Stephen Hawking Replaced with Double?

[SummerLite]

Did Stephen Hawking die in 1985 and then replaced with a look-a-like? Have a look at the pictures and see what you think.

Miles Mathis: -http://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf

First published April 17, 2015

I have written several papers critiquing Stephen Hawking, including a long one on his Brave New
World series for the BBC. But this is my first paper really linking my science research with my faked
events research.

I will use simple photo analysis and facial analysis to quickly show you the current
Stephen Hawking is not the same person as the original Stephen Hawking.

This should not surprise you too much, especially if you know something about ALS. ALS is
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease. We are told Hawking has had
ALS for over 52 years, which is a record by many decades. Jason Becker is the only person I have
heard of who has lived more than 20 years with the disease, so there is about a three-decade difference
between the longest survivor and the second longest survivor. That is a more than 100% difference
between first and second place. It would be like Justin Gatlin running the 100 meters in 9.8 seconds,
and Usain Bolt beating him with a time of 4.5 seconds. In other words, statistically it doesn't happen.

The average survival time for ALS is four years. When Hawking was first diagnosed in 1963, doctors
gave him two years to live. And yet here we are, 52 years later and counting. Should you believe it?
Well, no. Like Becker, it appears the real Hawking did beat the odds and live for about 20 years. But
at some point he was replaced. I have no proof he died, but I assume that is why they replaced him.
He was a very useful public relations entity for physics, and they didn't want to lose him.

But rather than speculate on that, let us go right to the evidence. I won't call it proof, since of course
you are free to disagree with me. This is an opinion piece, not a court transcript; and even if it were a
stamped court finding, you would be free to disagree with it. You don't have to agree with anything
anyone tells you, ever. Remember that. This paper is nothing more than presented evidence, evidence,
I find compelling. If you also find it compelling, fine. If you don't, also fine.

 

[Henchman 21]

Well I'm not going to say that I agree but I certainly don't dissagree with this little conspiracy. A family friend of ours had Lou Gehrigs and died about 5 years after his diagnosis. And so I understand that having someone live 10 or more years is highly lucky. But 50 years is a bit much. Not to say he was replaced but maybe someone of his position in society is getting a bit better medical care.
I don't know much about mr hawking so this is not an expert opinion.

 

[Chu]

I don't know much about mr hawking so this is not an expert opinion.

Same here, but I looked at the pictures, and it looks like the same person to me. Maybe the dating is off, of they died his hair, etc.

Dunno, maybe I'm biased after seeing so many "actors" conspiracy theories getting completely ridiculous and debunked, like with the London Bombings. But why get an actor when you can make a "martyr" out of him, if you want to keep his image going? Just wondering... For what is worth, I think this person has a little bit too much imagination... But who knows?

 

[Beau]

The question is, who is Miles Mathis and what is his interest in perpetuating this theory?

 

[Mr. Premise]

How can you find a double for someone who looks so unique? And then who would know enough about physics to convince his colleagues. This seems absurd in the face of it. I think Mathis is one of those people who give conspiracy theorists a bad name.

 

[loreta]

I think he is the same man, if you look his nose, it is the same nose. I really don't know why the death of this man is so important to hide it. Why? And from 85? No, I don't think so.

Some people are so bored with their lives that they have to invent things like this. They also said that Putin died some months ago and that the Putin we know is a double....

 

[Tigersoap]

Miles Mathis has no substantial evidence that it is not the real Stephen Hawking.
He merely draw assumptions from different pictures, dates & events and make up conspiracy theories based on his opinions.

To put such a plan in motion, finding a hawking look-alike (or a 3D hologram/see his article) for the only benefit of making money is ludicrous at best.

There is a quote in his article with a picture (p6)

That picture is from a foreign magazine, I guess, since it seems to have been suppressed in the US and
on the internet. I only found one copy of it, and the full-size image is gone. The website has been
scrubbed. This makes me think photos of this guy have normally been retouched to make him look a
bit more like Hawking.

I don't know what he is talking about because the picture is here :

_http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/24/7064069/facebook-stephen-hawking-joins

A reverse image search brings up several links with the same picture.

Dunno, maybe I'm biased after seeing so many "actors" conspiracy theories getting completely ridiculous and debunked, like with the London Bombings. But why get an actor when you can make a "martyr" out of him, if you want to keep his image going? Just wondering... For what is worth, I think this person has a little bit too much imagination... But who knows?

