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 abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abuse. Show all posts

Friday, 27 December 2019

Free research data on published social media and email cyber stalking and obscene abuse

Would you like to see and then use some actual verifiable and free data on abuse relevant to Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Then click HERE


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

Tuesday, 29 May 2018

With laughable irony, even though proven to have read it, Dagg fails to cite my original prior published Big Data research uncovered source about Selby in the story of Darwin failing to cite his sources and then boasts on Wikipedia about his failure to cite me as his prior-influencer to the malicious cyberstalker J F (Julian) Derry) a prolific Wikipedia Editor


.
Some people just don't get it do they. This is hilarious. 

 Failure to cite your prior-influencers on a new discovery, making it look therefore like your own, when you write about it in a publication, is plagiarism.

Martyn Shuttleworth on Science Fraud 

"...not citing the research of others, and stealing ideas, is another common science fraud....

 Most scientific papers, especially during the literature review, use other sources, but they need to be properly cited."


OK, so in the above screen shot from the history of edits page of the Wikipedia page on Patrick Matthew, we can see that Joachim Dagg most weirdly, or not, as the case may be, brags about the fact he never cited me as his own (prior published Sutton May 2014a, presented in London and published 2014b), nationally reported in Scotland following my presentation of the bombshell findings at the Edinburgh Festival of science event hosted by Edinburgh Skeptics Society (see Scottish Daily Mail April 2014) and then reported in the entire UK (Daily Telegraph May 28th 2014), prior -published and independent academic expert peer reviewed (Sutton 2014c) influencer on the my original - unearthed from the obscure literature discovery - of Selby (amongst seven naturalists) citing Matthew's (1831) book and original ideas on natural selection pre-1858.

Dagg the Plagiarist's paper can be read here

That Dagg used my original ground breaking research but failed to cite me as his prior-published, nationally reported on by the press, and peer reviewed by academic experts, influencer on this topic of Selby is very bad scholarship and is arguably very abysmal academic practice in my own opinion. It is academic and scientific serious misconduct in the form of plagiarism.

The Selby citation of Matthew was originally unearthed by me using the newly recognised IDD Big Data research method and was, as said and reported, first revealed to the world and published in my 2014 600 page e-book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'. Consequently, also in my own personal academic opinion, this failure to cite my original unearthing is an academic matter that should now be investigated, analysed, weighed and then debated at the highest levels in expert peer reviewed journals on the topic of plagiarism and poor academic practice, in order to settle the matter fairly, independently and academically, because I would argue that it is possibly capable of being deemed a sub-type of plagiarism, which I have called plagiarising science fraud by glory theft (Sutton 2015). I will be writing further academic articles including this data on that topic.  On which note, Dagg has been obsessively and jealously following my original groundbreaking work since it was published on this topic in 2014 and blogging most vindictively about it by prolifically posting numerous silly and incorrect statements about my research in a number of areas, even obsessing about my original  mythbusting discovery of the famous Spinach Supermyth (Dagg's weird obsessing on that is archived here) in a series of most desperate yet failed attempts to discredit me. Why? Because I made hugely disruptive original discoveries about who really did read Matthew's prior origination of macroevolution by natural selection - as opposed to the old beloved science myth that no one read it - before Darwin and Wallace replicated it along with many of Matthew's highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples and essential terminology, and before Darwin is proven to have lied about who he knew had prior read and cited Matthew's original groundbreaking idea.



We know Dagg read my prior-published original unearthing of the Selby, Matthew, Wallace connection in this particular story because, he wrote in 2014 about the contents of my 2014 e-book, which first revealed the discovery (see first screenshot image directly below taken from just one of his numerous obsessive and silly, incorrect  online publications about me and my research publications, archived here). Moreover, as the following  screenshot of his arguably similarly muddle headed Amazon review of my paperback book below proves, he admits in writing to having read my first e-book book and this later (vol 1) paperback - containing that breakthrough - before Dagg 2018  then uses the very same newly uncovered Selby information without citing me as its original (see Sutton 2014a, Sutton 2014b,  Sutton 2015, Sutton 2017) influencing uncovering source in the story of Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing science fraud. Most ironically, Dagg then publishes it in the Linnean Journal - the very same journal where Darwin and Wallace (1858) published their papers, which replicated Matthew's prior published breakthrough without citing Matthew! Honestly, you could not make this stuff up for fiction because critics would write that it was unrealistic.

