Depending on which footage is seen where ( as there are numerous sites with that footage to be viewed ) ; Some of the views it seems that the individual doesn't have anything in their hands at all, but is merely trying to hide their face from the camera. I am not a professional lip reader, but the individual does turn and seems to say something, appearing ( to me ) to say " Please stop " to the cameraman.
Exactly. That's why I suggested that someone, if they are really curious enough to dole out $60 or more (assuming they don't already own a copy), needs to look at the original scene from their copy of "The Circus Special Edition" so they can draw their own conclusions.
There are explanations about what the device could be (if there really is a device) that are not out of place, entirely available in 1928, aren't hearing aids and are used for communication. I don't see any device but if it is there why does it have to be a cell phone? How about a crystal radio receiver for instance. All you need is a small coil wrapped around a crystal "slider" bar (tuning device), a couple of caps, a resistor, a diode and a small speaker. They can be small enough to fit in a cigar tube and have been around since, yes, the 1920's. Is that what it is? I don't know. But there are more mundane possibilities that don't involve time travel.
The logic that the young filmmaker uses is a bit faulty:
Proposition: The pedestrian is holding a small device to his/her ear and speaking therefore it must be two-way cell phone-like communication device thus the pedestrian is a time traveler.
Inference: The pedestrian is holding the device in a manner similar to what cell phone users employ.
Inference: The device is out-of-place circa 1928.
Inference: No one has been able to explain the actions of the pedestrian to me.
Conclusion: Therefore the device is a two-way "phone" of some sort thus the pedestrian is a time traveler.
It's circular logic in the sense that the conclusion is nothing more than a restatement of the proposition. Each of the inferences "beg the question": What device? Why is the action (or even the device if there is one) "out of place"? Why is the fact that no one can otherwise explain the situation important to the conclusion? The latter one also employs the fallacy
argumentum ad ignorantiam - argument from ignorance, i.e. no one can prove it false thus it must be true. Even if it is proved that the gadget is a communication device the further conclusion that the pedestrian is a time traveler is a
non sequitur. There's no logical support for that conclusion.