Actual footage of a time traveler?

a reply to: ATruGod

Check the video.. the camera made a flash and a pre flash.. just as most phone cameras

a reply to: KKLOCO

Could be the The Fuji Simple Hi8.

I have seen some close matches but clearly different. Any phone experts that can match it to a real smartphone?

a reply to: Spacespider

I did watch the video I simply disagree, it looks like its coming from a different source. *shrugs*

Even rewatching it flashes when it moves (like a reflection)

That ain't no smart phone.

Drugs are bad.

Looks like 2 tickets being held vertical, maybe in a plastic bag? Looks as tho some sort of hologram on tickets?

Thats my take.

I think the lady is just looking over the wine list before the fight

Joking aside, maybe she’s reading the fight program or some other shiny pamphlet?

It could also be a small camcorder that just appears to look like a camera in a head on view.

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

I think this is what it is it appears to be an 8mm camera.

It's a flip phone kind of like the winphone 95 which was never sold.

If that person was a time traveler? you wouldn't have seen it. It most likely was a flip phone with a built in camera.

a reply to: kennethmd

If that person was a time traveler? you wouldn't have seen it.

That's what I was thinking too. Why would a time traveler need a big camera or a phone, when he could travel into the future and get something tiny that records an extremely high quality video, and also something he doesn't have to hold in his hand.

Is he really gonna travel back in time, to then watch the fight through the camera?

I can understand why a time traveler would choose a Tyson fight, but not so sure Tyson Vs. McNeely would be at the top of my list. I think I'd go back several more years.

Personally, if I could travel back in time, I'd just keep bouncing around going to concerts, from the 60's to the 90's. It's a long list.

A smart phone that you have to hold up to your eye to look through the view finder?

a reply to: carewemust

It used to crack me up watching people using their flashes (exhausting their batteries faster) at large sporting events. If the flash doesn't illuminate the subject, it does nothing.

Light does always do something. But I guess you're talking about 'for the picture'. I wouldn't call someone a 'subject' to someone else just because they have a camera. To become someone's subject, you have to specifically consent to it (though police and governments call people 'subjects' routinely..)

In any case, if the air is humid enough, or it's raining or something, the light can reflect to the lens, affecting the picture and picture quality as well.

It also creates a cool visual for the observer far away - have you ever seen those 'multiple flashes' in an audience? It looks really neat!

Obviously it doesn't help the picture quality in any way, as a flash from a camera in that situation has no way of reaching even close to what they're taking a photo of, so it is quite funny and ridiculous, but don't tell me 'light does nothing'!

This phenomenon just proves that people can have high tech or intelligent phones, while the people themselves remain ignorant, clueless, stupid and very narrow when it comes to understanding anything about reality or even their surroundings, their own possessions, etc.

It's the same kind of phenomenon that I often wonder - people buy dogs and reproduce without knowing _anything_ about dog psychology, the 'right energy for you' (dogs come in different energies, low, medium and high, and if you're low, a high-energy dog is wrong for you, for example), without knowing _anything_ about child psychology, etc.

Especially women seem to think that 'love, love, love' or 'affection, affection, affection' is all you need, and then they get surprised, when love DOESN'T heal/cure/conquer all, and the child actually screams back and behaves badly and breaks things and gets up after 'mommy tucked him/her in' and so on, and drives them crazy.

People, especially women, have forgotten what an ESSENTIAL, amazingly important component discipline is.

In Dog Whisperer's words, 'exercize, discipline, affection' is the winning formule, not 'affection, affection, affection', which only creates confused dogs (animal version of 'freely-raised kid' with no limitations or discipline).

Animals and kids actually psychologically NEED rules, boundaries and limitations. Especially women, but many men, too, REALLY don't want to give these, at least consistently. They always fold in if the kid starts pushing or crying. There was one family that threatened to put a kid outside for the night if they didn't behave (and it was cold). They ended up putting the kid outside for a couple of minutes, and then folded of course.

The problem with THAT scenario is that the parents tried to SCARE the kid instead of using PROPER discipline (and these people actually WATCHED Supernanny and 'tried' to use her methods, that just 'don't work' (because they don't apply them consistently or even properly)), and the kid KNOWS that kind of 'superthreat' is never going to happen to them.

I am not saying they should've left the kid outside for the night - I am saying they shouldn't have made such a threat in the first place, but just factually told they will be put to a naughty mat or corner and then put them there for the few minutes. But they always try to create some kind of superpower they can never follow through with, by using a 'super threat' - an unrealistic threat the kid knows they won't follow through with.

People of this planet are just so hopelessly stupid... "Oh, that dog is cute, let's buy it" .. "Why does my dog bark at other dogs every time?!"

I saw a 'dogfight' today, two tiny dogs that anyone could easily have made silent without ever even touching them or their leash, if they knew a tiny bit of dog psychology. These women with these small dogs didn't give either dog even one correction.

Here are their methods of 'handling' that situation:

The woman that was simply standing with her white little poodlelike dog:

1) Do nothing, exactly nothing, and let it all just happen for many seconds without doing anything but looking around a bit
2) Talk to the dog, plead it like they would a human, with a soft, barely audible voice (especially behind that loud barking)
3) Manipulate the dog physically, with nervous, scared, embarrassed energy, tighten their lease, say 'stop it!' in a frustrated voice and maybe even lift the dog up a bit (in a wrong way) with tension, and always keep the leash tense
4) After it's over, talk to the dog some more, maybe threaten it a bit and tell it's not good behaviour

The bypasser woman with the black little dog (closer to dachshund, but not quite as long) did this:

1) Smiled at the dog(s)
2) Walked by while talking to the dog
3) Kept repeating 1) and 2)

This is the typical 'dog-handling skillz' of this planet's inhabitants..

..this is why that camera-flash-behaviour doesn't surprise me. It's the SAME exact thing, just applied in different situations. People of this planet not only don't KNOW what they're doing, they don't CARE that they don't know what they're doing, and then they end up baffled/mystified that things turned out a certain way.

If I was going to get a dog or if I was going to reproduce, or if I was going to take photos in an event like that, you can bet that I would RESEARCH everything until I can research no more. I would familiarize myself with every possbile theory about dog or child psychology or camera technology or tips and tricks, techniques on taking photos of faraway things (maybe 'object' would be a better term 'subject'?, though maybe this is subjective).

You can bet a lot of money that I would not go through with any of those things until I can be convinced I have a 'good handle' on the topic, that I know as much as I possible can about it, and so on. I would watch every episode of Dog Whisperer and Cesar 911 that I can get my hands on, I would watch every episode of Supernanny to do the least. I would watch camera tutorials and watch and read camera reviews and ask people what's the best way to take photos and footage of sports events, etc.

These people just "Oh, the dog was so cute, so I just HAD to have it" or "I just really WANTED a kid" or "Look, something I want to take a photo of, OF COURSE I am using a flash because I read in the sixties that you get better photos with a flash!"

Just kidding, no one would have actually READ anything about a camera before using one..

a reply to: Shoujikina

I wouldn't call someone a 'subject' to someone else just because they have a camera. To become someone's subject, you have to specifically consent to it (though police and governments call people 'subjects' routinely..)

Much ado about nothing

In photography, the subject is simply the object (or person or critter) that is shown in the image. But a single photograph can show several things — which one is the subject? The subject is the focus on the image, both literally as the sharpest point in the photograph and in a more figurative sense.