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

Friday 28 February 2020

Keep out of Google Rabbit Holes

You never know how long it will take you to get back out with the new facts that provide the answer to your question. It may take years! Ask yourself: Are you really ready for that?

br />

Thursday 27 February 2020

On Darwin and Matthew: What is the question?

So what is the scientific question here?

Was Samuel Butler Right about Charles Darwin Being a Dreadful Plagiarist?

Was Butler right? If you think he was, imagine what he would have written if he had known about the data on Darwin's science fraud that was originally unearthed by me in 2013/14 and published in expert peer reviewed journals (here and here) and in my book (here)

Monday 24 February 2020

The Darwin Industry Oil Tanker and Tugboat Analogy

There once was a stain upon the silence. 

Brian J Ford was Plagiarized and Darwin was a Plagiarist

The Royal Society has been facilitating the work of plagiarists yet again!


TickTockDarwin VIDEO 2020 02 23 17 13 44

Sunday 23 February 2020

Time has run out for Darwin and Wallace - TikTok- TicTock. Plagiary exposed between all the ticks and tocks of the past 160 years

Friday 21 February 2020

Samuel Butler Nails Charles Darwin's Sly Glory Thieving Plagiarism in the 19th Century

Samuel Butler's identification that Darwin in 1859 plagiarized Matthew's 1831 book is strangely absent from Wikipedia - the world's worst encyclopedia. Wikipedia paid, astroturfing (fake grass roots), Darwin worship cult editors have a habit of slyly deleting uncomfortable, yet independently verifiable, facts about Matthew to continue the Darwin supermyth. Wikipedia editors were caught out in an editor fraud trap doing just that HERE


'Mr Patrick Matthew epitomised their doctrine more tersely , perhaps, than was done by any other of the pre-Charles-Darwinian evolutionists.' 

What Butler failed to understand without the benefit of my BigData IDD method is that Matthew (1831) was first to coin the term 'natural process of selection' in published print and Darwin (1859) was later first to coin the exact yet slyly four-word-shuffled term 'process of natural selection'. Most importantly,  the IDD method also unearthed that Robert Chambers (anonymous author of the best selling Vestiges - see page 249 below), who cited Matthew's book decades before Darwin and Wallace had put so much as pen to private notebook on the subject of evolution, was apparently first to be second in print with Matthew's original term (see the facts newly unearthed in the historic publication record: Sutton 2014, 2015, 2016). Matthew's four word term was plagairised by Darwin because it is so essential to explain the theory of macroevolution by natural selection, it being (a) natural (b) a process and (c) selection by nature. For the same reason of requiring Matthew's essentially necessary components, Darwin and Wallace were also compelled to plagiarise his unique artificial versus natural slection explanatory analogy of differences. Darwin - in a private essay (Darwin 1844) which was later published, even plagiarized Matthew's highly idiosyncratic, arboricultural and foresters, artificial versus naturally selected trees explanatory analogy of differences to make the theory understandable (read that story here). 

Page 87 of Butler's 'Luck or Cunning'

Above we see Butler suggesting (as Darwin's biographer Clarke later did) that Darwin suffered from cryptoamnesia when he plagairised Matthew. (see a relevant blog post on this page of Butler's book Here)

On page 249 of his 1887 book 'Luck or Cunning', Samuel Butler quite rightly points out the historic habits of plagiarism among key writers in this particular field. Not only was Darwin a dreadful plagiarist, who passed the theory of others off as his own, but so did Matthew and those who came before both of them. 

The key point Butler failed to comprehend, however, is the fact that (as Sir Gavin de Beer, Ernst Mayr and Richard Dawkins all later showed) only Matthew was first in published print with the complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Butler also failed to realize precisely what Darwin and Wallace stole from him and the number of their prior-influencers, influencer's influencers, friends, and even Wallace's Sarawak paper editor - Selby - who prior read and cited Matthew's (1831) book and the orignal ideas in it (see Sutton 2016) before Darwin's' and Wallace's great science fraud by plagiary and lies.

Are the questions actually the answer to Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew and Dagg's sly and jealous plagiarism of me? 

1. Did Matthew's failure to cite his influencers allow Darwin and Wallace to neutralize their guilt in plagiarizing Matthew's book and lying about who they knew who prior read and cited it? 

2. Did the fact Matthew, the regional atheist Scottish Chartism leader, broke all the rules of the scientific community in his heretical mocking of "God" and Christian religion, inclusion of politics and news in his book allow Darwin and Wallace the guilt neutralization excuse not to cite him as their influencer?

3. Does the fact I mock credulous Darwinite cultists, who refuse to face the newly unearthed facts on Darwin's lies about Matthew and plagiarisng science fraud, political leaders, religious folk, and Richard Dawkins for not admitting that he never coined the term selfish gene give Dagg and the dreadful Linnean journal editors the guilt neutralization excuse they need to jealously and slyly plagiarize my Selby cited Matthew original discovery? (see the facts on Dagg the Plagiarist Here). See the facts on Dawkins and the Selfish gene supermyth here and here.

Blasphemy against Darwin the Plagiarist God of Biologists versus REAL Hate Crime

"Thou shalt not prove our lord and master Charles Darwin a serial lying plagiarist science fraudster."

. It appears that some leading Biologists are completely useless at criminology and the law. No wonder they don't even know what plagiarism and science fraud is

. .

Monday 17 February 2020

Dagg the Plagiarist Cyberstalker Whack Job

See more fully evidenced and forensically archived examples of what Dagg the Plagiarist and his fellow Darwinite harassment "lads" are up to  Here

All the details of Dagg's disgraceful jealous and sly plagiarism of my originally unearthed (Sutton 2014) bombshell Selby cited Matthew in 1842 discovery (and bragging about that on Wilkipeda - the worlds worst encyclopedia) in a ludicrous - newly unearthed facts avoidance - paper in the Linnean Journal can be found here.




 A number of top scientists now agree that the new data I unearthed in 2013 and published in peer reviewed science journals (here and here) and my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret proves Darwin and Wallace most likely plagiarized Patrick Matthew's prior published complete and detailed theory of macroevolution by natural slection: Check just some of them out HERE

Sunday 16 February 2020

Mike Sutton's Biography and Bragging Rights (BBR)

Tuesday, 11 February 2020

Biography and Bragging Rights (BBR) Incorporating my CV

Dr Mike Sutton deemed, in 2022, to be the 31st  thousand most influential person in the history of the world of all time (Here)

Click HERE to read my bombshell💣💥 BBR

Patrick Matthew and Extinction Events

Patrick Matthew was right on punctuated extinction events and Darwin wrong.

Saturday 15 February 2020

The Eternal shame of the Linnean Society, the Plagiarists Darwin & Wallace and Dagg the Plagiarist

Once published, plagiarism can be identified and proven in the publication record, just as fossils are real when found in the geological record. Facts are facts.

. .

Wednesday 12 February 2020

How to Prevent Knowledge Contamination

On contamination by painful knowledge 

Tuesday 11 February 2020

Google found the Original Google when I Googled Google with Google

How Google Once Found the Original Google with the Big Data IDD Method

Fame at Last: Google Finds the Original Google after 110 Years in a Library 'Wilderness'

Feb. 23, 2013 4:47 am

Postscript Feb 11 2020

This blog post was first published on the Best Thinking website on Feb 23 2013. That website no longer exists but the original post is archived HERE with all the images.

The Big Data IDD method used to find the orignal Google no longer works. Indeed Google's functionality has been so reduced that unless I had found the original Google when I did then it may have remained buried for many more years. You can read about some other discoveries made with the IDD method in a peer reviewed paper HERE, which explains how the method was used and can still be employed today albeit with limited capacity since the search engine is now impeded by Google..

