• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Time traveler caught on tape?

chevydriver1123 said:
Reminds me of this guy

John Titor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Schizophrenic Psychosis possibly?

Also what is the blue stripe in the top left of the film? Editing/Archiving?
Also, folks have been mouthing, talking to 'them', I've seen people holding invisible phones and talking into them. Some people are convinced that they are chipped. The telephone had been invented by then, too.
 
Ok, let me get this straight, she has enough money to time travel from some point in the future but she doesn't have enough money for a bluetooth headset.
 
And there my grasp of light-speed begins to unravel. A photons are particles of matter -- why do they get to have all the fun?
 
I wonderful if she follows "Terminator" rules. That is, its one way only and you can't go back. This is in contrast to, say, "Back to the Future" rules, where back and forth is possible, and of course "Timerider rules, which are just plain silly.
 
Zyphlin said:
I wonderful if she follows "Terminator" rules. That is, its one way only and you can't go back. This is in contrast to, say, "Back to the Future" rules, where back and forth is possible, and of course "Timerider rules, which are just plain silly.
Click to expand...

the only reason it was a one way trip in Terminator, was because the item being sent back had to be encased in living flesh and they'd have had to use one time machine to send a second one (encased in living flesh) back, in order to facilitate the return trip for the terminator. But, if they had managed to do so, and the terminator had suceeded, then the terminator would have gone back and his arm and CPU would not have been left behind, so we never would have discovered them and we would not have made the advances that made the terminators and SkyNet possible, so they never would have been in the first place.

Time travel makes my brain hurt.
 
Re: Time Traveler in Chaplin film?

OscarB63 said:
not as interesting as it was in the first thread on the topic. :lamo
Click to expand...

Oh, you don't say, which category?
 
Re: Time Traveler in Chaplin film?

MaggieD said:
Well, if it's time travel, it's from a time ahead of ours, Polynikes. There may have been a time traveller with a cell phone, but I don't think there were cell towers... ;-)
Click to expand...


Someone addressed the cell tower in an article I read on it, saying something to the effect of 'if you can figure out time travel, I'm ssure cell phone towers wouldn't be a hard problem to overcome.'
 
Re: Time Traveler in Chaplin film?

Polynikes said:
Someone addressed the cell tower in an article I read on it, saying something to the effect of 'if you can figure out time travel, I'm ssure cell phone towers wouldn't be a hard problem to overcome.'
Click to expand...

That technology isn't available in our time; thus it would have to be a traveller from our future. Pretty big cellphone, too. Isn't it much more logical that the film was doctored by this jamoke?
 
Re: Time Traveler in Chaplin film?

OscarB63 said:
not as interesting as it was in the first thread on the topic. :lamo
Click to expand...
I just came back from the future and, armed with the knowledge that this thread would be posted, posted mine first. :cool:

And the Royals still suck in the future, too.
 
Re: Time Traveler in Chaplin film?

I am time traveling right now.. I just seem to be stuck only being able to go forward, and at a rate of 1 second per second
 
Re: Time Traveler in Chaplin film?

Coronado said:
I just came back from the future and, armed with the knowledge that this thread would be posted, posted mine first. :cool:

And the Royals still suck in the future, too.
Click to expand...

Royals?? WTF is that??? Don't tell me they are still trying to play baseball in KC :shock:

what is it about KC that makes it home to some of the crappiest pro sports franchises known to man?

KC Royals (I didn't know they still existed)

KC Wizzards (soccer, oddly enough this is my oldest son's favorite MLS team)

KC Kings (isn't this the team that sucked so bad they moved to Sacramento?)

KC Scouts (NHL, sucked so bad they moved to NJ and changed their name to the Devils, witness protection I guess)

KC Chiefs (longtime Chiefs fan...but they more often than not SUCK)
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Threads Merged
 
The probability that this is all a bunch of visual coincidences is vastly bigger than there being (a)time travelers who (b) look passably human, are (c)interested in any time period technologically contiguous with this one, (d) rely on handheld communications technology, and (e) would be idiotic enough to walk around using it in public in an era where it's unknown. If you were to carefully comb through every piece of film ever made looking for "time travelers," you would probably find them all over the place - with high enough numbers, the coincidences add up and you find tons of examples. An extra in 1940s movie with a 1980s haircut; a car in the distance in a '50s movie that seems like it belongs in the '70s; a shadowed poster in a '60s movie that seems to advertise an event that happened decades later; and so on, and so on. These things could look clear as day, but they're just visual coincidences.

Is it a mentally unstable old woman / man in drag talking into some random object? Is it fake footage staged in the present day? Is it some weird but otherwise mundane situation - someone testing a mobile radio prototype, with the transmission gear hiding beneath that huge frame? There are limitless scenarios that are all massively more probable than a time traveler, and yet the fallacy of human perception makes us see these things as less likely because they involve us being aware of more elements rather than brushing them off as "The Unknown." It's the same thing that makes more people believe in physically impossible religious stories than mundane occurrences that are merely statistically improbable - e.g., someone who looks almost exactly like you committing a crime in your neighborhood. People who would scoff at the notion if they were on a jury may still believe with absolute conviction that they've been visited by angels. People are dumb.
 
Last edited:
I don't see anything near her mouth. Could she be listening to a sea shell? You know how some people think you can hear the sea when you hold a shell over your ear?
 
Re: Time Traveler in Chaplin film?

MaggieD said:
That technology isn't available in our time; thus it would have to be a traveller from our future. Pretty big cellphone, too. Isn't it much more logical that the film was doctored by this jamoke?
Click to expand...

Of course it's more logical. I'm not defending the time travel theory, as it is very unlikely. Just thought the clip was interesting.
 
Re: Time Traveler in Chaplin film?

It would have been more believable if she were driving. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Time Traveler in Chaplin film?

She is actually a HE...... and this who it was! :shock:

hartnell-entering-tardis.jpg


200full-william-hartnell.jpg



doctor_one.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: Time Traveler in Chaplin film?

Time to debunk this one.

What she was holding was an ear trumpet. These devices were commonly used by the hard of hearing before electronic hearing aids were invented. I will now wait for someone to show proof that she had a hearing aid too, so that must be a cell phone. LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom