Stephen Hawking Replaced with Double?

[Tigersoap]

[quote author=BHelmet]
Oh yeah, just one more thing (like Columbo used to say): just how do you 'stage' something without any 'actors'?
[/quote]

Perhaps you'd be interested to read or listen to SOTT Talk Radio: The Sandy Hook Massacre, What Really Happened?

Perhaps a search on Cointelpro, false flag operation or psy-ops would make it clearer for you ?

 

[SummerLite]

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!!

Okay, what about that voice box? I don't know anything about those, how does it work? Does he need high functioning muscles for that? Maybe he has become a cutting edge example of advanced science in his very body. Perhaps his brain has been connected to his computer and the voice we hear are actually his thoughts (we've already heard about those studies and results). Or maybe they're someone else's thoughts.

As I've said before, I haven't paid any attention to Stephen Hawking and his work. I don't know what his contribution to science has been. Has it been phenomenal as the lay person believes ? He has been in the "lime light" for a long time though and we know that's a big red flag. People aren't promoted like that unless they serve a purpose which seems to be the rule. Money does play into these things, receiving funding for special projects. Shaping public opinion on science has certainly been dumped on us and certain groups have made a lot of money that way. Look at Monsanto. The plan to profit from "global warming" flopped but another example. The "secret space program" has been going on for awhile with enormous funding. Hawking talks about the likeliness of needing to leave Earth at some future time. So he's also connecting to the space program and what the C's called the "_____". I'm sorry I cant remember the exact wording here nor am I able to find the quote. Its something like the 3rd estate or 3rd option, about the plans for the elite to leave the planet which ties in with the space program..

So has Stephen Hawking been used in this way? I'm sure that's not a new idea by any means. So here is a quote from Mathis on that idea. He blames the CIA a lot, but whose behind the CIA? I like the part at the end where he talks about how people love sci-fi. The top scientists from around the world being brought to Princeton also comes to mind.

So why would the CIA want to control science? I don't think that is hard to answer. The government
doesn't want private citizens or unsupervised university people discovering anything, because that
would be dangerous. Suppose they discover the next new weapon? If they weren't patriotic, they
might try to keep it for themselves, causing “havoc”. For this reason, we may assume that physics was
split after the war into real physics and physics for mass consumption. The best people were culled off
the top of the physics departments, handpicked by insiders, and put to work for the military or industry.
Those with some perceived public relations skills, like those in wheelchairs or those with good hair or
those who could write salable books or those who could speak well in public were drafted to lead fake
physics. But they were instructed to stay off-topic. Don't do any real physics. Don't try to solve any
real problems, even if they don't at first seem to have any military application. Talk about airy,
unprovable things like black holes and the first seconds of the universe and the edge of time and strings
and vacuum fluctuations. As much as possible, push physics into sci-fi topics, since people love that
stuff. Time travel and wormholes and backward causality. Study Star Trek and Star Wars for
examples. Look at Asimov.

 

[Chu]

Okay, what about that voice box? I don't know anything about those, how does it work? Does he need high functioning muscles for that? Maybe he has become a cutting edge example of advanced science in his very body. Perhaps his brain has been connected to his computer and the voice we hear are actually his thoughts (we've already heard about those studies and results). Or maybe they're someone else's thoughts.

I'm sorry for still being skeptical, but... that seems to be a good example of what Mathis accomplishes: attention to some details that don't seem to have proper answers or even lead to USEFUL realizations. Distraction.

So has Stephen Hawking been used in this way? I'm sure that's not a new idea by any means.

Very likely, I'd say. And as you said, nothing new there. As a general rule, if a scientist is really famous, it's because either consciously or unconsciously, the say things that are still safe for the PTB, and sometimes even work in their favor.

So here is a quote from Mathis on that idea. He blames the CIA a lot, but whose behind the CIA? I like the part at the end where he talks about how people love sci-fi. The top scientists from around the world being brought to Princeton also comes to mind.

So why would the CIA want to control science? I don't think that is hard to answer. The government
doesn't want private citizens or unsupervised university people discovering anything, because that
would be dangerous. Suppose they discover the next new weapon? If they weren't patriotic, they
might try to keep it for themselves, causing “havoc”. For this reason, we may assume that physics was
split after the war into real physics and physics for mass consumption. The best people were culled off
the top of the physics departments, handpicked by insiders, and put to work for the military or industry.
Those with some perceived public relations skills, like those in wheelchairs or those with good hair or
those who could write salable books or those who could speak well in public were drafted to lead fake
physics. But they were instructed to stay off-topic. Don't do any real physics. Don't try to solve any
real problems, even if they don't at first seem to have any military application. Talk about airy,
unprovable things like black holes and the first seconds of the universe and the edge of time and strings
and vacuum fluctuations. As much as possible, push physics into sci-fi topics, since people love that
stuff. Time travel and wormholes and backward causality. Study Star Trek and Star Wars for
examples. Look at Asimov.

Interesting. Projection, anyone? This seems to be EXACTLY what Mathis is doing himself. Replace "physics" with "research on conspiracies". That right there is a big red flag. Accusing others of doing what he himself is doing, and telling some truth, but later on analyzing farfetched "actor" scenarios that people LIKE, and that don't have anything to do with REAL research on conspiracies. Very interesting...

 

[whitecoast]

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

Perhaps you'd be interested to read or listen to SOTT Talk Radio: The Sandy Hook Massacre, What Really Happened?

Perhaps a search on Cointelpro, false flag operation or psy-ops would make it clearer for you ?
[/quote]

I think the skinny of it is, the shooters were the actors in a sense: pretending to be the long gunman type but are actually agents of the PTBs to scare people. They used real guns and real people died though. Most "actor" conspiracy theories try to focus on the people who died also being the actors, which makes no sense because by doing so you're risking greater exposure of the truth in exchange for... not having people die? But the people in charge don't even care about the lives of strangers!

 

[kalibex]

Most "actor" conspiracy theories try to focus on the people who died also being the actors, which makes no sense because by doing so you're risking greater exposure of the truth in exchange for... not having people die? But the people in charge don't even care about the lives of strangers!

If the PTB are seen as cruel enough to go to the trouble of traumatizing the public by carrying out a false flag event in order to manipulate public opinion... How can these folks think, logically, that the PTB would have any qualms about throwing away actual lives in order to contribute to that traumatic effect?

 

[SummerLite]

Okay, what about that voice box? I don't know anything about those, how does it work? Does he need high functioning muscles for that? Maybe he has become a cutting edge example of advanced science in his very body. Perhaps his brain has been connected to his computer and the voice we hear are actually his thoughts (we've already heard about those studies and results). Or maybe they're someone else's thoughts.



I'm sorry for still being skeptical, but... that seems to be a good example of what Mathis accomplishes: attention to some details that don't seem to have proper answers or even lead to USEFUL realizations. Distraction.

Hi Chu, I don't have much time to respond to your post, just need to make this brief. I was responding to Captainmurphy in the comment above. He mentioned Hawkings voice box devise not Mathis (should have put Captm. name above quote, sorry). The technologies of brain to computer came up with this bit of discussion and I think that's a useful realization. I think it could be a proper answer. Can I prove that's what Hawking uses? No, but I think its a pretty good guess. Just like I cant prove he's had stem cell therapy but it fits very well. The studies done to help handicapped people use a computer that was attached to their brain was shown years ago.

Here is a recent article on a new application of brain/computer tech: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188883-the-first-human-brain-to-brain-interface-has-been-created-in-the-future-will-we-all-be-linked-telepathically

are reporting that they have built the first human-to-human brain-to-brain interface, allowing two humans — separated by the internet — to consciously communicate with each other, with no additional sensory cues. One researcher, attached to a brain-computer interface (BCI) in India, successfully sent words into the brain of another researcher in France, who was wearing a computer-to-brain interface (CBI). In short, the researchers have created a device that enables telepathy. In the future, rather than vocalizing speech — or vainly attempting to vocalize your emotions — your friend/lover/family member might just pluck those words and thoughts right out of your head.

Looks like our friend Capt. Piccard

 

[Henchman 21]

At summerlite. The baby I was referring to was that there may be something going on with Stephen hawking involving deception, the bath water was the particular angle that this Mathis character was going on about. The topic is intriguing but the Mathis source seems to be full of holes. So lets keep the baby, at least for now, without swimming in the bath water.
I hope that clears things up for you a bit. Sorry if my analogy was unfamiliar with you. I didn't mean to cause confusion.

 

[Sol Logos]

I read through Mathis's article on Hawking and made me wonder. Probably the fact he didn't look much older, perhaps even younger than his picture 20 years earlier and yes the bottom teeth, they look all worn down then suddenly they stick out like a rabbit. It was admittedly odd and Mathis sounds like he's being reasonable.

So before looking any further I asked a friend who is a physics buff whether any of Mathis's scientific work is any good. 2 minutes of reading Mathis he notices all his claims that accepted scientific tenets are false, but Mathis hardly details how or why they are false, but goes on about that his methods and calculations are right (apparently). But it made little sense to my friend.

So I just went to look for photos of Hawking myself even though according to Mathis there's not many photos available or those that do exist have been falsified. A quick Google image search will tell you that claim doesn't have legs. There's literally thousands of photos.

Look at this photo for example on Flickr:

It's from a flickr user said to taken 2009. On this photo Hawking has the worn bottom teeth and you can see Hawking's narrow face, he's also got that blondish hair and puffy face. The one photo put's Mathis's claims in direct disrepute and didn't take me long to find. So Stephen Hawking's probably dyed his hair, and he probably got into some type of cosmetic treatment, like fillers or botox, not at all uncommon for those who are vain-ish and in the limelight. If that's true, maybe he got crowns too and since then couldn't be bothered with doing much more so left his crowns to stain and look yellow, let his hair go grey again and the wrinkles to come back.

So what strikes me even more is that Mathis choose photos from the thousands available to make his point appear valid. In another article he writes this:

This is what I finally understood: all famous people are there to misdirect you. ALL OF THEM. They
didn't accidentally get famous. They don't accidentally get on TV or in movies or in books or on CDs
or on the internet. And they certainly don't earn their way into these positions, as is now clear. So how
did they get there? Why do you have to see them and hear them all the time? Why do you know who
they are? Because they were placed there. They were chosen to fill that position, and they were chosen
in order to misdirect you from the truth.

http://mileswmathis.com/guru.pdf

Who knows for sure - perhaps Mathis is an agent "chosen in order to misdirect you from the truth". Well at least I'd say it's more feasible than Hawking's died and was replaced.

 

[Zasino]

Who knows for sure - perhaps Mathis is an agent "chosen in order to misdirect you from the truth".

Funny, alkemhst, in the same paper MM addresses your question:

Some will say, “What about you? How do we know you aren't another posted guru, planted to
misdirect us?” Well, I'm not famous, am I? I am not on TV, am I? I am not promoted by some studio or consortium or publisher or think-tank. No one is sending you here: if you got to these pages you got here on your own, probably by lucking out in a websearch.

BTW I found the whole paper http://mileswmathis.com/guru.pdf to be very interesting and to some degree illuminating – for my own progress in the work.

To the Hawking replacement, I am not convinced. Why? Chiefly, the alleged motive by the Physics PTB (to keep him as a "poster boy" distraction) is IMO a weak one. I can think of easier and less risky ways to accomplish the same goal.
Second, as alkhemst remarks, MM apparently cherry-picked the pictures on which he based his "conspiracy theory".

So, based on my familiarity with MM's work, here is my opinion.
MM has many talents, one is painting. He is a keen observer. To produce something like this
http://mileswmathis.com/cameo.html requires among other things a sharp and well-trained eye.
As seen with his other gifts and talents, he likes to show them, sometimes even to "show off". Call it vanity if you will.
So, he happened to notice discrepancies between two of Hawking's pictures (discrepancies which apparently nobody else had noticed before), analyzed them closer and, ignoring several other plausible explanations, went straight to the replacement theory.
IMO to him, the right or wrong of his replacement theory takes second seat, and he explicitly tells us so.
A similar case is his John Lennon Lives! conjecture, where he compares teeth, moles, ears and what else and comes to a (to me) questionable conclusion.

My moral of the story, I keep my admiration for MM's talents: sharp mind, keen observer, impeccable articulation, rebellious attitude (the babies), but throw out Hawking (the dirty bathwater).

.A

 

[SummerLite]

asino and alkhemst, Thank you both for your posts!

I'm glad you took the time to look into this a bit more and come up with new observations on the matter. The conversation had become pretty static here with not much more then MM character analysis. I went into this in some detail on page 2.

alkhemst:

So before looking any further I asked a friend who is a physics buff whether any of Mathis's scientific work is any good. 2 minutes of reading Mathis he notices all his claims that accepted scientific tenets are false, but Mathis hardly details how or why they are false, but goes on about that his methods and calculations are right (apparently). But it made little sense to my friend.

I was hoping someone would take a look at MM's scientific work which would clearly shed light on whether he has a leg to stand on in his claims of bunk science. At least your friend had a look and came up with something of an answer there. Inconclusive though it is.

So Stephen Hawking's probably dyed his hair, and he probably got into some type of cosmetic treatment, like fillers or botox, not at all uncommon for those who are vain-ish and in the limelight. If that's true, maybe he got crowns too and since then couldn't be bothered with doing much more so left his crowns to stain and look yellow, let his hair go grey again and the wrinkles to come back.

There is no way of telling for sure. I guess I've become rather attached to my idea he's had stem cell therapy which helps explain his longevity and improved appearance over the years.

asino:

My moral of the story, I keep my admiration for MM's talents: sharp mind, keen observer, impeccable articulation, rebellious attitude (the babies), but throw out Hawking (the dirty bathwater).

