Stephen Hawking Hoax

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda

Re: Stephen Hawking Hoax

Postby elmoastro on January 8th, 2015, 3:57 am

Intel has been providing his software for the past 20 years.

Here is another interesting patent (see link for more: http://patents.justia.com/patent/6510413):

Distributed synthetic speech generation Patent (Patent # 6,510,413)

Jun 29, 2000 - Intel

Text that is to be synthesized into human speech is first converted into an intermediate form representation that describe the acoustic-prosodic resolution of the spoken version of the text. The intermediate form can be generated manually, or by an intermediate form generation program at a server computer, and later downloaded to client computers at their request. The client computers synthesize the intermediate form representation to audio for their users using a relatively simple speech rendering program.



Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION


1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates generally to the generation of synthetic speech, and more specifically, to the generation of synthetic speech at remote client devices.

2. Description of Related Art

Speech synthesis, which refers to the artificial generation of speech from written text, is increasingly becoming an important technology for accessing information. Two areas in which speech synthesis looks particularly promising is in increasing the availability of information to sight-impaired individuals and in enriching the information content of web-based devices that have minimal or no viewing screens...
elmoastro
Member
 
Posts: 81
Joined: December 8th, 2012, 10:41 pm

Re: Stephen Hawking Hoax

Postby Flabbergasted on February 19th, 2015, 4:29 pm

At about 1:46:15 into the live performance "One Down, Five to Go", Monty Python pays a tribute to two of the grand masters of scientism, His Eminence St. Brian Cocks, and His Holiness of the Creative Powers of Gravity, Stephen Hawking, who has deigned to come and bless the enterprise (at least so it is made to seem). People are clapping at the privilege of Hawking´s attendance, although the screengrab gives the unintended but fitting impression of hands folded in veneration.

Image
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 641
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Stephen Hawking Hoax

Postby Undoctored on April 26th, 2015, 2:02 am

About a week ago, Miles Mathis came out with a photographic analysis suggesting that Stephen Hawking died in the mid-80s and was replaced by a look-alike, and that the original Stephen Hawking did not write A Brief History of Time (which was published in 1988).

http://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf

Miles Mathis wrote:Stephen Hawking
died and has been replaced

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.


And at the end we have an interesting update from just a few days ago:

Miles Mathis wrote:[I am rushing this into print with only a few days research, since I predict they will announce his death very very soon.]

Addendum, April 22, 2015: Two days after this paper went up, there was an internet death hoax for Hawking. Someone got over a million hits at Facebook with this hoax. I read that two ways: 1) the widely publicized hoax acts to cover this paper a bit, because some will dismiss my title without reading the paper, thinking it is linked to the hoax. For this reason, I assume the death hoax was started by the same people that are behind the longterm Hawking hoax. 2) We have seen that these internet death hoaxes often now precede a real death announcement. See the strange goings-on before the announcement of Robin Williams' death (which I assume was faked like the rest). ...
Undoctored
Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: March 31st, 2015, 6:27 am

Re: Stephen Hawking Hoax

Postby simonshack on May 6th, 2015, 9:27 pm

*

The (Hawking) joke-hoax is on us... I find it a bit unfunny though, but hey - maybe it's just me ! <_<


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfcC6FYyL4U
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Stephen Hawking Hoax

Postby allancw on August 3rd, 2015, 9:44 pm

Hey, Simon and everyone!

Weisbecker here. I'm working on an essay on Hawking and his BS (Bullshit Science), along with the possibility that he's a literal puppet. I dunno what to think of Mathis's essay... anyone who has anything to say about Hawking... I'm all ears...

By the way, I attended the Electric Universe conference in Phoenix in June. Views on E.U. are most welcome also...
allancw
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: July 18th, 2011, 1:54 pm

Re: Stephen Hawking Hoax

Postby hoi.polloi on August 25th, 2015, 11:48 pm

By god, if this isn't gobbledygook useless unscientific nonsense from the mouth of a puppet, what is it?

Stephen Hawking may have just solved one of the most vexing mysteries in physics — the "information paradox."

Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that the physical information about material gobbled up by a black hole is destroyed, but the laws of quantum mechanics stipulate that information is eternal. Therein lies the paradox.

