Stephen Hawking Replaced with Double?

[ec1968]

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?

IMHO BHelmet, your interpretation of these quotations is incorrect, and for me, the quotations stand in their original form:

1. Advanced breed of monkeys - yes. Read Darwin and any other evolutionary biology work for confirmation that the current theory of evolution is the best theory we have on our development.

2. Again, read an introductory astrophysics text covering star and planet formation for confirmation that the earth is a minor planet orbiting an average star. Whilst Prof Hawking has not been 'all over the universe', the knowledge and understanding in the cosmology and astrophysics community supports his assertion.

3. He is not claiming that we know everything there is to know about the universe; far from it. As I read it, his point here is that what we do know, we pretty much understand, and for an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of an average star, that is pretty damned amazing.

Any biologists or physicists that I know would be happy to agree in principle with these statements by Prof Hawking.

(Sources for my opinions - personal knowledge from honours degree in physics, master's in electron microscopy, Chartered Biologist and Member of the Royal Society of Biology, plus 20 years of post-graduation CPD in science subjects).

 

[Mr. Premise]

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.

That came to mind for me, too. That is also complete nonsense.

 

[SummerLite]

Hi MusicMan,

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?

I noticed that too. One swastika is reversed. That had me wondering sense I always thought that was a tattoo then considered I must be wrong about that. My rationalization immediately said "it must be something he draws on his forward whenever the mood suits him" and promptly forgot about it sense I had it explained well enough for my "questioning" mind, lol!. I see the switch happened somewhere between 1971 and 2009 according to the pictures posted. The "new" tattoo is more evenly placed and better done.

The last picture of Manson, in this article, appeared in Vanity Fair Spain 2011. He's shown with his 2 secretaries, one he will marry (Must have a busy life.)
Anyway, he's also looking rather fit for his older years, well fed, groomed and a nice tan.

 

[kalibex]

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.

That came to mind for me, too. That is also complete nonsense.

IIRC, he also has a 'John Lennon was a British Intelligence asset (actually, he claims all the Beatles were) who wasn't actually assassinated in 1980' theory as well.

 

[Mr. Premise]

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.

That came to mind for me, too. That is also complete nonsense.

IIRC, he also has a 'John Lennon was a British Intelligence asset (actually, he claims all the Beatles were) who wasn't actually assassinated in 1980' theory as well.

Well I guess the only question left is Mike Mathis: Clown or COINTELPRO?

 

[Joe]

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

Two possible likely answers. He's nuts (pattern recognition run amok) or he's doing it for attention. Or both.

 

[BHelmet]

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?

IMHO BHelmet, your interpretation of these quotations is incorrect, and for me, the quotations stand in their original form:

1. Advanced breed of monkeys - yes. Read Darwin and any other evolutionary biology work for confirmation that the current theory of evolution is the best theory we have on our development.

2. Again, read an introductory astrophysics text covering star and planet formation for confirmation that the earth is a minor planet orbiting an average star. Whilst Prof Hawking has not been 'all over the universe', the knowledge and understanding in the cosmology and astrophysics community supports his assertion.

3. He is not claiming that we know everything there is to know about the universe; far from it. As I read it, his point here is that what we do know, we pretty much understand, and for an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of an average star, that is pretty damned amazing.

Any biologists or physicists that I know would be happy to agree in principle with these statements by Prof Hawking.

(Sources for my opinions - personal knowledge from honours degree in physics, master's in electron microscopy, Chartered Biologist and Member of the Royal Society of Biology, plus 20 years of post-graduation CPD in science subjects).

First, I don't dispute that what you say is what is generally accepted.
And I do not have the qualifications that you do.

I mean to be contrasting those quotes to what the C's, Ra and other 'out there' sources have said: 1. That our origins are quite complex and deep and convoluted. 2. That modern physics/cosmology does not seem to take into account a multi-density/layered reality; and that we are looking at the universe from a limited and distorted platform with limited means which skews our vision and theories of it all.