Well that's a breath of fresh air. At least I'm not the only one whose found some value in his work despite the flaws.

Thanks! p.s. I discovered how difficult it is myself in tracking down photos on the web. Ran into date discrepancies on certain photos so its not a easy way to verify some things. I did this with the Tate/Manson story.

 

[SummerLite]

Chu:

Interesting. Projection, anyone? This seems to be EXACTLY what Mathis is doing himself. Replace "physics" with "research on conspiracies". That right there is a big red flag. Accusing others of doing what he himself is doing, and telling some truth, but later on analyzing farfetched "actor" scenarios that people LIKE, and that don't have anything to do with REAL research on conspiracies. Very interesting...

That's one way to look at whats said here as far as the projecting goes. I'd have to know more about Mathis to say if your take is correct. I see this quote by MM as a simple, straightforward statement of what could very well be true. It fits the pattern and does show researched material that I'm aware of. My first impression of what you say here is that your projecting, your idea of projection onto whats said, coming from a judgment you've already formed. That's my impression and of course I could be wrong :)

 

[Mr. Premise]

Chu:

Interesting. Projection, anyone? This seems to be EXACTLY what Mathis is doing himself. Replace "physics" with "research on conspiracies". That right there is a big red flag. Accusing others of doing what he himself is doing, and telling some truth, but later on analyzing farfetched "actor" scenarios that people LIKE, and that don't have anything to do with REAL research on conspiracies. Very interesting...

That's one way to look at whats said here as far as the projecting goes. I'd have to know more about Mathis to say if your take is correct. I see this quote by MM as a simple, straightforward statement of what could very well be true. It fits the pattern and does show researched material that I'm aware of. My first impression of what you say here is that your projecting, your idea of projection onto whats said, coming from a judgment you've already formed. That's my impression and of course I could be wrong :)

SummerLite, I think the issue is that our time is limited and many of us have learned through practice and networking to be able to quickly spot disinfo. I can usually tell after a few paragraphs is someone is worth reading further. Personally I decided Mathis is not worth the time and the more I hear from others who have read him more deeply the more I'm convinced of that. Personally I don't see any baby in there with the bath water.

 

[Chu]

Chu:

Interesting. Projection, anyone? This seems to be EXACTLY what Mathis is doing himself. Replace "physics" with "research on conspiracies". That right there is a big red flag. Accusing others of doing what he himself is doing, and telling some truth, but later on analyzing farfetched "actor" scenarios that people LIKE, and that don't have anything to do with REAL research on conspiracies. Very interesting...

That's one way to look at whats said here as far as the projecting goes. I'd have to know more about Mathis to say if your take is correct. I see this quote by MM as a simple, straightforward statement of what could very well be true. It fits the pattern and does show researched material that I'm aware of. My first impression of what you say here is that your projecting, your idea of projection onto whats said, coming from a judgment you've already formed. That's my impression and of course I could be wrong :)

SummerLite, I think the issue is that our time is limited and many of us have learned through practice and networking to be able to quickly spot disinfo. I can usually tell after a few paragraphs is someone is worth reading further. Personally I decided Mathis is not worth the time and the more I hear from others who have read him more deeply the more I'm convinced of that. Personally I don't see any baby in there with the bath water.

Ditto. And the more it gets posted about his "good qualities", the less I see them. Sounds like the same old, same old disinfo. Very little to "redeem" his character.

 

[SummerLite]

Okay, that fine. Not a big deal by any means. My time is limited as well, and that's for sure. Mathis is a mixture of qualities, and requires a bit to much effort to continue on for any length of time. But I've learned a few new things here in this little discourse I find interesting and hope I've contributed a few items of value. Growing new teeth certainly is a biggy I think :D

Have a good day everyone.

 

[BHelmet]

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

Perhaps you'd be interested to read or listen to SOTT Talk Radio: The Sandy Hook Massacre, What Really Happened?

Perhaps a search on Cointelpro, false flag operation or psy-ops would make it clearer for you ?
[/quote]
Joe: ... "Hi, I'm Dawn Hochsprung, the principal of the school and here's what happened." This is another example of someone on the scene, or, it's more evidence that there were people; very few people is all that it would take, on the scene talking to the media, presenting themselves as people that they were not, and giving deliberately false information to the media that created, as we keep mentioning, this morass of contradictory and conflicting information that came out from the media as a result of this shooting.

Joe: But it's in a particular context; it's in a kind of historical context in the sense of our claim that, for example; and we are not saying there were actors at Sandy Hook, we are saying there were people who were involved in the shooting who deliberately spread disinformation to the media and were posing as the school principal, for example.

well ok - whatever - maybe it is just all semantics