It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely through the hand-phone. On the film clearly is visible her hand-phone and her engagement into the talk. This extraordinary intake remains in film archives undiscovered for the next over 80 years. After all, in that times no-one knew what is a hand-phone. Such a telephone is NOT invented for further 50 years. Only near the end of 2010 a bit more inquisitive researcher discovers the significance of this scene. The section of the film containing the scene is fast placed in the YouTube, while the entire matter is reported to the world via press agencies. I learned about all this from the article " 'Time traveller' snapped" published on page A3 of newspaper "The New Zealand Herald", issue dated on Thursday, October 28, 2010. The next day I viewed also this scene from the original film available in YouTube at the address http://www.goo.gl/DLV3 .
The reaction to this objective evidence of the existence of Time Travellers on the Earth, is typical for arrogant people of 21 century. The majority of viewers unable to think, hides their embarrassment with own ignorance in matters of the work of time, in typical manner - i.e. scoffing sarcastically at the objective proof. In turn these sparse viewers, who still try to think, decrease the evidential value of the film by claiming that supposedly this filmed woman could NOT talk by a hand-phone, as in 1928 still there was no infrastructure on the Earth which would allow to connect her with the person receiving her call. Unfortunately, in their negation of the authenticity of that film, they overlook several obvious possibilities. For example, that if someone arrives to the past in a time vehicle, then this vehicle is going to be parked somewhere nearby, and thus it is that vehicle that can provide the infrastructure needed for connecting the caller to the receiving person. Or that time vehicles will NOT be build in the Earth for some time, thus until the time they are completed the hand-phones may get so much improved, that they may NOT need any present infrastructure and hardware that links them to the receivers of their calls.
Of course, enemies of my research will keep silencing or scoffing the truth presented on the web page "immortality.htm" and stating that if at a required time I was offered a right conditions for scientific inquiries and a requires financing for my research, then until today our civilisation would already have working time vehicles. But whatever would be the arguments of such enemies of my research, the fact remains that the filmed proof for the existence of time travellers, adds itself to a whole array of other evidence which confirms my rational and well documented explanation, that the building of time vehicles is possible, while "time travellers" are already an objective phenomenon on our planet.
My "theory of everything" called the "Concept of Dipolar Gravity" teaches us, that the principle of shifting back in time and travelling through time, is very simple. After all, the time through which we just are living is pre-programmed in our bodies in the natural program called the "program of life and fate" that is stored in DNA helixes from our genetic system. In turn the execution control which runs this program is carried out by shifting the resonance point of vibrations of these DNA helixes. Therefore, in order to shift us to a different time, it suffices that our "time vehicle" (see "TM" in part (a) from "Fig. #G1" on the web page "immortality.htm") surrounds all DNA helixes contained in our body, with a sphere of very strong pulsating magnetic field (see "E" in part (a) from "Fig. #G1" on the web page "immortality.htm"). The frequency of pulsations of this field must be equal to the resonance frequency of the helixes. Then, by controlling the frequency of vibrations of this sphere of powerful field, it suffices to shift the resonance points into a different area of our "program of life and fate" coded into our DNA helixes. This in turn shifts us to a different point in time, e.g. again to years of our youth. How exactly this shifting in time is carried out, is demonstrated to us already today by "time vehicles" captured on photographs from parts (b), (c) and (d) of "Fig. #G1" on the web page named "immortality.htm".
The entire difficulty of completing a "time vehicle" boils down to the constructing of a device called the "Oscillatory Chamber of the third generation". This is because such a chamber generates a pulsating magnetic field that is sufficiently powerful to be able to surround us tightly with this sphere of the field and penetrate with this field to every single cell in our body. Its magnetic field is also controlled sufficiently precisely to allow the simultaneous shifting resonance points of all DNA from our body to a new time. The majority of theoretical problems connected with the travelling through time and with building this "Oscillatory Chamber of the third generation" I already have resolved. Apart from this web page, my solutions for these problems are also described on the totaliztic web page named "timevehicle.htm", as well as in volumes 11 and 2 of my newest monograph marked as [1/5] (disseminated free of charge from my web page named "text_1_5.htm"). Thus, almost the only matter still awaiting the completion to obtain these time vehicles, is the building of that "Oscillatory Chamber of the third generation".
I am hugely surprised that appeals which I keep repeating continually since 1985, to allow me build my "time vehicles", remain unanswered for already over a quarter of century. After all, I invented this vehicle – so with appropriate support I am also able to build it. Also internet discussions on my inventions of the "time vehicle", instead of constructively addressing the subject, typically lower themselves down to swearing at me by a group of some brainless internet hooligans - as an example see previously discussed thread about my "time vehicle" from addresses http://groups.google.com/group/alt.biology/browse_thread/thread/c36d7... or http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/browse_thread/thr... (in English) as well as http://groups.google.com/group/pl.sci.filozofia/browse_thread/thread/... or http://groups.google.com/group/pl.sci.inzynieria/browse_thread/thread... (in Polish). On the other hand my "time vehicle" is able to solve all problems of our civilization. After all, if for example someone becomes old, simply can jump into such a "time vehicle" and again shift to years of his or her youth. If someone get sick, then can shift back in time and avoid being infected. If someone marries a wrong person, he or she may get into a time vehicle and shit in time before the marriage, then marry someone else. If a politician commits a mistake and starts a war for which his nation later votes him out of the office, he can sit into his time vehicle and in the new passage of time do not initiate this war. Etc., etc. On the other hand, I am getting increasingly old – and thus have increasingly lower chance to be able to build my "time vehicle". In turn when I finally go, may pass many centuries before again someone is born with sufficiently open mind and sufficient inventive skills to be able to build for the humanity the vehicle so advanced.
