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, 18 August 2019

Multiple coincidence or not. As the case may be

How many claimed multiple coincidences sum to the probability they are not coincidental?

Saturday, 17 August 2019

On Naval Timber and Arboriculture

In the past, exploration and emigration by sea was the key to the success of the spread and dominance of human species on Earth. Now, today, our ability to use what we know about arboriculture to plant huge forest trees, that must now dominate our cities, is the key our survival in the age of man made climate change catastrophe.

Plainly, it is far from inappropriate - as the proven science fraudster by plagiarism and glory thieving liar Charles Darwin claimed (see Sutton 2015) - that Patrick Matthew's 1831 book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture", containing the original full and complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection, was published in an inappropriately titled book on a different topic.

Friday, 16 August 2019

The Peterloo Massacre and Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin and his ruling class establishment friends and other crony members of the Athenaeum Club in London and the Royal Society were anti-democracy, anti-establishment self interested monsters

. .

Saturday, 10 August 2019

Are some facts simply too sad for science or some scientists too simple for sad facts?

Monday, 17 June 2019

Bin the Claptrap

Sunday, 16 June 2019

Proud Scots: Please Retweet This Tweet

Saturday, 15 June 2019

The Scots are Writing about Darwin's & Wallace's Plagiarism

It is good to see that Scots are tuning into the facts on Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism and the English scientific establishment's cover up

Friday, 14 June 2019

People have trouble accepting facts

Sunday, 2 June 2019

Scotland has been ripped-off by the English

Friday, 3 May 2019

National Library of Scotland: Nullius in Verba

Take that fact deniers.


Thursday, 2 May 2019

Watch out stalkers and malicious poison pen authors

I will be submitting a proposal based on all the emails. tweets, blog post nonsense and even Dagg's abuse and then disgraceful plagiarism of my original discoveries in the Linnean Journal


Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Should it be called natural SELECTION?

. . .

Monday, 22 April 2019

On Naval Timber

.

Thursday, 18 April 2019

Matthew's Tree and Darwin's Tree - Just another tree coincidence amongst so many


.

Wednesday, 17 April 2019

Google Trashed Darwin's Reputation with New facts About What he Really Was and how Credulous Many Scientists Really Are

Without Google, things would be so much nicer for dead Darwin and Wallace worshippers and for Richard Dawkins' worshipping fans https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/17/would-life-be-happier-without-google-i-spent-a-week-finding-out#comment-128141898 .

Monday, 1 April 2019

April Fools such as Stepen Jay Gould

.

Sunday, 31 March 2019

Artificial selection and Charles Darwin

.

The New Research Niche: Survival of the most fit, the most circumstance suited

The new research niche created by Big Data proves Darwin is not fit to be celebrated




Saturday, 30 March 2019

Richard Dawkins - You have to be kidding.

Dawkins thinks we should be proud of Darwin. Why on Earth should we be proud of a plagiarizing. serial lying science fraudster by glory theft?


Monday, 25 March 2019

Toffs are harmful artificially selected parasites

Toffs such as Darwin had good reason to steal Matthew's original ideas, lie about him  and suppress his right to fame for his great scientific breakthrough. Why? Because he was a Chartist leader.




Wednesday, 20 March 2019

Hypocrisy in the Scientific Establishement

The likes of the Linnean Society and Royal Society need to quit fact denying and giving the sly public schoolboy silent treatment to protect the reputation of the privately schooled and landed gentry plagiarist Charles Darwin. Their behaviour is hypocritical in light of the endemic problem of plagiarism in our universities.


Tuesday, 19 March 2019

The Establishment Run by Useless Public Schoolboys

Look at who has - and is to this day - seeking to bury the truth about the origination of the theory of evolution by natural selection by the seditious and heretical Chartist, Patrick Matthew. They are the overprivileged incompetent products of the British public school system and their lickspittle credulous toadies. Why? Because Matthew wrote against the likes of them. He saw them as a form of damaging artificial selection that prevents the best people in the UK from making their best contribution to society. We continue to see the damage this "idiot class" causes in Parliament to this day.





More from Matthew (1831) here. But his book is run through with anti-upper class politics, linked to his theory of  what he coined 'The Natural Process of Selection." So named because it is natural, a process and involves selection in nature compared to artificial selection by human culture. That is surely why Darwin saw it as essential to steal the very same four words and to try to conceal his fraud by originally shuffling them to "process of natural selection." And that is why Darwin also saw it as necessary to steal Matthew's original analogy between artificial selection and natural selection in trees grow in nurseries versus those grown in nature.

Don't take my word for it. Get the independently verifiable facts, not the public schoolboy establishment nonsense. Get those peer reviewed verifiable facts HERE in a scientific journal as a good place to start.

Monday, 18 March 2019

Ahhh Coincidence!

Of course coincidences happen. I think the Dutch prime Minister's adoption of my prior Monty Python Black Knight analogy for the UK Prime Minister's Brexit deal is probably a coincidence. See tweet below:



 But what if the Dutch PM was to repeat many, many more of the original ideas in my tweets? What if his known influencers and their influencers were to cite my tweets? What if he was to take my original and prior published Market Reduction Approach and call it his own? What if he three-word shuffled my original name for it to 'Reduction, Market Approach"? Any reasonable person would then assume I have in some way (directly or indirectly) knowledge contaminating his brain with my own. Moreso, I'm told I have a Dutch fan club - via this comment reply to the latest review of my book Nullius.

"In my opinion, your review of Sutton's book is balanced and correct.
In our Dutch Sutton-fanclub we sometimes do not call him Mike Sutton but Mike Tyson, because he single handedly out-argued an army of neo-darwinists."

As opposed to a large number of mere multiple coincidences, I think on the weight of evidence that it is quite reasonable to argue that on the balance of reasonable probability that Matthew did indeed knowledge contaminate both Darwin and Wallace with his prior-published original theory of what he uniquely called the "natural process of selection" and Darwin originally called, by four words shuffling, the "process of natural selection". There are so many, many more original Matthewian replications by Darwin and Wallace, and by their proven influencers, who actually cited Matthew's (1831) book, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture years before Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic decades later, evidencing prior-influence on the brains of Darwin and Wallace. One who cited Matthew's book back in the 1830s was living in Holland and cited it in Dutch! It is all this newly unearthed data, found with the Big Data IDD method, that reveals these unwelcome, disruptive, facts. See my peer reviewed article, which reveals all with independently verifiable evidence form the historic publication record: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05
.
.

Sunday, 17 March 2019

Propaganda in science

.

Saturday, 16 March 2019

Don't be a Darwin: Don't steal the work and ideas of others, claim it as your own and then lie when challenged on it!

Don't be a copycat! Don't be a Darwin, or else you will look a proper old Charlie.

Student's and other scholars and writers beware. We never had the technology to catch Darwin until the 21st century (see Sutton 2014 and 2018). But if you do what he did you will be caught and humiliated.


Friday, 15 March 2019

Darwin Trolls

From a topographical ocean of Charles Darwin superfan obsession, malicious activities, stalking, plagiarism and other idiocy


Thursday, 14 March 2019

Hilarious Linnean Society: Where do they get the brassneck?

Wednesday, 13 March 2019

The Linnean Society is Disgraceful: Series of Scandals

Tuesday, 12 March 2019

Plagiarism, Repeatedly, Facilitated by the Linnean Society

This will go down in history as the thing that quite rightfully exposed what the Linnean Society and its Journal represent


Monday, 11 March 2019

Darwin's Cat is Out of the Bag



Sunday, 10 March 2019

Darwin was a Copycat



For 160 years pseudo scholars and ignorant creationist have lampooned Charles Darwin as a monkey or ape. They got that wrong. They should have been lampooning him as a copycat.

Darwin is the world's greatest plagiarising science fraudster by glory theft of a prior published theory. A theory that his friends, influencers and influencer's influencers read and are newly discovered to have cited in the literature before he or Wallace wrote a word on the topic anywhere (see Nullius).
.

Saturday, 9 March 2019

Copycats of the world

Darwin, in plagiarising Matthew's discovery, uniquely slyly four-word shuffling his unique name for it, and so many of his analogies and other supporting evidences from nature (see Nullius in Verba) is arguably our greatest copycat.


.

Friday, 8 March 2019

Delusional fans

Wednesday, 6 March 2019

Who Smells a Rat?

This  Amazon reviewer of my book donated priceless letters from Charles Darwin to Patrick Matthew to the @natlibscot National Library of #Scotland. Organisers of the @Cambridge_Uni Darwin Collection then went hopping mad they could not own them for England instead. This is what we are dealing with.

Monday, 25 February 2019

How does the world really work versus knowledge gap filling mythology

.

