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

Wednesday, 8 July 2020

Who is Joachim Dagg?


Dr Joachim Dagg is a deliberate and malicious science fraudster by plagiarism.

 In the very same Journal that Darwin and Wallace used in 1858 to plagiarise Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published  theory of macro evolution by natural selection Dagg has committed an act of serious academic and professional misconduct by way of deliberate and malicious plagiarism of the research of another person. HERE. The prior published research in question is mine.

All data is scientific data. The data Dagg plagiarised is from my original, extensively disseminated at prestigious academic conferences, published (in two books, in the press and a peer reviewed journal article) unique research finding of 2014 that in 1842 Selby many times cited Patrick Matthew's (1831) detailed hypothesis/theory of evolution by natural selection.

What Dagg conveniently left out of his apology for an academic article when he effectively  stole my Selby discovery by failing to attribute its source to its discoverer is that the naturalist Selby was editor of the journal that published Alfred Wallace's (1855) famous Sarawak paper on evolution by natural selection (a paper read by Darwin pre-1858). Dagg also conveniently failed to mention that Selby was also was a friend of Charles Darwin's father (who was a house guest of Selby) and that Selby was a very close friend of Darwin's close friend and prolific correspondent Leonard Jenyns - and others in Charles Darwin's close knit circle). Full citations to the source of all these facts are in my books of 2014 and 2017 (both maliciously reviewed on Amazon by Dagg before he plagiarised the Selby cited Matthew discovery!) Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. 

Matthew (1831) uniquely coined the term 'natural process of selection' to name his bombshell break through and Darwin (1858), who later knowingly lied (after Matthew had informed him otherwise) by claiming no other naturalist had read Matthew's theory and that he had not read it before replicating it, uniquely four-word shuffled Matthew's term to 'process of natural selection'.  It being a process, natural (as opposed to artificial - as Matthew explained first by analogy with regard to forest trees) and about selection.

 Please note that Loren Eiseley (1979) discovered that Darwin had earlier replicated Matthew's exact same unique forest trees v those raised in nurseries explanatory analogy in a private essay in 1844. Matthew was a forester and arboriculturalist as well as a noted botanist, internationally famous hybridiser of apples and farmer.  Darwin would later try to portray Matthew as a non entity by describing him as 'an obscure Scottish writer on forest trees'!

That fact of Darwin's use of Matthew's unique and powerful explanatory analogy for natural slection alone was enough to turn Professor Eiseley from a Darwin fan, who had earlier written an entire book praising Darwin, to an accuser that he committed science fraud by plagiary. Since then an overwhelming preponderance of further evidence has been unearthed to allow any reasonable person to conclude that it is far more likely than not, and probably beyond all reasonable doubt, that both Darwin and Wallace in their Linnean Journal papers of 1858 and Darwin (1859) in his book 'The Origin of Species' committed the worlds greatest science fraud by plagiary.

 Sadly, today others are engaging in serious academic misconduct - some arguably amounting to concerted criminal harassment over several years - in an attempt to re-bury this important research data.

In addition to the Selby cited Matthew in 1842 discovery, my original research uncovered many others, including famous naturalists who were close associates of Darwin and Wallace, their influencers and their influencer's influencers who cited Matthew's (1831) book in the literature before Darwin and Wallace replicated the theory in it and then claimed independent discovery of the same theory, same name for that theory and same explanatory analogies of difference between natural and artificial selection for it, and much more besides. All these independently verifiable facts are fully referenced and discussed in depth in Nullius in Verba. All these original facts were detected using the innovative  Internet Date Detection (IDD) research method (see Sutton and Griffiths 2018). That method only worked for a limited period of time. Were I to have begun my research today I would never be able to find what I found back in 2013/14. And so Dagg would not have been able to plagiarise my research.

Since it is important and in the public interest that the history of science and discoveries made in that field be informed from the original research that first unearthed them, who actually first unearthed them (On the Selby discovery alone see Sutton 2014, 2015 and this 2016 press article as just a few examples among many), I have very recently written to the academic journal editor Of the Linnean Journal informing him of Dagg's actions - supplying him with the proof that Dagg had read my prior published research containing the fact that the famous naturalist (a friend of Darwin's father and Darwin's friend and prolific correspondent Jenyns) "Selby cited Matthew in 1842" and  Selby wrote on aspects of his theory therein.