* * *
This post summarises the essence of items #D6 and #A2 from the totaliztic web page named "immortality.htm" (updated on 30 October 2010, or later). Thus, reading the above descriptions would be even more effective from that web page "immortality.htm" than from this post, as on the web page are working all (green) links to other related web pages with additional explanations, it is printed in colour, it is also illustrated, the content of it is updated regularly, etc. The latest update of the web page "immortality.htm" can be viewed, amongst others, at addresses: http://members.fortunecity.com/timevehicle/immortality.htm http://totalizm.20fr.com/immortality.htm http://pigs.20megsfree.com/immortality.htm http://prism.20fr.com/immortality.htm http://energia.sl.pl/immortality.htm http://propulsion.250free.com/immortality.htm (this last address has a very low "monthly bandwidth" and thus it is active only at beginnings of each month until its "monthly bandwidth" is exhausted). Notice that every above web site contains all totaliztic web pages, including pages "text_1_5.htm". However, volumes 11 and 2 of monograph [1/5] I would recommend to download from the address http://energia.sl.pl/text_1_5.htm where this monograph is updated the most frequently.
Each topic which I am subjecting to a public discussion, including this one, after the discussion is concluded is placed on all blogs of totalizm still in existence (so that interested readers can find it fast in there). At the moment two blogs of totalizm still remain operational, which can be viewed at following internet addresses: http://totalizm.wordpress.com http://totalizm.blox.pl/html It is also worth to have look in there at related posts, e.g. at posts number #176E, #161E, or #160E which also concern my "time vehicle".
There are infinite levels of reality, which are in fact, constructs of the level of consciousness of the inhabitants. (Even modern scientists speculate on muti dimensional realities)
On a less subtle scale, there are those who are at home in the slums of Mumbai as there are people on 'nob hill'.Also there is discontent at both ends of the scale of a 'non materialistic' nature , more on nob hill in fact.
The established time travellers know that such 'planes' exist within the bounds of such 'consciousness creation' and need to be respected as such. A good illustration being the naturalist who ,in the past, would (through good intentions) interfere with the ebb and flow of life in the jungle, whereby today, recognise the chain of events resulting from such interaction, and now observe with awareness and respect. (The road to hell is paved with good intentions).
Your examples of how people could solve their problems with such a machine, doesnt take into account that problems are created by the participants so they can expand their own consciousness. The reactions to your posts you mentioned, are in fact, appropriate messages, even if they dont see the significance of their 'roar'. Approaching an angry injured lion will not be welcomed,regardless of the motive, because it lives in a world of kill or be killed. A 'true ' patriot' to itspridde (or country).
People on this 'plane' constantly say 'show us the proof', but do not realise that to master such skills (with or without a machine) requires a state of consciousness of understanding of the laws of non interference.
Look at what happens when even useful technology such as atom splitting is discovered. Countries are still threatening 'oblivion' to each other using such power.
Just look at how those who made the internal combustion engine obsolete decades ago (Ive personally met a couple) have been mostly ruined. Tesla being a good well known example.A large part of the awakening had to come about because of the emerging sensitivity to the environment. Far more significant when people move to greater levels.
Some here call this 'the prison planet' .More like the planet of the "school of hard knocks", graduation from which, is compulsory. We have to "INDIVIDUALLY" learn to move on (in a state of consciousness). There are those individuals who believe because they have learned, they must teach others. They are collectively known as 'martyrs' (I suspect you have tasted such reality), usually the domain for those in their final term :-).
> It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > through the hand-phone. On the film clearly is visible her hand-phone > and her engagement into the talk. This extraordinary intake remains in > film archives undiscovered for the next over 80 years. After all, in > that times no-one knew what is a hand-phone. Such a telephone is NOT > invented for further 50 years. Only near the end of 2010 a bit more > inquisitive researcher discovers the significance of this scene. The > section of the film containing the scene is fast placed in the > YouTube, while the entire matter is reported to the world via press > agencies. I learned about all this from the article " 'Time traveller' > snapped" published on page A3 of newspaper "The New Zealand Herald", > issue dated on Thursday, October 28, 2010. The next day I viewed also > this scene from the original film available in YouTube at the addresshttp://www.goo.gl/DLV3 .
> The reaction to this objective evidence of the existence of Time > Travellers on the Earth, is typical for arrogant people of 21 century. > The majority of viewers unable to think, hides their embarrassment > with own ignorance in matters of the work of time, in typical manner - > i.e. scoffing sarcastically at the objective proof. In turn these > sparse viewers, who still try to think, decrease the evidential value > of the film by claiming that supposedly this filmed woman could NOT > talk by a hand-phone, as in 1928 still there was no infrastructure on > the Earth which would allow to connect her with the person receiving > her call. Unfortunately, in their negation of the authenticity of that > film, they overlook several obvious possibilities. For example, that > if someone arrives to the past in a time vehicle, then this vehicle is > going to be parked somewhere nearby, and thus it is that vehicle that > can provide the infrastructure needed for connecting the caller to the > receiving person. Or that time vehicles will NOT be build in the Earth > for some time, thus until the time they are completed the hand-phones > may get so much improved, that they may NOT need any present > infrastructure and hardware that links them to the receivers of their > calls.
> Of course, enemies of my research will keep silencing or scoffing the > truth presented on the web page "immortality.htm" and stating that if > at a required time I was offered a right conditions for scientific > inquiries and a requires financing for my research, then until today > our civilisation would already have working time vehicles. But > whatever would be the arguments of such enemies of my research, the > fact remains that the filmed proof for the existence of time > travellers, adds itself to a whole array of other evidence which > confirms my rational and well documented explanation, that the > building of time vehicles is possible, while "time travellers" are > already an objective phenomenon on our planet.
> My "theory of everything" called the "Concept of Dipolar Gravity" > teaches us, that the principle of shifting back in time and travelling > through time, is very simple. After all, the time through which we > just are living is pre-programmed in our bodies in the natural program > called the "program of life and fate" that is stored in DNA helixes > from our genetic system. In turn the execution control which runs this > program is carried out by shifting the resonance point of vibrations > of these DNA helixes. Therefore, in order to shift us to a different > time, it suffices that our "time vehicle" (see "TM" in part (a) from > "Fig. #G1" on the web page "immortality.htm") surrounds all DNA > helixes contained in our body, with a sphere of very strong pulsating > magnetic field (see "E" in part (a) from "Fig. #G1" on the web page > "immortality.htm"). The frequency of pulsations of this field must be > equal to the resonance frequency of the helixes. Then, by controlling > the frequency of vibrations of this sphere of powerful field, it > suffices to shift the resonance points into a different area of our > "program of life and fate" coded into our DNA helixes. This in turn > shifts us to a different point in time, e.g. again to years of our > youth. How exactly this shifting in time is carried out, is > demonstrated to us already today by "time vehicles" captured on > photographs from parts (b), (c) and (d) of "Fig. #G1" on the web page > named "immortality.htm".
> The entire difficulty of completing a "time vehicle" boils down to the > constructing of a device called the "Oscillatory Chamber of the third > generation". This is because such a chamber generates a pulsating > magnetic field that is sufficiently powerful to be able to surround us > tightly with this sphere of the field and penetrate with this field to > every single cell in our body. Its magnetic field is also controlled > sufficiently precisely to allow the simultaneous shifting resonance > points of all DNA from our body to a new time. The majority of > theoretical problems connected with the travelling through time and > with building this "Oscillatory Chamber of the third generation" I > already have resolved. Apart from this web page, my solutions for > these problems are also described on the totaliztic web page named > "timevehicle.htm", as well as in volumes 11 and 2 of my newest > monograph marked as [1/5] (disseminated free of charge from my web > page named "text_1_5.htm"). Thus, almost the only matter still > awaiting the completion to obtain these time vehicles, is the building > of that "Oscillatory Chamber of the third generation".
> I am hugely surprised that appeals which I keep repeating continually > since 1985, to allow me build my "time vehicles", remain unanswered > for already over a quarter of century. After all, I invented this > vehicle – so with appropriate support I am also able to build it. Also > internet discussions on my inventions of the "time vehicle", instead > of constructively addressing the subject, typically lower themselves > down to swearing at me by a group of some brainless internet hooligans > - as an example see previously discussed thread about my "time > vehicle" from addresseshttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.biology/browse_thread/thread/c36d7... > orhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/browse_thread/thr... > (in English) as well ashttp://groups.google.com/group/pl.sci.filozofia/browse_thread/thread/... > orhttp://groups.google.com/group/pl.sci.inzynieria/browse_thread/thread... > (in Polish). On the other hand my "time vehicle" is able to solve all > problems of our civilization. After all, if for example someone > becomes old, simply can jump into such a "time vehicle" and again > shift to years of his or her youth. If someone get sick, then can > shift back in time and avoid being infected. If someone marries a > wrong person, he or she may get into a time vehicle and shit in time > before the marriage, then marry someone else. If a politician commits > a mistake and starts a war for which his nation later votes him out of > the office, he can sit into his time vehicle and in the new passage of > time do not initiate this war. Etc., etc. On the other hand, I am > getting increasingly old – and thus have increasingly lower chance to > be able to build my "time vehicle". In turn when I finally go, may > pass many centuries before again someone is born with sufficiently > open mind and sufficient inventive skills to be able to build for the > humanity the vehicle so advanced.
> * * *
> This post summarises the essence of items #D6 and #A2 from the > totaliztic web page named "immortality.htm" (updated on 30 October > 2010, or later). Thus, reading the above descriptions would be even > more effective from that web page "immortality.htm" than from this > post, as on the web page are working all (green) links to other > related web pages with additional explanations, it is printed in > colour, it is also illustrated, the content of it is updated > regularly, etc. The latest update of the web page "immortality.htm" > can be viewed, amongst others, at addresses:http://members.fortunecity.com/timevehicle/immortality.htmhttp://tota...(this last address has > a very low "monthly bandwidth" and thus it is active only at > beginnings of each month until its "monthly bandwidth" is exhausted). > Notice that every above web site contains all totaliztic web pages, > including pages "text_1_5.htm". However, volumes 11 and 2 of monograph > [1/5] I would recommend to download from the address http://energia.sl.pl/text_1_5.htm > where this monograph is updated the most frequently.
> Each topic which I am subjecting to a public discussion, including > this one, after the discussion is concluded is placed on all blogs of > totalizm still in existence (so that interested readers can find it > fast in there). At the moment two blogs of totalizm still remain > operational, which can be viewed at following internet addresses:http://totalizm.wordpress.comhttp://totalizm.blox.pl/html > It is also worth to have look in there at related posts, e.g. at posts > number #176E, #161E, or #160E which also concern my "time vehicle".
> With the totaliztic salute, > Jan Pajak
Fascinating stuff,
I suggest you make and add some more illustrations then eventually (over time) create some kind of documentary film.
Then there will always be people accusing others of believing everything on face value while drawing attention to the idea.... eh
...
> It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > through the hand-phone.
Apparently could be a hearing aid made by I think Siemens in 1924.
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:30:42 -0700, JP3 wrote: > The reaction to this objective evidence of the existence of Time > Travellers on the Earth
Let's say this YouTube responder is lying:
"The woman is Audrey Manningham. I know her great grandson, who told me she was 62 years old at the time and the device was not a phone but a hair comb she was placing back in position. Audrey was suffering from dementia at the time she was at the Circus release. The man in front of her was George Manningham, her husband. She was talking to herself."
