Stephen Hawking died and has been replaced

#1
Here's a claim that looks completely outlandish and maybe it is. Although I read some of Miles Mathis who does make extraordinary claims but does so in generally a reasonable way. Miles is an interesting man, with diverse interests - he writes his own books on science and mathematics, as well as paints almost photorealistically and does so really well. Anyway could his claim be possible?

Decide for yourself: http://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf
 
C

Chris

#2
The suggestion is that Hawking was "replaced" by an obvious fake at a time when he was working every day in DAMTP in Cambridge and dozens of people saw him on a regular basis? Ludicrous.
 
#3
Hmmm...the first claim is incorrect. There are case reports of survival similar in length to Hawking's.

http://www.neurology.org/content/65/1/141.short
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11369195?dopt=Abstract

I can't really speak to the comparison of photos. Survival is going to be related to meticulous care in these cases (I'm a physician). I suspect Hawking has had access to much better care than most.

As far as my own unwarranted speculation about Hawking, I used to wonder about facilitated communication, myself. :)

Linda
 
#4
At the very bottom of the link provided by alkhemst is a recent update,

"Addendum, April 25 2015: We already have new evidence for my claim that the Hawking impostor is also dead, in that his current appearances are via hologram. Last night he appeared in Sydney via hologram, but these 3D images cannot be confirmed to be live. Like any other images, holograms can be taped and played back later. I will be told he responds to live questions, but that can be explained in any number of ways, included planted questions. But even if we assume or prove the questions are live and not planted, the responses of Hawking all have to be interpreted, which allows for any amount of trickery. From visual and aural clues alone, there is no way to tell what Hawking is responding to, which you will have to admit is convenient."

I'm going to give it my good ole professional opinion and say this guy is a first class whack job.
 
#6
I agree, it's nonsense. For what purpose - I don't know, probably none and if there has to be one, maybe disinformation and distraction. So I'm sorry for spreading it. I read this article and it initially made me wonder, so I posted to see what others thought. Probably the fact he didn't look much older, perhaps even younger than his picture 20 years earlier and the bottom teeth on the photos, they look all worn down then suddenly they stick out like a rabbit. It was admittedly odd and Mathis sounded like he was being reasonable. I didn't at the time look any further.

Anyway, afterwards 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). It all made little sense to my friend.

Back on this Hawking claim, seems to me that Mathis cherry picked photos to retrofit his foregone conclusion about Hawking. The reason being is there are literally thousands of photos of Hawking on a Google image search, and many show a progression of age, not the sudden change that Mathis cherry picked photos to make his foregone conclusion that Hawking was replaced appear valid. That's a very non-scientific approach and if he uses the same approach with his science (which seems to be the case), his science would be very non-scientific too.
 
Top