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
Showing posts with label Brian J Ford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brian J Ford. Show all posts

Thursday, 15 October 2020

Brian J. Ford on Plagiarism in Science and Holds up a copy of Nullius in Verba!

Top scientist Brian J Ford holds up my book "Nullius" as solid scientific evidence evidence of Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew  






.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, 6 October 2020

Brian J. Ford is Inducted to the Patrick Matthew Website

 Brian J. Ford is on PatrickMattew.com



Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Brian J. Ford on Charles Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Prior Published Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection


In his  famous book Nonscience, first published in 1971, top scientists Brian J Ford wrote on Charles Darwin's misappropriation of the theory of evolution by natural selection by opportunistically seizing the prime moment when society was finally ready to accept such heresy, that had been prior published by others but stamped in the gutter by Christian naturalists. Robert Chambers (who new Big Data research I conducted - e.g. see Sutton 2015 - revealed had earlier twice cited Patrick Matthew's publications containing Matthew's original bombshell breakthrough in the area) had cleared the way with his best seller The Vestiges of Creation - and both Darwin and Wallace admitted that Chambers influenced them. Wallace went further and wrote that Chambers was his greatest influencer. 

'Charles Darwin... writing his thesis at exactly its most fashionistic time , when everyone was discussing it. He wasn't the first to propose his particular interpretation, of course, but his use of fashionism and the clothing of the argument in detaied observations of animals in general made the whole project an obvious winner.'

                                Ford, B. J. (1971. p 142) Nonscience, Wolfe Publishing Ltd. London

Ford built upon this critical observation in 2011 in an article entitled Darwin: The Microscopist Who Didn't Discover Evolution. By Brian J. Ford. The Microscope. 59:3, 2011. pp 129-137.

In that article Ford wrote:

'Darwin neither discovered evolution as a general concept, nor did he discover evolution by natural selection.' 

And:

 'Darwin is set on a pedestal as though he were Einstein or Copernicus, and anyone doubting adherence to this conventional view risks ostracism. In science, as much as in religion, we can find extreme views that fly in the face of realities.' Click here to read that article.


In October 2020 Ford's Nonscience was updated and re-published by the science publisher Curtis Press

In this new edition Ford (2020, pp 72-73) goes much further to reveal that Darwin plagiarised the entire theory from Patrick Matthew's (1831) book:

'Some 27 years earlier, the theory had been published by someone Darwin didn't know - Patrick Matthew. ... Darwin omitted mention of these earlier investigators when he wrote his book. ...Matthew on reading Darwin's words was was horrified and he complained. Charles Darwin wrote back: "I freely acknowledge that Mr Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered on the origin of species under the name of natural selection. If another edition of my book is called for, I will insert a notice to the foregoing effect." He didn't. Three editions of Darwin's book came out before Matthew's name crept in - and that is the secret of Darwin's success. His theory wasn't original, but he didn't say so. The earlier publications had caused growing interest in evolution, so that - by the time the Origin of Species appeared - everybody wanted to know more. That's the rule. Fashionism is what matters. Not originality. And certainly not integrity.'

In 2020 Ford purchase, read, and then reviewed Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret on Amazon. Here.


Meanwhile the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society - the very same journal that by descent published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarising articles in 1858 is involved in publishing a series of articles by Weale (who wrote malicious poison pen correspondence to the VC of Nottingham Trent University to try to get me fired for defending my original research. His malicious and jealous complaint was formally investigated and rejected for being completely silly, and weirdly disingenuous) Dagg (who like Weale has plagiarised my research in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society) and Derry, (a malicious and obscene cyberstalking harasser who regularly writes to Nottingham Trent University whose legal department has him under notice of prosecution for harassment) to try to argue - ludicrously - that Darwin did not plagiarise Matthew because each had a different theory. Why - besides the obvious malicious intentions of these three (more on their malicious behaviour here) - is that desperate Linnean Society project ludicrous? The answer is simply because their three papers amount to little more than fact denial desperate codswallop. The latest of their instalments was published in 2020 in the same journal, by descent, that, back in 1858, published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew's original theory. This is a ludicrous attempt to divert attention from the verfiable facts of the newly discovered data (e.g. Sutton 2015) that proves Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's (1831) prior published theory. Darwin worshipping malicious idiots Derry and Dagg are arguing - in a ludicrous attempt to divert attention from Darwin's newly proven plagiarism of Matthew -  Matthew's theory was not essentially the same as Darwin's even though both Darwin (1860) and Wallace (1879) said it was. As though Dagg the plagiarist of my research and Derry the obscene harasser and cyberstalker (facts of their disgraceful behaviour are here) know more than Darwin and Wallace did about their own (replicating) work. The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is now  total joke. Birds of a feather certainty flock together. The facts of Dagg's plagiarism of my research in that journal are here.

Darwin in his (1860) reply to Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle fully admitted he had replicated Matthew's prior published theory: "" I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection." Darwin (1861) did the same from the third edition onwards of his book the Origin of Species: Darwin replicated and admitted it when he wrote: "In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that presently to be alluded to propounded by Mr Wallace and myself in the Linnean Journal and as that enlarged on in the present volume." Moreover, as if that is not enough to show what utter tripe the Dagg and Derry Show is Darwin himself, being one of the world's three foremost experts of all time on natural selection (those three being Matthew. Darwin and Wallace), acknowledged this in a letter to Patrick Matthew dated 13th June 1862: “I presume I have the pleasure of addressing the author of the work on Naval Architecture and the first enunciator of the theory of Natural Selection.”

For his part, Wallace in (1879a) fully admitted that he knew Matthew got there first with the entire thing he and  "To my mind your quotations from Mr. Patrick Matthew are the most remarkable things in your whole book, because he appears to have completely anticipated the main ideas both of the "Origin of Species" & of "Life & Habitat".Aso in 1879b Wallace wrote: "Mr. Matthew apprehended the theory of natural selection, as well as the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, many years in advance of Mr. Darwin and myself, and in giving almost the whole of what Mr. Matthew has written on the subject Mr. Butler will have helped to call  attention to one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century."

In their desperate fact denial smog-article Dagg and Derry  - arguably - misrepresent what I wrote on page 6 of my book. They write:  

"Sutton (2017: 6) asserted that Matthew’s theory only differed from Darwin’s and Wallace’s in the occurrence of global catastrophes"

What I actually write on page 6 of my 2017 book is (bold and underlined emphasis added here): 

"Matthew, quite correctly allowed for geological and meteorological catastrophes in his model, but Darwin and Wallace never. Matthew's original theory of macroevolution by natural selection is, in every other relevant way, apart from that great superiority, virtually the same as Darwin's and Wallace's later versions."

And relevant here - in the context of my entire book and even the rest of the content of that page - is its relevance to the evidence that Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's 1831 original theory, his original terminology and his original and highly idiosyncratic explanatory analogies.


The image of page 6 of my book below sets the record straight on what Dagg and Derry are up to in misrepresenting my research in their desperate 2020 article





Reader: beware of desperate fact denial malicious smog-apes like Dagg the Plagiarist and Derry the Obscene Harasser who also share the nasty pseudo scholarly habit of representing their own falsehoods by misrepresentation of precise facts written by others and the context in which they are published.

I suppose the disgraced Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its shameful publisher Oxford University Press will have no problem at all with the fact Derry provides what certainly appears to me to be a fake personal address for his serial dishonest self on the ludicrously childish Dagg & Derry Show 2020 article as 30 Yeaman Place Edinburgh, EH11, which is actually the very precise address of a pub (archived for evidence here) for which Derry wrote a scathing review in 2020. Here and archived here? In his scathing reviews of the pub at 30 Yeaman Place, Derry calls it his local since 2012. Really? How local? So local he lives in or above it? 





Typical of Derry, he posts his savaging reviews of "The Golden Rule" - his supposed address - all over the Internet e.g. also on Trip Adviser (archived here for evidence).




With extreme irony, when it comes to the topic of plagiarism and lies, Darwin said he had a "Golden Rule". Read about that fact here.
.
#



.  




.
.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Fake news is one thing, what about fake history?

 What kind of society, what kind of organisation, what kind of person, wants a fake history of science? 



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Tuesday, 18 August 2020

An Open Letter to the Royal Society and Linnean Society on Priority in Science and the Arago Rule

 

Do You Really Believe You Can Magically Change the Rules on Scientific Priority?

Charles Darwin (FRS), Alfred Russel Wallace, and Richard Dawkins (FRS) and many others, deceased or alive, amongst whom I include myself, such as Samuel Butler, Raphael Zon, James Dempster, Brian J. Ford, Michael Rampino, Milton Wainwright, Hugh Dower, Loren Eiseley, Ton Munnich, and the Royal Society Darwin Medal Winners Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr, have published our full acknowledgement, and the independently verifiable evidence to support it, that Patrick Matthew (1831) - in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - published the full theory of natural selection many years before Darwin and Wallace put pen to private notepaper on the topic and 28 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) had their papers read before the Linnean Society.

Matthew uniquely coined his discovery the 'natural process of selection' and 29 years later Darwin uniquely shuffled Matthew's term into his own unique re-coinage the 'process of natural selection'. Darwin and Wallace each claimed to have arrived at the same theory, used the same terminology and the same unique explanatory examples, independently of Matthew and independently of one another.

The purpose of my open letter, therefore, is to request the Royal Society publish an official statement to explain whether the Royal Society will affirm that Patrick Matthew, by dint of his achievement at publishing first one of the greatest discoveries in science, should be officially awarded full priority over both Darwin and Wallace for his great unique breakthrough?

In this regard, I presume the Royal Society has not unofficially changed its views on the rules of priority? Perhaps it is necessary to remind the Royal Society of the Arago Effect to which it has adhered in all other disputes over priority for discovery in science - which is that being first into published print with a discovery is everything.

Maybe you have uniquely re-written the rules on priority for scientific discovery, but are keeping that a secret whilst facilitating plagiarism? If so, does that explain why the Royal Society has now plagiarised the unique scientific discoveries of Brian J. Ford? Here are the fully evidenced and independently verifiable toe-curlingly guilty facts on that new debacle. It is called “Watching Integrity Die” and the Royal Society plays a shameless leading role in doing just that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWA1tLKQ2L4&feature=youtu.be

Ignoring the convention of priority - specifically ignoring the Arago Effect - Richard Dawkins and others have created a new, unique in the history of scientific discovery - "Dawkins' Demand" that Matthew should not have priority over Darwin and Wallace because it was previously their 'knowledge belief' that Matthew's unique views went unnoticed. However, newly available Big Data research techniques reveal that Matthew's (1831) book was in fact (all pre 1858) cited by other naturalists known to Darwin/Wallace - including Loudon (who edited and published two of Blyth's influential papers), Robert Chambers (who wrote the highly influential book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation) and Prideaux John Selby (who edited and published Wallace's Sarawak paper). (see: my peer reviewed papers for this new evidence:  http://britsoccrim.org/new/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf and https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42392608.pdf).

As for Brian J. Ford, he has published hundreds of articles on the research the Royal Society plagiarised!

So, please explain, what is your excuse in his case? Surely the Royal Society is not plagiarising Brian J. Ford because he has acknowledged (here) your precious plagiarist Charles Darwin plagiarised Patrick Matthew are you? No, surely not!

In sum, would the Royal Society please make an official statement regarding whether it has abandoned its former acceptance of the Arago Ruling? Here is a reminder, just in case you have forgotten it: http://www.strevens.org/research/scistruc/Prioritas.pdf

If the Royal Society is making an exception to the rule of priority in the cases of Patrick Matthew and Brian J. Ford could it be so good to please explain why and make an official statement to the effect that this is not simply a biased Darwinist 'made for Matthew' and Royal Society ‘Made for Ford’ rule?

Now, perhaps also because I have published new bombshell research on the fully evidenced heresy that Darwin and Wallace knowingly plagiarised Matthew's theory, the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is repeat victimising me by multiply plagiarising my original research and, whilst using it to fraudulently mislead its readership, refusing to do anything about that. The fully evidenced verifiable facts on that disgraceful nonscience behaviour, with proof that plagiarism is malicious, can be found here: https://patrickmathew.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-worlds-most-ironic-story-of.html

Yours sincerely

Dr Mike Sutton (Author of Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret)

.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, 24 February 2020

Brian J Ford was Plagiarized and Darwin was a Plagiarist

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


.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, 26 January 2020

Darwinite nonsense is nonscience

Get the facts, not the nonscience claptrap.




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Friday, 24 January 2020

Professor Brian J Ford on Darwin's Plagiarism and Fashionistic Fashionism

The eminent scientist professor Brian J. Ford and I have both been plagiarized. Brian told me of his worst experience in a personal email communication, so I will not reveal it here. I expect he will share it with the world in his own time. In my case, I have been plagiarized a few times. Most recently my unique work was plagiarized by "Darwin Lad" Dr Joachim L Dagg in the Linnean journal (the very same journal that allowed Darwin and Wallace to plagiarize Patrick Matthew in 1858!).  Dagg - who has cyber-stalked me for years - and written two nonsense reviews of my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret - knows I discovered it yet still passed off my Selby cited Matthew in 1842 orignal discovery as though he had discovered it for himself (facts here)! 

Brian Ford has written two articles on Darwin's lack of originality on the the theory of evolution by natural selection (here and here). Most importantly, in his 1971 book 'Nonscience' Professor Ford writes (p. 142) on how some scientists are famous not for their genuine originality but for hoodwinking the world they were genius originators simply because they published on a bombshell breakthrough at the most timely - what Ford names "Fashonistic" - time: 
'Charles Darwin used much the same kind of ploy too, by writing his thesis at exactly the most Fashionistic time, when everyone was discussing it. He wasn't the first to propose his particular interpretation, of course, but his use of Fashionism and the clothing of the argument in detailed observations of animals in general made the whole project an obvious winner." 

What Professor Ford does not write, but which is perfect support for his 'Fashionism' argument is what Matthew wrote to Darwin and the entire world in a published open letter of  May 12th 1860 in the Gardeners Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (p 433): that his work was read and cited but that many feared to cite it - including an eminent professor - and that it had been brute censored (see Sutton 2017 p. 111 for the fully referenced details). In that and in an earlier published letter of April 1860 Matthew clearly told Darwin and the world that the world was not ready for his theory in 1831 when it first appeared in print.

.

Please note: This blog post has been added to Professor's Ford's bibliography on this topic area: Here


.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 4 January 2020

On Charles Darwin Harassment Fanatics: Dysology and "The Lads"


THIS BLOG POST IS PUBLISHED IN THE PUBLIC AND ACADEMIC INTEREST AS A FULLY EVIDENCED EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF THING THOMAS KUHN DESCRIBED AS TYPICAL FIERCE REACTIONS TO PARADIGM CHANGING DISCOVERIES IN SCIENCE AND THE HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
Professor Brian J Ford has written about the cult of Darwin worship in our institutions of science and how its underbelly inhabitants attack anyone who dares to question Darwin's originality and honesty.

In this blog post I provide actual, independently verifiable data, of the sort of anti-science, and infantile attempts at revisionist history dysology, they get up to. 
Thomas Kuhn famously wrote about attacks on those whose research findings bring about a paradigm change in science. Such attacks attempt to bring the forces of chaos into the realm of science with an aim to extinguish the flame of human knowledge progress. What follows is a source of actual data - provided by a victim (me) of such dysologically radicalized individuals - for use by the scientific community on the fanatical anti-scientific behavior of radical Darwinite extremists.  


After he had kindly read through a draft of my 500 page e-book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret in 2014, Professor Donald Forsdyke  made several suggestions for its improvement and wrote in an email that I should tone it down considerably or else face vicious harassing attack in my place of work (then Nottingham Trent University) by a group of unnamed individuals he referred to collectively as the "The Lads".

Forsdyke wrote that he was concerned that unlike himself, I had years of work to go in paid employment in academia and that "The Lads" could curtail that career with their endless harassment. I was as unconcerned then as I am now by such threats. I was 55 years of age in 2014 and with two of the best pensions in the world, seeing how dunder-headed infantile managerialism has wrecked our universities, intended to retire before my 60th birthday. I did so on reaching 59 years of age.

This blog is about the unethical and fanatical activities of some of those "Lads" Forsdyke warned me about. Childish kidult Darwin fanatics!

Within a few days of the publication of my book and an article about it in the UK broadsheet newspaper, The Telegraph, written by it's science editor Sarah Knapton. In that article career Darwin biographer James Moore (of the Open University) was quoted as responding anti-scientifically to the totally newly discovered facts he had not even read - and had certainly never heard of before - in typical apocryphal Semmelweis Reflex by proxy fashion “I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.” Then a second Darwin Lad got himself involved to protect his Royal Society majesty King Charles Darwin. Dr Mike Weale was communicating with me - using an anonymous pseudonym - via the comments section on the article, now deleted by the Telegraph, but many are in the archive I made of it four years ago.