Original article begins:
Readers of my recent mythbusting work  will know that I have developed a research technique called internet dating (so called because it’s remotely like carbon dating the veracity or the published origins of words and phrases). Internet dating as a research technique relies upon efficiently and systematically sifting and synthesizing knowledge inside books, journals, newspapers and other documents scanned by Google. My own recent use of Google to bust a number of etymological fallacies about who said what first and where certain words and phrases originated quite neatly brings me to the theme of this particular peer-to-peer articlette. Namely: what is the origin of the word Google?
Latest Internet Dating News
Last week, I ‘discovered’ the earliest (to date) known publication of the word google by using Google to search on the word google. And I can attest that it’s earliest published use appears as the title of a book. The reference for that book is Hildebrand, A. F. (1903) A Voice from the Wilderness: Meditations of a Google. San Francisco, California    (hereafter The Original Google). In its first chapter, Hildebrand reveals that he also wrote and self published an earlier book, in 1901, entitled The Conglomerate de Omniferia; Or, The Meditations of a Hobo under the pseudonym Aristotle Flavius Hillogrates.   
It’s something of a duel-mystery why only a single copy of each book appears to be in existence and why they have survived at all. Both were self-published, which leads me to wonder whether perhaps the reason for the rarity of Hildebrand’s work and its survival is that it was perhaps surreptitiously inserted onto several library shelves by the author himself and that the two surviving copies of his unremarked literature survived library fires, librarian purges, merges, thefts and audits long enough to have been scanned as part of Google’s remarkable Library Project   . Perversely, one reason for their library survival may be that the books have remained in excellent condition because so few people have read them.
This week, I used the international inter-library loan system to obtain a photocopy of the front cover, title page and the first chapter. You can see them in the image below. (Please note: If you have trouble making out the words on the images, just click on the image and it will enlarge).

Images of The Original Google Book 1903 Taken by Mike Sutton in 2013

I’ve read chapter 1 and I have to say its quasi-philosophical, religious and literary ramblings are not quite to my taste. Experts of English literature might, however find it somewhat amusingly Joycean   . What does make the inter-library loan expense amazingly worthwhile is the author’s 110 year old explanation for why he refers to himself as a google. (Hildebrand 1903, p. 7):

“You will probably wonder why I style myself a “google.” Well, you know I had the effrontery to style myself a “hobo” in the “Conglomerate de Omniferia” That was a serious offense-one that it would hardly be safe to repeat. No, there is no class in creation with whom I may safely identify myself. But I need some convenient term whereby to refer to myself, and what more appropriate term could I get than “google”? That’s why I call myself a “google.”

OK, so we now know that the word google is at least 110 years old in 2013.
Next, I examine the official story of the origin of the word google prior to my Google facilitated 'discovery' of the Original Google
Unfortunately the free Mirriam-Webster Dictionary    is simply not up-to-snuff with knowing anything at all veracious about Google's curious origins:

“Origin of GOOGLE

Google, trademark for a search engine

First Known Use: 2001”

Brewer's (2012, p. 585) does a far better job of telling us about the origins of the word google:

‘A US company formed in 1998 that runs the Google internet search engine. Google resulted from a research project in 1996 by two postgraduate students from Stanford University. Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Such is its dominance over the other search engines that ‘to Google’ has become a generic verb meaning to search for something or someone on the internet. The story goes that Page and Brin thought they were naming their company after Googol, the vast number 1 followed by 100 zeroes, but got the spelling wrong. Similarly, the company's headquarters in California is called the Googleplex.’.

The company’s unofficial slogan is ‘Don’t be evil’; however, its detractors have expressed concerns regarding its policies on copyright, censorship and the privacy of personal information.’

Chambers (2012, p. 442), which, incidentally, is owned by the same publishing house as Brewer’s has this to say on the subject of the words googol and Google:

[googol ] ‘…the number 1 followed by 100 zeroes…1940 in Kasmer and Newman’s Mathematics and the Imagination, coined (possibly as a word from children’s vocabulary, perhaps with some influence of the comic strip character Barney Google) by the nine year old nephew of the American mathematician Edward Kasmer when the child was asked to name such a large number.’
For his own part in this story here is what Edward Kasner (1938, p. 13) has to say about what a googol is, what a googolplex is and where he got the words from:
"You may want to know where I got the name “googol.” I was walking in the woods with my nephew one day, and I asked the boy to think up any name for the number; any amusing name that entered his head. He suggested “googol.” At the same time, he gave me a name for a still larger number: “googolplex.” A googolplex is much larger than a googol, but it is still finite. Put down one, and then follow it with zeros until you get tired. No, that is a joke, because the googolplex is a specific number. A googolplex is one with so many zeros that the number of zeros is a googol: one with a googol of zeros. A googolplex is certainly bigger than a googol. Is it googol times a googol? No. A googol times a googol would be one with two hundred zeros. I want one with a googol of zeros. You would not have enough room to write them even if they went to the furthest star, putting down zeros all the way there and making a tour of all the nebulae. A googolplex is really an enormous thing.”
Next, let us see what the Google company itself has to say   , and you’ll notice that they make no mention of that alleged embarrassing spelling error mentioned by the mighty Chambers dictionary:

