Who are you, masked man?

I was curious about the Hawking post below – how many people would read it, and more so, how many people would go so far as to click on the Mathis paper to get a close-up view.

46 people clicked on the home page (I still get many more hits than that on old posts, but 46 is the number who came for a fresh view). Eleven people clicked on the Hawking piece, though that was not necessary to read it. That could mean that eleven people jumped to the comment section, where JC had a go at me. In the old days, that was what people I have banned would do – without reading anything, head for the comments. I got tired of that practice.

I deliberately noted that the Mathis piece was 3,700 words, or about 14 pages of reading. One person clicked on that link. One. Who, I ask, who? Reveal yourself!

This merely reinforces my impression that people don’t like to read – it’s all like homework to them. They want it quick and easy. If it requires analysis and thought, it loses audience quickly.

Thus the success of Huffington Post. Picture and headlines are all that it takes to convey the information our thought controllers want conveyed.

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in American wilderness, Blogroll. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Who are you, masked man?

  1. JC says:

    That one lone link-clicker most likely was me. Nothing like a good physics conspiracy theory to get my attention.

    Like

  2. JC says:

    I tried to post this on the other entry, but it wouldn’t show up:

    The photo with all the supposed fillings in the front teeth is doctored. The one he uses to compare with the other one, and to suggest that he would have lost his teeth.

    I think the photo evidence really isn’t supportive of Mathis’ opinion. Non of it is sourced or dated. And Hawking being a celebrity, could have done anything like had his hair colored, had his hands photoshopped into whatever form he wanted, etc. As to surviving pneumonia, why not?

    The real sticking point for me with Mathis is that he is a physics debunker — basically he’s anti-science. Now I went to MSU on a physics scholarship, and studied until I discovered that I was being groomed for a position in the MIC. So I bolted. But I studied math and physics at the grad level, and know enough to know that Mathis is talking out his ass about what he thinks Hawking said, and what Hawking really said. And when he calls the math a bunch of gibberish, he’s just showing his own ignorance to study it and understand it — or not.

    I found the material about his funding to be of tepid interest and potentially corrupt. It makes sense that Hawking could have been funded by, or a pawn of the MIC too. But that isn’t the thrust of Mathis’ opinion.

    Like

    • I have no idea why you were spammed. It is almost like those emotion-sensing elevator doors in Star Trek that knew when to close when a conversation had reached a break. You violated none of the comment rules imposed by WordPress, and yet were spammed. WTF?

      I will answer tomorrow. I can only say tonight that with Hawking dead in ’85, which makes sense, you and I have much to understand about this complicated affair.

      Like

    • To answer your comment, the photos available on the Internet are not dated, oddly, so that it is very difficult to draw a visual comparison, as he says in the paper. He used those photos he could date. However, the fact he has supposedly outlived the other longest survivor of ALS by thirty years now ought to raise eyebrows. The fact that 5% live “20 years or more” does not begin to explain why this one man has lived fifty years or more. That’s more than twice as long as any other victim. The most likely answer is that he died, thirty year ago, and circumstances support that – pneumonia is a common symptom as body organs shut down. A tracheotomy would not have saved him.

      So if they have monkeyed with photos of the fake Hawking, it is a side issue. The whole of the persona of Hawking is fake.

      Regarding Mathis and physics, I am not qualified to judge. I did read his paper on pi = 4 and could follow his logic, but that does not mean that my opinion would have any weight. I do not have succifient background. I have read others’ similar comments as you – he definitely has balls to challenge everyone from Newton forward. This I know: Hawking has been replaced by an impostor, and the reason must have something to do with the need for the gravitas of a Hawking-like figure in astrophysics and quantum mechanics. They use him extensively to pronounce and profundicate. So there is monkey business. Mathis merely says that physics, like journalism, education, politics, art and music, are corrupt now. I see it in the latter fields so would not be surprised.

      Like

      • JC says:

        Mark, I took a look at some of Mathis’ work in physics. All I can say is that any — if not all — real physicists would look at his work making the assertion that π=4 and read his paper on it and label him a crackpot. This leaves us with only two possibilities: 1) Miles Mathis is either the greatest physicist and mathematician known to mankind and everyone else from Newton to Einstein is wrong, or 2) his work in physics is nothing more than that of a crackpot.

        Having studied physics, and looked at how he approaches the various theories, and his work on calculus, I can conclude that he is not #1 (to paraphrase Mathis: my opinion, your mileage may vary). Math and physics are not the realm of opinion where anybody can look at the facts and come up with their own spin as he asserts. They are built up from very discrete and observable physical phenomenon that can be measured and tested.

        The last thing I will say about the Hawking piece is that Mathis makes many false assertions which destroys any conclusion he may make, doesn’t footnote his work or credit and date photos, heavily leans on Wikipedia for support (which should be a huge red flag for you), assumes photoshopped photos are real and debunks real photographs as photoshopped. He doesn’t understand accurately understand medicine, and uses generalities to misinterpret specifics.

        Mathis really fits the bill as a crank pseudoscientist.

        Like

        • You’re being too general here.

          One, I can’t begin to fathom the world of physics and so have avoided all of that, but you have not gotten specific either, other than to say you’ve studied it and don’t like him, and that others call him a crackpot, an appeal to authority. Put the hammer to the nail here please. It’s not something I am going to even trifle with. But your words carry no power, as you are too vague. It leaves me empty.

          Two, we’ve addressed the matter of dating photos, and his complaint is that most photos available are not dated. You echo that as if he is at fault.

          Three, maybe 2.5, on dating photos, I wonder if you realize that the freedom we have on the Internet is an illusion, the fact that we cannot date and credit Hawking photos part of the problem. He is world famous, so what’s up with that? Address that point if you would.

          Four, the elephant in the room, a man who has lived a half a century, and decades beyond the second place finisher, with ALS, demands some skepticism. You have to address that matter, and you have studiously avoided it.

          Like

          • JC says:

            Mark, I don’t have to prove Mathis wrong, nor do I have the time to refute him line for line. There is enough reasonable doubt in the Hawking piece and what I have seen in his other writings to make his assertions and conclusions suspect — in my opinion, wrong. Having seen his π=4 assertion paper, so I know that he resorts to pseudoscience to make his points.

            I’d offer that if people want to use Mathis as a reference point, that they set out to prove his work true. After all, that is what real science (math and physics) does: it is replicable. And there is no obvious body of work replicating Mathis’s assertions.

            For just one point of refutation, there is a gentleman in Canada with almost 35 years surviving ALS. If Mathis was any kind of credible researcher, he would have pointed to that, instead of his Becker reference being the second longest survivor.

            Doctored photos for evidence, botched assertions (look at the hands in the photo in the link above, not much different from the ones Mathis claims are fake), pseudoscience … enough.

            Like

          • If you don’t have to prove him wrong, and don’t have time to refute him line for line, then I wonder why you bother to comment. You do have to prove him wrong, and you do have the time to refute him. You need to do both.

            He may well be wrong, but you’ve scored no points here.

            Like

          • JC says:

            Mark, he makes the assertion in his paper that he doesn’t have proof. That he has an opinion. So why should I have to prove his lack of proof wrong — I’ve actually pointed to a lot of problems with his style of “reasoning”? It’s my opinion against his. Leave it at that.

            Like

          • You’ve only generally made criticisms without dealing in specifics. It just doesn’t count for much. There are some things that scream out on their own, and a man supposedly living 50+ years with ALS …

            AND being one of the most famous scientists ever to live …

            AND suffering from pneumonia in 1985 (and the medicine is spot on, it is a result of the inability to keep the lungs full of air, caused by failure of other organs, and for which a tracheotomy would not have saved him)…

            AND the changes in appearance, revived youthful appearance, growing new teeth, a change of hair color, wax limbs that don’t match the crooked limbs of a man suffering from ALS …

            Slam dunk.

            As I stated elsewhere, I don’t have the background d to deal in physics, math and quantum mechanics. Of course I am repelled by the notion that he questions Newton, Einstein, Feynmann. That is a side issue.

            PS: I rarely use the word “proof,” as it is rarely achieves. Preponderance of evidence has to do.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s