Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection

Thursday, 18 January 2018

Google Research Forces Publication of Encyclopaedia Britannica's New Page on Patrick Matthew

Identity VerifiedThinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology
Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.

Google Research Forces Publication of Encyclopaedia Britannica's New Page on Patrick Matthew

Feb. 23, 2016 2:03 pm
Categories: CounterknowledgeDysology
Google Forces Encyclopaedia Britannica to Evolve on History of Discovery of Natural Selection
I am quite heartened to learn by private correspondence today that, following a letter from Jim Dempster's daughter - Soula Dempster - the Encyclopaedia Britannica has entirely re-written its Patrick Matthew page to reflect many of the "real facts" as opposed to the old Darwinist "false facts"- such as the old Darwinist myth that the original ideas on natural selection in Matthew's (1831) book went unread before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860 - after Darwin (1859) had replicated them in The Origin of Species without citing their originator.
Nevertheless, at the time of writing the Encyclopaedia Britannica does, unfortunately for veracity, continue with the old debunked Darwinist "Appendix Myth   "as though it is true rather than a falsehood started as a deliberate lie by Darwin in 1860.
As early as 1842 - the year Darwin penned his first private essay on natural selection - Wallace's Sarawak paper's editor, and Darwin's Royal Society associate and friend of his father and of his great friend Jenyns - Selby cited Matthew's book many times and wrote that he could not understand why Matthew claimed, incidentally in the main body of his book not in its appendix!, that some trees could thrive in non-native areas. Matthew's explanation was an example of his original natural versus artificial selection explanatory analogy of differences, which both Darwin and Wallace replicated. Selby was like many naturalists at the time a deeply religious man who believed the Christian God placed all of his designed species in the designed place most suited to them. Matthew's accurate observations were heresy. Another naturalist, Jameson - of the East India Company - a regular correspondent of William Hooker - who was the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker - wrote in 1853 of the importance of the exact same Matthew observation on timber growing - citing Matthew. All these original New Data details - with full independently verifiable references - are in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret   .

Click to view    the Encyclopaedia Britannica page in question. 

Historically, this is an interesting and most ironic development because in my book Nullius I originally revealed    that Matthew's (1831) book was advertised on 3/4 of a prominent page of Part 5, Volume 2 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1842.
It is most ironic that Google technology, which I (Sutton 2014   ) originally used to show exactly who really did read and cite Matthew's (1831) book and the ideas in it on natural selection pre 1858, allows us to show the Encyclopaedia Britannica that it is wrong to claim Matthew's book and the orignal ideas in it went unread, because as early as 1832 and in 1842 this hugely influential in the 19th century encyclopaedia was citing and advertising Matthew's book.
  • Google, therefore, has helped the Encyclopaedia Britannica to evolve to be veracious on the topic of the discovery of evolution with evidence it should have known about, but clearly did not.
  • Only because it has recently been "computerised" - and hence discoverable on the Internet - as part of the Google Library Project, was I able to find that evidence on my 14-year old clunky laptop, sitting at home whilst watching TV. Now that's what I call progress, because I don't like paper libraries.
Matthew's (1831) book was prominently advertised in the Encyclopedia Britannica from 1832 onwards
Significantly, the above advert had in fact been in the published literature since 1832 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Because, as Dr Mike Weale usefully points out on his Patrick Matthew Project website   :
'Note that although the official publication date for the 7th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was 1842, in reality it was published in instalments starting in 1827. Volume 4 was available in bound form in 1832, which explains why all the books in the publishers’ advertising insert (“lately published by Adam Black, Edinburgh, and Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, London   “) are from 1831-2 (for example, Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, Vol 6   ). Coincidentally, Volume 21 (the last volume, which really was published in 1842) contains a citation of Matthew’s book    in its article on “Timber”. The advert is very similar to the Edinburgh Literary Journal (1831) advert, except the quotes from reviews have been updated. Even the aggressively negative review from the Edinburgh Literary Journal is quoted as a “Sample of Venom”, perhaps to pique the reader’s interest!''

In 2015 Dr Mike Weale discovered    an additional individual - who cited Matthew's book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original ideas and explanations in it without citing Matthew - bringing the known total to 26, He writes:
'Selected citation #4. Augustin Francis Bullock Creuze. Article on “Timber” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 7th Edition (1842), Vol. 21, p.291   
This brief citation is noteworthy for confirming that Matthew’s (1831) book was regarded as “valuable” by the author of the 1842 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on “Timber”. Note that Volume 21 really was published in 1842, unlike the other volumes which although they stated “1842” on their title pages were in reality published in earlier years. The article is signed “(B.Z.)”, identifiable as Augustin F. B. Creuze (1800-1852) via the Table of Signatures    in Volume 1. Creuze also authored other articles for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, including a lengthy one on “Ship-building” that was published as a separate treatise   , but Matthew is not cited in it. The article reproduces a table from Matthew’s book on the “number of concentric layers of sap-wood”. The citation is also noteworthy for making a reference to the “many things irrelevant to its subject” in the book. A similar opinion was expressed in the 1860 review of the book   , likely by James Brown.
The following table of the number of concentric layers of sap-wood observed in various species of timber trees is extracted from a valuable work on Naval Timber by Patrick Matthew; a work which abounds in much sound practical information, though mixed up with many things irrelevant to its subject.'

More on the significance of what was written in the Encyclopedia Britannica advert for Matthew's (1831) book
can be read

Jim Dempster's Personal Library

Cease and Desist Take Down Orders Following Piracy of Nullius

See for the full details of e-piracy of Nullius in Verba: Here

+ Please Re-Tweet

Saturday, 13 January 2018

Beware Criminal Hackers, Cyberstalkers, Book Pirating Copyright Fraudsters and Criminal Identity Fraudsters

Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret 600-page Kindle e-book. Currently unavailable due to ongoing investigations into criminal book piracy, copyright fraud, cyberstalking, criminal malicious communications, malware dissemination and ID fraud by cybercriminals who have hacked it and those who are disseminating illegal hacked versions of it.

From November 2017, you are advised not to download any version of this e-book, because the file is likely to be infected with hacker malware by those sharing and disseminating the hacked files. Moreover, the hacked content is likely to have been altered by the criminals involved.

Please purchase the official paperback abridged version from Amazon here. Paperback volumes 2 and 3 are forthcoming.

Paperback volume 1 of Nullius. Available from Amazon, all good bookshops
 and libraries worldwide


Tuesday, 9 January 2018

Patrick Matthew's Grave

Thinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology
Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.
Recent Posts Categories Archives Link
Print this page
Posted in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology

Patrick Matthew's Unmarked Grave is Finally Located

May 23, 2015 12:19 pm
Categories: None
Copyright protected. All laws apply.Used only with express written permission
Patrick Matthew and his wife Christian
It has long been known that the Scot, Patrick Matthew, the only true originator of the theory of natural selection, was buried in what is now an unmarked grave in Errol Churchyard in the Carse of Gowrie. However, the location of his exact grave has been a mystery for over 100 years.
Others, including Jim Dempster and Matthew's descendants looked for it in the churchyard but were unable to locate where the great man was laid to rest.

Matthew Refuses to be Buried in Oblivion!

Today, 23 May 2015, we finally know where to go and pay our respects to the man who uniquely discovered the most important theory in the history of science, because Matthew's grave has been located by Peter Symon, an obviously very able British researcher working in the field of urban design history.
Copyright Peter SymonAttribution
Peter Symon

The Details

Symon very kindly sent me a Twitter message letting me know the details of his soon to be famous discovery.
  • Patrick Matthew of Gourdiehill buried 15 June 1874 in lair no. 184 in Errol burying ground, say Perth & Kinross Council (Burial Services).
  • Headstone is for brick-works owner Alexander Fraser died 1924 & buried in same lair.
Peter sent me the following intelligence from the site by email today:
Headstone marking Patrick Matthew's burial plot
(c) Peter SymonAttribution
Errol Churchyard showing Patrick Matthew's burial plot
'The graves in the burying ground are crammed very close together and many of them do not have headstones. Still, it seems strange that a landowner like him should not have a stone. It may have been removed when Fraser's was put up, I don't know.
Sam at the Perth Crem. is posting me a photocopy of the register page and I'll either send it on (if allowed) or send a written summary.
Nothing remains of Gourdiehill house or its grounds which once had a famous orchard.
It's all houses now and fields. Next time I'm down there I'll look to see if there is still any of the trees that are supposed to have been planted around the time of Matthew's birth.
By the way his wife, is not registered as buried in the grave - but the register only started in the late 1830s - early 1840s, when they redrew the plot layout and demolished the old church. So maybe she was dead and buried there already and not recorded.
Patrick Matthew's aunt is buried in the same grave and 3 or 4 other Matthews, and Fraser (no other Fraser relations in there).
It is all subject to verification of the Perth & Kinross Council burial register : but they checked again on my request and confirmed by phone that the entries were apparently correct.
I have no idea why Fraser should be in same grave as Matthew and the latter have no memorial stone. The grave is in a group of high status people, several ministers, connected with Free Church of Scotland. That may be a clue.
The Council are sending me a photocopy of the burial register page for the Matthew lair (purchased under the name of Peter Matthew apparently - Peter and Patrick being interchangeable in the old days in Scotland).
I have still got a very old and grubby photostatted article by Errol Jones that my late great-uncle received in the 1980s or 1990s, and re-reading it spurred me to phone up the local Crem where they keep the registers for the public cemeteries in the authority.
I would be glad to pass on what details I have and especially to Mrs Jones who must be very elderly, or her family, if desired. I have not read much about Matthew or the Darwin exchange I'm afraid, but it is certainly of local interest.
I sent an email yesterday also to the online publication in NZ which featured an article about Errol Jones and a photo of her at the time of a new book by her in 2010., asking for any news, and await a reply.
Thank you for the info about Gourdiehill. I can almost remember the old house before it was demolished (I'm 53 and was brought up in Errol).
"If anyone has further information, I would be interested to work out the connection - assuming one existed - between Matthew and Fraser. The brickworks closed as recently a 2009 after more than 150 years of almost continuous operation."
Here is the url for the Council's burial registers:    tel Burial Enquiries on 01738 446865 or e-mail I spoke with a lady called Sam there last week.
I hope this is of interest.
All the best Peter Symon.
(c) Peter SymonAttribution
Inscription on headstone on the plot where Matthew is buried

Congratulations are due to Peter Symon.

I am sure Matthew's American, German and New Zealand based descendants will wish to use the comments section of this bog post to thank him personally for this wonderful breakthrough.
NOTE: All photographs of the headstones and churchyard used in this blog post were taken and very kindly supplied by Peter Symon.
NOTE: Original tweet (here   ) - but plot number typo in this tweet was promptly corrected by Symon (here   ):

Postscript 19th May - copy of record supplied to Peter Symon and very kindly sent to me by Peter as an email attachment

The image below is a copy of the photocopy of the page of the original register of burials in Errol burying ground, in division number 184, which belongs to "Peter Matthew, Esq. of Gourdiehill", the document was supplied to Peter Symon by Sam Bisset, Bereavement Services Admin Assistant, Perth & Kinross Council (tel 01738 446865 ;
Sam Bisset appears to have taken the care to write over her photocopy version of entries in order to make these more legible.
The address for postal correspondence on this data is Perth & Kinross Council, Bereavement Services - Burials, Perth Crematorium, Crieff Road, Perth, PH1 2PE.
As Dr Mike Weale points out   , on examination of this document, Matthew's wife is buried in the same plot but is recorded as Mrs P (Mrs Patrick) Matthews. Clearly they spelled the surname Matthew wrong a couple of times on this document as so many people did then and still do today :
It’s really useful to have the photocopy of the actual burial register. It’s clear that P.M.’s wife Christian *is* buried there too, but under the name “Mrs P. Matthews” ... But mysteries still remain. Who is “Jean Matthew (aunt of P.M.)”, who died 1847 aged 88? ... And we can see that P.M.’s daughters Helen and Agnes are buried here, but why not Euphemia? Finally, what indeed is the relationship, if any, between Alexander Fraser and Patrick Matthew? Many fascinating clues to unravel here.
to find out more about the biological father of natural selection.

Patrick Matthew's Burial Plot Discovered
AllAuthor's FavoritesThinker Recommended
Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
May 28, 2015 at 2:28 pm
Clues to where the stone from Matthew's demolished house might be
I received some kindly advice to begin with today:
"...ask some locals who may know: Ronnie Gillies at Cairn o Mhor Winery, or Lawson Doe at Muirfields, or some of the Carse of Gowrie Group. I'm sure local people would have memory of where the stone went."
Today I sent an email to the "Carse of Gowrie Group" to alert them to the discovery and ask if they might wish to help with future plans to see to it that Matthew's grave is properly and appropriately marked.
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
May 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm
Who is this Plant Contractor?
Here might be a clue to how to discover the whereabouts of the stone from Matthew's house (click for source - page 14   )
"A Plant Contractor from Blairgowrie said that he had been contracted in 1989 by a developer to clear the orchard in order for the housing estate to be built. He also demolished the big house at Gourdiehill (it had suffered a serious fire many years before). He said they left what trees they could."
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
May 27, 2015 at 4:26 am
Maybe the brick-works owner supplied stone earlier on
Just a thought. Maybe the brick-works owners supplied stone earlier on before they became brick-works. It would be a reasonable connection to make, wouldn't it?
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
Author's Favorite
May 27, 2015 at 4:20 am
Thanks from beyond the grave!
I would like to express my warm congratulations, on behalf of my father WJ Dempster who passed away in 2008, to Peter Symon for finding out about the whereabouts of Patrick Matthew's grave. I'm sure my dad will be listening out there somewhere.
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
May 26, 2015 at 4:49 am
Explanation for the Fraser Connection
Dr Mike Weale has found the explanation for why a Fraser is buried on top of Matthew:See here.   
Does anyone know what happened to the stone from Matthew's beloved but now demolished mansion?
Might a block or two from it be used (if relocatable) to fashion a suitable memorial to the only (rationally) true genetic father of the discovery of natural selection?
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
May 23, 2015 at 2:48 pm
The Fraser Question
If anyone knows whether there is a connection between the Matthew family and the Fraser family, that would help to answer Peter's question. Please use the comments section here.