'Our history in depth

[In] 1997: ‘ Larry and Sergey decide that the BackRub search engine needs a new name. After some brainstorming, they go with Google—a play on the word “googol,” a mathematical term for the number represented by the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros. The use of the term reflects their mission to organize a seemingly infinite amount of information on the web.’

Barney Google US postage stamp

Presumably then we have to believe that the search engine wizards Larry Page and Sergey Brin and the whole of their team, and their PR copyrighters, friends and family oddly never saw a single Barney Google US postage stamp in 1995, which was just two years earlier (see timeline below).
Whatever the actual facts of the case about the Google search engine creator's explanation - and those of Stanford university eyewitness David Koller   , for why they named their superb product Google, of particular interest to etymologists should surely be that contrary to dysological    claptrap published on line (e.g. here   ) it has nothing to do with googly (a cricket term). Instead, it is etymologically related to Barney Google’s previously earliest known published namesake who is a monster that lives at the bottom of a garden pond in an illustrated 1913 children’s book. Speculatively, that fictional creation may possibly have influenced the naming of Barney Google in 1919. Chambers (2012) go on to speculate that Barney Google's name may have then influenced the naming of the number googol by maths wizards Kasner and Newman in 1940, via Kasner's nine year old nephew. Finally, that mathematical word googol is then - according to the story published online by the Google search engine company - meant to have influenced the 1997 naming of their search engine Google. Finally, thanks to an obscure book found by that search engine (reported for the first time in this articlette) we must now add Hildebrand's original 1903 google into the story.
Perhaps the simplest way to show the origins of Google is to use a clickable timeline of currently known provenance of the word, as I do below:

1. 1903 - A. F. Hildebrand pens and self publishes: A Voice from the Wilderness: Meditations of a google.   

2. 1913 - Vincent Cartwright Vickers - penname V.C.V - authors and has published: The Google Book,    which is an illustrated children's story book about a monster named the Google who shares Googleland with a number of exotic bird-like creatures.

3. 1919 - Billy DeBeck gives birth to the comic strip cartoon: Barney Google, which ran throughout the 1920’s and was bootlegged, at times pornographically, by Tijuana comics    throughout the 1930’s   

4. 1938 - Kasner and Newman coin the word Googol    – after gettng it from Kasner's nine year old nephew (Kasner 1938).    There is no veracious published evidence (to date at least) regarding where Kasner's nephew actually got the phrase from. Some publications (e.g. Chambers 2012) assert that he may have chosen the name because he was influenced by the Barney Google comic strip.

5. 1995 The US Postal Service celebrates Barney Google    with a postage stamp.

6. 1997 Page and Brin rename their BackRub search engine Google just two years after Barney Google postage stamps are in use in the USA. And yet the Google official story is that Google's founders chose the name Google with no reference to the earlier use of that word but as a deliberate rehash of Kasmer and Newman’s word googol.

