.Scot emigree @C_MAlexander @TheScotsman @heraldscotland 3rd great Granddaughter Patrick Matthew passed away Friday: https://t.co/UcvzXEORDe pic.twitter.com/exFyeW1GG0
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 13, 2016
Please click the title above for the latest blog post
Sunday 13 November 2016
Errol Jones
Veracity Counter Culture and Weird and Wonderful Blogs on Darwin's Plagiarising Science Fraud
++.I think we need new counter culture of veracity, to provide missing alt.future. Lack of which = HyperNormalisation https://t.co/mHQoLgTVuv https://t.co/vqzF7MuODH
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 13, 2016
+++Two weird & wonderful blogs on what is possibly the most massive science fraud of all:
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 13, 2016
1. https://t.co/sDW4VuwayY
2. https://t.co/zbnJjftf42 pic.twitter.com/OvXSStFBdL
@Dysology pic.twitter.com/Mx8vb9QJ0Y
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 13, 2016
Saturday 12 November 2016
Confirmatory Evidence for the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis
The Frozen Donkey Hypothesis is born of the implications of the obvious catastrophic extinction event impact of the New Data on Darwinist professional and amateur historians of science, who reveal by their plainly biased response to it, that they are necessarily concerned – if they are to remain so named Darwinists and not be re-born Matthewists – with ignoring the rational implications of the new disconfirming hard evidence for their prior soft knowledge beliefs in their namesake’s “independent” discovery of a prior published hypothesis that was read, and the book containing it cited, by naturalists who were Darwin’s admitted influencers and associates and correspondents- even though Darwin himself fallaciously wrote in 1860 that no naturalist known to him had read it.
See more on the hypothesis here.
See more on the New Data - here.
.@risengrisha @Yestoitok @DiscoveryCSC Thanks. Darwinites were warned of sadly inevitable Frozen Donkey Hypothesis: https://t.co/TnMtwezQbo pic.twitter.com/rmCPKtUvE9— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 12, 2016
Charles Darwin and the Daleks
The #Daleks have always been involved in holding back scientific progresshttps://t.co/WSHCuYYrBE pic.twitter.com/lKmtIdt8nE
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 12, 2016
Tuesday 8 November 2016
Excellent Research Resource Repository
A truly excellent resource!
Monday 7 November 2016
Desperate Darwinite Fairy Tale Telling and Shameless Fact Deletion
++WIKIPEDIA EDITOR FRAUD
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 7, 2016
(1) Proof IT exits: https://t.co/HNpOaVkZIR
(2) Proof of Wikipedia's dishonest fact deletion: https://t.co/MD18ID52O5 pic.twitter.com/TfMpBNp7F4
.Silly Billy @TakeThatDarwin @Colossis2 Darwinists tell fairytales about facts. Read conclusions of REAL sceintists https://t.co/9VxVcVPCUq pic.twitter.com/1a9HJPJ1JM
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 7, 2016
Friday 4 November 2016
More on Robert Chambers
Anonymous scare the establishment today. In first half of the 19h century one anonymously authored book did the same https://t.co/3v9BLiOAvQ pic.twitter.com/K3k4U2DNj7
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 5, 2016
In my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" I originally
revealed the New Data that bust the 155 year old expert 'knowledge claim' that no naturalist and no one known to Darwin read Matthew's (1831) prior-published original hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection before Darwin and Wallace replicated it and failed to cite Matthew. Darwin excused that failure by claiming he independently conceived it and that no naturalist, and no one at all read Matthew's original ideas before 1860.
Darwin lied, because Matthew had informed him in 1860 that two naturalists had read his ideas and that his book was banned by Perth Library for its heresy on the origin of species. In reality, Nullius reveals 25 people cited Matthew pre-Darwin's and Wallace's replications of 1858, four were known to Darwin, he was influenced by three of them and one was the editor of Wallace's famous 1855 Sarawak paper on evolution. One was Robert Loudon - who edited two of Blyth's influential pre-1858 papers on natural selection. Blyth was Darwin's most prolific correspondent and informant. Loudon was a close friend of William Hooker - the father of Darwin's best friend, the highly influential botanist Joseph Hooker. Loudon had written in 1832 that Matthew appeared to have something orignal to say "on the origin of species" no less! Another naturalist who read and cited Matthew's book pre-1858 was Robert Chambers. He did so in 1832, and in the following decade went on to write The Vestiges of Creation - the book that "put evolution in the air" in the mid 19th century, and greatly influenced both Darwin and Wallace and paved the way for public acceptance of Darwin's (1859) book entitled the Origin of Species.