That reminds me of the Sandy Hook radio show where Joe said :

...Joe: And they weren't able to come to that conclusion. They weren't able to use their brains and see that the most obvious explanation in this situation was the most simple one. So they just push this idea of actors and even the kids weren't killed at all, it was one giant theatre. But in presenting that thesis they don't even follow it through to its logical conclusion. If you're going to present a thesis, you have to follow it through and explain where it ultimately leads you.

For example, the parents of the Sandy Hook victims were actors. So what does that mean? It means they had brought in literally dozens of people who are appearing on the national and international media, in front of the world, basically, and obviously in front of the local community and claiming to be residents, longish/long-term residents of Sandy Hook when they weren't. They had never been in Sandy Hook; they weren't the parents. So, in that case, how does anyone explain how those people wouldn't be exposed?

What about all the other actual residents of Sandy Hook? Would none of them ever speak up after seeing these fake Sandy Hook parents on TV over and over again and say "hang on a minute, that guy claiming to be Emily Parker's father and his mother, they don't live in Sandy Hook, I've never seen them before, they are not Emily Parker's parents." And for all the other parents that are supposed to be actors.

How did that happen? How do you cover that up? Maybe these people who described these conspiracy theories think that maybe what? they wiped out the entire town of Sandy Hook? They killed all the existing inhabitants and brought an entirely new collection of fake parents and fake kids? Obviously, it leads you to the conclusion that Sandy Hook school itself is a studio set. It never actually existed, because if you follow it through, these are things that you logically have to conclude from this idea, this beginning idea that 'oh they must be actors.' And it's all based on this ridiculous premise that is simply evidence that the people who are putting it forward are idiots! [They] have no ability to think critically for even five seconds. ...

why does Miles Mathis promote these ideas in his articles ?

 

[Gawan]

Fwiw, Gabor Maté wrote the following about Stephen Hawking in When the body says no (Chapter: Buried alive) and I think his perspective sense to me, instead of following that he is an actor:

Although there are exceptions, the course of ALS is generally
predictable. The vast majority of patients die within ten years of
diagnosis, many much sooner. Very rarely people do make recovery
from what seems like ALS, but it is extremely unusual for a person to
live with its ravages for as long as Stephen Hawking has, continuing not
only to work but to function at a high level. What has enabled him to
confound medical opinion and those grim statistics?

We cannot understand Hawking’s course as an isolated clinical
phenomenon, separated from the circumstances of his life and
relationships. His longevity is, without doubt, a tribute to his spirited
determination not to allow the disease to defeat him. But I also believe
that Sue Rodriguez’s bitter comparison was correct: the young Stephen
had access to invisible resources denied to most people with ALS.

Given the nature of ALS as a disease that destroys body while leaving
the intellect intact, an abstract thinker was in an ideal position to “live
a life of the mind.” Unlike the athletic rock climber and former
marathoner Rodriguez and unlike the dancers Laura and Joanne,
Hawking did not see his body’s deterioration as impairing the role that
he chose for himself. On the contrary, it may have enhanced it. Prior to
his diagnosis and its attendant debility, he had been somewhat
aimless, his shining intellectual gifts notwithstanding.

Hawking had always possessed tremendous cognitive and
mathematical capacities and confidence, but he never seemed to feel
comfortable in his body. “He was eccentric and awkward, skinny and
puny,” write Michael White and John Gribbin in Stephen Hawking, A
Life in Science. “His school uniform always looked a mess and,
according to his friends, he jabbered rather than talked clearly…. He
was just that sort of kid—a figure of classroom fun, teased and
occasionally bullied, secretly respected by some and avoided by most.”

He did not look to fulfill the expectations those who had glimpsed his
true abilities held for him. The young Stephen, it appears, was the
chosen bearer of the frustrated ambitions of his father who was
evidently determined that his son would succeed at educational and
social goals he, the father, had never quite attained. One goal was to
have Stephen attend one of England’s most prestigious private schools.
The ten-year-old-boy was entered for the Westminster School
scholarship examination: “The day of the examination arrived, and
Stephen fell ill. He never sat the entrance paper and consequently
never obtained a place at one of England’s best schools.”

One may assume, of course, that this untimely illness was purely
coincidental. We may also see it as the child’s only way of saying no to
parental pressure. Given the Hawking family’s penchant for privacy,
the facts would be difficult to discern. What we do know is that later
on, with the young Hawking no longer living at home and at liberty to
follow his preferences, these appeared to be more of a social than
academic nature. Stephen engaged in a fair bit of indolence and
alcohol consumption, with avoidance of classes or studying—those
classic forms of passive resistance in college. For a while his academic
career looked in jeopardy, and briefly he considered entering the civil
service. It was only after his diagnosis that he began to focus his
phenomenal intelligence on his work: elucidating the nature of the
cosmos, bridging the theoretical gaps between Einsteinian relativity
theory and quantum mechanics. With his physical disability, he was
freed from many of the tasks of teaching and administration other
scientists have to shoulder.

