https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100427003737AA5sEbB
Now I don't know what to think.
I'm thinking that all of those nonsensical replies were made under various ALTs by our very own sceptimatic. 
It's actually quite bizarre that the Hawking haters—such as sceptimatic—are so vocal about the guy's research credentials or academic qualifications considering that they invariably have none themselves beyond high-school level.
What is it? Resentment; jealousy; suspicion; intolerance; cynicism; rivalry; mistrust or just plain old ignorance?
Much more simpler than that. It's called questioning something that does not appear to ring true. That's it. It's that simple.
Questioning is one thing. Skepticism is a good thing.
But instead of of just wholesale dismissing anything that sounds counter-intuitive to you, actually research the fields of science that sound wrong to you, and through honest research look for a flaw in the conclusion or methodology of the theory you are examining.
That would be intellectually honest.
That's what I'm doing. I'm questioning and being sceptical. Finding a truth is a lot harder than is made out. How on Earth can I find the the real truth of Hawking?
It's too easy for people to say, " well go and see him and see for yourself."
I can no more prove for a fact he is a showcase for wider agenda than you can for saying he's legitimate, other than citing all of what has been placed into your mind. Accepting this is more honest.
No, it isn't what you are doing.
THIS is how an honest skeptic goes about questioning a scientific theory, and the person behind it.
1. Theory is presented.
2. Examine the evidence of the theory, its predictive models, and mathematics.
3. Test or observe the function of the theory using the above. If your conclusions differ from the above, check to make sure your methodology was correct and there was no mistake in your math, or even check to see if you observations match up.
4. If they don't match, discover which step of the process that disagrees with the theory.
5. Using your previously accumulated discrepancies, present them to the scientific community.
6. The most demonstrable, objective theory/math/evidence always wins out.
7. Disprove theory, discredit theory creator.
Ok then, you tell me how I go about this as regards Hawking?
Tell me how I do the maths and stuff to come to a conclusion about Hawking being or not being what's shown to us?
I've just gave reasons why I question it. They are valid reasons.
Let me put this to you, let's see how honest you are in answering.
If a man up your street told you he had a disease and it would kill him in 2 to 5 years and you saw him out in a wheelchair. You feel sorry for him and start a fund for him.2 years later that fund is at 1 million and you present him with a cheque.
5 years down the line his fund is still growing and he's going around speaking at venues.
10 years later he's still whizzing about in his wheelchair and in all this time he's getting paid and becoming more smarter every day.
You move away for 40 years, then return to your home town and see the same bloke whizzing about in his wheelchair still giving speeches at venues.
Are you telling me in all seriousness that you wouldn't be questioning this persons' ability to defy the odds whilst being very well off and still the same as before. except older?
Let me make this very simple for you. If you are thinking of coming back to tell me that you wouldn't be questioning it, then save your effort typing, because we will have nothing left to discuss.
Anyone who is not against me who has a rational mind and logic, come into this topic and just let me know if you would be questioning this stuff or even if it makes sense to you at all.