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 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.