Conclusions and the way forward
Several things interest me about this on-going story. Firstly, as an incurable romantic, I’d like to know a little more about the obscure Hildebrand. I think there is a marvelous opportunity here for a little detective work that should perhaps begin by looking for clues in his two books. The fact that he put his thoughts into self-published books suggests that he wanted to influence mankind beyond the grave. I suspect he could have had no idea that it would be the weird title of his book that would bring him to the attention of the world via a once unimaginable technology sharing the same name. But what particularly interests me is:
(1) Whether, due to 21 century knowledge flux (Sutton 2013), Google’s Library project will help us to trace its etymological roots further back than my 1903 Google facilitated ‘discovery’?
(2) Whether we could ever satisfactorily explain the choice of the word by Hildebrand – is it merely because he thought such a childish nonsense word had never before been coined?
(3) While it might be possible, can we ever know for sure – or is it plausible to suggest - that either Vincent Cartwright Vickers and/or Billy DeBeck read Hildebrand's Original Google of 1903?
(4) Whether anyone at Google. or any of Page and Brin's friends or relatives ever used the US Postal Service in 1995?
The Hildebrand Hypothesis
I would like to here propose the Hildebrand Hypothesis, which is that:
The unremarked author Hildebrand is remarkable as the Original Google 110 years after self-publishing his book because its subtitle acted causally upon the naming of Page and Brin's search engine.
To dis-confirm the hypothesis it will be necessary to establish that on the balance of reasonable probabilities that Hildebrand's Original Google did not influence anyone who influenced Page and Brin's choice of the word for their search engine.
The hypothesis would be confirmed by the discovery of new evidence that either Vickers, DeBeck, Kasner, Newman or Kasner's nephew or Page and Brin were directly influenced in the naming of their creations by Hildebrand's Original Google.
Finally, let's end on a little further fun
If not the gurgling of an infant from personal observation or perhaps Eugene Field's famous 19th century verse Googly-Goo   , what else might have influenced Hildebrand to call himself a google? How about the term goggle    or better still googleeyed?

Googleeyed. Is this the word that influenced Hildebrand the google originator?
Furthermore, that mathematical word googol amusingly appears to appear in print in 1894, in a book entitled: Some Remarks on the Kalyani inscriptions by Toʻ Cinʻ Khui, Bombay : Education Society's Steam Press,   

Google from the 1913 children's story book by Vickers

Postscript 14th April 2013At the time of writing, Wikipedia currently has only traced the origin of the name Google back to the Barney Google cartoons of 1919. However, Since Wikipedia is currently unethically engaged in deliberately and systematically plagiarizing the unique results of my original myth-busting work published solely here on Best Thinking, and then deliberately refusing to cite me as the originator of this brand new information that is busting decades old pervasive myths and fallacies and poor research, we should expect Wikipedia to edit-out its current text and insert all the results, uniquely discovered by my research, published here in this article, and yet pretend that Wikipedia discovered this new information in order to seek to improve its dreadful reputation for disseminating unreliable information. You can see what they are up to here, and read my arguments for why this is a socially toxic practice. Boycott Wikipedia's toxic plagiarism !

How to cite this peer-to-peer research briefing article.

Sutton, M. (2013) Google Finds the Original Google. Criminology: The Blog of Mike Sutton. BestThinking.Com
Brewers (2012) Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (19th edition) . London. Chambers Harrap Publishers.
Chambers (2012) Dictionary of Etymology: The origins and development of over 30,000 English words. London. Chambers Harrap Publishers.
Kasner, E. (1938) New Names in Mathematics. Scrpta Mathematica. Volume 5.pp. 5-14.
AllAuthor's FavoritesThinker Recommended
Tony Wolk
December 18, 2013 at 5:09 pm
Professor of English, Portland State University
My uncle, Samuel V. Sanger, born 1899 in Pittsburgh, studied cartooning with Billy DeBeck, whether in person or via the correspondence course I don't know--probably the latter. A few years ago, forgetting the name of the artist behind "Barney Google" I unthinkingly googled "Google." What google immediately sent me to was Billy DeBeck. I thought, how weird that I had googled "google."
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
December 20, 2013 at 3:19 am
Hi Tony
Many thanks - I do hope you have some of your Uncle's cartoons in your family archive.
One interesting thing about Google is that it is highly protective of its name - despite the fact that they never coined the word they would sue anyone for breach of trademark for publishing a book entitled, for example, How to Google - if that book was about their search engine.
Check out these cases:

Monday 10 February 2020

Happy Darwin Dogs Breakfast Day

To date, most historians of science and scientists have credulously swallowed the toff, King Charles Darwin's, serial lies about the discovery of evolution by natural selection and instilled that palpable nonsense into to minds of the general population. But in 2020 we can see a paradigm change taking place. Proper scientists and other veracious scholars are now citing the independently verifiable facts of how Darwin's and Wallace's influencers, friends, Wallace's Sarawak paper editor, and their influencer's influencers red and cited Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published theory years before Darwin and Wallace even put pen to paper on the topic in a private notebook.

