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

Tuesday, 27 December 2016

Today in 1831

Friday, 23 December 2016

Christmas Day 1859: Is Darwin Drunk Before Dinner?

From Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Currently unavailable in full 600 page original e-book form, following the publishing house [Thinker Books, of Thinker Media] closing.  Volume 1 of the paperback is now out and on sale on Amazon and from all good bookshops - vols. 2 and 3 are forthcoming.) 

'Subsequent to his successful manipulation of Hooker and Lyell in 1858, to ensure that Wallace did not get his priority over him, the following year, and just weeks before defending his priority to Baden Powell in 1859, Darwin writes to Hooker on Christmas Day, 1859, to say that he has always strongly felt that no one should defend their priority (Darwin 1859b). Seemingly, this most weird letter is meant to be both appreciative and self-flattering that he manipulated Hooker and Lyell to do so on his behalf, even if that meant unethical conduct on their respective parts. We know that Darwin had a weirdly unethical mindset when it came to scientific priority, but in this case, one might wonder whether perhaps he had started just a tad too early on the mince pies, rum source, sherry and port, or perhaps he was using something stronger? Or perhaps there was simply something far more profoundly wrong with the moral wiring of his mind.'

Darwin was a serial liar who was in fact obsessed with slyly stealing priority from others for his own glorification.  Years earlier he started a prolific letter campaign to try to get Royal Society and British Association for Advancement of Science to re-write the rules on priority for discovery changed so that mere replicators like he could claim priority for the prior-published discoveries of lesser known scientists. Those independently verifiable facts are here.

Below, you can see the facts of how Darwin blatantly and clearly lied in order to plagiarise by glory theft Patrick Matthew's original ans prior published conception of macroevolution natural selection.

The peer reviewed facts of Charles Darwin's lies and independently verifiable evidence he committed plagiarism, to effectively claim independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published hypotheses of the process of macro evolution by natural slection, can now be read in learned journals:

1. Here
2. Here

3. Far more details, evidence and context can be found in 'Nullius in Verba': Here

Thursday, 22 December 2016

An interlude in social media with Darwinites

Wednesday, 21 December 2016

What would your sandwich board say?

Monday, 19 December 2016

More fact denial behaviour in social media captured for the historical record


Kindle Notes on Nullius

Sunday, 18 December 2016

RankBrain and the IDD Mehod


Blame it on the Pseudo Skeptical Zombie Sheep Herders

The Problematic Darwinian Defence of Multiple Coincidence

When it comes to the problem of a supposedly independent replication of a prior published discovery, science cannot tell us how many coincidences sum to a number that would  render the replicator's defence of multiple coincidence improbable. Moreover, how many routes for knowledge contamination sum to a number that makes it more likely than not that at least one was taken? HERE   

Nullius in Verba': On sale HERE.    The ideal present for the genuine scientist, skeptic, historian or sociologist.

Friday, 16 December 2016

The Zombie Horde

Thursday, 15 December 2016

Desperate Darwinists

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

As Opposed to Mere Dogma

Sunday, 11 December 2016

Good Explanations are Capable of Easy Refutation with Hard Facts

The "No Naturalists  Read It" Premesis Underpinning the Darwinite Paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's Independent Conceptions of Matthew's Prior Publshed Theory is 100 per cent Disconfirmed with Indpendently Verifiable Hard Evidence: Here 

Saturday, 10 December 2016

Fact Denying Darwinians Face Intellectual Extinction

Friday, 9 December 2016

Find out how Big Data analysis proved biologists think 25 = 0

Proof of Concept


Monday, 5 December 2016

Can Biologists count to four?

Sunday, 4 December 2016

Are we attracted to belief in improbable independent conceptions and then to worship the claimants?

My Gift to Publier - The town in France forced to take down its Virgin Mary statue, because it is secular and in a public place Here 
Celebration in Public Places of Non-Secular Scientific Beliefs in Improbable Miracles is Probably OK in France
Christians believe that, whilst surrounded by men who were fertile to some degree, St Mary had a virgin conception of Jesus of Nazareth by way of a supernatural deity.
Members of the scientific establishment believe Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace each independently conceived Patrick Matthew's prior published theory of macroevolution by natural slection whilst surrounded and influenced by friends, associates, and - in Wallace's case his editor - whose brains were fertile with Matthew's original breakthrough, because years earlier they cited the book containing it!
Perhaps there is something in the human psyche causing a compulsion to believe in improbable claims to independent conceptions and then worship the claimant?
More context: Here.   

Wallace could well have lied: In light of the new evidence

The Blessed Virgin Darwin

Friday, 2 December 2016

One small step at a time: Driving the Corrupt Darwin-Lobby into the Gutter of the History of Science Fraudsters along with their Plagiarising Namesake

The Full Story of Corrupt-Darwin-Lobby Agenda Editor Fraud  - up until yesterday - is here.

On  this topic the Wikipedia page now (currently) reads:

The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." It approved of Matthew "strictly in his capacity as a forest-ranger, where he is original, bold and evidently experienced in all the arcana of the parentage, birth and education of trees. But, we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.[11][12]

Of course, Matthew's orignal conception was not limited to the book's appendix. That is a lie written by Darwin and parroted by his followers ever since as though it is the gospel truth. We know it is a lie, rather than a mistake,  because he admitted to his mentor Charles Lyell that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth on that particular issue. Get the peer reviewed facts - with full references to the independently verifiable historic publication record, which the weird pseudo-scholarly fact denial cult of corrupt Darwinities are trying to keep buried HERE.

Tuesday, 29 November 2016

Hypocrisy and delusional Darwinite thinking

Monday, 28 November 2016

Data is the revolution that replaced lies and silly stories

Thursday, 24 November 2016

The truth always gets out there in the end


There is an alternative vision for the future. It's one based upon veracity not  fact-denial, pseudo scholarship and political claptrap.

Tuesday, 22 November 2016

Survival of the fittest

Saturday, 19 November 2016

Merry Christmas Darwinites

  • The perfect stocking filler for Darwin miracle fans is:available on Amazon Here   
  • Browse some of the book's highlights Here    
  • Listen to an interview with the author Here    
  • Read an expert peer-reviewed scholarly science journal article on some of the findings Here   

Friday, 18 November 2016

Those Who Harass and Facilitate the Harassment of Paradigm Changing Discoverers and Immortal Great Thinkers will be Exposed and Shamed for All Eternity

"A leading psychologist whose research on human memory exposed her to death threats, lawsuits, personal abuse and a campaign to have her sacked has won a prestigious prize for her courage in standing up for science." 


                                                      Read her story: Here

What we do in this life echoes through eternity


My own story so far - well just some of it. The rest is far worse and, rest assured, it will be published in the future.

Read just some of the facts of the professional harassment and abuse I have been on the receiving end of  here

Here are the published facts some really don't like: 

1. Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret

2. On Knowledge Contamination 

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

Tuesday, 15 November 2016

Monday, 14 November 2016

More Wiki Stupidity

Sunday, 13 November 2016

Comments Section of: "No Fuller than Complete: Darwin’s Age Comes to an End", by Gregory Sandstrom

The truth will always out in the end. But not before disgracefully fraudulent, fact denying and fact deleting Darwinitis have spree-shot themsleves in the butt-tocks for all eternity. 

My comment in conversation with Gregory Sandstrom: 

Your comment will appear after being approved.
Etymology re Matthew and Darwin is correct now Gregory.
The “too bad Matthew never knew what he had” argument is a popular Darwinite “guilt neutralization by proxy” tactic that is rather similar to con-man thieves who say of their victim “poor sucker never knew what he had”.
In fact, the evidence suggests Matthew knew exactly what he conceived and so did others many years pre-1858. The evidence he knew what he had is that others did in the first half of the 19th century, and they communicated with hm about it. For example, in Matthew’s second 1860 letter to the Gardener’s Chronicle. he plainly informed Darwin (1) That a professor naturalist of an eminent university read and understood fully what Matthew conceived and yet was afraid to teach it to his students, or mention it elsewhere, for fear of pillory punishment. (2) That for the same reason (Matthew’s scientific trespass on natural divinity) his book was banned for being heretical by the public lending library of Perth in Scotland (Matthew called it by its nick-name "the Fair City"). All these details are fully cited in my peer reviewed 2016 article “On Knowledge contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis” Here:
For the very same reasons of fear of being prosecuted and persecuted for heresy Robert Chambers (who cited Matthew’s book in 1832) anonymously authored the best selling “Vestiges of Creation” – the book which put evolution in the air and paved the way for public acceptance of Darwin’s (1859) ‘Origin of Species'.
Moreover, other reviewers also knew the heresy of Matthew’s bombshell origination as early as 1831. The following text is from 1831 the anonymous review of Matthew’s 1831 book by the United Services Journal :
“But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility entailed property and insane enactments.”
An agenda Wikipedia editor operating under the name “Dave Souza” on the Patrick Matthew page keeps deleting the citation to the source of above fact under the fraudulent claim that it does not exist! Proof it does exist in the publication record, and proof of the desperate lengths Darwinians are going to to delete the New Data facts can be found here:,23792. Yet Wikipedia will not allow anyone to enter that fact on its Patrick Matthew page. In this way the greatest science fraud in history continues.
Darwinists will go to any length to hide the facts. I have many more examples.

Errol Jones

Veracity Counter Culture and Weird and Wonderful Blogs on Darwin's Plagiarising Science Fraud

++ +++

Saturday, 12 November 2016

Confirmatory Evidence for the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis

Darwinians were warned that if they continued to behave irrationally to the new data facts that the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis would be confirmed.

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.

Charles Darwin and the Daleks

Tuesday, 8 November 2016

Excellent Research Resource Repository

 Here you will find a number of peer reviewed articles that examine the question of Darwin's originality and science fraud by plagiarism :

A truly excellent resource!

Monday, 7 November 2016

Desperate Darwinite Fairy Tale Telling and Shameless Fact Deletion


Friday, 4 November 2016

More on Robert Chambers

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.


Thursday, 3 November 2016

Creationists fear Matthew and are fact denying about his origination of macroevolution by natural selection

Origin of the term Darwinist

Wednesday, 2 November 2016

Applied Criminology

+++ ++

Tuesday, 1 November 2016

One Stupid Scholarly "Expert" at a Time

Kuhn was right about resistance to paradigm changing discoveries

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., ). 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


Friday, 21 October 2016

A Telling Silence


Friday, 14 October 2016

Children are now Ahead of the Childish Myth Believing Royal Society

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.

Wednesday, 12 October 2016


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

The President of the British Association mentioned in his address at Belfast the name of a very remarkable man whose researches and discoveries will be better known to the scientific men of the next generation than they are to the men of the present. We dare say that when Professor TYNDALL coupled the name of PATRICK MATTHEW with that of Mr. DARWIN not a few of those who read next morning the Professor’s address would be inclined to ask “Who is Mr. MATTHEW?” To this question we are in a position to give some answer. Mr. MATTHEW was a thinking man, whose powerful mind and whose habits of keen and painstaking observance found both leisure and scope during the long life of lettered ease he led upon his pleasant estate in the Carse of Gowrie. His unobtrusive disposition, his love of retirement, a certain invincible shyness tempered by an inflexible independence in all that concerned his reason and his conscience, and, most of all, the difficulty he found in putting his views into a form sufficiently clear and concise to satisfy himself, all tended to make him that which he was – namely, a man who, although far in advance of his age, shrank from contact with the age in which he lived. It was only by chance that Mr. DARWIN heard of a rural philosopher who had anticipated him by long series of years in the promulgation of what is commonly known as “the Darwinian theory.” Mr. DARWIN read Mr. MATTHEW’s work on “Naval Timber,” found in it the theory of elective affinity or natural selection, and handsomely acknowledged that a country gentleman dwelling among his orchards in the famed Forfarshire Carse had gone before him on the path of research which he had regarded as exclusively his own. It was only by accident that Mr. WALTER, of the Times, met one day with an old man upon whom age sat lightly, and whose talk so interested him that he dipped into the same book on “Naval Timber,” and found to his amazement that he had been conversing with a Seer who had in his youth put upon paper his pre-vision – a vision seen with the eye of the mind – of the steam fleets of the future with their iron rams, their changed manoeuvres, their rapid movements, and their heavy armour plating. Mr. WALTER was so impressed by the chapter on armour-plated steam rams that he republished it in the pages of the Thunderer to let the world see that there was in England one man who, at the time when steam navigation was in its infancy – a mere timidly tentative thing – foresaw the changes which steam had made necessary in naval warfare, and foreseen some of those changes with a clearness which the Admiralty have hardly realised at this hour. An agriculturist had, in nautical matters, gone ahead of all recognised nautical authorities by more than thirty-five years. The chapter re-issued in the Times read like a revelation, and furnished one of the most curious illustrations this generation has seen of the triumph of mind over circumstances.
Mr. MATTHEW’s intellect was of a highly speculative order, and its speculations were characterised by a daring which contrasted strongly with his diffidence in other respects. He accepted nothing on trust, but mapped out his own course of thought and life with little regard for tradition, or for the respect paid to stereotyped conventionalisms. He was one of those who believe at once much less and much more than society at large believes. He loved to explore the unexplored in the realm of thought, leaving the world and its tumults behind him while he studied, with microscopic minuteness, the secrets of vegetable and animal life. In this way he became by slow degrees an animated Encyclopaedia of instructive knowledge picked up in the bye-paths of information. He knew much that was novel respecting the habits of birds and beasts and insects, the development of plants, and the laws which govern human life, and his desire to interest others in his own studies must, for a reason we are about to name, have caused him some disappointment. He lacked the power to put into attractive and popular shape the information he had picked up. We have likened him to an Encyclopaedia, but he was an Encyclopaedia with the folios unnumbered, the chapters unedited, and the index unmade. The happy art of making hard things easy and strange things familiar by means of using here and there an apt metaphor was not his. The few who shared with us the privilege and the honour of his friendship found that it required some previous preparation to enable them to follow him in his conversational statements of views which were to him sufficiently plain. But when he found thoughts identical with his own more clearly expressed by another than he knew how to express them his gratification was great, and this was particularly the case in respect of articles on the fighting ships of the future.
Mr. MATTHEW was a man of quick sympathies, and his sympathies were with the poor. In common with several other young men of great force of character he was carried early in life into active relations with the Chartist movement, and was, as a landed gentleman and an ardent Democrat, elected Chairman of the Chartist Convention. But he was no Democrat of the modern school. As an admirer of good government he respected those administrators who governed strongly. Abstemious in his own habits, governed by an enlightened reason and highly cultivated sense of personal honour, he was a fervid advocate of education – and not merely of the education of the schools, but of the educating influences that proceed from the setting of a good example. On his own land he planted fruit trees by the wayside, and he pointed with pleasure and with pride to the evidences that they were not injuriously molested. In another respect Mr. MATTHEW’s Democratic sympathies took a contrary direction to those of the Manchester – or GLADSTONE – school. He had more love for the people than faith in their judgment, and he would have done more for them than through them. He regarded the British Colonies with enthusiasm as the grandest patrimonial possessions of the nation, and so far from advocating a policy of Imperial disintegration as good for the nations and as leading to desirable equality, he believed in the superiority of certain races of men over others, and regarded the patent of governing authority possessed by the Saxon race as one stamped and sealed with the indisputable sign-manual of the Maker of the World. At the age of 84 the Philosopher of Inchture was reaping in brightness of spirit one of the rewards of his enlightened mode of life when he kindly intimated to us his wish that we should run up to the North to see him, and receive from his lips some account of his later researches. The Fates deprived us of that opportunity, and it was the last. The Seer, at once old and so youthful, weighted with years and so fresh in sympathies, so calm of mind and so cheerful at the period life when most men are querulous, has been removed, and 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.