[...]

Hawking’s vocation and the unstinting support of his wife were
accompanied by something else that has probably aided his survival:
the liberation of his aggression by his illness. The “niceness” of most
ALS patients represents more than the innate goodness and sweetness
of some human beings; it is an emotion in extremis. It is magnified out
of healthy proportion by a powerful suppression of assertiveness.

Assertiveness in defence of our boundaries can and should appear
aggressive, if need be. Hawking’s intellectual self-assuredness became
the ground for that aggression to manifest itself, particularly after the
onset of his physical decline. Jane Hawking notes in her memoir that
“curiously, as his gait became more unsteady so his opinions became
more forceful and defiant.”

[...]

Has it been shown in this chapter that ALS is caused by, or is at least
potentiated by, emotional repression? That it is rooted in childhood
emotional isolation and loss? That generally—even if not always—it
strikes people who lead driven lives and whom others consider to be
very “nice”? Until our understanding of the mind/body complex is
more advanced, this must remain an intriguing hypothesis but a
hypothesis one would be challenged to find any exceptions to. It seems
far-fetched to suppose that such frequently observed associations can
be all a matter of pure coincidence.

A mind-body perspective may help those afflicted with ALS who are
willing to look at some very painful realities fully and unflinchingly. In
rare instances, people do seem to get over symptoms diagnosed as ALS.

 

[SummerLite]

I appreciate your feed back, I really do. It occurred to me last night, perhaps I should have said a little more on my thoughts here about this. But nothing that can't be said now. Miles Mathis was brought to my attention for the first time on the Dylan/devil thread and his material caused some controversy and debate there.

I've got to say I agree with ALL observations of this man and his material. Self importance, over active imagination, obsessive in all is faked and created by actors and the CIA. Yes. And I just don't "buy" some of his conclusions, they don't look right in my opinion and come off as tabloid journalism. He's obsessive. We have been inundated in the last few years with the faked scenes and actors speculation and it has grown tedious. Agreed. Maybe some of THAT has been faked! Faking, faked stories.

But.... I also don't want to through the baby out with the bath water in this case. He seems to be a diligent researcher, tracking down small leads and uncovering a good deal of hidden information in the process. Very good. That's his strong point.

I don't know anything about Stephen Hawking either. If I had followed his work and seen him over the years perhaps I could make a better judgment in this case and that would make all the difference. So, my view in this is I'm leaning towards Hawkings being replaced. He doesn't look like the same man to me. Mathis makes a good case in this instance is my take. Has Hawkings been given very special treatment to keep him going all these years and also made him look younger, more healthy? Could be. But the teeth... what about those teeth? I worked in the dental field for 17 years so I know something about teeth :D. Whats presented in these photos is not possible unless he grew his teeth back. Now we're getting even further out there in explanations more so then him being replaced. But what do I know about the hidden capabilities of life and health extension. Nothing. Maybe many people in high places grow new teeth.

The hair could have been dyed, so no argument with that its not a convincing point. At the end of this article, we're told Hawkings appeared as a hologram at a conference in Australia recently. ok, I looked at the photo of that. Is this how he will make appearances more often now?

I'd like to add one more thing. I think Mathis also makes good arguments for the Sharon Tate murders being faked. Something to consider is, that happened in 1969. No one knew anything about faking scenarios in those days or thought to look for it mainly. Mathis looks into the people involved and their backrounds. All children of the military once again, the Laurel Canyon connection. Also the political climate of the day so the context for the murders. The idea here is, the public could much more easily be duped in those days and if you look at how the story was presented you can see these oddities in retrospect. Things where handled a bit more sloppy back then. Could be. -http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf

Okay, that's my rant. I don't want this to become a distraction for me or anyone else.

A good day to all! More comments came while writing but most go now.

 

[Seaniebawn]

How can you find a double for someone who looks so unique? And then who would know enough about physics to convince his colleagues. This seems absurd in the face of it. I think Mathis is one of those people who give conspiracy theorists a bad name.

That's the way I see it Mr Premise, and good link Tigersoap, it's like stuff like this get's put out there to make people spin their wheel's and get detracted
down useless avenue's of research, I'd suppose the best outcome of stuff like this, is SummerLite even if it was a conspiracy, that he was replaced with a double, what does it really matter, the whole premise to me sound's ridiculous to begin with.