Dagg - who like his correspondent, (a well known criminal cyberstalker, harasser, obsessive poison pen emailer and criminal harasser of Nottingham Trent University staff) and fellow harasser, Darwin fanatic, Julian Derry - had prior been following me all over the internet to harass me and Patrick Matthew's third great grandson Howard Minnick.

Dagg has also written two ludicrous and malicious attacks on Amazon books about my published original research findings  - also prior to plagiarising parts of that research in the Linnean Journal (e.g. here - archived here [scroll down to read Dagg's malicious November 2017 review], also published before his 2018 Linnean Journal article that deliberately plagiarises my important bombshell "Selby research discovery" of 2014).

Following the publication of my research that proved (contrary to prior knowledge based on Darwin's published defence  falsehoods) that many other naturalists in fact did read and cite Patrick Matthew's (1831) book,  Dagg also set up a ludicrous website to write at great and obsessive length his absurd claims about my other published research on the Spinach, Popeye, Iron and Decimal Point error myth. (See Dagg 2016) and other ludicrously malicious obsessive and clearly demented issues invented inside his mind about me and my research findings.

In the interests of public protection against plagiarisers and harassers, the actions of Dagg and his friends can be studied in greater detail on the Patrick Matthew website (here).

History will not be kind to these people for their fraudulent and anti-scientific disservice to the history of science and discovery


Appendix of Evidence of Dr Dagg's Deliberate and Malicious Plagiarism Sent to the Editor of the Boilogical Journal of  the Linnean Society.

  1. Dagg's website in question is here (archived) where you can see he tries to discredit my research about a mistake in the iron content of spinach. This is relevant because it is evidence that his later plagiarism in your journal is both deliberate and malicious. 
  2. Next, dating back to my book and articles on the subject in 2014 (Dagg's published work on them archived) You will see that Dagg's same website obsesses further about my prior published research on Patrick Matthew.
  3. Dr Dagg's prior published malicious review of my book is archived (here). If you scroll down this archived file you can read his fully signed Amazon book review of my book and his admission, he also read my earlier book on the topic of 2014, which like my second book contains the Selby 1842 discovery from my research.
  4. Dr Dagg's publicly published correspondence about his Linnean Journal article and about me, with Julian Derry (who has been written to by Nottingham Trent University's legal department and head of Corporate Affairs to demand he cease his libel and obsessive harassment of myself and others regarding our research and peer reviewed publications into Darwin and Matthew) is included in the image (highlighted) screenshot. That image is on the Wikipedia talk page on Patrick Matthew (archived here
Besides my two books on the topic of Matthew and Darwin, which have been extensively covered in the national press, published proof that my prior-published research findings are the original source of the Selby cited Matthew in 1842 can be found in many published sources. These sources include, but are by no means limited to, this peer reviewed academic article ( And also in this prominently published article on a Sunday Lecture I gave on the topic at Conway Hall in London (here).

The research Dagg  plagiarized by failing to attribute the Selby (1842) reference to my research has been extensively covered in the press and is, therefore, by no means obscure. I attach examples of press coverage below:

2. Scottish Daily Mail 2014 (archived)
3.The  Courier  March 15th 2016 (archived)
4. Deadline March 16th 2016 (archived)
5.The Courier 19th March 2016 (archived)
6. The Courier 22nd March 2016 (archived)
8. The Nottingham Post 2016 (28.3.2016)
10. Sputnik (France) 2016 (archived)
11. Sputnik (Germany) 2016 (archived)
12. The Courier (May 2016) (archived)
13. The Courier (May 2017) (archived)
14. Several articles (May 2017) Press Reader
15. The Courier (August 2017) (archived)
16. The Courier (Sept 2017) (archived)
17. The Evening Telegraph (Sept 2017) (archived)
18. The Courier (Sept 2018) (archived) 
19. The Courier (Nov 2019) (archived)

I have further published (some not published) independently verifiable evidence that Dagg  deliberately and maliciously plagiarized my research.

To be continued....

Saturday, 4 July 2020

Julian Derry is a noted criminal harassing cyber stalker idiot loser


J. F. Derry's obsessive and insane criminal harassment behaviour has been archived HERE

That resource has been critical in showing anyone Derry tries to slyly manipulate do his criminal cyber stalking by proxy exactly who he really is.

