Time traveller in 1928 (?)

[Moontanman]

It's an interesting premise and the behavior of the woman is odd. I can't at this time take a side but I have seen much better evidence that some UFOs are alien space craft, at the very least there is much more evidence of aliens than time travelers but UFOs are far more likely to be faked, there seems to be a contest going to see who can make the best fake, not to mention who can debunk anything positive by assuming things, sometimes as far fetched as aliens, to debunk the evidence. I hope this is not the start of a "time traveler" era of hoaxes and debunking to see who can fool who. It's kind of like trying to use the super collider to investigate atoms and having to contend with most of the people faking data to confuse everyone else because they would like to obfuscate the results more than find anything real.

[michel123456]

The idea it might have been photoshoped is sad but a part of who and what we are. No outrageous claim can possibly be made about a picture or video with out the idea of is being a hoax being the most likely origin of such a video or picture.

 

This means that a real video or picture would be as worthless as evidence as a photoshoped video. As we go forward it only gets worse, at some point, and that was probably years ago, no medium is useful as evidence for anything.

 

 

"Frenchman invents anti-Photoshop to detect digital deceit"

[Moontanman]

"Frenchman invents anti-Photoshop to detect digital deceit"

 

 

yes but then comes the anti-anti phtoshop soft ware and the anti-anti-anti photoshop software and so on...

[Dune]

I'd like to thank Dune for demonstrating so clearly the way of never letting facts get in the way of a good accusation of "fake" or "debunking".

 

"Compare the shadows" he says. If you take 10 seconds to see the footage, the first noticable thing about the zebra is that you never see its feet. Hence it becomes impossible to measure the shadow of the zebra to compare it to anything.

 

Dunes argument than becomes "Something I cannot measure is out of proportion to something I can measure. Therefore the footage is faked."

 

I'm sure such profound logical arguments will revolutionise the field of physics.

 

 

This is what always kills me about "scientists". If x is n the y must be 1n. Did it ever ocur to you that if x could be n, without proving y is 1n?

Edited November 7, 2010 by Dune

[JohnB]

This is what always kills me about "scientists". If x is n the y must be 1n. Did it ever ocur to you that if x could be n, without proving y is 1n?

 

Firstly, I'm not a "scientist".

 

Secondly, would you care to expand on your comment? You suggested that the shadows be compared and I showed that this is actually impossible, which made your "fake" claim a simple knee jerk reaction and without basis in fact. Personally, I don't give two hoots whether the woman is a time traveller or not, but I do care about the quality of arguments used.

 

Put another way. You made the claim that the footage was faked. I showed that your "proof" was false. Any claims based on that proof are therefore wrong.

[Sisyphus]

The guy in the video seems to be seeing a lot more than I am. I'm staring at it and I can't even be certain that she's actually holding anything, let alone "clearly a phone."

 

The whole argument is pretty silly. "I can't explain this" morphs into "there is no other explanation besides time traveler, so that's what it is." This is a classic "time traveler of the gaps" argument.

 

So: "I can't explain this." However, I can think of a few reasons against (aside from time travel of this type being so fantastic and probably impossible, I mean). How about: isn't it weird that nobody noticed a woman walking around with a magical device like that? Was everyone there a time traveler (including Charlie Chaplin?), and the fact that they accidentally kept this film the only evidence of it?

[Dune]

Firstly, I'm not a "scientist".

 

Secondly, would you care to expand on your comment? You suggested that the shadows be compared and I showed that this is actually impossible, which made your "fake" claim a simple knee jerk reaction and without basis in fact. Personally, I don't give two hoots whether the woman is a time traveller or not, but I do care about the quality of arguments used.

 

Put another way. You made the claim that the footage was faked. I showed that your "proof" was false. Any claims based on that proof are therefore wrong.

 

You only showed that it was false in your opinion, since you asumed I could not measure the difference.

 

In fact, rather than ten seconds in, at 3:27 the veiw of the animal and it's shadow are readily compared to that of the human and it's shadow.

 

Since this is, aparently, not clear to the naked eye, I endeavered to calculate the ratio; specimen height to shadow length. Using a Brown and Sharp 6" dial indicator calibrated in thousanths/inch, I arive at heigth human, 1.57", length of shadow, .6" or roughly 2.66 to 1.