Weal thereafter set up his website and began discussing the issues with me on that site and via email. His website is "The Patrick Matthew Project". That site looks to me like nothing more in reality than a propaganda stealth instrument to try desperately argue that Darwin never plagiarized Matthew and never lied when he did plagiarize and lie. Just like the utter nonsense Wiki-Darwiboppers (Weale is one) write on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew webpage, it's a waste of time trying to get between a fool and their errand, which is an old adage confirmed as Weale's behaviour would become rabid when he escalated to writing to my employer to complain about me. But I'm getting ahead of myself.  I write more on the fool Weale's malicious correspondence later in this blog post.

Around the same time as the Telegraph article was published, George Beccaloni - then curator of the Wallace Collection at the Natural History Museum London (now an employee of the Charles Darwin Trust no less!) posted what is essentially a fake review of my book, Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret, on the Facebook page of the Richard Dawkin's Foundation. My publisher Bob Butler called him out on the fact he knew Beccaloni had not even read my book, despite making claims about its contents as though he had (here and archived here). Clearly "The Lads" were starting to get busy, just as Professor Forsdyke warned.

As we have seen in my posts here in 2020, a growing number of proper scientists accept that the New Data I have originally unearthed with the IDD BigData research method proves that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace more likely than not plagiarized Patrick Matthew's complete and prominently prior-published theory of evolution by natural selection. Arlin Stoltzfus was, in 2016 (here - more precisely here in the comments section of a blog) one of the first brave rational expert scholars to look at that newly unearthed evidence and reach the obviously correct conclusion that Darwin was  most likely a serial liar and was a plagiarizer in that regard. Most importantly, he being a proper scientist - unlike most who newly know of the new found facts but perhaps fear "The Lads" - was not afraid to stand up and say so on the record on several occasions. Science needs more proper scientists, as opposed to those uncritical scholars Stolzfus refers to as "the zombie horde."

Dr Stoltzfus is Research Biologist at the USA National Institute of Standards and Technology.




















In the link provided in this blog post to the desperate Darwin defending website of Dr Mike Weale you can see how this Darwin's "Lad" Weale gets himself emotionally tied up with his Darwin worship into silly irrational linguistic-yoga-knots by trying to deny the logical reality of Dr Stolzfus's completely rational and fact based arguments on Darwin's lies.



Incidentally, for the record of how the Darwin "Lads" seek to bury painful facts by attacking their original discoverer, Weale slyly tried to set the Vice Chancellor (VC) of my university (Nottingham Trent)  on me - knowing full well as a senior academic (Reader in Statistical genetics himself at the university where my VC had graduated) was an attack on my livelihood as Reader in Criminology and my entire senior academic career - therefore an economic attack on my dependent family. Weale's ludicrously childish and disingenuous malicious communication lengthy "Lad" rambling email-letter of complaint (I have a copy of it)  to my employer was mostly about my mocking outing of  his fellow "Lad" Dr John van Wyhe for calling me a conspiracy theorist in an email to a journalist immediately after suspiciously resigning from the editorial board of the expert peer reviewed academic journal that had just published my bombshell article on who we now newly know actually did read and cite Matthew's 1831 book and ideas before Darwin and Wallace stole them and Darwin alternately claimed no naturalist/no one whatsoever had prior read them. Weale sought also - and failed miserably - to ridicule the devastating facts I have originally unearthed.


My then employer (As said, I am now very comfortably retired from the civil service and university) Nottingham Trent University, investigated Weale's complaint with an HR team headed by a Professor of Criminal Justice.  They found Weal's essential allegations of academic misconduct unfounded and concluded that his complaint was disingenuous. One thing they pointed out was how Weale essentially begged me to keep debating - around and around in circles - with him on his website and it was only after I stoically refused that he then sent his malicious communication to my employer. (You can find archived files all of the debates I , and others had, in the comments section on Weale's website at the end of this blog post).

After being cleared of any academic misconduct, I was subsequently advised by university management staff  to report Weale to his VC for his malicious communication to my employer academic misconduct if I so wished. I could have taken it further than that. But unlike Weale, I was then and remain content for the malicious behaviour of he and his fellow Darwin fanatical "Lads", with whom he is proven to be networked on social media and his own website, to speak for itself in the historic publication record for future scholars to use in their studies into vicious, yet futile, resistance to paradigm changes in science and the history if science. As I said, I have all the emails. I have the report of the findings of the inquiry that followed Weal's malicious email letter.  And I have archived more of 'The Lad's' malicious and raving bonkers desperate internet activities - including cyberstalking and endless criminal malicious communication harassment by way of many emails and social media publications targeting my colleagues, co-author Professor Mark Griffiths, close friends, senior managers at Nottingham Trent University, peer reviewed journal editors, book publishers and even my post graduate students! Targeting anyone for endless harassment by emails to their university email accounts and via malicious whacked out harassment blog-sites who is in any way related to me or even the general field of criminology, has written a word of support, provided a platform for dissemination of the newly unearthed and expert peer reviewed facts or reported on them. Targeting people I don't even know for email harassment merely because they are eminent criminologists. All of this data has been collected and saved forensically - some of which is clearly evidence of criminal harassment - is now held by others pending action.


What Professor Trevor Palmer writes below is what science is supposed to look like. Namely, when their earlier thoughts and subsequent conclusions are dis-confirmed with independently verifiable newly discovered evidence proper scientists change their minds accordingly. Unlike Darwin cultists who seek to bury the painful facts under a stinking pile of their constant lies, harassment and laughably unscientific Darwibopper claptrap.



One of the Darwin superfan "Lads" has even committed gross academic misconduct by way of blatant plagiarism in the Linnean Journal of my original (See e.g. Sutton 2014 and 2015) expert peer reviewed discovery that Selby (Wallace's Sarawak paper editor) cited Matthew before Wallace wrote a single word about natural selection in his private notepad. The culprit here is the totally obsessed harassing cyber-stalker "Lad" Dr Joachim Dagg - who has been weirdly, obsessively, publishing absolute nonsense about many areas of my published work - not just the bombshell findings about Darwin and Wallace. Dagg's sly plagiarism of my original, expert peer reviewed. and prominently published work about Selby, which he has proven elsewhere, earlier, that he read, because he commented on it in writing, is in the very same Journal that published the 1858 papers of Darwin and Wallace, which stole Matthew's original prior-published theory and in which each plagiarist claimed to have independently conceived it. He even stupidly brags about not citing me in the article in which he plagiarized me by way of a comment on Wikipedia (here). The Linnean journal sure does scrape the dregs of the barrel doesn't it. Just like Wikepdia, the world's worst encyclopedia, then.

For future critical and ethical scholarship into criminal and deviant behaviour among scientists and those on the fringes of science (facilitated by such dodgy organisations as Wikipedia and the Linnean Society) the misdeeds of Darwin's 'Lads' - including fully referenced proof of Dagg's knowing plagiarism in the Linnean Journal - can be found fully referenced and safely archived on the Patrick Matthew website - click HERE.

As said, I have Weale's malicious  email to the VC of Nottingham Trent University. I have also a copy of van Wyhe's email to the journalist in question, and one day, in published print (only under expert legal advice), the public will see exactly what Darwin's 'Lads' got up to in what I think essentially amounts to their pathetic yet nasty attempts to re-bury the newly unearthed bombshell truth about Darwin being a liar and plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft. By attacking the discoverer they tried to discredit me in order to try, it appears to me, to discredit the independently verifiable, expert peer reviewed, new bombshell evidence they so hate. That sort of thing is the oldest trick in the book, and we all know it.


 Darwin and Wallace have been proven to be liars and plagiarists. Of course something like that can be 100% proven to exist. If it's printed or published and in your hands it is there. Just as Weal's malicious email 100% exists, as does van Wyhe's. Cover either email with your hand 100 times. When does it disappear? Most importantly, does it vanish from the publication record? Try it a million times. You will get exactly the same result 100% of the time. Publications in the publication record are like fossils in the geological record. They 100 per cent do exist and that can be 100 per cent proven. They do not fail to exist before or after we know of their existence. They are there. They are real. They are in the publication record.

Perhaps these magical thinking desperate Darwin worshiping fools who claim Darwin is not a proven liar and plagiarist spend years covering Darwin's published and proven lies with their trembling hands on video in the hope of them just magically vanishing once? Perhaps they will argue that Dagg The Plagiarist is not a plagiarist by way of their usual muddle-headed delusional nonsense?

From an academic point of view, if we wish to understand why Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Matthew with assistance from the Linnean Society and other scientists, we need to understand why Darwin sought (although on that occasion he failed) to implement an official policy of sly mass plagiarism of many original discoveries by those outside his own circle of wealthy gentleman toff-scientist cronies - (see those facts here) and by association, why Dagg plagiarized me with the help of the Linnean Journal.

Firstly, just as Barbary apes steal the progeny of others to offer to dominant males in the hope of rising up the social hierarchy, so did Darwin and Wallace steal the "progeny" of Matthew. And likewise, so did Dagg The Plagiarist steal mine. Secondly, just like Matthew the radical libertarian Chartism leader, I mock religion, I write about dishonesty in politics, and I mock the "scientific establishment" aristocracy and upper classes (toffs) for their dishonesty. Also like Matthew did in his bombshell book of 1831, I mock current mainstream falsehoods and delusions shared by the scientific community. Unlike Matthew, I also mock the Linnean Society for facilitating science fraud by plagiarism! Oh yes, and I've been mocking the 'Lad' Dagg for the mass of muddle-headed harassment nonsense he has been writing about me in his silly blog sites and elsewhere on social media for some years now. After all, what a silly little 👶 babyish plagiarizing twerp he is.  Thirdly, just as Barbary apes choose to steal the progeny of those lower down the ranks in their tribe, because they think that gives them the best chance of succeeding in their theft, so did Darwin and Wallace target the work of the already censored Scott Matthew, and so did the sniveling coward plagiarist Dagg target my work after other 'Lads' such as Becalloni, Weale, van Wyhe and others, had between them, started doing, amongst other things, one or else more of such things as writing ignorant/deliberate fact denial nonsense in social media about me, to journalists, my employer, close friends and associates, school teachers, Members of The Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group in Scotland - who received National Lottery Heritage Fund money to build the Patrick Matthew Trail and to finance a conference on Matthew at the James Hutton Institute - Employees of the National Lottery Heritage Fund, employees of the James Hutton Institute, my book's reviewers and its cover designer, Organizers of the Conway Hall Sunday lectures, Organizers of various Skeptics in the Pub groups, and/or otherwise cowardly writing poison pen emails to harass me and my associates in other ways for the independently verifiable facts I dared to uncover and tell the world about Darwin and Wallace. For research purposes you can get the evidence of who did what exactly of all that and far more besides here).

To continue with the revealing analogy on progeny stealing to please more socially prominent apes, Becalloni "collected" a very rare centipede, living and perhaps even endangered biological artifact, from Thailand to impress older and more powerful men at his place of work (here and archived here). Furthermore, Becalloni's plagiarizing and lying science fraudster hero Alfred Wallace similarly "collected" by shooting for money an orangutan mother and then stealing her child for his own sick amusement and literary glorification by the likes of those who knew no better in the 19th century, and those who still know no better today.

These Victorian and latter-day smog apes are an absolute disgrace to science in my opinion. And the true Originator, of macroevolution by natural selection, Patrick Matthew? Whilst Matthew's opinions on colonization of the World by the British are heinous, he did advocate - as a man so often many decades ahead of his time - the European Single Market, the Peace Corps (published here) and respect for all living creatures. And he was first to introduce giant redwoods into the UK. But Darwin's glory thieving, lying, circle of cronies stole that honour from him too (here)! Among many other achievements, the man who Darwin portrayed as "a little known Scottish writer on forest trees" accurately predicted the Tay Bridge Disaster in the teeth of mockery from foolish others supporting powerful lobby interest groups (here).

As said, Darwin and Wallace plagiarized whole swathes of original text, ideas and many highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples from Matthew's book and were closely networked and influenced by those we newly know cited Matthew before Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic of natural selection. I originally discovered that Wallace even fraudulently doctored a letter in his autobiography to try to conceal from us the fact that Darwin and his cronies were paying him to assist in plagiarizing Matthew's breakthrough before the crooked Linnean Society in 1858 (get the proof here)!

Although latterly jumping on the RSPCA domestic pet anti-cruelty movement, at least (here), Darwin, (whose famous grandfather - Erasus Darwin - is a twice proven plagiarist) like Wallace had little to zero respect for wild living creatures. Darwin ate an owl once and lived to shoot thousands of pheasants as a young man, and his son boasted of his father's amazing stone throwing rabbit killing skills (all here). The Captain of HMS Beagle wrote of how Darwin wrecked murderous death on many trusting sea birds with his geological hammer (here). Once, Darwin even tortured a puppy. Oh, and one more thing, it's a total supermyth that Darwin discovered evolution by natural selection by observing finches on the Galapagos Islands, he got it all from books as he admitted himself (get the facts on that here).

By keeping the Christian notion of "God" in so many editions of The Origin of Species, his plagiarized version of Matthew's theory, as one thing leads to another, it is even arguable that Darwin possibly caused the holocaust by his plagiarism.

The Sly Smog Apes Darwin and Wallace


Incidentally, contrary to utter ludicrous nonsense written by Darwin fan Richard Dawkins - (who incidentally - to the foot stamping impotent wrath of one idiot cyber-stalking and endlessly harassing nut job juvenile Darwibopper Lad, who wrote to the expert peer reviewed journal publishing the fact to complain bitterly that it published painful facts I have uniquely unearthed on Darwin's and Dawkins's plagiarism, Richard Dawkins did not coin the term selfish gene) - that Matthew never understood his own ideas because he never trumpeted them from the rooftops before Darwin replicated them, not only (seemingly unknown to the conveniently historically ignorant Dawkins) was Matthew and his original breakthrough brute censored many times in print, he had his book banned by public libraries and was platform blocked at a major science conference in the 19th century, the Darwin Lads on Wikipedia were caught out repeatedly fact denying - by deleting links to the original source texts on this censorship - such censorship even happened. They were caught "live" in an hilarious sting operation by me (here).




"Mr Matthew", ejaculated Emma Darwin, "my husband is more
 faithful to your own original child than you are yourself!" At that
precise moment the three knew she'd put her foot in it. You could
have cut the atmosphere with a snark.

The above cartoon is based on the letter Emma Darwin sent to Patrick Matthew where she put her foot in it by writing that "With regard to natural selection, my husband is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself!" The original letter is in the National Library of Scotland. I have been granted permission by the copyright holder to publish the image of that letter and others Charles Darwin sent to Matthew (click here to see and read them).

As time passes since my bombshell breakthrough of 2014, the number of journalists, scientists and other scholars following the brave grown-up lead of Dr Arlin Stoltzfus in admitting to the truth of the devastating facts will increase exponentially. In 2020 we can see this happening.  I have recorded and fully referenced details of the current known number of scholarly references here and press articles here. 



Conclusion

 When enemies of independently verifiable newly unearthed facts about Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism and serial lying behave like Darwin's low-life 'Lads' it is obvious I must be doing something right. These thick idiots thought I was their prey. But as the facts of their behaviour reveals, only they are the prey of their own vicious stupidity. Anyway, I digress. Do you fancy a good laugh dear rational reader? If so, the idiotically hilarious childish Darwin worship contortionist spectacle on workplace, malicious harasser, Weale's idiotic Darwin worship propaganda site is archived here for all proper adult scholars to cite in their future critical work in this area of dysology studies and science model crisis following bombshell paradigm changes in science.
Archived comments on Weal's Patrick Matthew Project website

1. http://archive.is/WjCSl
2. http://archive.is/jyUbX
3. http://archive.is/4mbTx
4. http://archive.is/Qb8BO
5. http://archive.is/l5q5k
6. http://archive.is/4NoLw
7. http://archive.is/J4Elh



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 14 April 2018

Brian J Ford and his battle against fake news in science

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, 28 July 2015

On Why Darwinists are Extremists

Darwin: The Microscopist Who Didn't Discover Evolution.  By Brian J. Ford. The Microscope. 59:3, 2011. pp 129-137. Click to read


Darwin neither discovered evolution as a general concept, nor did he discover evolution by natural selection. Others, whose work he knew, got there long before him.

p.129:

"But why is he [Darwin] universally promoted as one of the world's greatest iconoclasts? Evolution was not his idea, yet 'Darwinian evolution' is a buzzword. Indeed the question, 'Are you, or are you not, a Darwinist?' seems to mark out the real biologists from those beyond the pale."

"If you don't espouse Darwinism, then the biological establishment won't want you."

p. 136:

 "Darwin is set on a pedestal as though he were Einstein or Copernicus, and anyone doubting adherence to this conventional view risks ostracism. In science, as much as in religion, we can find extreme views that fly in the face of realities."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)