102 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

 _Only, on 09 October 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

They existed. Google 1940's machine safety glasses or 1940's sunglasses side shields. Sunglasses were also all the rage in the '30's and '40's (when this was taken) because they were fresh and new. Just the type of thing a teen/young adult would wear out on the town.

This article, among many others, takes some wind out of the time traveler angle myth's sail a bit: http://forgetomori.c...n-museum-photo/

So add up what they say there, and add in that the jersey he was wearing has the logo of the Montreal Maroons sweater jersey (the picture also taken in Canada),



the hair being the same as other young adults in the period (see Eddie Haskell), the fitting time period college jacket, yadda yadda yadda. It makes for some fun to find all of his different fashion parts and be able to find fitting comparisons that reveal this photo as ordinary.



As I said in the other thread, Sally a few people over sure seems to find his fashion sense dreamy.

There are two problems I see with that.

1) The side-shield appears to be part of, and not separate from, the left bow. Which is not the case in 30's/40's style sun/safety glasses that I've seen.

2) Your Montreal Maroons logo doesn't work as the "M" on the guys shirt has no wings at the top outer corner.

cormac

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

 Likely Guy, on 09 October 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

psst... post #48. Enjoy your 84 year old slice of pizza! *nom nom nom*

I needed a new axe-head!
Thanks Guy!

[_Only]

 cormac mac airt, on 09 October 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

There are two problems I see with that.

1) The side-shield appears to be part of, and not separate from, the left bow. Which is not the case in 30's/40's style sun/safety glasses that I've seen.

2) Your Montreal Maroons logo doesn't work as the "M" on the guys shirt has no wings at the top outer corner.

cormac

Well, if the glasses, rims, and side shields are all black, in a black and qwhite picture, how could they look as anything else than one piece?

And if you zoom in the page (CTRL+mouse wheel up), you can make it bigger to see that either

A. there are wings at the spot
B. a part of the jacket is covering the spot

It looks more like A to me, but even if it was B, they could still be there.

I don't know why I'm still defending the validity of this guy's outfit, lol.

[Habitat]

Clearly not a mobile phone, they were bigger than that in 1928, imo.

[Dr. D]

 cormac mac airt, on 09 October 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

"We don't know what will happen/be available in the future" isn't a valid argument for what may have happened in the past. Unless your contention is along the lines of "she's talking to Lieutenant Uhura aboard the USS Enterprise". And no, I wouldn't believe that either.

I never said it was "impossible", but then again it's also "possible" (hypothetically speaking) that the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy is also the drain for a galactic toilet and we're just waiting for our turn to get flushed. It shows as much a lack of evidence as this time travel claim.

cormac

Your logic underwhelms me but your lack of imagination is indeed impressive

[cormac mac airt]

 Dr. D, on 09 October 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

Your logic underwhelms me but your lack of imagination is indeed impressive

I'm not the one having a problem distinguishing reality from fantasy.

cormac

[Dr. D]

 cormac mac airt, on 09 October 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

I'm not the one having a problem distinguishing reality from fantasy.

cormac

That's fine.  Just list all the things you choose not to believe and soon they will consume that final thing people cling to, hope.

[cormac mac airt]

 _Only, on 09 October 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Well, if the glasses, rims, and side shields are all black, in a black and qwhite picture, how could they look as anything else than one piece?

And if you zoom in the page (CTRL+mouse wheel up), you can make it bigger to see that either

A. there are wings at the spot
B. a part of the jacket is covering the spot

It looks more like A to me, but even if it was B, they could still be there.

I don't know why I'm still defending the validity of this guy's outfit, lol.

If one can't see the wings then it shouldn't be assumed that they're there. Also, the "M" is directly covered on top by a white or lighter border which is non-existant in the Montreal Maroons shirt.

cormac

[Grey Area]

 _Only, on 09 October 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

I don't know, that thread made it here in a few threads of its own, too. In my opinion, he wasn't even out of fit for the time.

You decide (sunglasses and shirt/jacket/hairstyle has been shown in equivalent time period photos in other threads):

In my opinion this photo is a clear fake.

If you look at the way the light falls on everyone else without a hat, the whole side of their faces are out of shadow.  However on the guy in question their is a random shadow from his ear to the front of his face, which clearly indicates to me that this guy was taken from another photo and copied in digitally.  There does not appear to be any source for the shadow on his face, and if it was something off camera, given the distance involved it should realistically appear, at least partially on other faces also.

Further to this, (Operating on the assumption that the side panel of the sunglasses are reflective plastic, there should be a definate glare on them, which is not in the picture.

It is a well cropped fake, but the shadows give it away.

[_Only]

Oh give me a break. Sure someone took the time to digitally put a young adult who is vaguely different than the adults in the crowd to a very smahll degree. Its so clear now. Whatever floats your boat.

[Mangoze]

Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemntity.

A pair of sunglassess from 1941 - http://www.militaryt...read.php?t=6007

Edit to add link.

Edited by Mangoze, 09 October 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

 Mangoze, on 09 October 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemntity.

A pair of sunglassess from 1941 - http://www.militaryt...read.php?t=6007

Edit to add link.

I've seen the Double Indemnity pic before, over at ATS. Notice that in that picture and your link that the side-shields don't go nearly half way to the ear like the one of the young man in the crowd.

cormac

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

could the "going to the ears" be a result of shadows?

[cormac mac airt]

 Wearer of Hats, on 09 October 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

could the "going to the ears" be a result of shadows?

Considering that the sun is behind the man, it doesn't appear like shadows to me.


 40's picture.jpg   18.71K   3 downloads

cormac

[FLOMBIE]

Have you tried to look what is in his hands?



Is that a camera? One of those old ones with a retractable lense? If so, he could be wearing these lenses as a protection against the flash, or just to have a clearer view in bright sunlight. It would also be interesting to know what they are looking at.