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

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.

Saturday 1 October 2016

The University of Leicester, The Richard III Society and the Important Question of Influence on Great Discovery

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.'


'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,

This happened following Ashdown-Hill's research into tracing a line of DNA descent back to Richard III in order that any bones recovered could be checked to see if they were those of the king, his associate Langley approached Leicester University:

'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.'


  • 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:

1 From Turi King

2. Turi King

Turi King - continued...

3. Turi King

Mike Sutton...

Reply by Turi King

4. Turi King

The said "facts":

Excavation and Reinstatement
Post Excavation
% Contribution
University of Leicester*
Richard III Society
Leicester Shire Promotions
Leicester City Council
Leicester Adult Schools
 Note these do not appear to be the same apparent costing for simple discovery costs that the Richard III society provide. For example, the word "reinstatement" (i.e. post discovery and post excavation) added to the excavation costs is not used in the Richard III society in their costings. And the column for "post excavation" is a post (not pre) discovery cost.

5 Turi King

Turi King continued

6. Turi King

Mike Sutton's reply

7. Turi King

Turi King....Next..

Turi King continued...

8. Mike Sutton

9. Turi King

10 Turi King

11. Mike Sutton (October 2nd 2017)

12 Reply from Turi King

You can read my two other blogs on this topic:

(1) here
(2) here

You can read my two Amazon book reviews on the topic

(1) here
(2) here

Follow me on Twitter


Knowledge Contamination Analysis is Analogous to DNA Fingerprinting

Some of the greatest discoveries made in science and academia have question marks hanging over the area of prior-influence by unacknowledged prior-publications and other means of communicating ideas and facts.

The question of the influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace has been  brought to the fore by the new discovery that he was cited by Darwin's and Wallace's influencers and their influencer's influencers before they put so much as pen to paper on the topic.

New books published by John Ashdown-Hill accuse Leicester University of effective glory theft by orchestrated failure to acknowledge the crucial influence of his work on the discovery of Richard III's grave in a Leicester car park.