Friday, 22 February 2019

Wallace the fraudster


Wallace never discovered that bee at all. A local took it to show him! Here



Friday, 15 February 2019

Something wrotten about some scientists

Wednesday, 13 February 2019

Credulous Darwin Worshipper Cult

If you ever thought it was an exaggeration that there is a credulous, ignorant of the facts, Darwin worship cult, here is some up-to-date confirmatory evidence for its existence

+

Monday, 11 February 2019

Darwin needs removing from lists of great scientists and putting on lists of great plagiarisers

-

Darwin now needs putting on a list of great plagiarising science fraudsters http://patrickmatthew.com/onewebmedia/Sutton2%20Cited%20Fraud%20and%20Scientific%20Misconduct.pdf

+


Sunday, 10 February 2019

Thursday, 7 February 2019

The Linnean Society and its Shameful Role in Supporting Plagiary

Wednesday, 6 February 2019

Darwin was fooled by total quackery and Wallace was a total idiot too: But we don't have to be

Mind you, Darwin and Wallace worshippers are as bad. They credulously believe in Darwin's and Wallace's claims to have miraculously conceived Patrick Matthew's prior published theory (Darwin from the literature and Wallace from the first and only claimed case of malarial fever cognitive enhancement) after their friends and influencers and influencer's influencers cited Matthew's book and the bombshell theory in it: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-greatest-secret/dp/1541343964



Sunday, 3 February 2019

Matthew the Botanist

In 1850 the famous naturalist and publisher John Loudon listed Patrick Matthew (here) as an acknowledged botanist.



After Darwin and Wallace plagiarised his work, Matthew was also listed as a noted botanist in the 1881 Jackson's Guide to the Literature of Botany (here) and again (noting that "Jacks" reference) as a noted botanist here on page 116 of than 1898 Biographical Index of British and Irish Botanists, in which the authors of that guide write in its preface that they excluded inclusion of obscure or trivial writers on the topic).



In order to get away with plagiarising Matthew's prior published theory of evolution by natural slection, the proven serial liar and plagiarist Charles Darwin, however, slyly portrayed Matthew as an obscure Scottish writer on forest trees. Despite the ridiculous myth perpetuated by cult-like credulous Darwin worshipers, the reality is that  Matthew enjoyed an international reputation as a noted botanist and expert on the topic of hybridizing and cultivating fruit trees.



Thursday, 31 January 2019

Emigration Fields and the Artificial Selection of Humans by Social Class

Friday, 25 January 2019

Matthew had an International Reputation Long Before Darwin

In my research on Matthew, the originator of the the theory of macroevolution by natural selection, I have proven many times that contrary to the Darwinite myth, he was not simply an unread obscure writer on forest trees.

Matthew had an international reputation as an agriculturalist and writer on that topic in Europe and the USA (see Woodbury cited at end of his post) long before Darwin. Yet the serial liar Darwin sought to portray Matthew (even after Matthew had informed him that the opposite was true) that he was a mere obscure Scottish writer on forest trees. Credulous neo-religious Darwin and Wallace cultish worshippers have fallen for Darwin's sly propaganda plagiarising cover-up lies ever since.



Here, in this one further example, we see Matthew's (1831) book (which contains the original conception of macro evolution by natural selection) cited and praised in relation to information about spreading soot around plants to improve their growth. My book (Sutton 2014 & 2017) on the topic reveals that years before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's original breakthrough ideas without citation that Matthew was read and cited many times, not only in the Encyclopedia Britannica, but at least 25 times, seven by naturalists, four of whom (Loudon, Chambers, Selby and Jameson) were at the epicentre of their influence.

The Gardener's Magazine and Register of Rural & Domestic Improvement, (1837) Volume 3. pp 517-518

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_TdNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA518&dq=matthew+naval+timber+fertilizer+charcoal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIjqfhmbvbAhWLKsAKHQqVAo0Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=matthew%20naval%20timber%20fertilizer%20charcoal&f=false




The historian Ton Munnich kindly translated a Dutch article published in 1832 on Matthew's research (here) that reproduced the text of Matthew's Lightning Rod Experiment. As cited in On Knowledge Contamination see pp. 184-185), The Gardener’s Magazine and Register of Rural and Domestic Improvement, vol. 9, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green 1833 also published the results of that very same experiment.




Ton also reveals that the same Matthew information had been published in Germany on this topic.  

Ton Munnich via On 24.01.2019 (private email correspondence) kindly provides us with the following intelligence:

: about the magazine
The "Algemeene Konst- en Letter-bode" existed from ca. 1800 until 1862.
It published weekly an issue of ca. 15 pages. 
It was a magazine for the educated general readership.
About developments in science, medicine, agriculture, art, literature, new publications, etc.