.. and proceed with a line of common logic since time travel seems to be yet another deep secret shared by only an enlightened few (who have enemies)...
First a absolute present needs to be established. If time travel has been discovered in the future or past it would follow that this would be known in all time moments or ages since millions or billions of people would have t-traveled or will already be t-traveling.
It seems you are claiming the 'present' moment is the one and only only present. If t-travel is possible, a singular present is impossible. Bottom line: If time travel has been or was discovered it would not be some dark secret.
> It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus".
Going back in time means being able to put an eggshell back together again. When you can do that, I'll listen. Plus, our existence means this universe makes sense. A universe where one could travel back in time wouldn't behave sensibly.
It's more likely that fellow was cursing to himself how much his ear hurts.
JP3 wrote: > It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > through the hand-phone. On the film clearly is visible her hand-phone > and her engagement into the talk. This extraordinary intake remains in > film archives undiscovered for the next over 80 years. After all, in > that times no-one knew what is a hand-phone. Such a telephone is NOT > invented for further 50 years. Only near the end of 2010 a bit more > inquisitive researcher discovers the significance of this scene. The > section of the film containing the scene is fast placed in the > YouTube, while the entire matter is reported to the world via press > agencies. I learned about all this from the article " 'Time traveller' > snapped" published on page A3 of newspaper "The New Zealand Herald", > issue dated on Thursday, October 28, 2010. The next day I viewed also > this scene from the original film available in YouTube at the address > http://www.goo.gl/DLV3 .
Ha Ha. Let me get this straight, we are to assume the behavior we now associated to the use of a mobile phone, is to be explained only in terms of our current technology, and then assert that this is proof of Time Travel?
You are either saying that a/ time travel exist now along with our crude mobile phone technology, or b/ that future communication technology won't be much more advance than it is now.
One could just as easily isolate that apparent behavior and look for the many other causes, or associations to that behavior. But then this is so typical. We would sooner select our answers from what we know, before we consider the deficiencies in those apparent answers.
Put another way, we don't really know what that woman was doing, We can't really tell for sure, but rather than admit to not knowing, we would sooner select an answer from those answers we do know. We can't admit to the unknown.
What else could you associate that woman's apparent behavior to? Maybe this woman was a little mad, talking to herself, whilst trying to hide that fact by holding her hand to her head. Maybe she was partially deaf, and had the latest technology for the deaf, one of those new fangled 'ear trumpets'. A middle class technology promoted with the media of its day, only to be sported in public the way our early brick mobiles were sported amoungst the well-to-do.
No, i guess it must be time travel, if we can't conceive of more credible answers.
> JP3 wrote: > > It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > > through the hand-phone. On the film clearly is visible her hand-phone > > and her engagement into the talk. This extraordinary intake remains in > > film archives undiscovered for the next over 80 years. After all, in > > that times no-one knew what is a hand-phone. Such a telephone is NOT > > invented for further 50 years. Only near the end of 2010 a bit more > > inquisitive researcher discovers the significance of this scene. The > > section of the film containing the scene is fast placed in the > > YouTube, while the entire matter is reported to the world via press > > agencies. I learned about all this from the article " 'Time traveller' > > snapped" published on page A3 of newspaper "The New Zealand Herald", > > issue dated on Thursday, October 28, 2010. The next day I viewed also > > this scene from the original film available in YouTube at the address > >http://www.goo.gl/DLV3 .
> Ha Ha. Let me get this straight, we are to assume the behavior > we now associated to the use of a mobile phone, is to be explained > only in terms of our current technology, and then assert that this > is proof of Time Travel?
> You are either saying that a/ time travel exist now along with > our crude mobile phone technology, or b/ that future communication > technology won't be much more advance than it is now.
> One could just as easily isolate that apparent behavior and look > for the many other causes, or associations to that behavior. But > then this is so typical. We would sooner select our answers from > what we know, before we consider the deficiencies in those apparent > answers.
> Put another way, we don't really know what that woman was doing, > We can't really tell for sure, but rather than admit to not knowing, > we would sooner select an answer from those answers we do know. > We can't admit to the unknown.
> What else could you associate that woman's apparent behavior to? > Maybe this woman was a little mad, talking to herself, whilst > trying to hide that fact by holding her hand to her head. Maybe > she was partially deaf, and had the latest technology for the > deaf, one of those new fangled 'ear trumpets'. A middle class > technology promoted with the media of its day, only to be sported > in public the way our early brick mobiles were sported amoungst > the well-to-do.
> No, i guess it must be time travel, if we can't conceive of more > credible answers.
People have envisioned small devices of all kinds long before they existed.
> On Oct 31, 1:27 am, TruthSlave<T...@home.com> wrote: >> JP3 wrote: >>> It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". >>> After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch >>> filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost >>> 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely >>> through the hand-phone. On the film clearly is visible her hand-phone >>> and her engagement into the talk. This extraordinary intake remains in >>> film archives undiscovered for the next over 80 years. After all, in >>> that times no-one knew what is a hand-phone. Such a telephone is NOT >>> invented for further 50 years. Only near the end of 2010 a bit more >>> inquisitive researcher discovers the significance of this scene. The >>> section of the film containing the scene is fast placed in the >>> YouTube, while the entire matter is reported to the world via press >>> agencies. I learned about all this from the article " 'Time traveller' >>> snapped" published on page A3 of newspaper "The New Zealand Herald", >>> issue dated on Thursday, October 28, 2010. The next day I viewed also >>> this scene from the original film available in YouTube at the address >>> http://www.goo.gl/DLV3 .