But, yes, it is all pretty amazing.

 

[BHelmet]

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

Two possible likely answers. He's nuts (pattern recognition run amok) or he's doing it for attention. Or both.

What about the 3rd man theme? The balancing/neutralizing aspect? Third leg of the trinity?
(when I think of it, if I can, I will let you know)

 

[kalibex]

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

Two possible likely answers. He's nuts (pattern recognition run amok) or he's doing it for attention. Or both.

I'm thinking: an entertaining, attention-garnering hobby.

 

[SummerLite]

This has been such a interesting conversation. Everyone has contributed valid observations and made good points, good food for thought!

I'd like to share my latest thoughts on the subject. Are we missing the elephant in the room here? The conversation has turned fairly well to discussing the character traits of Miles Mathis it seems. All that is fine, has its place and questioning who and what this guy is about is important and a learning.

Lets look at Mr. Hawking again, throwing out the imposter theory and saying this is truly him. Judging from these pictures and how long he's lived with this very serious disease he has done remarkably well, we'd have to agree. An area that isn't discussed much here(as far as I know) or anywhere it seems, is the advanced medical treatments that are likely being discovered and used by the PTB. And its been proposed that Hawking has been receiving these for a long time. So that is my alternative conspiracy theory to the double.

Gawan: Gabor Mate

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.

Which leads me back to the teeth again which was the red flag for me. From the pictures presented here and they do seem to be in chronological order, Hawkings lower teeth where worn down to little nubs way back in the early 80s. Later pictures show he had well formed, real, lower teeth. I ask what would cause teeth to grow back? Stem cells? So I did a little search and what did I find?

Drum roll, please....

Research to grow back missing teeth using stem cells has been going on for years. Apparently its being readied to be released into the public soon. Here is a portion of one article:

Did you know…that stem cells implanted into the gums previously occupied by teeth grow into a new set of teeth in only 2 months?

Dentures and dental implants may soon become a thing of the past. Stem cell research is making it possible to regrow your missing teeth! This is a much-needed medical advancement, especially considering that by age 74—26% of adults have lost all of their permanent teeth.

Stem cells are no ordinary cells. They have the extraordinary ability to multiply and transform into many different types of cells in the body. They repair tissues by dividing continually either as a new stem cell or as a cell with a more specialized job, such as a red blood cell, a skin cell, or a muscle cell.


Read more: http://undergroundhealthreporter.com/tooth-regeneration-now-possible-with-new-stem-cell-research/#ixzz3eEPBOoT3

There are many articles of the studies done if you want to look. I also noticed that stem cell research for the treatment of ALS has been on going for quite some time. So here is a clue for one of the "hidden" treatments I'd say.

I don't know what discoveries are being made with stem cells around the world these days but I know a lot is happening with that. I followed this at one time but lost touch. Its been repressed for the most part in the US as you probably know.

So there it is, my BIG discovery!! I don't need to think about Stephens teeth any longer. :D (IF this is the truth!)

 

[BHelmet]

This has been such a interesting conversation. Everyone has contributed valid observations and made good points, good food for thought!
So there it is, my BIG discovery!! I don't need to think about Stephens teeth any longer. :D (IF this is the truth!)

That is indeed a huge relief! You have done us all a great service! I am SO glad not to think about those chiclets ever again!

 

[Henchman 21]

I will agree that he likely hasn't been replaced or anything, but maybe, just maybe that voice box of his isn't really his thoughts anymore. Of all the soundbits I've heard of him all I can say is that it sure doesn't take a genius to say such generic crap. I find it tough to believe that his one muscle can speak so well and maybe I'm wrong but I sure haven't heard anything outa him that's more intelligent than what I could produce. Now maybe I have an iq of like 200 but I highly doubt that.
This maybe a thread where we should try not to throw the baby out with the....you know. Bath water!!

 

[SummerLite]

Hi Captainmurphy,

I don't know what you mean by this,

This maybe a thread where we should try not to throw the baby out with the....you know. Bath water!!

Are there other areas you'd like to look into concerning Hawking? Or does the double theory need more study? Did I throw the baby out? I consider that my explanation for his appearance over the years is a reasonable and possibly more "sensible" explanation then him being replaced. Do I know for sure, no.
Does it matter to me, not really. But I do appreciate what has unfolded here. I think good info came from this little exercise in discernment and pulling apart the clues.

Mathis looks for a lot of hidden links and finds some good info in my opinion. Do we need to be pulled into his conclusions? Of course not. But his research/observations bring out obscure factors and adds to the overall picture.

Chu:

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.

Watch out Miles Mathis!

Please continue on if anyone has more insights and comments.

 

[Henchman 21]

Hi Captainmurphy,

I don't know what you mean by this,

This maybe a thread where we should try not to throw the baby out with the....you know. Bath water!!

Are there other areas you'd like to look into concerning Hawking? Or does the double theory need more study? Did I throw the baby out? I consider that my explanation for his appearance over the years is a reasonable and possibly more "sensible" explanation then him being replaced. Do I know for sure, no.
Does it matter to me, not really. But I do appreciate what has unfolded here. I think good info came from this little exercise in discernment and pulling apart the clues.

Mathis looks for a lot of hidden links and finds some good info in my opinion. Do we need to be pulled into his conclusions? Of course not. But his research/observations bring out obscure factors and adds to the overall picture.

Chu:

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.

Watch out Miles Mathis!

Please continue on if anyone has more insights and comments.

i said what I had to say. Re-read what I said. This wasn't about your inquires. This is about being on to something but maybe being slightly off. You raised attention to an idea and this took on a discussion. I am not opposed to your views but maybe we should open the idea up a little bit more. Maybe come up with more ideas on the topic. I for one am suspicious as you are. I certainly wasn't saying that you were throwing the perverbial baby out. But others were.
Not to say that I have the answers but I posted my previous post to offer a different angle on the idea. That is all.

 

[BHelmet]

Hi Captainmurphy,

I don't know what you mean by this,

This maybe a thread where we should try not to throw the baby out with the....you know. Bath water!!

Are there other areas you'd like to look into concerning Hawking? Or does the double theory need more study? Did I throw the baby out? I consider that my explanation for his appearance over the years is a reasonable and possibly more "sensible" explanation then him being replaced. Do I know for sure, no.
Does it matter to me, not really. But I do appreciate what has unfolded here. I think good info came from this little exercise in discernment and pulling apart the clues.

Mathis looks for a lot of hidden links and finds some good info in my opinion. Do we need to be pulled into his conclusions? Of course not. But his research/observations bring out obscure factors and adds to the overall picture.

Chu:

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.

Watch out Miles Mathis!

Please continue on if anyone has more insights and comments.

i said what I had to say. Re-read what I said. This wasn't about your inquires. This is about being on to something but maybe being slightly off. You raised attention to an idea and this took on a discussion. I am not opposed to your views but maybe we should open the idea up a little bit more. Maybe come up with more ideas on the topic. I for one am suspicious as you are. I certainly wasn't saying that you were throwing the perverbial baby out. But others were.
Not to say that I have the answers but I posted my previous post to offer a different angle on the idea. That is all.

Regarding babies and bathwater: interestingly, Mathis first critiqued Hawking's TV series "Brave New World" in Nov 2011 and only later in 2014 came up with the idea that it was not really Hawking after all. That order makes sense: first you question a popular figure for seeming to sell out to certain agendas and then later get the idea it isn't really him anyway. And let's not forget that if something is advertised and sold mainstream, (like Hawking has been) it should be examined carefully before it is swallowed.

Oh yeah, just one more thing (like Columbo used to say): just how do you 'stage' something without any 'actors'?