This is what a paradigm change looks like.

Over the past few years, I can’t think of a single conversation that we have had that both Darwin and Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret (“Nullius in verba” is Latin for “on the word of no one” or “take nobody’s word for it”) and as a result of it has experienced a torrent of verbal abuse on social media. So why has Dr. Sutton been the victim of such abuse? In a nutshell, Sutton has asserted that Darwin is a fraud and that his main thesis on natural selection was stolen from Matthew without any acknowledgement. Furthermore, using a new methodological technique that Sutton developed, he believes Darwin lied about his knowledge of Matthew’s work.
Professor Dr Mark Griffiths
Matthew’s didn’t get talked about at some point. In 2014, Sutton published his book
Over the last few years, I have read over a dozen of Sutton’s online articles about Darwin and Matthew, and I was also one of the first people to read Sutton’s book before it was published. Sutton’s work is meticulous, rigorous, and fully referenced. Most of his critics have never read (or simply don’t want to read) his book. Instead they appear to take potshots at his research and reputation without bothering to read the original source.
The first thing to note concerns Sutton’s methodology. His method – sometimes referred to ‘internet dating’ in his articles (but nothing to with people meeting up online, so apologies if the use of the words ‘internet dating’ in my article lured you to read this blog on false pretences) but called ‘Internet Date-Detection’ (ID) in his book – relies on the 30+ million books and documents that the Google Books Library Project has digitized and dating back centuries. Using the ID method, Sutton has used a search engine to track down obscure books, articles, and letters (and short phrases within these documents) to work out who published what and when with pinpoint accuracy. (For instance, back in the 1990s, I thought I had first coined the word ‘screenager’ but Sutton used his ID method and proved that others before me had used the word in print prior to my own articles).

Page 20 of Fraud and Misconduct in Research:
  ‘Plagiarism may present a particularly difficult challenge because sometimes establishing
deliberate plagiarism is not simple. Issues concerning the nature of giving proper credit, being influenced by ideas vs. “stealing” ideas, simultaneous discoveries, or interpretations may create a gray area where the intent to plagiarize is difficult to establish. While today there is computer text-matching software that can—under certain conditions— identify similar texts and thus raise the suspicion of plagiarism, human examination is always required to actually decide if plagiarism is involved (see also Biagioli 2012). If quotation marks or proper references are provided then matching texts may not necessarily constitute a case of plagiarism. Nevertheless, with so much of the scientific research floating in cyberspace, such text-matching programs can have an important role in identifying plagiarism. Yet even with this technology, establishing bona fide cases of plagiarism may not be simple. One recent illustration involves Mike Sutton, a criminologist, who relied on text-mining software to claim in an e-book he published in 2014 (Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret) that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace plagiarized the theory of natural selection from Scottish naturalist Patrick Matthew. This claim—as could be expected—created much turmoil and remained controversial.3’ Page 174 ‘French astronomer Pierre-Simon, Marquis de Laplace was suspected of stealing ideas “outrageously, right and left, whenever he could,” and German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz was also suspected of similar acts. Italian physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei was This document contains independently verifiable evidence from the publication record that the original findings in Mike Sutton’s (2014) book ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ have been interpreted as being so significant the author’s write that Darwin’s name may now have to be added to a list of plagiarising science fraudsters. 2 said to “shamelessly” have stolen ideas from German astronomer Johannes Kepler and others. Likewise, Graeco-Egyptian mathematician and astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, as well as Dalton, Lavoisier, and Pascal, may have all been involved, and possibly guilty of, some form of deceit in their work. 80’ ‘George Becker (1984) accused Merton of misinterpreting and ignoring sources (to the point of faulty use of evidence), thus calling into question Merton’s conclusions regarding the relationship between German pietism and the rise of science over the past four centuries.81’ Page 217 Notes to Chapter 2 ‘3. For a concise review see Page 232 notes to pages 172–175 ‘80. Given Sutton’s previously mentioned work, Darwin may have to be added to this list'.