>> Ha Ha. Let me get this straight, we are to assume the behavior >> we now associated to the use of a mobile phone, is to be explained >> only in terms of our current technology, and then assert that this >> is proof of Time Travel?
>> You are either saying that a/ time travel exist now along with >> our crude mobile phone technology, or b/ that future communication >> technology won't be much more advance than it is now.
>> One could just as easily isolate that apparent behavior and look >> for the many other causes, or associations to that behavior. But >> then this is so typical. We would sooner select our answers from >> what we know, before we consider the deficiencies in those apparent >> answers.
>> Put another way, we don't really know what that woman was doing, >> We can't really tell for sure, but rather than admit to not knowing, >> we would sooner select an answer from those answers we do know. >> We can't admit to the unknown.
>> What else could you associate that woman's apparent behavior to? >> Maybe this woman was a little mad, talking to herself, whilst >> trying to hide that fact by holding her hand to her head. Maybe >> she was partially deaf, and had the latest technology for the >> deaf, one of those new fangled 'ear trumpets'. A middle class >> technology promoted with the media of its day, only to be sported >> in public the way our early brick mobiles were sported amoungst >> the well-to-do.
>> No, i guess it must be time travel, if we can't conceive of more >> credible answers.
> People have envisioned small devices of all kinds long before they > existed.
> > On Oct 31, 1:27 am, TruthSlave<T...@home.com> wrote: > >> JP3 wrote: > >>> It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > >>> After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > >>> filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > >>> 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > >>> through the hand-phone. On the film clearly is visible her hand-phone > >>> and her engagement into the talk. This extraordinary intake remains in > >>> film archives undiscovered for the next over 80 years. After all, in > >>> that times no-one knew what is a hand-phone. Such a telephone is NOT > >>> invented for further 50 years. Only near the end of 2010 a bit more > >>> inquisitive researcher discovers the significance of this scene. The > >>> section of the film containing the scene is fast placed in the > >>> YouTube, while the entire matter is reported to the world via press > >>> agencies. I learned about all this from the article " 'Time traveller' > >>> snapped" published on page A3 of newspaper "The New Zealand Herald", > >>> issue dated on Thursday, October 28, 2010. The next day I viewed also > >>> this scene from the original film available in YouTube at the address > >>>http://www.goo.gl/DLV3.
> >> Ha Ha. Let me get this straight, we are to assume the behavior > >> we now associated to the use of a mobile phone, is to be explained > >> only in terms of our current technology, and then assert that this > >> is proof of Time Travel?
> >> You are either saying that a/ time travel exist now along with > >> our crude mobile phone technology, or b/ that future communication > >> technology won't be much more advance than it is now.
> >> One could just as easily isolate that apparent behavior and look > >> for the many other causes, or associations to that behavior. But > >> then this is so typical. We would sooner select our answers from > >> what we know, before we consider the deficiencies in those apparent > >> answers.
> >> Put another way, we don't really know what that woman was doing, > >> We can't really tell for sure, but rather than admit to not knowing, > >> we would sooner select an answer from those answers we do know. > >> We can't admit to the unknown.
> >> What else could you associate that woman's apparent behavior to? > >> Maybe this woman was a little mad, talking to herself, whilst > >> trying to hide that fact by holding her hand to her head. Maybe > >> she was partially deaf, and had the latest technology for the > >> deaf, one of those new fangled 'ear trumpets'. A middle class > >> technology promoted with the media of its day, only to be sported > >> in public the way our early brick mobiles were sported amoungst > >> the well-to-do.
> >> No, i guess it must be time travel, if we can't conceive of more > >> credible answers.
> > People have envisioned small devices of all kinds long before they > > existed.
> > If we assume humans to be rational animals time travel would be the > > only explanation.
> I always wanted a camera without lenses or restricted aperture. For > example, a frame--like looking through a window, capturing the view > as an image.
On Oct 30, 2:09 am, Giga2 <justho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 30 Oct, 02:30, JP3 <total...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > > through the hand-phone.
> Apparently could be a hearing aid made by I think Siemens in 1924.
I like that theory because if it was a wireless phone and it was taken back in time, what "network" would connect with?
On Oct 31, 4:31 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2:09 am, Giga2 <justho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 30 Oct, 02:30, JP3 <total...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > > > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > > > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > > > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > > > through the hand-phone.
> > Apparently could be a hearing aid made by I think Siemens in 1924.
> I like that theory because if it was a wireless phone and it was taken > back in time, what "network" would connect with?
In the 30s Flash Gordon talked to Ming seeing him on a TV moniter. TV did not come out untill 1946. It relates to this post TreBert
> On Oct 31, 4:31 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 2:09 am, Giga2 <justho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On 30 Oct, 02:30, JP3 <total...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > > > > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > > > > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > > > > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > > > > through the hand-phone.
> > > Apparently could be a hearing aid made by I think Siemens in 1924.
> > I like that theory because if it was a wireless phone and it was taken > > back in time, what "network" would connect with?
> In the 30s Flash Gordon talked to Ming seeing him on a TV moniter. TV > did not come out untill 1946. It relates to this post TreBert
You mean the phone and the network came back in time?
> On Oct 31, 4:31 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Oct 30, 2:09 am, Giga2 <justho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On 30 Oct, 02:30, JP3 <total...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". >> > > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch >> > > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost >> > > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely >> > > through the hand-phone.
>> > Apparently could be a hearing aid made by I think Siemens in 1924.
>> I like that theory because if it was a wireless phone and it was taken >> back in time, what "network" would connect with?
> In the 30s Flash Gordon talked to Ming seeing him on a TV moniter. TV > did not come out untill 1946. It relates to this post TreBert
Actually the first public demonstration of TV was in 1926.
There was broadcasting in the 30's, but general deployment of TV essentially stoped with the outbreak of WWII and didn't restart until the war was over.
> On Oct 31, 1:27 am, TruthSlave <T...@home.com> wrote:
> > JP3 wrote: > > > It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > > > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > > > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > > > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > > > through the hand-phone. On the film clearly is visible her hand-phone > > > and her engagement into the talk. This extraordinary intake remains in > > > film archives undiscovered for the next over 80 years. After all, in > > > that times no-one knew what is a hand-phone. Such a telephone is NOT > > > invented for further 50 years. Only near the end of 2010 a bit more > > > inquisitive researcher discovers the significance of this scene. The > > > section of the film containing the scene is fast placed in the > > > YouTube, while the entire matter is reported to the world via press > > > agencies. I learned about all this from the article " 'Time traveller' > > > snapped" published on page A3 of newspaper "The New Zealand Herald", > > > issue dated on Thursday, October 28, 2010. The next day I viewed also > > > this scene from the original film available in YouTube at the address > > >http://www.goo.gl/DLV3 .
> > Ha Ha. Let me get this straight, we are to assume the behavior > > we now associated to the use of a mobile phone, is to be explained > > only in terms of our current technology, and then assert that this > > is proof of Time Travel?
> > You are either saying that a/ time travel exist now along with > > our crude mobile phone technology, or b/ that future communication > > technology won't be much more advance than it is now.
> > One could just as easily isolate that apparent behavior and look > > for the many other causes, or associations to that behavior. But > > then this is so typical. We would sooner select our answers from > > what we know, before we consider the deficiencies in those apparent > > answers.
> > Put another way, we don't really know what that woman was doing, > > We can't really tell for sure, but rather than admit to not knowing, > > we would sooner select an answer from those answers we do know. > > We can't admit to the unknown.
> > What else could you associate that woman's apparent behavior to? > > Maybe this woman was a little mad, talking to herself, whilst > > trying to hide that fact by holding her hand to her head. Maybe > > she was partially deaf, and had the latest technology for the > > deaf, one of those new fangled 'ear trumpets'. A middle class > > technology promoted with the media of its day, only to be sported > > in public the way our early brick mobiles were sported amoungst > > the well-to-do.
> > No, i guess it must be time travel, if we can't conceive of more > > credible answers.
> People have envisioned small devices of all kinds long before they > existed.
> > On Oct 31, 1:27 am, TruthSlave<T...@home.com> wrote: > >> JP3 wrote: > >>> It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > >>> After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > >>> filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > >>> 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > >>> through the hand-phone. On the film clearly is visible her hand-phone > >>> and her engagement into the talk. This extraordinary intake remains in > >>> film archives undiscovered for the next over 80 years. After all, in > >>> that times no-one knew what is a hand-phone. Such a telephone is NOT > >>> invented for further 50 years. Only near the end of 2010 a bit more > >>> inquisitive researcher discovers the significance of this scene. The > >>> section of the film containing the scene is fast placed in the > >>> YouTube, while the entire matter is reported to the world via press > >>> agencies. I learned about all this from the article " 'Time traveller' > >>> snapped" published on page A3 of newspaper "The New Zealand Herald", > >>> issue dated on Thursday, October 28, 2010. The next day I viewed also > >>> this scene from the original film available in YouTube at the address > >>>http://www.goo.gl/DLV3.
> >> Ha Ha. Let me get this straight, we are to assume the behavior > >> we now associated to the use of a mobile phone, is to be explained > >> only in terms of our current technology, and then assert that this > >> is proof of Time Travel?
> >> You are either saying that a/ time travel exist now along with > >> our crude mobile phone technology, or b/ that future communication > >> technology won't be much more advance than it is now.
> >> One could just as easily isolate that apparent behavior and look > >> for the many other causes, or associations to that behavior. But > >> then this is so typical. We would sooner select our answers from > >> what we know, before we consider the deficiencies in those apparent > >> answers.
> >> Put another way, we don't really know what that woman was doing, > >> We can't really tell for sure, but rather than admit to not knowing, > >> we would sooner select an answer from those answers we do know. > >> We can't admit to the unknown.
> >> What else could you associate that woman's apparent behavior to? > >> Maybe this woman was a little mad, talking to herself, whilst > >> trying to hide that fact by holding her hand to her head. Maybe > >> she was partially deaf, and had the latest technology for the > >> deaf, one of those new fangled 'ear trumpets'. A middle class > >> technology promoted with the media of its day, only to be sported > >> in public the way our early brick mobiles were sported amoungst > >> the well-to-do.
> >> No, i guess it must be time travel, if we can't conceive of more > >> credible answers.
> > People have envisioned small devices of all kinds long before they > > existed.
> > If we assume humans to be rational animals time travel would be the > > only explanation.
> I always wanted a camera without lenses or restricted aperture. For > example, a frame--like looking through a window, capturing the view > as an image.
The eye has about a 6mp resolution. The equivalent of a 50mm lens will give you pretty close to the eyes view.
On 31 Oct, 20:31, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2:09 am, Giga2 <justho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 30 Oct, 02:30, JP3 <total...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > > > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > > > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > > > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > > > through the hand-phone.
> > Apparently could be a hearing aid made by I think Siemens in 1924.
> I like that theory because if it was a wireless phone and it was taken > back in time, what "network" would connect with?
Not sure I find that argument convincing as future communication devices may work in a different way than now. Indeed ideally a time traveler might want a 'time-phone', so they could keep in touch with home even when away! However it does look like it could be that hearing aid, and perhaps she is testing it having just bought it? Isn't it the World Fair or something, the sort of place where people might buy 'cutting edge' technology? And she is clearly in the hearing aid demographic.