 Dr Julian Derry's  jealous nutcase cyberstalking website is well known and noted. Its archived contents have been shared with all those he has slyly sought to manipulate to do his criminal harassing on his behalf.

 The aggressive and obscene cyber stalker Julian Derry is  quite rightly and justly not trusted . In essence, his Darwin worship fanatical attempts to have peer reviewed articles retracted that prove Darwin plagiarised Patrick Matthew  make him a total laughing stock.

Julian Derry's fall further down the sinkhole he has always been in, because of his nasty jealous behaviour, does a great job of proving it better to rise to the top by making your own discoveries than to be saddled with hilarious infamy by stalking those you are weirdly obsessively jealous of.

"The wise man mocks the mocker. The mocker mocks the man." 


On this archived link you can see Julian Derry (J. F. Derry)  - the madly jealous criminal harasser has been typically trying to slyly get others at COPE to engage in criminal cyber stalking by proxy on his idiotic and deranged behalf.

Of course the co-authors and journal editors he has been harassing, along with the organisation COPE, have all been made fully aware of exactly who he is and what he seeks to do to proper academics via the famous web page on his insane harassing obsessive abuse and malicious falsehoods, poison pen letter writing etc on the Patrick Matthew website, where Julian Derry's insane criminal harassment of others has been archived pending serious action. HERE


Uncomfortable bubble popping facts clearly do make fact denial nasty and ugly little pathetic criminal harassment fanatics like Julian Derry insanely jealous.

Just like the demented "thicko" US President Trump, I have a message for Derry. And it is that he should look for a vaccine for his shrivelled brain disease.

. .

Thursday, 2 July 2020

Facts are facts and discoveries are discoveries

Fact denial insanely rabid Darwin The Plagiarist worshippers hate this article

Sunday, 28 June 2020

Serious academic misconduct by way of malicious plagiarism

Stealing the prior published important unique original discoveries of others by not referencing their discoverer as their source - just as Darwin and Wallace did to Matthew - is just one sub-type of science fraud by plagiary. In my research into this issue of plagiarism in science - as a candidate for the award of the world's greatest irony - others have done exactly that to me now. They have written academic articles that include my original discovery that Selby (who was a friend of Darwin's father and Darwin's friend Jenyns, and Wallace's Sarawak paper editor) prior cited Matthew's (1831) book  in 1842.

 I will pursue this to the highest level to ensure that the facts get into the public domain and justice to science and  priority is done.


Friday, 26 June 2020

IDD Method Not Working At All Now

When I first used the IDD research method back in 2013/14, I disproved the Darwin supermyth lie that no one at all / no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) book (containing the original theory of macro evolution by natural selection) before Darwin and Wallace (1858/59) plagiarised it.

The powerful IDD method detected that Darwin's and Wallace's primary influencers and friends, and their friend's' friends, and even Wallace's Sarawak paper editor Selby (an original highly important discovery later plagiarised by Dagg), had cited it!

For the detailed facts on who did cite Matthew pre-1858 see Sutton "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret"

List 1.

In our paper on the IDD method, Professor Mark Griffiths and I noted that since the introduction of the autonomous artificial intelligence deep learning RankBrain  to run Google books that the IDD method was finding much less than it did in 2014/14.

Yesterday, RankBrain (a bot) actually asked me if I am a bot when I used the IDD method.

Today, 27 June 2020 the IDD method could detect, besides the scathing Edinburgh Literary Review, and the positive Metropolitan Magazine review, and John Loudon's most famous 1832 review (which most tellingly said Matthew had something orignal to say on "the origin of species" no less), and the Quarterly Review article on dry rot, just a handful of pre-1859 books and other publications that mention Matthew's 1831 book. But these others do so only by way of advertisements for it, Advertisements are not even included in my above list of citations.  Luckily I did the original 2014/14 IDD research when I did. The jealous and sneaky plagiarist Dr Dagg would never have been able to plagiarise my Selby discovery otherwise!


Thursday, 25 June 2020

IDD method and Google's Bot Asks If I am A Bot

It is not often that a deep learning AI bot asks you if you are a bot when searching on Google with the IDD method. Is it?

Google, it appears on the basis of this evidence, is not designed to be interrogated by this powerfully unique method. Maybe that is why if it were used today rather than back in 2013/14, when I first used it to look to see who really did cite Patrick Matthew before Darwin plagiarised his theory and claimed in his lying defence that no naturalist / no one whatsoever did read it, the books that I uniquely discovered, and we now know exist and can, thankfully therefore, read in libraries, can sadly no longer be detected with the IDD method. It seems that it is Google's Rank Brain (AI) that has diminished the power of Google to search Google's Library of millions of scanned books and other publications. See Sutton and Griffiths Here.