The worst thing I think though is that someone will stumble across and believe it, and then they'll go off and start telling people, and come across as unstable. I think it does more harm than good.

 

[BHelmet]

Mathis hypothesizes Hawking passed in 1985? Here is a Hawking quote from 1984:

"If you are disabled, it is probably not your fault, but it is no good blaming the world or expecting it to take pity on you. One has to have a positive attitude and must make the best of the situation that one finds oneself in; if one is physically disabled, one cannot afford to be psychologically disabled as well. In my opinion, one should concentrate on activities in which one's physical disability will not present a serious handicap. I am afraid that Olympic Games for the disabled do not appeal to me, but it is easy for me to say that because I never liked athletics anyway. On the other hand, science is a very good area for disabled people because it goes on mainly in the mind. Of course, most kinds of experimental work are probably ruled out for most such people, but theoretical work is almost ideal. My disabilities have not been a significant handicap in my field, which is theoretical physics. Indeed, they have helped me in a way by shielding me from lecturing and administrative work that I would otherwise have been involved in. I have managed, however, only because of the large amount of help I have received from my wife, children, colleagues and students. I find that people in general are very ready to help, but you should encourage them to feel that their efforts to aid you are worthwhile by doing as well as you possibly can."
— From "Handicapped People and Science," Science Digest 92, No. 9, September 1984

Here is a much later quote on the same subject:

It is a waste of time to be angry about my disability. One has to get on with life and I haven't done badly. People won't have time for you if you are always angry or complaining.
[info][add][mail][note]Stephen Hawking, Interview with The Guardian (UK) September 27, 2005

Same guy/same mind speaking?

Then there is this:

We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
[info][add][mail][note]Stephen Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989

Is that last one a quote from a brilliant mind? It strikes me as so much spin that is quite ill-conceived. How could a real scientist make a statement like that? It strikes me like the preposterous, over-simplified sound-bites we get from the Dali Lama that have nothing to do with real Buddhism.

1. Advanced breed of monkeys? Ok that may be close to the truth, but does science really know that? (And what is more believable: that our souls were planted into a monkey or neanderthal hybridized with a healthy dose of DNA manipulation by the denizens of another density we are unaware of or that a guy died and was replaced with a look-alike who had some plastic surgery for the purpose of misdirecting the public and scientific conversation about the nature of our reality with a healthy dose of attitudinal programming? Why should we be so ready to accept the one and not the other?)

2. How does he know this is a minor planet of an average star? Has he been all over the universe and checked it out? Using words like minor and average are super subjective and way dumbed down.

3. We can understand the universe? Really? What 'genius', or realistic physicist would have the audacity to say something like that when it should be obvious we don't?

Spin: 1. Demeaning humanity and a slap at 'god' 2. Demeaning our place in the universe. 3.Science puffery for the sake of authoritarian followers to believe in whatever 'they' tell us is true.

Whose agendas are those? Find some Hawking quotes pre-1985, if you can, and compare the style and composition.

Here is one:

Hawking did not rule out the existence of a Creator, asking in A Brief History of Time "Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence?"[201] In his early work, Hawking spoke of God in a metaphorical sense. In A Brief History of Time he wrote: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we should know the mind of God."[202]

This quote seems quite at odds with some of those later statements. He is clearly saying IF we discover a complete theory...the later quote of 'We understand the universe' is bollocks on so many levels, and something no real scientist would ever boast.

So the question again is: do your pre-dispositions about the likelihood of replacement color your perceptions? We certainly have so many examples of the fact that we see what we expect to see and, not so much, what is actually there.

Bottom line - dude looks diff to me. Can I say for sure? No.

 

[Chu]

I appreciate your feed back, I really do. It occurred to me last night, perhaps I should have said a little more on my thoughts here about this. But nothing that can't be said now. Miles Mathis was brought to my attention for the first time on the Dylan/devil thread and his material caused some controversy and debate there.

I've got to say I agree with ALL observations of this man and his material. Self importance, over active imagination, obsessive in all is faked and created by actors and the CIA. Yes. And I just don't "buy" some of his conclusions, they don't look right in my opinion and come off as tabloid journalism. He's obsessive. We have been inundated in the last few years with the faked scenes and actors speculation and it has grown tedious. Agreed. Maybe some of THAT has been faked! Faking, faked stories.

