Flip phone predicted in 1963 (Newspaper article with photo of what the flip phone will look like)

Cool catch

It's NOT a prediction, you retard!

Article clearly tells you they were working on that and so far, had developed a working one.

Damn so many millennial idiots here. EVERYTHING you see today was dreamed of in the past.

When Planet of the Apes happens genius you will dig up the long forgotten DVDs?

43 years before commercial release ... showing an exact replica of a flip phone - don't care how you frame this - it's a prediction (albeit based on research & development)

They couldn't see past 2003.

Nothing is as it seems... or so I've found.

Oh, hell. If you want a PREDICTION, then realize that Tesla stated in 1926 that we would have voice communication devices someday that we would carry around in our pocket.

Bell Labs had switch based voicemail possible in 1965, but they saw how answering machines could be a cash stream and rolled that tech out first. Once they got all they could out of that, boom, switch based voicemail.

About 30 years of fucking around.

TLDR: I call bullshit.

The long version:

This "article" quite literally appeared in 2021 and was unheard of before that. It was added to newspaper.com's archives shortly after. Pardon me, but this stinks to high heaven. The "phone" in the photo looks like one of the early Star Trek communicator prototypes, similar to the version from the unaired pilot with Jeffery Hunter. But wait you say, Star Trek arrived eleven months after this article! That doesn't prove shit, the entire article could be fake. The photo itself appears manipulated in several ways, and the "phone" doesn't appear to be what she was originally holding her hand. But let's forget that for a minute and talk about a recent publicity stunt at CES.

Who's remembers when everybody on the internet freaked out because there were lifeless bodies on display at CES, and it turned out to be part of a publicity stunt for a shitty Netflix show? That's nothing new, Hollywood and tv land have been doing that for decades, publicity stunts in the news and in the real world, they go farther back than the first world war. Is it unreasonable to think this was a publicity stunt for an upcoming science fiction show on NBC? One that was all set to go ahead but ended up going back to the drawing board when it's creators came up with a new pilot starring William Shatner? It's funny but both the original pilot with Jeffery Hunter, and the one with William Shatner have something in common, communicators that look oddly like the one in this photo. This "future phone" was displayed at a trade show later that year. Publicity stunt anyone? The miraculous discovery of the article could even be a publicity stunt for one of the current, politically correct, feminist laden Star Trek “spin-offs” that the various streaming services are running? Both of the current series attempt to predate the original if I recall. I mean, it was a stunt in 1963, why not rehash it for 2021? The entertainment industry has done that before too.

But, who did what first? There are well documented drawings of Star Trek communicator concept models that go back before 1963, and there are detailed notes from the shows creators about how the devices would "function" in the Star Trek universe which also predate the article. It seems odd that no one made a stink when Star Trek appeared on the air, and by the way, where are the demo models of this phone? That's a bit odd, you would think a functional flip phone from 1963 would be saved by someone since a computer the size of '65 Buick and a videotape the size of a Playstation 3 were saved. Back to the articles authenticity though. The original paper claims the story is authentic of course, but they can't provide any evidence other than offering a reprint of the article. In a world where the Canadian government invented a story about a black woman being refused access to a movie theater, and then inserted a freshly printed but chemically aged newspaper page into Canada's national archives to support the story, nothing in a newspaper or in the news in general can be taken as fact let alone anything on the internet. Nothing in the news has to be true, in the name of entertainment they can publish or say anything and on the internet, there are literally no rules. Just look at the shit show Wikipedia turned into.

I could dummy up this article in about five minutes. So what should we have this lady demonstrate in 1963? Hunter Biden's laptop? I would also add, we should never forget the publicity stunts for True Blood, Dexter, Highlander, and countless other shows and movies including the Dawn of the Dead remake, the original American Werewolf in London and several infamous stunts for the original Return of the Living Dead. These sorts of publicity stunts go back as far as motion pictures themselves and they're always presented as factual events, and in many cases carried by the news media. To this day, you can pay for a full page ad in a newspaper that will be presented as a legitimate news article, and it can be complete horseshit.

Trippy shit.

That's a prototype Grillo phone, they were in development in the early sixties and marketed from 1965 onward. Either the article is complete bullshit that was meant to generate interest in the phones or drive up stock prices in the company, it was a stunt for some movie or show, or someone has photoshopped an old article about a Grillo phone into this bullshit for some reason. Either way, nobody in the news media or on the internet did their homework when this article showed up, if they had they would have known what it was. It's a clam-shell house phone, the first of it's kind in North America. It's not a cell phone, not a video phone and not a star trek communicator. The company might have hyped it that way, but it's nothing but a prototype Grillo house phone.

BINGO.

WOw reading comprehension really not your forte, eh!
Now it's totally clear:
You and OP are fucking idiots!

EVERYTHING was imagined back then! Again: article tells you THEY WERE WORKING ON THIS!!!!

Or do you seriously think one day someone woke up and made cellphone circa 1996?!


and


They worked on this for well over 30 years!