What Dagg has done by not citing my original breakthrough uncovering of the new data about Selby is to give the impression that he discovered it for himself. But he never. I did. More so,  I prior-published my original breakthrough unearthing discovery in my (2014, 2017) book and two peer reviewed journals, as Dagg fully knows because he claims on his and other various blog sites to have read them all.

What of Dagg's (2018) Linnean Journal article that disgracefully plagiarizes my expert peer reviewed journal articles and other publications - we know he read - by failing to cite me as the prior published source he got the Selby discovery from and the other associated data I originally unearthed on Selby? 

Dagg attempts to show, as so many others have tried before him, that Darwin and Wallace did not replicate Matthew's work because the three theories are fundamentally distinct. But the hard facts of the 19th century publication record fly in the face of his desperate rhetoric.

The facts are that having been challenged by Matthew, in print in 1860, on his replication without citation, of Matthew’s original prior-published breakthrough, Darwin replied: “I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species.” Darwin also (1861) admitted from the third edition onwards of The Origin of Species: “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 (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr Wallace and myself in the ‘Linnean Journal,’ and as that enlarged in the present volume.” Darwin further admitted that Matthew “…clearly saw the full force of the principle of natural selection.” In addition to that, in 1879 Wallace wrote to Samuel Butler and described Matthew as was one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the nineteenth century and further that: “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.”
Given these facts from the 19th century publication record, no amount of desperate 21st century beloved science myth protecting magical thinking can reverse the fact that Matthew, Darwin and Wallace should be considered the foremost experts on what each wrote on macro evolution by natural selection. And that means, given each expertly knew (knew far more than Dagg on the matter) and wrote that Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew’s theory that they indeed did exactly that! In other words, Darwin and Wallace replicated, without citation of its originator, Matthew, essentially the very same theory. What we newly know is that the excuse Darwin and Wallace did so because no naturalist read Matthew’s origination is a new (Sutton 2014) Big Data discovered myth that is now shown to have been built on a punctured premise that began as a self-serving lie told by Darwin (See my 2014 peer reviewed article for proof of Darwin's great lie). Matthew's book and the original big idea in it was read and cited by naturists at the epicentre of Darwin's and Wallace's pre 1858 influence. Moreover, Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's essential analogy of differences between artificial and natural selection.

Even more conclusively, Loren Eiseley concluded that Darwin (his former science hero, about whom he had written a doting book) was a plagiarist after he uniquely discovered that in a secret 1844 private essay, Darwin replicated Matthew's, forester and arboriculturalist, highly idiosyncratic nursery versus forest trees example of that very same unique analogy. Equally condemning, Darwin uniquely four word shuffled Matthew's unique name for his theory from Matthew's 'natural process of selection' to his own re-branded 'process of natural selection' the three words natural, process and selection being replicated because they are essential to explain what Matthew's theory is.

The facts speak for themselves and no amount of wishful thinking can change them.

My book 'Nullius' goes into far more detail with far more independently verifiable fully referenced examples that suggest it far more likely than not that Darwin and Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud by plagiarism and lying glory theft. Dagg has read and reviewed Nullius, but failed to cite it, just as Darwin and Wallace failed to cite Matthew in the Linnean Journal. Dagg has repeated the same disgraceful behaviour by using the data on Selby that I originally unearthed and not citing where he learned of it.

Facts


In 2014, I published my original 2013 unearthing of the fact the naturalist Selby (amongst others I originally unearthed) did, in 1842, read and cite Matthew's (1831) original ideas. Moreover, as I reveal with citations to sources in my book Nullius in Verba, I originally unearthed from the exceedingly obscure and hidden historic literature, the fact that Selby was also the editor of the journal that published Wallace's famous Sarawak paper on evolution, which Darwin read before 1858. Furthermore, my original research revealed from an obscure biography of Selby that Darwin's father and his best friend Jenyns were friends and houseguests of Selby. I uniquely revealed in the story of Matthew and Darwin's and Wallace's replications that the naturalist Jardine obtained a the copy of Matthew's book for Selby. These are exceedingly important findings. Having read my book (see archived proof here - and his demented fact denial barking mad jealous review here) Dagg, as further evidenced by his many online admissions, is fully aware I originally unearthed all of them because he has read all my published work on the topic!