Hmm, I understand, and don't know much about him really, but I wonder if by obsessing over his ideas and arguments he actually became an unconscious agent for the PTB. You know, seeing conspiracy where there is none, while ignoring what he SHOULD be seeing and sharing with people. Like Sandy Hook, for example: Yes it was staged, yes it was manipulated, but there weren't any "actors"! That's disinformation that is worse than no information at all, in my humble opinion.

But.... I also don't want to through the baby out with the bath water in this case. He seems to be a diligent researcher, tracking down small leads and uncovering a good deal of hidden information in the process. Very good. That's his strong point.

I'm not sure I can see that.... Couldn't it just be mental masturbation? And obsessing over details that don't bring up any real evidence? I don't know. Having good or convincing arguments doesn't always mean that there is truth behind them.

I don't know anything about Stephen Hawking either. If I had followed his work and seen him over the years perhaps I could make a better judgment in this case and that would make all the difference. So, my view in this is I'm leaning towards Hawkings being replaced. He doesn't look like the same man to me. Mathis makes a good case in this instance is my take. Has Hawkings been given very special treatment to keep him going all these years and also made him look younger, more healthy? Could be. But the teeth... what about those teeth? I worked in the dental field for 17 years so I know something about teeth :D. Whats presented in these photos is not possible unless he grew his teeth back. Now we're getting even further out there in explanations more so then him being replaced. But what do I know about the hidden capabilities of life and health extension. Nothing. Maybe many people in high places grow new teeth.

I don't know. If you look at the rest of the traits, his mouth, his nose... to me it still looks like the same person.

Okay, that's my rant. I don't want this to become a distraction for me or anyone else.

I don't think it's a distraction as long as we keep analyzing it critically and without being too identified with it, which seems to be the case here. :)

 

[Chu]

Whose agendas are those? Find some Hawking quotes pre-1985, if you can, and compare the style and composition.

Interesting, thanks. Though before thinking that he was a different person, I thought simply that he may have changed, his thinking deteriorated, etc. There are many plausible explanations. I've seen people change in even more drastic ways than that, and I know for a fact that it was the very same person (a family member, for example).

So the question again is: do your pre-dispositions about the likelihood of replacement color your perceptions? We certainly have so many examples of the fact that we see what we expect to see and, not so much, what is actually there.

Indeed, and that could go both ways in this case, right? Mathis could be seeing what he is expecting to see... people have been predisposed to seeing "actors" much more often now...

 

[BHelmet]

Whose agendas are those? Find some Hawking quotes pre-1985, if you can, and compare the style and composition.

Interesting, thanks. Though before thinking that he was a different person, I thought simply that he may have changed, his thinking deteriorated, etc. There are many plausible explanations. I've seen people change in even more drastic ways than that, and I know for a fact that it was the very same person (a family member, for example).

Yes people change and their minds as well as bodies degenerate. That said, it seems Hawking's mind degenerated more than his body from the photos which makes no sense. The basic point about ALS holds. Who has ever lasted that long and looked more baby-faced at 65 than they did 25 years prior with that disease? I did know a 12 year old kid with that disease and it wasn't pretty and he just kept getting worse. It was a heartbreak to watch it.

So the question again is: do your pre-dispositions about the likelihood of replacement color your perceptions? We certainly have so many examples of the fact that we see what we expect to see and, not so much, what is actually there.

Indeed, and that could go both ways in this case, right? Mathis could be seeing what he is expecting to see... people have been predisposed to seeing "actors" much more often now...

Yes it can cut both ways and Mathis seems to have a predilection for that interpretation. But, he does not say "I am right, you must agree", he says quite the opposite. He is just saying, "Hey, look at this evidence - pretty weird, right? Here is what I think." (and as an aside, Kim Il-sung is another one that always made me wonder, too...)

Well, we don't really absolutely know and IMO, Mathis makes a halfway decent case on this one: the jury is still out. To just say "this is definitely BS" is not thinking with a hammer (IMO). Sure, Mathis comes off like a crackpot at times. Don't we all? Anyway, in a case like this it is all just a matter of opinion. Everybody is entitled. Only an unbiased DNA sample test would settle it and we are not likely to get that.

 

[MusicMan]

An intriguing thread, SummerLite.
It may well be a distraction, but I guess it behooves us to keep our wits about us with all the propaganda that is about.

I read the entire story about the Manson family, and I consider that there are some valid points in it.
One thing I noticed that he did not mention was that in the photos of Manson, if you look at the tattoo of the swastika between his eyes, it is not the same in some of the photos. Another substitute?

This whole thread brings to mind some information I came across a while ago about the supposed death of Paul McCartney. Those interested could look it up using their favourite search engine.