IT'S NOT A FUCKING REPLICA YOU INBRED RETARD!!!!It's called a PROTOTYPE, they were working on this!!

I swear you milleniatards are so fucking retarded your dad fucked your sister and that's how you were born! THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION FOR SUCH UTTER STUPIDITY!


But it explains you and daniel sun ganging up on my thread and "taking it back" after you read I put your stupidity and your lack of brains in place here!



Butthurt much?



Yes, that was worth it!

obviously complete nonsense.

I built electronics and that's simply all ridiculous.

in the 60's...

too flat a capacitor alone would be bigger than 1/5 of that thing she's holding.

There's no cell towers and radio would need to connect to the grid... like even for demo purposes it would have had a long ass antenna..

I even think the whole paper is forged.
Picture could be a movie prop or something.

Your quite the rude person.

Mostly of what you accuse others off you are yourself cause that thing you call "prototype" is of course complete bogus.

That was simply not possible in the 60's..
Not sure if you ever seen the 80's car phones?

So yeah if you even consider this to be real then...

good luck sir.

Car phones have been around a long time.

Dick Tracy had a phone watch in 1946.

It almost certainly was a prototype for something like a Grillo phone, look at the palm of her hand very closely, you can see the circular dial for dialing hidden on the back of the phone. Grillo had several models of flip phone in development and so did other manufacturers, some of them had the dials for dialing the back of the phone and simple numbered phone pad inside along with the speaker and microphone.

They were even working on push button speed dial, touch tone and video phone technology at the time. The technology they're referring to in this article relates to cordless analog phones, not cellular phones. Most people, including all these so called tech sites seem to have forgotten cordless phones predate cell phones and were wireless. There were even home and office cordless video phones in development, but the available technology and a lack of infrastructure meant they were useless to the average person and even to big business. It was decades before they were practical and by then, most people had lost interest until Apple sparked a renewed interest in them.

As for Star Trek, Roddenberry began developing Star Trek in the late fifties but that's beside the point, he never claimed Star Trek or it's creators "invented" anything. He said what they did was took all of these ideas that everyone else thought were ridiculous and pointless fads, combined them, streamlined them and worked it all together into a package that presented something no other show had done. They presented a world where technology was useful, convenient, easy to use and common place in people lives. What our modern world is doing as usual, is trying to apply modern thinking in a backward fashion and then tossing in politically correct thinking to create an argument instead of looking at the facts. This was a prototype cordless flip phone, and sorry Star Wars nerds, it doesn’t prove Roddenberry or Star Trek stole anything from anyone.

OP is a re

yeah...

that's all neat-o alright

but those hicks had never imagined TOTAL world enslavement and genocide by (((health codes & medical tyranny))) did they???

lest the npc's forget...

during when landline telephones where the norm...

AN ALWAYS-ON MICROPHONE IN YOUR HOME!

-

now we have ALWAYS-ON TELEMETRY sharing:

Voice
Camera Front & Back
Data
Body Sensors
Accelerometer
GPS
Proximity & NFC Scanners
Fingerprint Scanner
Facial & Voice Recognition
QR/Text/Image Recognition
WiFi & Bluetooth Scanning
Heart Beat Rate/Blood Pressure in Smartwatches

= FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE by A.I. just to fuck you up and keep you down!

star trek had flip phones.....lol

Hmmm.

Good point.

They had portable phones before they had alternating current. they had phones before alternating current. They used batteries and charged them from a line strung between two poles up somewhat high just like the old electric poles when they used for alternating current but these were involved in AC at that time because it didn't exist then. I am still pondering on charging batteries with the clamp to those wires like you jump batteries in your car to start them sometimes. I do have a book that shows how to do it, but of course, it is not supposed to be so, you know you could charge batteries from it and you wouldn't need solar panels and such. Oh, my, me.

You have to have good wire and best to have at least two and good telephone type poles, spaced apart about 25 to 30 feet, then have those insulator glass things they used to use or something similar. They said they like covered cloth wire so they didn't get shocked so much this was in the early 1920s explaining what they did before. I guess they had some bare spots to get the link but otherwise holding the covered part would have helped them if they had enough electricity going through to charge batteries. It was weird to me; they weren't talking about anything, only recharging their batteries for their radios. Now my point is how did they charge those batteries they used for their radios and telephony as they called portable ones?

I thought I would just throw this one out again, someone may want to try this, don't say I made you do it, say I heard it somewhere and tried it to see, oh do be careful if you do, it may be strong enough to hurt you. Charged those deep cell batteries they made. Actually, they put a bunch of those batteries together for more power. I don't know if you need to ground those wires though.

Ha ha. The thread is pinned.

^^^^^^

This.

How did fugly Musk ever steal Tesla's name for his cars?

bc it's all been done in the past already.

none of this tech is "new"

^^^^^

This.

Think Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks.

The article can be found on Newspapers.com...

[link to www.newspapers.com (secure)]