 

Utilizing the photo of a zebra at this link http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.shoarns.com/Hartmanns%2520Zebra%2520web%2520ma_Aug_20052099-08-03_14-02-03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.shoarns.com/ZebraGallery.html&h=347&w=519&sz=80&tbnid=4lejT2aCeX5f5M:&tbnh=88&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dzebra&zoom=1&q=zebra&usg=__4y8uPkFp4K9l8S0Zd_BjV8Wip4U=&sa=X&ei=0EXXTLujD4H68Aas67SjCg&ved=0CCsQ9QEwAw

I determined that the length of a zebra's hoof, including ancle is aproximately 1/8 of the body height. Measuring the visible amount of the animal's height in the film I arrived at 1.4" top of back to top of ancle (visible in the film). I then added .175" to 1.4" to arrive at an estimated height of 1.575" The zebra's shadow measures 1.71" for an aproximate ratio of .9 to 1

 

That these ratios could co-exist in a legitimate photo is far enough out of the realm of posibilty as to readily compensate for any estimations I had to make.

[JohnB]

You only showed that it was false in your opinion, since you asumed I could not measure the difference.

 

In fact, rather than ten seconds in, at 3:27 the veiw of the animal and it's shadow are readily compared to that of the human and it's shadow.

 

Since this is, aparently, not clear to the naked eye, I endeavered to calculate the ratio; specimen height to shadow length. Using a Brown and Sharp 6" dial indicator calibrated in thousanths/inch, I arive at heigth human, 1.57", length of shadow, .6" or roughly 2.66 to 1.

 

Utilizing the photo of a zebra at this link http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.shoarns.com/Hartmanns%2520Zebra%2520web%2520ma_Aug_20052099-08-03_14-02-03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.shoarns.com/ZebraGallery.html&h=347&w=519&sz=80&tbnid=4lejT2aCeX5f5M:&tbnh=88&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dzebra&zoom=1&q=zebra&usg=__4y8uPkFp4K9l8S0Zd_BjV8Wip4U=&sa=X&ei=0EXXTLujD4H68Aas67SjCg&ved=0CCsQ9QEwAw

I determined that the length of a zebra's hoof, including ancle is aproximately 1/8 of the body height. Measuring the visible amount of the animal's height in the film I arrived at 1.4" top of back to top of ancle (visible in the film). I then added .175" to 1.4" to arrive at an estimated height of 1.575" The zebra's shadow measures 1.71" for an aproximate ratio of .9 to 1

 

That these ratios could co-exist in a legitimate photo is far enough out of the realm of posibilty as to readily compensate for any estimations I had to make.

 

Now that's an answer! Excellent. Like I said, I don't really care either way, it's the quality of argument that I'm interested in. But now you've got me thinking.

 

I don't see where you get a shadow length of .6 inches for the human though. Using my gem vernier (not as accurate as yours) at around 3:07 the womans shadow is fully off the wall and the "head" of the shadow is just passing behind the zebra, I get a measurement of 33 mm for the height of the woman and a shadow length of 22 mm. A ratio of 1.5 : 1.

 

The ankle of the zebra is never in shot, so how do you use it for a calculation? Using the google picture you link to calculations can come out another way. Since the sun is at an angle in the footage, we shouldn't use the height to the zebras back, but a point just above the tail. The distance from the tail to the knee is 47 mm and the knee to the ground is 33 mm. I'm using the horizontal black stripe on the right rear leg as the dividing point. So the ratio is 1.42 : 1. In the footage (and estimating the exact placement of the tail) the distance is 22 mm which gives a distance from the knee to the ground of 15.4 mm and a total of 37.4 mm.

 

This would give a shadow length from the hoof of 25 mm. Measuring down to where the hoof should be and then measuring the shadow I get 22 mm, which considering the assumptions isn't too bad. Certainly within the realms of "not faked".

 

Cheers.

 

Addendum. Rereading both posts and especially the length of shadow you came up with I realised something, we're using different legs. I'm using the right hind leg of the statue and you must be using the left. I don't think the left should be used as it is angled forward and messes up the shadow height.

Edited November 8, 2010 by JohnB

[Dune]

I see that you possibly have a valid point. Thankyou for the lesson.

[Genecks]

Considering if this were a true, blue time traveler:

 

This is just one more thing a future potential OTHER time traveler will be left to figure out to test whether or not you can stay in THIS timeline and time travel. So far, we've got at least the MLK assassination, JFK, and now this. Definitely it offers someone a way to check for other time travelers and timeline consistency. Question is if it will be possible to lock down this time traveler as being there at that moment in time.

 

Honestly, I don't doubt the possibility of time travel. I doubt the possibility that we'll be able to tap back into our direct timeline, though. If she's a time traveler and there is something special about her, maybe there is something special about the film. Maybe there could be some odd radiation on it? Perhaps if the original location could be locked down, there is some kind of active communication port going on that continues to exist at that area. So, in that particular area, even to this day, there is currently a time rip that continues to exist until after the point where the person on the other line (let's assume the person on the other line is in the future at the moment), then surely there should be an active channel there.