Dagg is also aware of my original discovery that the naturalist Loudon (after writing in 1832 that Matthew's 1831 book apparently had something original to say on the question of the 'origin of species' - no less) then edited two of Blyth's most influential pre-1858 articles on evolution. Wallace's pre-1858 notebooks prove he read those Blyth articles. For his part, Darwin admitted in 1861 that Blyth was his most valuable informant on the topic of species!

Dagg is aware also that I originally discovered that the famous naturalist Robert Chambers cited Matthew's book in the journal he published with his brother. Then Chambers cited Matthew's second book "Emigration Fields" and most tellingly he then (with his brother) wrote his very own guide on arboriculture! And Chambers did all that all before anonymously authoring the 'Vestiges of Creation, (a bestselling science book said to have put evolution the air in the first half of the 19th  century). Chambers then met and corresponded with Darwin. And all of this was pre-1858. Then in 1859, Robert Chambers first to be second in print with Matthew's original term "natural process of selection". And I have much, much more in my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' - all read by Dagg before he took my original Selby data without citing me as the source of its discovery.

These important original findings are amongst a great many others, I originally unearthed and reveal in Nullius and expert peer reviewed papers on the topic. They originally prove knowledge contamination routes exist - contrary to the wishful thinking nonsense Dagg shared on Wikipedia with his associate the malicious harasser, obscene Twittering intimidator and nasty cowardly cyberstalker J F (Julian) Derry when he bragged to him about not citing my prior-published research.

The fact is that my prior-published scholarly, peer reviewed and widely publicized original groundbreaking research influenced Dagg, because I originally unearthed the important Selby connection, that he replicated in his 2018 Linnean Society article. I will argue my opinion on camera before journalists and academics in December 2018, and in future peer reviewed papers on science fraud and plagiarism, that Dagg has shamelessly, boastfully, deliberately, and knowingly plagiarized my original groundbreaking research.

The reality, as opposed to Dagg's desperate rhetoric, is that many pre-1858 routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination exist from those who we newly know read and cited Matthew's (1831) breakthrough origination. Those routes led to the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace and to their known influencers and facilitators.
 The degree of self-serving poor scholarship here is historically an exciting discovery in its own right for scholars interested in that particular topic. And, as said, following one invitation already, I will most certainly be giving public talks and writing about it in the academic press and elsewhere - using the verifiable hard evidence presented in this blog and much more besides, including data from desperately malicious and yet ludicrously disingenuous laughable hypocritical and dishonestly infantile emails sent to my employer by Dagg's online associate Derry and also another of their malicious and desperate associates, and more besides, who I will be naming in the interests of protecting academic freedom of speech from cowardly harassing bullies who seek to intimidate academics for what they have uniquely found that so upsets them. And I will be doing so to protect veracious science and the veracious history of scientific discovery from those who seek to maintain beloved "establishment" confort myths.








Dagg's many mistakes, it seems to me, are due to his apparent bias-blinkerd binary thinking abysmal inability to understand that he needs to actually read and cite primary sources and then to read, think about and then understand what a knowledge contamination route for prior-published information is and how it might variously work, so very simply, to transfer ideas, original terms and phrases etc directly and through other parties etc. Dagg's daft comments about me and what has been newly unearthed can be seen, just for example here and archived here, in his numerous publications online about his ideas on my original breakthroughs, since 2014.

What then of Derry, Dagg's correspondent on Wikipedia? Derry is someone who along with Mike Weale (more forthcoming on him and his shamefully laughable, vindictive, failed, juvenile, attempts to intimidate me at the highest level of my workplace later) Dagg thanks for helping him with his Linnean Journal article in the acknowledgments section of that article. All three, Dagg, Derry and Weale are named in its history of revisions section as editors of the Patrick Matthew page on the world's worst encyclopedia. On that page of Wikipedia, Dagg openly boasts (here) to Derry of his failure to cite me - his prior-published, obsessively prior-read by himself, influencer on this topic on the Selby publication he cites - and how he then edited the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page with the intention of giving the impression - via overt claims - that he has somehow (perhaps magically?) disproven the knowledge contamination hypothesis. Well now, let us allow the independently verifiable published facts speak for themselves - as we always should:


Julian (J.F) Derry began his prolific juvenile vendetta of poison-pen cyberstalking from his email account (now taken off him for that atrocious unprofessional malicious harassment behavior) at Edinburgh University. He now publishes so many vindictive and malicious cyberstalking falsehoods. Having lost his position at Edinburgh university (according to himself in a number of self-incriminating ranting poison pen outbursts in the comments section to an article on the Times Higher Education blog) for persistently harassing others about my original discoveries, including  a young women in Scotland, and others, associated with my research, in typical stalker escalation behaviour  he has now turned his sad weirdo unwanted harassment attentions on students. Laxmi Aggarwal (one of my PhD students, incidentally also female) has never even read my book 'Nullius in Verba' and she most certainly did not review it!  This weirdo behaviour typifies Derry's malicious harassment and intimidation cyberstalking campaign. He makes a wrong assumption, then abuses someone based on that wrong assumption, or other misrepresentation of reality. In the case in point he is naming an anonymous reviewer in order to intimidate them. But of course, he names the wrong person entirely. In reality, I know that a Tanzanian university agent reviewed it after reading it. Yet Derry has published nasty bullying intimidating falsehoods about one of my students instead in one of his many typically barking mad rambling nonsense cyberstalking poison pen comments on an Amazon review of my book.

Derry is a very sad case in need of help.



A pdf file detailing the verifiable evidence some of Derry's malicious falsehood abuse and stalking, with a link to the PatrickMatthew.com website detailing more from him and others can be found here


The degree of Wikipedia editor J. F. Derry's immature, vile abusive, obsessive cyberstalking hatred and vitriol is clearly proven by his language in this harrassment comment on the review of my book. Elsewhere he has used the misogynistic "c" word to abuse me. And that has been reported in the press. Abusers need to understand that they cannot cover their malicious cyberstalking by deleting their abuse after it has been read. Because on the internet "delete never means delete". 

 For links to the press reports and other publications including social media publications (including those achieved before the perpetrators deleted them) see all the fully documented evidenced researcher resources and more besides from others deeply upset by the facts that hugely disruptive Big Data technology has newly uncovered to bust the much beloved sacred science myths about Darwin and Wallace here: http://patrickmatthew.com/Book%20Reviews.html




And what is the knowledge contamination hypothesis? My colleague Andy Sutton sums it up better than I in a review he wrote of Nullius (here).

 "I would ask readers to imagine themselves as a juror. Suppose Emma in village A invents the wheel. Several people in villages B, C, D and E see the wheel and know about it. There are paths from all those villages to village F that are known to be in use. Daniel in village F later, apparently independently, invents the wheel. Not only that but Daniel’s wheel, which is of course the same concept, is made of the same materials and has similar features to Emma’s wheel. Daniel has been friends with, and talked to, some of the people in those other villages, who we know have seen the wheel. They know he is working on a wheel concept. When challenged by Emma, Daniel claims nobody in his sphere knew about her wheel, but this can be shown to be false, ie they did know. Daniel is then credited with inventing the wheel. Members of the jury …

The wheel analogy isn’t perfect, but that is in essence the case that Dr Sutton builds, and he isn’t saying “might have read Matthew” or “might have known Darwin”, he is showing us irrefutable proof that you can see for yourself if you have internet access. There are other aspects to the argument which give further support, which you will find in the book.

So, I find the argument completely persuasive."

If you wish to see more of Derry's obsessive unreadable cyber stalking nonsense, you will see that he has responded to Andy, not just with malicious emails sent to his university email address, (emails that along with many others I have in my possession for further action), but also with a long tirade in response to Andy's book review.

Here is just a bit of it for now by way of screenshot.























 
.

