On Plagiarism: A strangely unexplored area of criminology
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 30, 2016
1. https://t.co/JUd91nR87p
2. https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL
3.https://t.co/SXiHqXQlsx pic.twitter.com/kNXfK8iWnH
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
Friday 30 December 2016
Plagiarism
Tuesday 27 December 2016
Today in 1831
Today in 1831 Darwin sailed on the Beagle. But.Matthew had already conceaved macroevolution by natural selection https://t.co/ldMK5Ipfqu pic.twitter.com/ljGZ3fFGpY
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 27, 2016
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
'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
@DISSENTOFMAN @interUNFAO @intelligent50 No error in verifiable facts. The big error is to write fact denial statements in your own name. pic.twitter.com/ethenEtwvu
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 22, 2016
Wednesday 21 December 2016
What would your sandwich board say?
If everyone had to wear a billboard for one day every year, what would yours say? Here is mine. pic.twitter.com/v6eIQHZHhu
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 21, 2016
Monday 19 December 2016
More fact denial behaviour in social media captured for the historical record
++.@Lorienen @interUNFAO @DISSENTOFMAN Read facts. Perhaps you might then abandon the Darwin worship fact-denal cult: https://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m pic.twitter.com/BLuO9TRfSX
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 19, 2016
The words you are reading here are 100% proven to exist. Look 100 times - count the number of times they disappear.: https://t.co/WOiVuLvCho
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 20, 2016
Kindle Notes on Nullius
Having your book on Kindle & Amazon is a great way to share the findings & ideas in it so others cans see for free: https://t.co/7kYjx0QF2D pic.twitter.com/V4GKTQVZYD
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 19, 2016
Sunday 18 December 2016
RankBrain and the IDD Mehod
++@guardiannews About time. Google' AI Rank Brain is possibly out of control: https://t.co/jt4VaEwOUz pic.twitter.com/NP0jMsHEMk
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) December 18, 2016
Google's racist RankBrain now likely to be regulated by the UK government
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 18, 2016
1. https://t.co/nG7VeWlhyD
2. https://t.co/o32zkwE6JL pic.twitter.com/shlpCFXmbX
Blame it on the Pseudo Skeptical Zombie Sheep Herders
My resolution for 2017? I'm simply blaming everything that is bad on the credulous & incurious zombie horde & their pseudo-skeptical leaders pic.twitter.com/nH2Eo1e1Oa
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 18, 2016
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.
++Attention @sherlockmichael @DISSENTOFMAN @TakeThatDarwin @Lorienen @Jackthelad1947 @SamHarrisOrg https://t.co/JEaSsXeRwy— HUMANIST (@interUNFAO) December 18, 2016
++Calculating improbable multiple coincidence in independent discovery replication. Science problem requires solution https://t.co/tjS3g9kZ25 pic.twitter.com/xuwGIgk5N2— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 18, 2016
Nullius in Verba': On sale HERE. The ideal present for the genuine scientist, skeptic, historian or sociologist.
Saturday 17 December 2016
Darwin is not the Messiah He was a very naughty boy.
++He is not the Messiah! He's a very naughty plagiarist! :— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) December 17, 2016
1. https://t.co/P7Q3T3Nx5C
2. https://t.co/JIdFnrcCVZ pic.twitter.com/R9WAS2HO62
https://t.co/zKERi4J1M0 pic.twitter.com/7BWzD0Hu7t
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) December 17, 2016
How Many Coincidences Sum to the Point Where They Render the Defence of Multiple Coincidence Totally Implausible?
++.@interUNFAO Presenting new & independently verifiable evidence that leads to ask just how many coincidences sum to a likelihood they never? pic.twitter.com/uAjKyoIwN5— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 17, 2016
Friday 16 December 2016
The Zombie Horde
Don't be one of the dogma parroting zombie horde. Learn principles of 'Nullius in Verba'. Practice to perfection.https://t.co/Wdm2URFkpv pic.twitter.com/vR5AgSQ5zK
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) December 16, 2016
Thursday 15 December 2016
Desperate Darwinists
.@TWRaymen And writing fake book reviews when not having read your book then caught out by your publisher confronted & outed on social media pic.twitter.com/5ZeiWZagcW
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) December 15, 2016
Wednesday 14 December 2016
As Opposed to Mere Dogma
As Opposed to Dogma & Pseudoscholalry Trusims, Good Explanations are Capable of Refutation with Disconforming Data https://t.co/fM8vlrHPw7
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 14, 2016
Monday 12 December 2016
Plagiarism - You Either Love it or Hate It
You either love it if you are a plagiarist - or hate it.
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) December 13, 2016
1, https://t.co/jj27KPguZU
2. https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI
3. https://t.co/DotiWqaMkb pic.twitter.com/uKTpnUxvB7
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.@ThinkAtheist Good explanations are capable of easy refutation. If ever we find a dinosaur above a human skeleton that disproves evolution. pic.twitter.com/wgAd7rMeZ3— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 11, 2016
Saturday 10 December 2016
Fact Denying Darwinians Face Intellectual Extinction
In the Democratic World we All have this Responsibility to Tackle Establishment Fact Denial: https://t.co/MXoXcakQ8u pic.twitter.com/d12PRE9tnk
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) July 16, 2016
Friday 9 December 2016
Find out how Big Data analysis proved biologists think 25 = 0
Find out how I GOT 'EM! in first 3 #FREE chapters. Darwin & Wallace plagiarizing fraudstershttp://t.co/aE7UFhT8oZ … pic.twitter.com/sMrPchnOoc
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) March 27, 2015
Proof of Concept
++Proof of concept as 8000+ brains now contaminated with the knowledge of Darwin's plagiarism and science fraud lies: https://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m pic.twitter.com/D03Knn3feQ
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 9, 2016
Two peer reviewed articles prove we celebrate a glory thieving liar on the £10 note
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) December 11, 2016
1. https://t.co/yMLRSHW8Vc
2. https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/5xkPjbmQiQ
Monday 5 December 2016
Can Biologists count to four?
Quantitative research of the simplest kind 100% disproves claims of the scientific establishment. 1+1+1+1 = 4 versus = Zero. pic.twitter.com/bTG9zZ3PXf
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 5, 2016
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
Available on Amazon: https://t.co/jj27KPguZU pic.twitter.com/aXtWuTMRKA
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) December 4, 2016
The Blessed Virgin Darwin
.@DrIreneZempi They can have the Virgin Darwin Image then. I think that will be OK because based on scientists with faith in dual miracle. pic.twitter.com/GddeY6GFg0
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 4, 2016
Saturday 3 December 2016
Darwin Lied
https://t.co/6JQXBT0hko pic.twitter.com/qzxSF0IKTz
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 3, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)