 

I think that would be a truth if the time traveller foolishly opened up a communication with someone from the future: Foolish, for there may exist some kind of trace of the call.

 

Considering it's a hoax and shoop:

 

Well, I'm sure there is some original film vault or copies around that can prove this shoop is a fake. Otherwise, there should be a physicalist or mathematical way to describe it as a fake.

 

More intersting however:

 

What if before the Irish film maker and we ever discussed this topic, it was actually real footage. And what if the time traveler fixed all these issues (which take some time to take effect) and then somehow this film is now considered a shoop and so forth...

 

It'd be a radical curiosity to think what behaviorist tactics the time traveler employed in order to get the film artist to engage in such, but surely it must have had a way of being done. Maybe it would be like MIB, where the past events are erased, and the future events are instilled. Maybe the guy will walk around being called crazy, while in fact those things were real.

 

--

 

As I've said before, definitely if we want to know, all we have to do is time travel back to those places and find out. Perhaps the best that could come out of actually proving a time traveler would be the act of convincing people that you can indeed change time and/or partake of being in time. Then again, such a proof could even cause serious chaos and world war 3 until a person eventually gets his/her hands on time travel capability.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Genecks

[michel123456]

If you were chosen for a time travel, would you take your cell phone with you?

As mentioned before, there were no cell phone providers at the time, no emitters, & no receptors. It is simply ridiculous.

Why do we have to prefer the most incredible explanation?

Something in human mind drive people into mystery, and people like that. When someone comes and cancel the whole setting with a simple explanation, he is the bad guy. Mystery is better, even if it is complete nonsense. What a pity.

[Genecks]

Scientists consider alternative hypotheses, not just the ones that negate probable truths.

[JohnB]

michel, don't be fixated on "mobile phone". What's wrong with "hand held communication device"?

[michel123456]

michel, don't be fixated on "mobile phone". What's wrong with "hand held communication device"?

 

Correct. Something before the invention of Bluetooth.

[ydoaPs]

Correct. Something before the invention of Bluetooth.

Like a hearing aid.

[michel123456]

Like a hearing aid.

You just won the game.

[JohnB]

Of course.

 

Everybody talks into their own hearing aid.

[Moontanman]

I would be amazed if this woman was really a time traveler, I see no evidence to assume this but I would be equally amazed if she was a time traveler and was alone and had no communication methods. If you look at this from the point of view of a time traveler, she might have brought a communicator and if she did she would want it to be easily hidden and draw no attention but from her perspective a cell phone might be exactly what she wanted to bring. If she is from the future, a future inquisitive enough to want to see what was going on in 20th century Earth it indicates their information is somewhat less than perfect about the time period. Can you imagine if we were to travel back (for instance) 2500 years how inaccurate our information about that time period would be? From her perspective cinema, computers, and cell phones all occurred at the same time.

 

She might have arrived thinking a cell phone was a great way to disguise her technology only to find she is 75 years too soon.

[ydoaPs]

I would be amazed if this woman was really a time traveler, I see no evidence to assume this but I would be equally amazed if she was a time traveler and was alone and had no communication methods. If you look at this from the point of view of a time traveler, she might have brought a communicator and if she did she would want it to be easily hidden and draw no attention but from her perspective a cell phone might be exactly what she wanted to bring. If she is from the future, a future inquisitive enough to want to see what was going on in 20th century Earth it indicates their information is somewhat less than perfect about the time period. Can you imagine if we were to travel back (for instance) 2500 years how inaccurate our information about that time period would be? From her perspective cinema, computers, and cell phones all occurred at the same time.

 

She might have arrived thinking a cell phone was a great way to disguise her technology only to find she is 75 years too soon.

That doesn't quite work. Recordkeeping 2500 years ago was crap. We keep record of EVERYTHING. A simple search of the patent records would turn up acceptable technology.

[Moontanman]

That doesn't quite work. Recordkeeping 2500 years ago was crap. We keep record of EVERYTHING. A simple search of the patent records would turn up acceptable technology.

 

 

You are assuming an unbroken chain of civilization, 2500 years ago was several civilizations and most records of 2500 years ago are lost. We are not real good at continuous civilization for 2500 years much less record keeping.

 

Imagine if the library at Alexandria had not been lost we might have star ships by now, how many times in 2500 years has almost all information been lost?