Stephen Hawkings’ new language.

General chatter that doesn't fit any forums below.
Helena
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2022 12:31 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Stephen Hawkings’ new language.

Unread post by Helena »

I didn’t realise that, apart from all his other works, Stephen Hawkings invented a new language that only one other person can understand. This interviewer is that person. In fact, the language is so amazing that the interviewer can already interpret what Stephen Hawkings says before he actually says it.

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1297 times
Been thanked: 1584 times

Re: Stephen Hawkings’ new language.

Unread post by rachel »

That's quite a fascinating clip. We know that Miles Mathis has a paper regarding Hawking dying and being replace. Worth a read I think. But where I am, I think he's a bit of a Doctor Who, you haven't made it as an actor until you've played Stephen Hawking.

How many different Hawkings can you spot in this next clip...



Oh, and I think the one from your video @Helena looks female, check out the eyes. Saying that, I'm not sure who in that video looks the weirdest, Hawking, the interviewer, Blondie or towards the end, the bloke in the red sweater.

Mathis Essay:
http://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1297 times
Been thanked: 1584 times

Re: Stephen Hawkings’ new language.

Unread post by rachel »

Although looking at the video I put up, something occurs to me.

Would they...??

sh.gif
sh.gif (1.76 MiB) Viewed 950 times
gt head-1.gif
gt head-1.gif (3.45 MiB) Viewed 950 times

Animatronic Head: Work in Progress
Helena
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2022 12:31 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Stephen Hawkings’ new language.

Unread post by Helena »

Hi Rachel,

Yes I read the Mathis piece some time ago.

My first thoughts years ago, in my innocent days, were that he was a genuine person, disabled with a scientific mind. After reading Miles’ piece I wondered where they would find two (or more possibly now, after reading your comments) disabled men to fill the act. A guess a mute man wouldn’t have much choice if he was commandeered for the job, which is awful. And, of course, again we have the twisting of reality where we would be considered cruel to view this person as a charlatan but ‘they’d’ have no problem using such a person. Meanwhile, they continue to push their insane theories to a (mostly) believing populace.

Then, after reading your research, who knows what it is!

And indeed, what a muppet show, those freaky people interviewing and discussing it all! The slim, blond guy interviewing at the start reminded me of this person for some reason: James Harries, an antiques expert extraordinaire, who later went on to become Lauren Harries who appears to have lost her love and knowledge of antiques and spends most of her life desperate for fame whilst banging into objects instead of studying them due to a condition known as dyspraxia.

I went off topic there though.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1297 times
Been thanked: 1584 times

Re: Stephen Hawkings’ new language.

Unread post by rachel »

As this is in chat, I think this section is designed to replace Discord and topics go where they will. Also things here can always seed new threads in a relevant section. In some way's Discord is easier, but search, threading and quoting on this forum is way better if you want to try to demonstrate something. So it's good you included that James Harries video. It is fascinating in what is depicts and the story it tells. I'm going to have to expand on it once I've got a little time, but do you notice anything else odd about it other than Harries himself?

Going back to Hawking, yes, I like you had no reason to doubt he was a real person. For me, what I find amusing, my whole family thought he was dead for maybe three or so years. It was after he was taken into hospital and put on a life support system, a week of so after that I was convinced it was announced he had died. So when a new series started with him, we were, oh he must have done that before he died, it wasn't until he starred in The Simpsons the penny dropped.

Miles Mathis is also an interesting person and I do think his essays are useful, but I only take them so far in most cases. It's funny, the point at which I was convinced Hawking died is exactly the point Miles puts his death, when he went into hospital and was put on the ventilator. Miles says this is where his real family left the scene and his clone takes up with a new woman. To me, the story that Miles then tells hits all the points, but is equally implausible. In fact it creates all sorts of problems in law with the 'reporting of death'. I want to get this posted, but I think I may have mentioned before my problem with Miles hypothesis.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1297 times
Been thanked: 1584 times

Re: Stephen Hawkings’ new language.

Unread post by rachel »

Yep from this post viewtopic.php?p=2351#p2351
Miles Mathis has a paper on Stephen Hawking being replaced, but think about where he is trying to box the alternative view.....There was a real man called Stephen Hawking, he went to University College Oxford and got a 1st Class in physics, then on to Trinity Hall Cambridge for his Phd in Maths, he got sick, was diagnosed with a terminal illness....and in Mathis' reality he died some time just before the 1988 release of 'A Brief History of Time', this was covered up by everyone including his wife and kids. Someone else was then put in his place because........and turned up to events pretending to be him, pretending to have the illness he actually died of, and therefore was never mourned. And what did they do with his body? Was he put on ice for a few decades? Because he is now apparently interred in Westminster Abbey and they certainly didn't do that in 1988. So what, they dug him up and moved him?

Even my version of events would be a tall story. But if Stephen Hawking was like a second identity not attached to a living person, then all of these gymnastics in having different people playing him make a lot more practical sense. I don't just make this stuff up, in law there is created legal persons, these legal person's are ghosts. In common law there needs to be an injured party to make a claim, in this sense, nothing can be done without first an injured party, Step in the invention of the legal person, it is a glove-puppet character of the state that becomes a claimant as if they were living and breathing. In fact today when the Government puts out propaganda, "Stay at home to save lives.", that's the legal person's life you are apparently saving, because they don't actually have to earn money to pay taxes, they are just government fictions.

If he really died, what did they do with his body for all those years, and the person who replaced him, was he buried as the real Hawking or was he buried under his real identity? When looking at it from this angle, the death and replacement theory falls apart. So the alternative to the alternative, Hawking never existed. He is a weak point, if we use logic to knock him down, then we can take quite a few dominoes out with him.
Helena
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2022 12:31 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Stephen Hawkings’ new language.

Unread post by Helena »

Hi Rachel,

Regarding your question on the James Harries video - what I thought strange was that the interviewer introduced his mother as James’ business partner first then, secondly, as his mother. Is that what you meant?
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1297 times
Been thanked: 1584 times

Re: Stephen Hawkings’ new language.

Unread post by rachel »

I'd forgotten I'd posted the above related to the animatronic head. I previously stated I fancy this Hawking might be an animatronic dummy, that would be the easiest way for it to stay still. If you read Miles Mathis on Hawking, he suggests his replacement had wax hands.

So in my version of what might have happened. Prior to Hawking's tracheotomy I would suggest a couple of different people played him at various times. I think the stunt when he went into hospital, was going to die, then magically recovered but because of the tracheotomy, could no longer speak, that's the point one corporation sold the rights to the character to another corporation; and that new corporation decided to revamp him and lose the voice altogether.

Stephen Hawking on Donald Trump's US: "I Fear I May Not Be Welcome"



So a couple of grabs of the above handshake. First in slow motion. See how the woman picks up the hand and offers it to Piers Morgan. And see how Piers lightly holds it, but the little finger drops as he adjusts his grip.

shawk1.gif
shawk1.gif (4.33 MiB) Viewed 710 times

In more detail; the hand appears to open slightly as it is offered to Piers, but we can see the woman actually squeezes, and as she squeezes the hand lifts slightly, and as she releases, it drops slightly, so in fact the woman is manipulating the hand to make it move, as well as offering the hand in the first place. Wouldn't this be easier to do with a dummy than a real person?

shawk2.gif
shawk2.gif (3.87 MiB) Viewed 710 times

I'm suggesting an arm like the one below. so animatronics only needed for the face. This is how real they can go with a silicon hand and then it's up to the puppet master to work it as needed.

body58.jpg
napoleon
Posts: 3604
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:23 pm
Has thanked: 1623 times
Been thanked: 652 times

Re: Stephen Hawkings’ new language.

Unread post by napoleon »

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1297 times
Been thanked: 1584 times

Re: Stephen Hawkings’ new language.

Unread post by rachel »

An interesting question I totally missed from Piers Morgan, at 6:49 minutes. Note Morgan starts with the words "robots...replacing humans":
MORGAN: Robots and technology are replacing humans in increasingly large numbers. This, many argue, is helping fuel the kind of populist anger which led to BREXIT and the election of Donald Trump. Is artificial intelligence going to be the end of us? And if it's not, how do we best work with it?

HAWKING: The election of Trump was caused by a reaction against globalisation, not by artificial intelligence. Ever since the start of the industrial revolution there have been fears of mass unemployment as machines replaced humans. Instead, a demand for goods and services has risen in line with the increased capabilities. Whether this can continue indefinitely is an open question. But there is a greater danger from artificial intelligence if we allow it to become self-designing, for then it can improve itself rapidly and we may lose control.

I included Hawking's answer, it's one of those stock premises that keep us in our box, - see Bullshit Jobs.

Grab from Morgan at the point he finishes his question. No duper's tell I don't think, he always has a bit of a smug look about him anyway.

ScreenShot-VideoID-L_FDFY-SJ-4-TimeS-432.png
Post Reply