Hawking — working with Malcolm Perry, of the University of Cambridge in England, and Harvard University's Andrew Stromberg — has come up with a possible solution: The quantum-mechanical information about infalling particles doesn't actually make it inside the black hole.

"I propose that the information is stored not in the interior of the black hole, as one might expect, but on its boundary, the event horizon," Stephen Hawking said during a talk today (Aug. 25) at the Hawking Radiation conference, which is being held at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.

The information is stored at the boundary as two-dimensional holograms known as "super translations," he explained. But you wouldn't want super translations, which were first introduced as a concept in 1962, to back up your hard drive.


- http://www.space.com/30366-stephen-hawk ... stery.html

So does this "Hawking" character just "come up" with shit and we print it? Can we see an example of Hawking actually presenting a formula that he developed? Do they just wheel him around to universities and ask mathematicians to prove the statements he is given to have his computer pronounce, based purely on sympathy and/or belief in the show?

This is like Space.com's article on "oxymoron" black holes. :wacko:

I am sure that the "Hawking" phenomenon is used to study how the public believe things purely based on how supposedly intellectual words are used on them.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4811
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Postby simonshack on February 14th, 2016, 2:57 pm

***

Stephen is ecstatic about the new "gravitational wave chirp" discovery :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYxHzccx2nU

Note that Hawking has now done away with that little hand-held box-controller with which he used to 'talk' with. I guess that black headrest now reads his brainwaves and translates them into speech. Aah - the wonders of modern scientific / technological advancements!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby Kham on February 14th, 2016, 7:59 pm

Interesting video, Simon.

Are these two blokes even in the same room? Or could they be in front of a green screen or even perhaps, dare I say it, CGI? What could explain the differences in the background?

Image



***********************************************************************
ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE (Critical Mass)

I'm not saying that you're wrong but I find it hard to believe that you didn't watch the video to the end. There you see a third view which clearly indicates that this was not a "live, unscripted, unedited" interview (not that the BBC is claiming such a thing) but conducted in at least two different locations.


Image
Kham
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: June 25th, 2015, 10:30 am

Postby anonjedi2 on February 14th, 2016, 8:16 pm

It looks like even the size of the chalkboard and the wooden border around it are inconsistent as well.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 698
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Postby Kham on February 14th, 2016, 8:56 pm

I'm not saying that you're wrong but I find it hard to believe that you didn't watch the video to the end.


Yes, I did watch the video until the end and that is what brought my attention to the severe editing in the first place, but more than the green screen dead give away, I wondered if we could consider CGI. Or is the possibility of CGI too hard to believe?
Kham
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: June 25th, 2015, 10:30 am

Postby simonshack on February 14th, 2016, 9:06 pm

*

Good catch, Kham. Something doesn't quite add up with that interview - that's for sure.

Dear CM - I see your point, but Kham has a pretty good point too. That's why I reinstated her post from the Derailing Room. :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Stephen Hawking Hoax

Postby simonshack on February 14th, 2016, 10:56 pm

*

My pen friend Vinny writes (regarding above Hawking video) :

Watch the lips move entirely independent of teeth at 50-55 s. Its just a puppet dude. If you were familiar with Big Bang Theory, you would know that when Disney bought The Muppets, Hawkings was part of the package. Animatronic like the Country Bears Jamboree.

HawkingTeeth_01.JPG


People say mind control pawn, I say electric latex puppet. Nobody would put joke teeth like that on a real human being. Not to mention the face is entirely lacking of the lines that come with life. No micro movements? Damn those eyes must be dry and sore, where is caregiver with drops. The jokes on whoever believes it. Those are called "billy bob teeth", they come in a vending machine for little kids, The concept of putting plates in the mouth of someone without muscle control is tantamount to murder, he'd choke on them.

But hey, if you see "proof of life", I'd love to see it. And why is there a joystick on one of the most custom wheel chairs in the world for a guy with no arm movement? Caregiver joystick is always on back handle where it belongs.