> On 31 Oct, 20:31, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 2:09 am, Giga2 <justho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On 30 Oct, 02:30, JP3 <total...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > > > > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > > > > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > > > > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > > > > through the hand-phone.
> > > Apparently could be a hearing aid made by I think Siemens in 1924.
> > I like that theory because if it was a wireless phone and it was taken > > back in time, what "network" would connect with?
> Not sure I find that argument convincing as future communication > devices may work in a different way than now. Indeed ideally a time > traveler might want a 'time-phone', so they could keep in touch with > home even when away! However it does look like it could be that > hearing aid, and perhaps she is testing it having just bought it? > Isn't it the World Fair or something, the sort of place where people > might buy 'cutting edge' technology? And she is clearly in the hearing > aid demographic.
It was a Chaplin movie. She may have copped a custard pie in the ear, and she was saving it for later ;-)
What it does show, is the receptivity of people for the extraordinary.
It is thirty or more years since I speculated that man cannot imagine something outside of creation. In that sense, imagination is a branch of time travel.
In the practical sense, and taking up your point, if it does become a reality, it already has, and the technology would either be either brain modification, or the development of the telepathic ability.
Some interesting and highly qualified whistle blowers have suggested that the discovered technology from crashed UFO's have connections between the navigation seat and the brain of the navigator.
Frank Herbert based much of his Dune series on the 'melange' (drugs) that were necessary for such brain stimulation.
When you study the reports of some ancient cultures, there are many references to 'flying' after certain rituals involving certain herbs.
> On 31 Oct, 13:50, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/31/10 8:36 AM, GO-HERE .NL wrote:
>>> On Oct 31, 1:27 am, TruthSlave<T...@home.com> wrote: >>>> JP3 wrote: >>>>> It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". >>>>> After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch >>>>> filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost >>>>> 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely >>>>> through the hand-phone. On the film clearly is visible her hand-phone >>>>> and her engagement into the talk. This extraordinary intake remains in >>>>> film archives undiscovered for the next over 80 years. After all, in >>>>> that times no-one knew what is a hand-phone. Such a telephone is NOT >>>>> invented for further 50 years. Only near the end of 2010 a bit more >>>>> inquisitive researcher discovers the significance of this scene. The >>>>> section of the film containing the scene is fast placed in the >>>>> YouTube, while the entire matter is reported to the world via press >>>>> agencies. I learned about all this from the article " 'Time traveller' >>>>> snapped" published on page A3 of newspaper "The New Zealand Herald", >>>>> issue dated on Thursday, October 28, 2010. The next day I viewed also >>>>> this scene from the original film available in YouTube at the address >>>>> http://www.goo.gl/DLV3.
>>>> Ha Ha. Let me get this straight, we are to assume the behavior >>>> we now associated to the use of a mobile phone, is to be explained >>>> only in terms of our current technology, and then assert that this >>>> is proof of Time Travel?
>>>> You are either saying that a/ time travel exist now along with >>>> our crude mobile phone technology, or b/ that future communication >>>> technology won't be much more advance than it is now.
>>>> One could just as easily isolate that apparent behavior and look >>>> for the many other causes, or associations to that behavior. But >>>> then this is so typical. We would sooner select our answers from >>>> what we know, before we consider the deficiencies in those apparent >>>> answers.
>>>> Put another way, we don't really know what that woman was doing, >>>> We can't really tell for sure, but rather than admit to not knowing, >>>> we would sooner select an answer from those answers we do know. >>>> We can't admit to the unknown.
>>>> What else could you associate that woman's apparent behavior to? >>>> Maybe this woman was a little mad, talking to herself, whilst >>>> trying to hide that fact by holding her hand to her head. Maybe >>>> she was partially deaf, and had the latest technology for the >>>> deaf, one of those new fangled 'ear trumpets'. A middle class >>>> technology promoted with the media of its day, only to be sported >>>> in public the way our early brick mobiles were sported amoungst >>>> the well-to-do.
>>>> No, i guess it must be time travel, if we can't conceive of more >>>> credible answers.
>>> People have envisioned small devices of all kinds long before they >>> existed.
>>> If we assume humans to be rational animals time travel would be the >>> only explanation.
>> I always wanted a camera without lenses or restricted aperture. For >> example, a frame--like looking through a window, capturing the view >> as an image.
> The eye has about a 6mp resolution. The equivalent of a 50mm lens will > give you pretty close to the eyes view.
Agreed--What I "concentrate on" is better represented by 85mm, 90mm and 135mm local lengths using a 35mm film format.
On Nov 1, 5:38 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > > > > > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > > > > > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > > > > > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > > > > > through the hand-phone. > It was a Chaplin movie. She may have copped a custard pie in the ear, > and she was saving it for later ;-)
Z: I know how you hate it, but now is question (and future answer?) time !!!
Brian: > What it does show, is the receptivity of people for the extraordinary.
Z :Does'nt it show the interest of people (including sceptics) in extraordinary claims to explain the merely mundane?
Brian: > It is thirty or more years since I speculated that man cannot imagine
> something outside of creation. In that sense, imagination is a branch > of time travel.
Z: Most thinking "people' have had the same specuation. Do you really think it worthy of mention? Would you stretch the same 'sense' to include memory as "a branch of time travel"?
Brian: > In the practical sense, and taking up your point, if it does become a
> reality, it already has, and the technology would either be either > brain modification, or the development of the telepathic ability.
Z: What do you mean by "if it does become a reality, it already has,..."?
Brian: > Some interesting and highly qualified whistle blowers have suggested
> that the discovered technology from crashed UFO's have connections > between the navigation seat and the brain of the navigator.
