps an entire cell phone network was transported back in time so her cell phone would work. Of course we can time travel but we're still using technology from today, no advancements were made. You'd at least hope that she'd use a blue tooth headset while walking in public.

 

[turbo]

That was a great find. But why go with the most likely solution when you can make stuff up?

But perhaps an entire cell phone network was transported back in time so her cell phone would work. Of course we can time travel but we're still using technology from today, no advancements were made. You'd at least hope that she'd use a blue tooth headset while walking in public.

Really! What's with this hand over the ear thing?

 

[alt]

Have no fear, Flex is here to dismantle the conspiracy. It's a hearing aid by Siemens. Released in 1924. Notice the ridiculously similar hand position!

Yep ! - If you hark back to my OP, I mentioned probably something to do with some hearing aide. I had a faint recollection that I'd seen something, somewhere, years ago, about these chunky newly invented things, much like when cell phones were new, we had to lug around a box (battery pack if I recall) wired to a brick type thing ..

Good find Flex !

 

[alt]

That was a great find. But why go with the most likely solution when you can make stuff up?

But perhaps an entire cell phone network was transported back in time so her cell phone would work. Of course we can time travel but we're still using technology from today, no advancements were made. You'd at least hope that she'd use a blue tooth headset while walking in public.

Pfftt ! If you can time travel, you don't need to take a cell phone network with you !

Your cell phone signals would be inverted into our present day network via the universal flux, thence transponded back to whatever time frame you were in .. obviously ..

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This has gone viral in a big way. Sure enough, when given the choice between a cell phone and a hearing aid, not everyone is sure which option to choose.

 

[leroyjenkens]

This has gone viral in a big way. Sure enough, when given the choice between a cell phone and a hearing aid, not everyone is sure which option to choose.

Well even if it was just a hearing aid, all that means is that she time traveled with it so she would blend in.

 

[mugaliens]

Moved from S&D. This is a curiosity, not an unexplained phenomenon.

Actually, it is unexplained. Well, overexplained, actually. Just not definitively explained, as there a ton of conjecture, but nothing that screams, "that's it, that's what's going on."

Personally, I think she's Agent 19. Of course they didn't have cell phones back then, as cell phones require cell towers, and the entire cellular network hadn't been invented, yet.

It's a shoe phone.

 

[baywax]

Whazat?

 

[FlexGunship]

I just heard Michio Kaku talking about this on NPR last night. Has the whole world gone mad?!

 

[Evo]

I just heard Michio Kaku talking about this on NPR last night. Has the whole world gone mad?!

He didn't fall for it, did he?

 

[FlexGunship]

He didn't fall for it, did he?

Oh gosh no! He just used it as a flimsy premise to discuss string theory and promote a book or two. I just can't believe that my tax dollars went to that type of discussion.

EDIT: Because, what will people say? "Dude, even Mashio Kaakaa said time travel was possible, and he's a yarn theorist!"

 

[Evo]

Oh gosh no! He just used it as a flimsy premise to discuss string theory and promote a book or two. I just can't believe that my tax dollars went to that type of discussion.

EDIT: Because, what will people say? "Dude, even Mashio Kaakaa said time travel was possible, and he's a yarn theorist!"

LOL. Yeah, any excuse to sell books.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh gosh no! He just used it as a flimsy premise to discuss string theory and promote a book or two. I just can't believe that my tax dollars went to that type of discussion.

EDIT: Because, what will people say? "Dude, even Mashio Kaakaa said time travel was possible, and he's a yarn theorist!"

So are you saying that Kaku was making untrue claims, or just claims that you don't like?

 

[Danger]

Whazat?

I can't tell whether that's an early hearing aid or the world's ugliest crack pipe.

 

[turbo]

I can't tell whether that's an early hearing aid or the world's ugliest crack pipe.

That's were my crack pipe went! Who has it?

Seriously, I'd love to take that thing apart to see if it has resonant chambers, diaphragms, etc that actually deliver better fidelity than a simple ear-trumpet.

 

[Siberion]

As Carl Sagan used to say, remarkable claims require remarkable proof. So instead of jumping to conclusions, we should first consider simpler alternatives. Maybe this person is carrying a hearing aid, or pocketbook or cigarette case, or hiding from the camera. The picture is too fuzzy to determine what she is doing. For example, a 1924 Siemens patent for a compact, pocket sized carbon microphone/amplifier device suitable for pocket instruments shows what appears to be a person talking on a cellular phone.

So, most likely the film does not show a time traveler. However, this possibility cannot be ruled out entirely. Einstein's theory does, in fact, allow for certain forms of time travel, as Einstein himself realized. So if one day, someone knocks on your door and claims to be your great-great-great-... grand daughter, don't slam the door.

Michio Kaku: Time Travel in a 1928 Chaplin Film?
http://bigthink.com/ideas/24747

 

[Evo]

Michio Kaku: Time Travel in a 1928 Chaplin Film?
http://bigthink.com/ideas/24747

So someonme on Kaku's staff saw this thread and gave the info to him! (We used to host Kaku's website.) Good work flexgun!

 

[baywax]

Sorry about the over sized photo... (hearing aid from 1924), I think my brain time-travelled and left me here doing stupid things.

 

[alt]

Sorry about the over sized photo... (hearing aid from 1924), I think my brain time-travelled and left me here doing stupid things.

Photo is very informative. When considered in it's actual scale (palm size object) it sure looks like what this thing really is all about.

Gone viral ? That's quite unbelievable.

 

[lisab]

It's clearly not a hearing aid. Here's what they looked like back then:

 

[baywax]

It's clearly not a hearing aid. Here's what they looked like back then:

"Damn it Jim... I'm a doctor not a wing mechanic... sorry about the ears Spock."

(from Star Trek, "Rack of Lamb")

 

[baywax]

Photo is very informative. When considered in it's actual scale (palm size object) it sure looks like what this thing really is all about.

You're too kind!

All we know for sure is that a very manly woman was filmed walking around at Charlie Chaplin's Hollywood premier of "The Circus" with her hand up to her ear while she moved her mouth slightly and smiled a bit.

The alleged artifact said to be in her left hand is in as much question as her gender. Anyone attending a 1928 premier in Hollywood might be doing the same thing. That is, trying to catch everything being said and probably talking gibberish to themselves out of the excitement of being down in town from the farm.

 

[mugaliens]

All we know for sure is that a very manly woman...

I'm sure her great or great-great grandkids will be thrilled to read of her described as "manly," much less "very manly."

The alleged artifact said to be in her left hand is in as much question as her gender.

(shakes head)

Anyone attending a 1928 premier in Hollywood might be doing the same thing. That is, trying to catch everything being said and probably talking gibberish to themselves out of the excitement of being down in town from the farm.

I agree with you here!

 

[baywax]

I'm sure her great or great-great grandkids will be thrilled to read of her described as "manly," much less "very manly."



(shakes head)

My apologies to the descendants of the subject of this inquiry. My questions are spurred by my experiences in today's western culture, some 90 years after this film was shot. None of my comments are meant as insults, and would only be taken as such by someone less experienced with the transgender/crossdressing community. My conjectures may also be influenced by the fact that my mom was a fabulously popular fag hag.

 

[Danger]

It's clearly not a hearing aid. Here's what they looked like back then:

No, no, you twit! That was the first experimental prototype for radar. Hearing aids always had scalloped edges.

 

[lj19]

I heard that it's possible that this could be the effect of multiple exposures, because they used multiple exposures due to film being cheaper when reused.

 

[Evo]

I heard that it's possible that this could be the effect of multiple exposures, because they used multiple exposures due to film being cheaper when reused.

You can't reuse film.

bolding mine

 

[baywax]

I heard that it's possible that this could be the effect of multiple exposures, because they used multiple exposures due to film being cheaper when reused.

This shows a technique in which film is "reused".

[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Ap8-KSC-68PC-329.jpg[/URL]

]Double exposure



Apollo 8 launch. The photo is a double exposure, as the Moon was not visible at the time of launch (NASA).

Analogue
In film and photography, double exposure is a technique in which a piece of film is exposed twice, to two different images. The resulting photographic image shows the second image superimposed over the first. The technique can be used to create ghostly images or to add people and objects to a scene that were not originally there. It is frequently used in photographic hoaxes. It also is sometimes used as an artistic visual effect, especially when filming singers or musicians.
It is considered easiest to have a manual winding camera for double exposures. On automatic winding cameras, as soon as a picture is taken the film is typically wound to the next frame. Some more advanced automatic winding cameras have the option for multiple exposures but it must be set before making each exposure. Manual winding cameras with a multiple exposure feature can be set to double-expose after making the first exposure.
Since shooting multiple exposures will expose the same frame multiple times, negative exposure compensation must first be set to avoid overexposure. For example, to expose the frame twice with correct exposure, a −1 EV compensation have to be done, and −2 EV for exposing four times. This may not be necessary when photographing a lit subject in two (or more) different positions against a perfectly dark background, as the background area will be essentially unexposed.

 

[Evo]

This shows a technique in which film is "reused".

Double exposure is not "reusing" film for the purpose of saving money. You cannot reuse film, as in erase it and use it again.

 

[baywax]

Double exposure is not "reusing" film for the purpose of saving money. You cannot reuse film, as in erase it and use it again.

True enough. No such thing as "Read and Write" analog film.

 

[turbo]

True enough. No such thing as "Read and Write" analog film.

Thank you. How could you possibly strip the fixed emulsion from acetate or celluloid substrate films without damaging them, and then economically deposit new emulsions on the substrate? And leave enough of one usage to register on the second? Fantasy.

 

[baywax]

Thank you. How could you possibly strip the fixed emulsion from acetate or celluloid substrate films without damaging them, and then economically deposit new emulsions on the substrate? And leave enough of one usage to register on the second? Fantasy.

Trending deeper into non-topical areas...

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=a908503c&JournalCode=CC"

 

[Evo]

Trending deeper into non-topical areas...

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=a908503c&JournalCode=CC"

Interesting, but as you said, completely off topic for the thread. I don't want the poster to get confused and think what he was told made any sense in the context of the Chaplin film.