I will just say that the "Stephen Hawking" hoax is - in my opinion - among the sickest & unspeakably ruthless jokes ever played on humanity's intelligence as a whole. In a way, it epitomizes the psychopathic nature of the Nutwork (aka "the powers that be"), their utter contempt for the public - and their relentless efforts to dumb down this world's population.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re:

Postby Critical Mass on February 14th, 2016, 11:20 pm

Kham wrote:Yes, I did watch the video until the end and that is what brought my attention to the severe editing in the first place, but more than the green screen dead give away, I wondered if we could consider CGI. Or is the possibility of CGI too hard to believe?

I must admit I'm a little confused.

How exactly have we gone from "could they be in front of a green screen" to "green screen dead give away"?

Or, for that matter, "What could explain the differences in the background?" to "I did watch the video until the end and that is what brought my attention to the severe editing"?

Either way Simon is correct... this is a much better thread for this particular discussion.
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: Stephen Hawking Hoax

Postby Kham on February 15th, 2016, 7:59 am

Critical,

First let me say thank you for keeping the threads organized and on task. Readers like myself appreciate that!

You had commented earlier about my post original post something like no one said this was an interview, perhaps hinting that I am analyzing nothing important. On the contrary, the BBC gives the impression that the video is an interview, meaning one dude just talking to another dude, all in one sitting. Here are two BBC links that agree with me:

One of the UK's foremost experts on black holes, Prof Stephen Hawking, told the BBC's Pallab Ghosh that the discovery was groundbreaking.

Speaking exclusively to BBC News, he said he believed that the detection marked a key moment in scientific history.

So if the BBC gives the impression that this is an interview with the famous Stephen Hawking with the BBC science correspondent Pallab I-need-longer-socks Ghosh, why change the backgrounds at all? And also, why make them so similar, like they both have blackboards as a backdrop, one green and one black. Both blackboards have writing on them, one with white chalk and one with yellow. The blackboards are clearly different, one is framed in wood, one isn’t. Yet both blackboards have been recently erased, leaving chalk smears behind. I could go on and on. I think this is a psychological trick used on people to ‘encourage’ them to believe in something they might not be inclined to accept.

Here is how the psychology works: put barely perceptible differences in the videos so that the subconscious can detect them, yet is forced to ignore them (like saying the video is an interview when clearly it is a combination of clips from different times) and in forcing to discount the obvious differences, one is accepting not just the lie of the interview, but all the lies that are spoken as well.

For myself, I did not even notice that the backgrounds were different until the very last scene. Then I said to myself, what the heck was that? Then I explored it and found that there were three distinct backgrounds. I bet there were other people that watched the interview and did not notice that the backgrounds changed at all. You, of course, CM, picked up on it right away. Well done.

Is it just the backgrounds that changed or is there more? To start with Stephens wheelchair is even different.

Image

Images/videos that we are given to look at and explore use purposeful psychological tricks to get us to believe the lie, and I think it would benefit us to explore those.

A secondary set of questions is what parts of the video we saw were part of an interview/s or CGI? I believe this is important as well. If the whole thing is CGI, then every pixel and frame is on purpose, including those weird quivering lips of Stephens that appear to want to talk but can't.

The more times I watch the video, the more my questions change, but I am coming to the opinion that the psychology behind what the media is feeding us cannot be ignored lest we become victims to it.

Moderator: Is this the right thread for my discussion?
Kham
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: June 25th, 2015, 10:30 am

Re: Stephen Hawking Hoax

Postby simonshack on February 15th, 2016, 10:41 am

Dearest Kham,

I'm afraid your above image comparison is flawed: that white box (in your yellow rectangle) which you point out as 'missing' in the righthand image - is only 'missing' due to the different (by over 45°) angles / perspectives of the shots. In the righthand image, that white box is clearly seen at bottom left, right behind Stephen's bum, so to speak.

However, I agree with all your other thoughts and comments regarding the overall weirdness of this short interview - clearly meant to have been recorded in one sitting.

And again (as I often have said), let us not get embroiled in unnecessary discussions about terminology - concerning this or that image-manipulation technique used. Having said that, 'total CGI' wouldn't be needed in this case: given the many camera angles involved (including the absurd close-up shot on Hawking's hands), I'd guess Hawking and Ghosh were just conveniently filmed in a studio 'greenscreen environment' - with the background(s) subsequently added to give that 'university-classroom feel', cluttered blackboards and all...
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to Worldwide media deceptions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests