It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
Welcome to ats, where nearly everything is offensive to somebody, somewhere, often based on nothing more than a "what if" question.
originally posted by: kuraijanai2013
Okay, first off I mean no offence to Stephen Hawkings, his family or sufferers of ALS. This is merely a conspiracy put forward by others and one which tweaked my interest too.
I want you to look at the two photos of him below. The one on the left is from 1970 and the one on the right from 1990 - twenty years apart...
Now what got me intrigued was the notion put forward that, given he has a degenerative disease like ALS of who the longest other survivor lived only for a further twenty years, how is it he does not appear to have aged that dramatically, but even appears to have fuller cheeks and differently coloured hair/ eyebrows?
I hope that this thread can be taken as an attempt at conspirital discussion and not an attack or slur on Stephen and other sufferers.
Its easy to see the bottom teeth of both men and it obvious that one has long bottom teeth and one has short bottom teeth. Our teeth do not grow when we past a certain age (dunno what that age is) This more than anything elee barring image manipulation, shows the two blokes are different. Even the eye colour is different. Does our eye colour change as we age?
originally posted by: mysterioustranger
No, but it should be. To create something for the sake the "what-if"...especially in the disadvantaged-disabled segments of society of which I work in myself...is shameful. Sorry...but it is. And I AM open minded.
For starting this thread, would it be ok then to discuss the OP member as being crazy, deluded, deranged, out-of-touch etc? Of course not.
The topic is offensive as its obviously flawed and insensitive.
originally posted by: tralfamadorable
a reply to: mysterioustranger
On the contrary, YOU have been insulted. The OP specified no offense.
originally posted by: Dark Ghost
originally posted by: mysterioustranger
No, but it should be. To create something for the sake the "what-if"...especially in the disadvantaged-disabled segments of society of which I work in myself...is shameful. Sorry...but it is. And I AM open minded.
For starting this thread, would it be ok then to discuss the OP member as being crazy, deluded, deranged, out-of-touch etc? Of course not.
The topic is offensive as its obviously flawed and insensitive.
1. You are not Stephen Hawking. It's therefore not your offence to take, but his — if he wishes to.
2. You attack the OP because he merely suggested a possible conspiracy involving somebody that happens to be disabled?
3. As a sufferer of anxiety, am I supposed to take offence when somebody with anxiety is scrutinised? Well, I won't even if you think I should...
The topic is NOT objectively offensive, flawed or insensitive.
Is Stephen Hawkings really an Imposter?
originally posted by: charlyv
Try to imagine how intelligent one would have be to both hold that position, and be in the unfortunate physical condition that he is in.
originally posted by: Konduit
I heard an interesting rumor that Hawking is brain dead and TPTB put words through his talking machine.