Thursday, 21 May 2020

Unscientific, Thick, Incurious, Credulous Scientists, Patrick Matthew and Covid19

We should not be surprised that English scientists advising the UK government on the 2020 Covid19 pandemic have got so much wrong and are refusing to admit it and would rather tens of thousands more people die than back pedal on their mistakes, lose face and their status.

 Get the full story on the Patrick Matthew website:

Tuesday, 19 May 2020

Rob Roy

Nothing to with Patrick Matthew (not directly anyway, although his neighbours the Drummonds of Perthshire get a mention). But here is some great Covid19 lock down entertainment. I saw this film some 56 years ago at the cinema. It's a somewhat forgotten Disney version of Rob Roy. Filmed in Scotland and using real Scottish soldiers in the battle scenes.


Sunday, 10 May 2020

Tackling the Darwin Myth Pandemic Using Track and Trace Research

Using the BigData IDD method to bust the myth that no one read Matthew's prior published discovery of evolution by natural selection and then to track and trace their relationship to Darwin and his personal contacts. See On Knowledge Contamination and Nullius in Verba for the scientific findings.


Saturday, 9 May 2020

Did T Horton James read On Naval Timber?

Here is an article citing Matthew's Emigration fields and Matthew as the author of "On Naval Timber". It is reproduced in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine in 1839 (Here).

There is no evidence the author read On Naval Timber. But it is further evidence of the extent to which Matthew's book was cited in popular literature long before Darwin and Wallace plagiarised it.

Thomas Horton James was a merchant and traveller: See:

Thursday, 7 May 2020

Terraforming: and Patrick Matthew

Veracity v Myth and Matthew V Darwin in the invention of terraforming

Based on the Supermyth that Darwin and Wallace uniquely and independently discovered the natural process of selection, there is a related, daughter, myth that Charles Darwin, together with his botanical mentor and best friend Joseph Hooker uniquely invented terraforming by way of what they did on Ascension Island (e.g. that story here).

In reality it is Patrick Matthew, the plagiarized and cheated 1831 originator of the theory of natural selection, whose research and observations of nature provided the factual and theoretical base for terraforming.

When, in 1831, Matthew published his theory in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, it contained, amongst other religious heresy at the time, the heresy that trees could grow better in other than their "natural" habitats when transplanted there by humans. This heresy was heretical because it went against then Christian doctrine that "God", as designer and creator, placed every living thing in its ideal location. Matthew's heresy probably just one of those that led his book to banned by Perth public Library in Scotland and for reviewers to demand readers not even think about his ruminations on the laws of nature. Indeed, Selby (a regular church-going Christian naturalist, who I, in 2014, 2014a, 2015 see my later 2016 paperback uniquely discovered cited Matthew's book in 1842 and wrote that he could not understand this idea before going on to be chief editor of the journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper. NOTE: My Selby discovery was later plagiarized in the Linnean Journal by Dagg The Jealous and Sly Plagiarist - facts here).

In 1843, a year after Selby (1842) noted what Matthew had written abut some trees doing well outside their natural habitat, Joseph Hooker landed on Ascension Island (see here and here) and arranged for an abundance of different species of tree to be planted there.

Selby wrote that he could not understand how it could be so that Matthew said trees could do better when grown outside their natural habitat. See Prideaux John Selby, A History of British Forest-Trees: Indigenous and Introduced, Van Voorst, London 1842. In this way, whether he really could understand it (but pretended otherwise to appease the powerful church) or not, Selby drew attention to Matthew's heresy. Later it was picked up upon as no more than an important fact for economic botany and cited prominently by William Hooker's (William being Joseph Hooker's father and also a friend of the Darwin and his wife) correspondent William Jameson in 1853 (facts here).

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:

"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."

Darwin and his cronies capitalized upon the opportunistic fact Matthew had been earlier silenced in the first half of the 19th century when the church was still in its ascendancy to steal his ideas. Indeed, while Matthew mocked the church and priests, in many editions of the Origin of Species Darwin kept the notion of "The Creator" in as a supernatural deity that created evolution by natural selection.