Z:Is it possible that there are connections between the 'seat' and the brain of the "interesting and highly qualified whistle blowers"?
Brian: > Frank Herbert based much of his Dune series on the 'melange' (drugs)
> > > > > It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > > > > > After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > > > > > filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > > > > > 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > > > > > through the hand-phone.
> > > > Apparently could be a hearing aid made by I think Siemens in 1924.
> > > I like that theory because if it was a wireless phone and it was taken > > > back in time, what "network" would connect with?
> > Not sure I find that argument convincing as future communication > > devices may work in a different way than now. Indeed ideally a time > > traveler might want a 'time-phone', so they could keep in touch with > > home even when away! However it does look like it could be that > > hearing aid, and perhaps she is testing it having just bought it? > > Isn't it the World Fair or something, the sort of place where people > > might buy 'cutting edge' technology? And she is clearly in the hearing > > aid demographic.
> It was a Chaplin movie. She may have copped a custard pie in the ear, > and she was saving it for later ;-)
> What it does show, is the receptivity of people for the extraordinary.
> It is thirty or more years since I speculated that man cannot imagine > something outside of creation. In that sense, imagination is a branch > of time travel.
> In the practical sense, and taking up your point, if it does become a > reality, it already has, and the technology would either be either > brain modification, or the development of the telepathic ability.
> Some interesting and highly qualified whistle blowers have suggested > that the discovered technology from crashed UFO's have connections > between the navigation seat and the brain of the navigator.
In another thread there has been the discussion of the neuron stimulation tech which can be used a crude for of 'thought control'. So it seems very likely that we will develope such technology eventually ourselves.
> > On 31 Oct, 13:50, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/31/10 8:36 AM, GO-HERE .NL wrote:
> >>> On Oct 31, 1:27 am, TruthSlave<T...@home.com> wrote: > >>>> JP3 wrote: > >>>>> It is 1928. Charlie Chaplin makes his movie entitled "The Circus". > >>>>> After taking one scene, the camera is directed at the crowd that watch > >>>>> filming. Into the view of it comes a woman. Similarly as women almost > >>>>> 100 years later, she walks while discussing something intensely > >>>>> through the hand-phone. On the film clearly is visible her hand-phone > >>>>> and her engagement into the talk. This extraordinary intake remains in > >>>>> film archives undiscovered for the next over 80 years. After all, in > >>>>> that times no-one knew what is a hand-phone. Such a telephone is NOT > >>>>> invented for further 50 years. Only near the end of 2010 a bit more > >>>>> inquisitive researcher discovers the significance of this scene. The > >>>>> section of the film containing the scene is fast placed in the > >>>>> YouTube, while the entire matter is reported to the world via press > >>>>> agencies. I learned about all this from the article " 'Time traveller' > >>>>> snapped" published on page A3 of newspaper "The New Zealand Herald", > >>>>> issue dated on Thursday, October 28, 2010. The next day I viewed also > >>>>> this scene from the original film available in YouTube at the address > >>>>>http://www.goo.gl/DLV3.
> >>>> Ha Ha. Let me get this straight, we are to assume the behavior > >>>> we now associated to the use of a mobile phone, is to be explained > >>>> only in terms of our current technology, and then assert that this > >>>> is proof of Time Travel?
> >>>> You are either saying that a/ time travel exist now along with > >>>> our crude mobile phone technology, or b/ that future communication > >>>> technology won't be much more advance than it is now.
> >>>> One could just as easily isolate that apparent behavior and look > >>>> for the many other causes, or associations to that behavior. But > >>>> then this is so typical. We would sooner select our answers from > >>>> what we know, before we consider the deficiencies in those apparent > >>>> answers.
> >>>> Put another way, we don't really know what that woman was doing, > >>>> We can't really tell for sure, but rather than admit to not knowing, > >>>> we would sooner select an answer from those answers we do know. > >>>> We can't admit to the unknown.
> >>>> What else could you associate that woman's apparent behavior to? > >>>> Maybe this woman was a little mad, talking to herself, whilst > >>>> trying to hide that fact by holding her hand to her head. Maybe > >>>> she was partially deaf, and had the latest technology for the > >>>> deaf, one of those new fangled 'ear trumpets'. A middle class > >>>> technology promoted with the media of its day, only to be sported > >>>> in public the way our early brick mobiles were sported amoungst > >>>> the well-to-do.
> >>>> No, i guess it must be time travel, if we can't conceive of more > >>>> credible answers.
> >>> People have envisioned small devices of all kinds long before they > >>> existed.
> >>> Clearly something wrong with temporal logic,
> >>> If we assume humans to be rational animals time travel would be the > >>> only explanation.
> >> I always wanted a camera without lenses or restricted aperture. For > >> example, a frame--like looking through a window, capturing the view > >> as an image.
> > The eye has about a 6mp resolution. The equivalent of a 50mm lens will > > give you pretty close to the eyes view.
> Agreed--What I "concentrate on" is better represented by 85mm, 90mm > and 135mm local lengths using a 35mm film format.
A cell phone in 1928 wouldn't work because there was no infrastructure to support it (i.e. zero bars). The woman is holding her hand near her head, but her ear is clearly visible, so she isn't holding anything next to her ear; ergo she isn't listening to something that she's holding.
There are other explanations... including the SUPRESSION of OUR advanced technology for... CENTURIES... That easy. I ve found LOTS of evidence about it, even considering accepted History dating is right...But I have worse troubles, like several people of mine murdered because some other people do NOT want to admit I composed X and programmed Y and the casualties knew it... So somebody else is taking a LOT of credit for it! Just imagine for some military technology like cellular telephony... the credit some people can get of it if they *discover* it for the mass when it was hidden for centuries for the family only...