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

Wednesday, 2 May 2018

The Social Evolution of Plagiarism: Darwin's pigeons come home to roost

+
+
+
DISGUSTING ABUSIVE DEFAMATORY BEHAVIOUR ARCHIVED ON THE COMMENTS SECTION THE 'TIMES NEWSPAPER'S HIGHER EDUCATION' ("THES") BLOG SITE. THESE ABUSIVE AND HARASSING COMMENTS ARE POSTED THERE BY ONE PROLIFIC AND LONG SERVING WIKIPEDIA EDITOR OF WIKIPEDIA'S PATRICK MATTHEW PAGE AND THEIR MIKE SUTTON (CRIMINOLOGIST) PAGE. PERSISTENT AND PROLIFIC HARASSMENT FOLLOWS THE PUBLISHING OF SCHOLARLY JOURNAL EXPERT PEER REVIEWED PAPERS ON THE UNEARTHING OF DARWIN'S PLAGIARISM AND GLORY STEALING LIES http://archive.is/reG0s

THE WIKIPEDIA CULT PAGE ON THEIR REACTION TO THEIR OWN DETECTED PLAGIARISM

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

Wednesday, 14 February 2018

For the historical record: further weird abuse from another professor of biology

+
+
+
+
Other examples of related New Data messenger shooting abuse can be found here
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, 7 February 2018

Further Misogynistic Obscene Abuse



Archived Here: http://archive.is/zBbpK

Image of comments section on the Patrick Matthew Blog: 

Patrick Matthew: Originator, Immortal Great Thinker and Proven Influencer on Natural Selection 

https://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/
























Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, 3 February 2018

Bonfire of the Insanities in the last bastions of Darwin worship on Wikipedia


We are defined by what we do. Wikipedia - the world's most reliably unreliable encyclopedia - is defined  as such by what its long term prolific editors do. As are they.

 SOME THINGS IN THE PAST CAN'T BE TAMED
















Outside the contorted newspeak nonsense of the weird cult of Wikipedia editors, back in the real world, my British Society of Criminology journal article was thoroughly peer reviewed by two anonymous experts in the field, and I had to edit and re-submit it accordingly. In typical neerdowell pseudo scholar style, these weird cultists refuse to publish the independently verifiable proof that it was peer reviewed. The reason they are doing this appears to be simply because they cannot bear the independently verifiable newly discovered facts in it that show Charles Darwin was a serial lying plagiariser of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior-published conception of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Unable to deal with those facts and more besides they are desperately writing deliberate and malevolent falsehoods (archived here) to deny they are in a most highly respected peer reviewed scholarly journal.





Such deliberate and dishonest malevolent and malicious falsehood spreading and fact denial behaviour is not at all untypical behaviour among prolific Wikipedia editors of long standing


This is exactly why, worldwide, all university students are forbidden from citing Wikipedia unless they are referencing its editors academic wrongdoing and persistently reliable inaccuracy.  Here is the fact based independently verifiable proof that the article in question -  The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery (the article is here) - was peer reviewed (that proof is here). This published proof, freely available in the public domain, is just one among a multitude of verifiable facts prolific Wikipedia editors of long standing are desperately denying in the last throes of their credulous Darwin worshipping unscholarly and unscientific fact denial behaviour http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume-14/ cult.

Here is the editor's revisions page of the Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia where these facts are being denied with malevolent and malicious falsehoods https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Matthew&action=history  (archived here because the most senior of Wikipedia editors have been deleting the entire history (verifiable evidence here in their own published words) of what the one prolific Wikipedia editor of long standing, he who has been prolifically editing Wikipedia's page about me - the very same one who sent me the malicious and malevolent obscene misogynist tweet below - has published in one of their weird cultish silly Billy "chat rooms" in the public domain. Of course, what these poor fools don't realise is that on the Internet "delete never means delete". The defamatory published statements, and evidence of Wikipedia's guilt in deleting the lot, have all been archived for forthcoming action.

 More independently verifiable proof from the publication record of malicious and malevolent behaviour of Wikipedia editors, and of  published Wikipedia falsehoods, are available in this portable pdf file. And further details can be found on the relevant page on Patrick Matthew.com . Why are these fact deniers so desperately exposing their dishonesty?  Just Google "Darwin Science Fraud" - what is your first hit? Here is mine at the time of writing.
+
+



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

Thursday, 23 November 2017

Some Members of the Darwin Worship Cult are Just Like Those in the Scientology Cult

Click the image below to read the latest desperate abuse from the Darwin Worship cult



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Tuesday, 10 October 2017

AN EDUCATIONAL WARNING TO CRIMINAL CYBER STALKERS AND THEIR CRIMINAL ASSOCIATES USING WEBSITES, SOCIAL MEDIA AND EMAIL TO ABUSE

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

Saturday, 25 June 2016

The Academic Abuse Continues: This time its from Associate Professor Jason Rosenhouse

I sent an email today to Associate Professor of mathematics, Dr Jason Rosenhouse of James Madison University (USA).