Dr. Mike Sutton, a criminologist, has used a battery of Internet search tools to demolish the main Darwinian argument, which would be either to say that Darwin did not have access to Matthew's work, which is denied by Darwin himself in the paragraph above, or that Matthew had presented his ideas in a very indirect way and with very little diffusion, as Darwin literally says:

"Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the "Gardeners' Chronicle", on April 7, 1860."

In any case, Darwin read Matthew and took his ideas from a book that, certainly was of a different matter, but not less important, since in 1831 naval wood and arboriculture were key issues for the country's economy, and therefore the book had been widely distributed. Matthew predates Darwin but his characteristics (Scottish, sympathetic to the Chartist revolts in London) did not allow him to fit the profile of the new liberal model.'

See other scholarly affirmations of the facts over credulous propaganda beliefs HERE

Following the publication of my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secretthe history of scientific discovery now has a number of original bombshell new discoveries that rewrite the history of discovery of natural selection:

1. Darwinites can no longer claim - as they did before my book was published - that Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of macroevolution by natural selection was unread by any naturalists before Darwin and Wallace replicated it. Because I originally discovered seven who cited the book that contains it in the pre-1859 literature. And Darwin and Wallace, and their influencers, knew four of them well. Hence it is most significantly newly discovered and 100 per cent proven that routes of potential knowledge contamination from Matthew's (1831) book into the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace most certainly do exist. The date evidence of this newly discovered publication record now debunks the old Darwinite claim that Darwin's notebooks and private essays prove he independently discovered natural selection.

2. Darwinites can no longer claim that Darwin was an honest scientist. Because it is proven that from 1860 onward, following information provided by Matthew himself. that he lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book and the original ideas in it by other naturalists. Darwin told at least seven other lies in order to convince the scientific community that he independently conceived the idea of natural selection.

3. It can no longer be claimed that Wallace was an honest scientist. Because I originally discovered that he edited one of his letters in his autobiography to conceal his claim that he thought he was owed money and favours by Darwin and his associates for cooperating with the presentation of his replication of the concept of natural selection alongside that of Darwin in 1858.

4. Darwinites can no longer claim that Matthew's conception of natural selection was contained solely in the appendix of his book. I reveal exactly how much is actually contained in the main body of his book and that Darwin lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas were solely contained in the appendix. Because Matthew referred him to just some of the relevant text from the main body of his book and Darwin wrote to admit the fact to Joseph Hooker.

5. Darwinites should no longer claim that Matthew never understood what he conceived on the grounds that he never shouted about it from the rooftops. Because I show how the first half of the 19th century was governed by laws and conventions that forbade anyone from doing such a thing, and others from discussing it. Moreover, Matthew told Darwin as much when he explained his book was banned from Perth public library in Scotland and that an eminent naturalist could not teach Matthew's breakthrough for fear of pillory punishment. .

Dare you deal with Darwin's & Wallace's plagiarizing science fraud & serial lies? Plus some of the supporting nonsense from top scientists?

All facts. Not theory. Not opinion. Pure independently verifiable facts found in the historic publication record: 

View image on Twitter

See Supermythbuster's other Tweets
Click here to see the timeline of the World's greatest science fraud.

Thursday, 23 January 2020

The Nullius in Verba bombshell paradigm change

The Darwinian worship cult's desire to wage war with veracity, verifiable facts, ethics, accurate history, truth and their allies was finally brought to an end by a research weapon of awesome power of supermyth destruction.

The IDD research method dropped Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret on the fanatical fantasy land of Darwin Word and followed it up with a second bombshell named On Knowledge Contamination.  

Science historian Ton Munnich presents a lecture on Darwin's serial lying & plagiarizing science fraud of Patrick Matthew's theory


See Dr Mike Sutton's other Tweets

The Darwin and Wallace Paradigm Change in Science

As more and more scientists and others accept the veracity of the newly unearthed, independently verifiable and expert peer reviewed facts, we see the tipping point emerging for the paradigm change that accepts the fact that Darwin and Wallace orchestrated the world's greatest science fraud by way of serial lying and glory thieving plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's prior published complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection.