[Hot Tabasco]

For what it's worth, after watching that video over and over and over, and studying still frames, that ain't a woman, that ain't a woman's hand, that's a man dressed up as a woman and he is definitely talking on a device of some sort.

If the argument is that it is a "cell phone" and the argument against it is that there were no means to support such a cell phone then I would have to say that if it is indeed a "time traveler" then HE would certainly have access to technology far superior to what we have today.

With that being said, I believe it is a man dressed up as a woman definitely talking into some sort of hand held device. So either this video is authentic OR it has been doctored...........

I'm just offering this opinion as my observation, I'm not going to argue in favor of it one way or the other.

If other folks here can explain it without derision then please do so.........It definitely is an interesting topic.

[MissCalico]

"...that ain't a woman, that ain't a woman's hand, that's a man dressed up as a woman and he is definitely talking on a device of some sort."

I concur. And assuming it's not a hoax, I wonder if it's possibly a unique on-set innovation using the available tech of the day to set up a communication device enabling a possible stunt. "His" coat looks very boxy, as if there's hidden wires/equipment underneath. Maybe they fashioned some kind of a walkie-talkie with radio waves...or it's camera equip., idk.

[piytar]

Well, if it’s doctored, that was well planned. It’s doctored on all of those Chaplin DVDs.

[TigersEye]

For what it's worth, after watching that video over and over and over, and studying still frames, that ain't a woman, that ain't a woman's hand, that's a man dressed up as a woman...

I completely agree with that. The hand is huge and gnarled. The feet are quite big. The face looks like a man's face. The walk looks like a man's walk.