++
The disconfirmed fact believers of the Branch Darwinians can run but not hide. Nullius ranked 11 on Amazon: https://t.co/JIdFnrcCVZ … pic.twitter.com/WG6jsT1v5P— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 5, 2016
Thursday 3 November 2016
Creationists fear Matthew and are fact denying about his origination of macroevolution by natural selection
.@BiologiaPensamt @ShareThis Proof article completely wrong & why a creationist has motive to fact deny Matthew's origination pre Darwin pic.twitter.com/v6rPeVmjq9— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) November 3, 2016
Origin of the term Darwinist
Darwinists think "Darwinist" was coined by creationists as term of abuse. But Darwinists are dreadful at history: https://t.co/X44f4ga0BT pic.twitter.com/qteg5PyxKH
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 3, 2016
Wednesday 2 November 2016
Applied Criminology
+++@James_Treadwell Many thanks.
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 2, 2016
Two new articles on the way. Meanwhile post telegraph:
1. :https://t.co/yMLRSHW8Vc
2. https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/nKdJd5NHW6
++. Also by Sagan: @wgugg @michaelshermer @C_Darwin_OFB @WallaceFRS https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL pic.twitter.com/RDg67Fo0fq
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 1, 2016
Charles Darwin's Lying Plagiarism Has Dragged Science into the Gutter https://t.co/RvL0yfkMp6 : pic.twitter.com/n88Th5qcna
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) November 2, 2016
Tuesday 1 November 2016
One Stupid Scholarly "Expert" at a Time
Tackling - one at a time - the last bastions of "expert" scholarly stupidity: https://t.co/dLa68m8PSH pic.twitter.com/KnRkb0YUGk
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 1, 2016
Kuhn was right about resistance to paradigm changing discoveries
Kuhn was absolutely right:
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 1, 2016
Fierce 'fact denial' resistance to paradigm changing discoveries: SEE: classic examplehttps://t.co/BwSq1I5QF8 pic.twitter.com/FNmfLq2YIf
Sunday 23 October 2016
Dr Mark Griffiths is IN
New facts create eddy currents of veracity at the confluence of biology, sociology of science, criminology & psychology: HERE
Click the image below to enlarge for ease of reading
Saturday 22 October 2016
Extraordinarily Credulous Darwinites
As the psychologist Patrizio E. Tressold (2011) reminds us
' “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan who reworded Laplace's principle, which says that “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness” (Gillispie et al., 1999). This statement is at the heart of the scientific method, and a model for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere.'
It is extraordinary to claim that Darwin and Wallace independently conceived Matthew's prior published hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection, because new evidence proves that Darwin's and Wallace's friends and influencers and their influencer's influencers read Matthew's prior publication containing that orignal hypothesis and then cited the book containing it before either of those replicators put so much as a pen to private notebook on the topic. If. under such conditions for knowledge contamination, Darwin and Wallace conceived Matthew's prior published and cited hypothesis independently of that publication, then that is something remarkably unlikely, because it is completely without the remotest parallel in the history of scientific discovery.
Get the independently verifiable facts. HERE
@mpigliucci @stefanako71 @DrMarkGriffiths Serious scientists take it seriously: https://t.co/Ea0I736oEk pic.twitter.com/VZsUjpojQq— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) October 22, 2016
Friday 21 October 2016
A Telling Silence
++Telling Silence on New Evidence that Darwin Was a Lying Plagiarist who stole entire hypothesis of Natural Selection: https://t.co/ZylqHJjxrR pic.twitter.com/hzLXQIa1hU
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 21, 2016
Take that Veracity: https://t.co/1QLZG7EGJW pic.twitter.com/uUEsjmFlAM
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 21, 2016
Friday 14 October 2016
Children are now Ahead of the Childish Myth Believing Royal Society
Especially incredibly bright primary school children in Scotland are ahead of the Royal Society on the facts https://t.co/pPgoyU5XDh pic.twitter.com/QDCgmiW3lW
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 14, 2016
Thursday 13 October 2016
On Richard III and Patrick Matthew: The Age of Scientific History Versus The Last Bastions of Childish Improbabilities
Rationally skeptical fact-led historians have revealed that the long-told history of Richard III is based for the most part on fabricated and otherwise un-evidenced storytelling (see for example Potter 1983; Ashdown-Hill 2015).
After the Tudor usurpation of the throne it was necessary to justify to the populace, who believed in the divine sovereign right of the "Crown" to demand absolute loyalty and obedience, that Henry VII's army's slaughter of their monarch King Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth was justified homicide of a ruler who was less, not more, than a normal human being.
Bit by bit, a few 19th, and many 20th and 21st century historians have peeled away at the layers of mythology about Richard III, revealing them to be baseless fictions, written as Tudor propaganda by supporters of Henry.
Bit by bit, one 20th century anthropologist (Eiseley 1979) and a few 20th and 21st century scientists (Dempster, 1995 ; Wainwright, 2010) and one sociologist (Sutton 2014 and 2016) have peeled away at the layers of mythology about Patrick Matthew, the originator of the concept of macroevolution by natural selection, revealing them to be unevidenced stories, deliberate lies written by Darwin and disproven fallacies written by his supporters as Darwinite propaganda.
What Jeremey Potter (1983. p. 6) cites as Horace Walpole's so eloquent dismissal of the last bastions of Richard III liars, mythmongers and their mynah-birding dupes can equally be said of those who currently cling to the ludicrous and now newly completely evidence-led debunked notion that Darwin and Wallace had virgin cognitive conceptions of Patrick Matthew's prior published theory, and orignal explanatory examples and analogies to explain it, after their friends, correspondents and influencers and influencer's influencers and facilitators cited it in the literature:
'Horace Walpole is the spokesman in this pithy summary of their case: "The Reign of Richard III has so degraded our annals by an intrusion of childish improbabilities that it places that reign at a level with the story of Jack-the Giant Killer."
And so, with apologies to Walpole (1798) , similarities between the cases of the treatment of Richard III and Patrick Matthew suggest to me that something similar should be written about the treatment of the latter:
The first and foremost priority that has been awarded to Darwin and Wallace, the replicators of Matthew's prior-published and prior-cited orignal conception of macroevolution by natural selection, has so degraded our annals of the history of scientific discovery by an intrusion of childish improbabilities, that it places the claimed historical fact of Darwin's and Wallace's dual independent conceptions at a level with the story of The Virgin Mary.
Incidentally, the same IDD research method that originally disproved the expert knowledge claim that no naturalists / no biologists read Matthew's (1831) orignal conception before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated it without citing him, has unearthed something else orignal and intriguing about a Sheriff of Nottingham, the Mayor of Nottingham and Richard III's alabaster tomb memorial at Greyfriars Abbey in Leicester: Click Here to Read the Story.
Old Nottingham manuscript DISCOVERY of NEW DATA now in the capable hands of the Richard III Society research experts https://t.co/ntIuoIsENj pic.twitter.com/s7GAUZUPCN
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) October 19, 2016
Wednesday 12 October 2016
Survey.
Your opinion is valuable.
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 12, 2016
If you had to choose, which historical figure do you think is most known throughout the World?
Saturday 8 October 2016
Patrick Matthew's Obituary
Those who have fought hard to see Matthew buried in oblivion must be turning in their own graves today.
This text was first transcribed by Dr Mike Weale: from his original re-discovery of it the Sheffield Daily Telegraph, September 5th 1874, p.2 col.2-3.
We thank Professor TYNDALL for placing his name just where Mr. DARWIN would wish to see it placed – in a “co-partnership” of honour and fame https://t.co/885vpkXCQ6
— Andy Wilson (@a8drewson) October 9, 2016
Saturday 1 October 2016
The University of Leicester, The Richard III Society and the Important Question of Influence on Great Discovery
Incredibly,the Simple Fact-Finding IDD Research Method has Struck Again! Important old Nottingham book detected https://t.co/G4MKrDSSfc pic.twitter.com/FwznBwfNZ5
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 6, 2016
Ever since the sociologist Robert Merton (e.g. Merton 1957) emphasised the great importance of the
role of influence and priority for great scientific and other academic discoveries it has been an area deemed of interest to the social sciences.
My own research into the influence of Partick Matthew - the originator of macroevolution by natural selection (e.g. Sutton 2016) - has enabled me to realise the contemporary importance of the current question of the precise process of influence of members of the Richard III Society on Leicester University staff. Moreso, some members of the Society, especially John Ashdown Hill (See my earlier Best Thinking blog post), have gone into print in scholarly books to criticise the approach taken by Leicester University to promote its role in the discovery of the grave site or Richard III in a Leicester car park.
Those involved in supposedly independently replicating Matthew's (1831) prior-published discovery (Darwin and Wallace 1858) and Darwin (1859) of the full hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection, others who are newly discovered (Sutton 2014) to have cited it pre-1858, and those who mocked and disparaged Matthew and platform blocked him from speaking on his discovery, are all long dead. But imagine how things would be if we could actually interview them, rather than have to trawl around for scraps of evidence in the publication record and in their diaries and correspondence archive.
In 100 years from now I wonder what will be the "majority view" story on who has first and foremost priority for the discovery of Richard III's remains in the carpark?
In light of published contestations from members of the Richard III Society, I believe it is essential to the interests of historic and other scholarly veracity on how great discoveries are made that we conduct academic research with members of the Richard III Society and The University of Leicester in order to determine whether due priority is currently being awarded to the right people.
Conflict on the topic of influence and first and foremost priority for great discoveries
Langley et al (2014) - members of the Richard III society - write in their scholarly book: Finding Richard III: The Official Account of Research by the Retrieval and Reburial Project on the topic of discovering the grave of Richard III:
'Regrettably, in view of subsequent events, it needs to be emphasized that no other persons or institutions worked to amass the evidence needed to launch such a project, nor did anyone in Leicester investigate the idea of mounting a search for the king's grave. The reason for this is simple: they lacked the necessary knowledge and incentive. First, work of this nature has always lain in the hands of researchers and historians whom academics (and recently even archeologists) have been pleased to call 'amateurs.'. Second, almost the entire population of Leicester and its archeologists believed the unlikely tradition that the grave had been desecrated and destroyed.'
And
'In light of David Baldwin's very clear statement as to his view of this likely burial site, it is hard to understand on what basis the University of Leicester should maintain that Baldwin identified Richard's burial place as the Social Services car park...'
University of Leicester affiliated archaeological experts, academics and employed administrators were approached by independent historians, principally by Langley who did know the most likely spot for the exact grave site location, along with Ashdown Hill whose research confirmed the conclusions of a few others in that regard and also pinpointed it. And then University archaeologists were simply paid by Langley - (Langley being the client and the Richard III Society the principal funders) and were told where the body most likely was buried and then directed to dig. Senior archaeologists at Leicester University doubted it was there, but they dug anyway, because they were employed simply as expert archaeological diggers. Even then one of the University staff members negligently struck the skull with a hatchet and damaged it more than it ever had been in the last 500+ years,
'Langley knew of the global reputation of the genetics department of the University of Leicester for its pioneering work in genetic fingerprinting, therefore approaches were made to Dr Turi King, Lecturer in Genetics and Archeology. She agreed that if human remains were found which showed potential for being compatible with those of Richard III, she could arrange to conduct tests to retrieve a mtDNA sample ad to match it...'
'On the morning of 4 February 2013, the University of leicester mounted a media event to announce that the mtDNA of the bones found at Greyfriers site matched that of Richard IIIs living relatives. Dr John Ashdown-Hill, the discoverer of the MtDNA, was excluded from the announcement. The university's Professor of Greek Archeology, and History, Dr Lin Foxhall, who had played no part in the search or retrieval process, took the lead when it came to the historical background. Philippa Langley was allowed to give a short speech at the end [but only] after the the media news feed was cut.'
'FUNDING SOURCES FOR ARCHEOLOGY COSTS EXCLUDING PRELIMINARY DESK-BASED ANALYSIS (£1,140) AND GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR (£5,043)
- Richard III Society and Members - £17, 367 52.8%
- University of leicester £10,000 30.43%
- Leicestershire Promotions Ltd £5,000 15.21%
- Leicester Adult Schools £500 1.52%
- Total £32,867 100%
There are more details of the grievances of these Richard III Society members in their book. I have no intention of stealing their thunder. The book is less than £3 on Amazon Kindle. Please buy it to learn more. There are many far more important revelations inside.
For the historical record: a small sample University of Leicester Academic's Twitter responses to my Tweets on the contents of this book regarding my earlier Best Thinking blog post follow:
While John's contribution isn't disputed, we weren't told where to dig to find Richard's remains! Greyfriars precinct has never been lost! https://t.co/xauQqyGAxn— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 29, 2016
2. Turi King
Turi King - continued....@Turi__King Yes I think it needs researching @rwjdingwall now But as funded sociology project on influence & priority for orignal discovery— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 30, 2016
@Criminotweet O'Sullivan, D. In the Company of the Preachers.The Archaeology of Medieval Friaries in England and Wales.— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 30, 2016
3. Turi King
. @Criminotweet Why not? In the meantime it would make sense to update your blog to reflect a more balanced view until proper research done.— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 30, 2016
Mike Sutton...
.Dear @Turi__King - To be precise, I wonder if you might kindly look at the second paragraph of my blog and comment? https://t.co/G4MKrDSSfc— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 30, 2016
Reply by Turi King
.@Criminotweet Not having read the book, afraid I couldn't say what the disconfirming evidence would be. Make that research part your blog?— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 30, 2016
4. Turi King
.@Criminotweet And a quick look around to check the facts leads you to https://t.co/1CLs8skbHt— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 30, 2016
The said "facts":
Funder
|
Excavation and Reinstatement
|
Post Excavation
|
Total
|
% Contribution
|
---|---|---|---|---|
University of Leicester*
|
£19,935
|
£94,115
|
£114,050
|
80.0%
|
Richard III Society
|
£18,083
|
--
|
£18,083
|
12.7%
|
Leicester Shire Promotions
|
£5,000
|
--
|
£5,000
|
3.5%
|
Leicester City Council
|
£5,000
|
--
|
£5,000
|
3.5%
|
Leicester Adult Schools
|
£500
|
--
|
£500
|
0.4%
|
Total
|
£48,518
|
£94,115
|
£142,633
|
5 Turi King
Turi King continued.@Criminotweet Not read the book but John said to me before dig started that finding Richard would be pure chance. So I'm surprised at this!— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 30, 2016
6. Turi King.@Criminotweet Not read it, as I say. Perhaps he's forgotten? He was as sceptical as we were.— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 30, 2016
Mike Sutton's reply.@Criminotweet !? We have medieval friaries expert: Dierdre O'Sullivan works with ULAS. Sounds like you need to do some homework for blog!;)— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 30, 2016
.@Turi__King Turi Blog presents verbatim published accusations of scholars. I have cited and quoted them. Any disconfirming evidence welcome— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 30, 2016
7. Turi King
Turi King....Next..@Criminotweet O'Sullivan, D. In the Company of the Preachers.The Archaeology of Medieval Friaries in England and Wales.— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 30, 2016
.@Criminotweet You probably want to research this for your blog so you can make an educated assessment of his claims. My understanding is..— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 30, 2016
Turi King continued...
8. Mike Sutton@Criminotweet My understanding is that friaries come in a set of standard layouts but it's not my field. But do see Dierdre O'Sullvan's work— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 30, 2016
.@Turi__King I will certainly add all dis-confirming evidence Turi Would you post any such evidence as comment on the blog (with citations)?— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 30, 2016
9. Turi King
10 Turi King.@Criminotweet Not having read the book, afraid I couldn't say what the disconfirming evidence would be. Make that research part your blog?— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 30, 2016
.@Criminotweet Personally I thought it was a great interdisciplinary project with academics & public contributing to an amazing outcome.— Turi King (@Turi__King) September 30, 2016
11. Mike Sutton (October 2nd 2017)
@Turi__King @Turi__King So why this publication by Richard III Soc assertion of big Influence on Uni of Leicester? https://t.co/IKnt5AdAPV pic.twitter.com/5aICfzy2cR— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 2, 2016
12 Reply from Turi King
You can read my two other blogs on this topic:@Turi__King Thanks. Read book by Ashdown-Hill expecting celebratory collaborative success. Led to second. Each express great dissatisfaction pic.twitter.com/3Ah6oWfmyI— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 3, 2016
(1) here
(2) here
You can read my two Amazon book reviews on the topic
(1) here
(2) here
Follow me on Twitter
Here