😂 Is Amazon the beast? Is it Sutton? Or is it Darwin? Or Matthew? Or is it Wallace? In the name of God who the Hell is the Beast? Buy the book and read the shocking "revelations" in it to find out. Is this the "end of days" for Charles Darwin? 😈💀
Buy this bombshell book on Amazon for the price of the "mark of the beast" and exorcise - or else exercise, your demons now.
Someone using George Beccaloni's pseudonym Megaloblatta on February 16 2022 entered a link to typical Darwin fact hating superfan nonsense on the Wikipedia page for Patrick Matthew (relevant Wikipedia history page archived here.)
Beccaloni (claims to be employed by the "Darwin Trust") that appears to be true but he also pretends he is an objective scholar on the question of Matthew and Darwin. However, verifiable empirical evidence proves he is the opposite.
Facts about George Beccaloni and Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's theory
Firstly before commenting on my research into the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace George Becalloni dismissed it as untrue on a Richard Dawkins fans website and was caught in the act by Bob Butler my then publisher and CEO of Thinker Media. There, caught red handed Beccaloni was confronted by Butler and so was forced to admit he was commenting negatively on an academic book he had not even read. Therefore, anything Beccaloni writes about my research after that serious academic irregularity is worse than just tainted by his proven completely biased and desperate unprofessionally childish fact denial behaviour. It is contaminated by Beccaloni's proven prejudiced pseudoscientific thinking.
The 2022 post "Science Fraud" Darwinite fight-back against the facts is likely to ramp up over the coming months. Already George Beccaloni an employee of The Darwin Trust, no less, is getting published links on the Wikipedia page of Patrick Matthew to his ludicrous blog site. Wikipedia is not supposed to link to blog sites, under its own rules. But the Darwin horde is running the Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin pages on Wikipedia, and one of them is proven by his own hand to be not only dishonest but employed by the Darwin Trust!
Megaloblatta publishing on Wikipedia on Beccaloni's recent published activity on to a blog post written by Beccaloni on his own site here
George Beccaloni caught red-handed dishonestly pretending - like any other desperate and panicking pseudoscientific fanatic does - to know the factual content of a book he had not even read here.
Beccaloni's subsequent blog on the topic he clearly proved himself untrustworthy to review. Here.
Why is this being added to Wikipedia today? Is it because Darwin superfans like Beccaloni, the world over, are in a fact denial panic about my new history of science book "Science Fraud" and the mass of press coverage it is receiving?
I geck them with empirical facts. They hate that, these fanatical members of the Darwinite Zombie Horde.
This page is archived for researchers, journalists and anyone else investigating the dishonesty at the core of the so-called "Darwin Industry" and its activities in publishing to promote falsehoods, mischievous misrepresentations of scholarly research and fact-denial censorship https://archive.is/QHr9H
Full conversation with Dr. Mike Sutton: https://t.co/XMc8ZwWNkP @CurtisPress_ @brandnewtube 25% off for our viewers. pic.twitter.com/ipa67upYEo
— Sonia Poulton (@SoniaPoulton) February 16, 2022
. .Both. Here is the English version. https://t.co/nBvSGRuJ0s pic.twitter.com/hUA6DETTdy
— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) February 7, 2022
In the week leading up to Darwin Day 2022 Empirical research data proves once and for all that the genie is out of the bottle on Darwin's plagiarism, lies and glory thieving science fraud.
1. The English Mail on Sunday: Here . Archived Here
2. The Scottish Mail on Sunday
.
Just a few bombshell findings from the brand new #Curtis science book (Curtis Press) that blow to pieces the greatest myth and science fraud in the history of our planet! Credulous #DarwinDay organisers need their own #OperationLyingDog now @RichardDawkins @rdfrs @C_MAlexander pic.twitter.com/fl3dJt1VLD
— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) February 6, 2022
3. Sputnick News. Archived HERE
4. Scottish Daily Express
.Headline news too right to story inside on #Science Fraud in the #Darwin Industry https://t.co/ku34b2bJz7 pic.twitter.com/ZA6AL5uKG7
— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) February 7, 2022
1. Is it true that Darwin and/or Wallace originated the full theory of macroevolution by natural selection?
Answer = No! It's a myth because Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, and many other top experts on evolution (such as Matthew himself, de Beer, Mayr and Dawkins) all agreed Matthew (1831) was first into print, decades before Darwin or Wallace with the full theory in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.
2. Is it true that Matthew must have failed to influence Darwin and/or Wallace with his theory because no naturalists / no single person had read Matthew's theory before he claimed his priority in a published letter of 1860?
Answer = No! It's a myth started as an empirical proven lie by Darwin in all editions of the Origin of Species from third edition onwards and parroted by the credulous and adoring scientific community ever since. In 1860 Matthew's published letter informed Darwin directly that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist and biologist Loudon, reviewed in various periodicals and newspapers and was read by an esteemed profesor who could not teach it nor write about it for fear of pillory punishment, it being heretical in the first half of the 19th century. Sutton's research originally and uniquely identifies 30+ people who read and then cited Matthew's 1831 book in published print before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original theory in it. This list includes Wallace's admitted greatest influencer, Robert Chambers (who met and corresponded with Darwin pre-1858) and the editor of Wallace's famous Sarawak paper - Selby. Loudon edited and published two of Blyth's most influential papers, read by Darwin, and Darwin admitted Blyth was his most prolific correspondent on the topic of species and varieties.
3. Is it true, what Darwin claimed in the Origin of Species and elsewhere, that Matthew was an obscure writer and that Matthew's theory was only briefly given in the scattered pages of an appendix to an entirely irrelevant book on the topic?
Answer = No! It's a myth. Again this myth was started as a published lie by Darwin. Firstly, if Matthew was an obscure writer then how is it that pre-1858 Matthew was cited in the Encyclopedia Britannica and and elsewhere in that publication his 1831 enjoyed a prominent 1/2 page block advert and why is it that it is newly proven that before 1858 Darwin held in his own hands at least five publications that cited Matthew's 1831 book. Darwin lied about Matthew's theory being limited to an appendix because his own letter to Lyell on that topic said it would be splitting hairs to admit the truth (he knew, because Matthew had shown him in his published letter of reply to Darwin) was otherwise. Moreover, trees and plants are at the core of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin was obsessed by trees and he notebook of books he read proves it.
4. Is it true that Darwin originated the term "process of natural selection"
Answer = Something in between. Big Data research does reveal he was apparently first into print with that term. But it is a four word shuffle of Matthew's 1831 original term of the very exact same meaning "natural process of selection". And Chambers (who cited Matthew's 1831 book before writing his own influential 1844 book on organic evolution) was apparently first to be second into print in 1859 with Matthew's original four word term.
5. Is it true that Darwin was the first to use artificial selection as an analogue of natural selection as an analogical explanation explain the process of natural selection?
Answer = No! It's a myth. Matthew was first to do that. He was then followed by Wallace who used it in his Sarawak paper. Darwin replicated Matthew's explanatory analogy in his private essay of 1844 and to open Chapter One in the Origin of Species. In that private essay Darwin even replicated Matthew's highly idiosyncratic analogy of difference between trees raised in nurseries versus trees growing wild in nature.
6. Is it true that Darwin was a remarkably honest man and genius orignal thinker?
Answer = No! It's a myth, proven by each and every one of the empirical fact led five answers to the questions above. Darwin (and Wallace too) was a replicator of a prior published theory and all paths of those who read and cited Matthew's book lead to Darwin and to Wallace and to their known and admitted influencers, friends and to their influencer's influencers. Darwin, with assistance from Wallace, and others,, facilitated and enabled by the bone-headed bias and credulity of the scientific community, committed the worlds greatest science fraud by plagiary and lies.
Get the facts: from Curtis Press Here. Use the code fraud2022 for a discount or else buy from Amazon here
.
.#FactvMyths (1) Darwin originated theory of natural selection = myth (2) No one read Matthew's prior published origination = myth (30+ cited it pre Darwin's replication) (3) Matthew never influenced Darwin = myth (Darwin's & Wallace's main influencers cited Matthew). pic.twitter.com/plyskg0CI8
— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) February 4, 2022
With no original ideas of his own, Darwin stole Patrick Matthew's theory and pretended it was his own. When Matthew caught him, Darwin told serial lies about the true originator and who had read his book who Darwin actually knew. The details of the World's greatest science fraud are all in the book Darwin now holds ultimate responsibility for bringing into print in the 21st century. Darwin clearly never "anticipated" BigData.
Available from Curtis Press: Here
Available on Amazon: Here
When I contacted Professor Brian Ford to let him know that my "Selby cited Matthew discovery" research had twice been plagiarised in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society it was me to who Brian responded with what he says in the above January 2022 video:
"If you’re in the public eye and you make an impression, people are going to steal your work. It's actually the ultimate compliment. If in science you haven't been plagiarised, it's because you haven't done anything decent. The minute you do, some miserable two-faced, dishonest bastard is going to come along and steal your work and claim it's his own."
Brian J. Ford 2022