: about Patrick Matthew's article
The 52 issues of 1832 are bound in two volumes. Vol. 1 contains issue 1 to 27.
Page-numbering went on throughout the year.
Matthew's article is in issue 8, published on Friday, February 17, 1832.
That issue goes from page 113 to 128. Matthew's article uses ca 70 lines. 
It starts on page 125 (lower half), then 126 (whole page) and 127 (two lines).
  •  "...the article was taken from "Frorieps Notizen", which took it from R. Jameson's "Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal". (the translator's note does not add from which specific issue it was taken, only the names of the German and Scottish magazines). (in Germany Ludwig Friedrich von Froriep edited a kind of science-news magazine : "Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde". Also known as "Frorieps Notizen".
  • So perhaps the article was translated twice.  First from English into German, and then from German into Dutch."
CONCLUSION

The fact (uniquely noted by Ton Munnich) that Matthew's Lightning Rod Experiment was first published by Robert Jameson is extremely important. Jameson was Darwin's Edinburgh University Tutor! Matthew and Jameson and Jameson's nephew (the naturalist William Jameson) are intricately bound together and - yet again provide many potential routes for 'knowledge contamination' of Darwin's and Wallace's brains via The Hookers of Kew (see important earlier post)

Pre 1859 citations of Matthew in the USA

Woodbury, L. (1832) Live Oak. Report of the Secretary of the Navy. December 15th. House of Representatives. Executive Documents. Duff Green. Washington.

Woodbury, L. (1833) Live Oak Timber for the Navy. Military and Naval Magazine. Vol. 1 Number 3. (here)

Woodbury, L. (1838) Live Oak. House of Representatives. December 15, 1832. Report of the Secretary of the Navy on Live Oak. Navy Department. December 14th. In: Register of Debates in Congress: Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress: Dec. 6, 1824, to the First Session of the Twenty-fifth Congress, Oct. 16, 1837. Together with an Appendix, Containing the Most Important State Papers and Public Documents to which the Session Has Given Birth: to which are Added, the Laws Enacted During the Session, with a Copious Index to the Whole. Volume IX. Washington. (see p. 128).

Woodbury, L. (1852) Writings of Levi Woodbury, LL.D. Political, Judicial and Literary.Volume 3 - Literary. Boston. Little, Brown and Company. p. 361.



Charles Darwin Har Ha ha

+ +

Thursday, 24 January 2019

The Lindley Files


Image result for john lindley botanistInteresting, is it not that in a host of otherwise massive mere multiple coincidences that John Lindley, who would later steal Matthew's priority rights to Giant Redwood importation, first UK growing and planting fame, had his work reviewed in Loudon's journal immediately below Matthew's (1831) in which Loudon (1832) wrote Matthew had something original to say on "the origin of species". See the facts of that Here . And the facts of Lindley's aforementioned apparent Giant Redwood fame fraud Here.

NOTE Lindley was a friend and co-author with Loudon, and ....wait for it...a great friend of William Hooker - him again - (acquaintance of the proven serial liar and plagiarist Charles Darwin, and Father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker).

Full facts in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret

Wednesday, 23 January 2019

William Hooker

Many links have been found between William Hooker (Darwin's acquaintance and father of Joseph Hooker who was Darwin's best friend and botanical mentor) and Patrick Matthew - in terms of who cited Matthew who William Hooker knew (see Sutton 2017). This is because the Hookers were economic botanists. In this 1838 anonymously authored essay (cited in Sutton 2014) we find Matthew and Hooker each cited in the very same essay on economical uses of the Willow : https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E1oFAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA435&dq=%22Mathew%22+%22naval+timber%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjohti42YPgAhXKQxUIHRKHC5YQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=%22Mathew%22%20%22naval%20timber%22&f=false

The many newly discovered routes for pre-1858 Matthewian knowledge contamination of the replicating brains of Darwin and Wallace just just keep on heading toward the Hooker's of Kew (father William Hooker and his son Joseph - both leading economic botanists) - particularly William Hooker who was also Wallace's sponsor, mentor, specimen customer and correspondent. The question is - how many such possible multiple coincidences do we need to to sum to the probability that they are not coincidental at all?




2019 Further Newly Unearthed Citations of Matthew's (1831) Book

Following the many newly unearthed citations of Matthew's (1831) book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture " revealed in  'Nullius in Verba Darwin's: greatest secret' (Sutton 2014, 2017), here are some newly discovered others that I  found in Jan 2019

1. The anonymous essayist (1843) "S G 2" pp 226-227. "Economical uses of the Larch" in  Knight's Penny Magazine, Volume 3, [edited by Charles Knight.] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W-E2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA227&dq=%22Mathew%22+%22naval+timber%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizr_2xvIPgAhURtnEKHRn9BQwQ6AEIXjAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Mathew%22%20%22naval%20timber%22&f=false

2. Patrick Matthew citing his (1831) book in  'Testimonials in favour of W.L. Lindsay ... as a candidate for the office of Conservator of the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh (1852). - Note in this same publication we find a testimonial by Robert Jameson (Darwin's Geology professor no less!Moreover the testimonials are for a naturalist whose work Darwin later relied upon!) (Click here for the details)