My email was sent in response to his abusive blog about my research.

On his blog, Jason Rosenhouse is engaging in abusive criticism based upon de-facto fact denial in the published public domain regarding fact that Darwin's and Wallace's known influencers read Matthew's original ideas pre-1858. Indeed, based on what I have discovered, and what he is not aware has been discovered, according to Jason has published his opinion that I am a "big time crackpot". He writes:

 ' Apparently a big-time crackpot named Mike Sutton has made the astonishing discovery that Patrick Matthew, a Scottish farmer, anticipated Darwin in an appendix to an obscure book called Naval Timber and Arboriculture, published in 1831.'

I wrote the polite email to him to inform Jason Rosenhouse where he could find the facts about my research of which he is so apparently ignorant, and to thank Jason for so kindly being such an apparently ignorant doofus to enter the data of his de facto fact denial into the public domain so that he can be quoted and cited for the historical record in my forthcoming scholarly work and that of other scholars on the topic of de facto fact denial in academia.

What AssProf Rosenhouse ignores in his unevidenced (and therefore apparently pseudo-scholarly) criticism of my peer reviewed, published original research findings  (see Sutton 2016) is the brand new original and independently verifiable discovery that overturns all prior Darwinist knowledge claims that Matthew could not have influenced Darwin with the bombshell ideas in his (1831) because it was believed (fallaciously it now turns out) that the ideas in his book went unread by any naturalists until Matthew told Darwin about them in 1860. Jason is also, seemingly, completely ignorant of the fact that Darwin deliberately lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas went completely unnoticed until 1860. Because Matthew had prior informed him of two naturalists who had read it, one who feared pillory punishment were he to teach Matthew's ideas and the fact Matthew's book had been banned by Perth public library in Scotland for it heretical ideas on natural selection.

I let Jason know that I will pay a visit to his university when I am next in the USA so that he can have the manly and scholarly chance to call me an apparent crackpot to my face. Meanwhile, Jason is now data in the story of desperate, and fiercely ignorant resistance to the new data facts that completely punctures the myth upon which stands the old paradigm of tri-independent discovery of macro evolution by natural selection. I thanked him for that in my email and do so again here.

For use by scholars in the future, I have archived Rosenhouse's apparent abusive blogpost in case it ever disappears.  Meanwhile, you can read it here- if its not yet deleted or heavily edited.

My Email to AssProf Jason Rosenhouse (sent 26th June 2016)

Dear Professor Rosenhouse

I see - without, apparently, having even bothered yourself to find out about the  actual details of what you criticise that you have used social media to publish that you think I'm a "crackpot". Here: http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2016/05/02/crackpots/  How weird of you.

You are welcome to your uninformed abusive opinion Jason - but might I suggest you actually do a little research before jumping in like an ignorant doofus and abusing and publicly defaming another university scholar on published social media. What on Earth are you thinking of man? You do realise I'm sure that such behaviour is against the social media  code of conduct of your University - don't you? Don't worry - I have absolutely no intention of reporting you. I'm interested in ideas and facts and how others resist - by de facto fact denial behaviour - new discoveries of 100 per cent proven facts. So I welcome what you have published - for the historical record.

Your blog reveals that you don't even know who  we now newly know - thanks to my original research - actually did read Matthew's ideas pre 1858 and how this new discovery completely demolished the old Darwinist story that no naturalist read Matthew. Have you heard of  Robert Chambers (author of the Vestiges of Creation) or Prideaux John Selby (editor of Wallace's Sarawak paper)? How about the fact Loudon (who cited Matthew) went on to Edit two of Blyth's famously influential articles on organic evolution? Well if you have then you know they are newly discovered to have read and cited Matthew's book pre-1858. And if you know that fact then you could only have got it from reading my original "crackpot" (claims you) research. 

If you feel like finding out the independently verifiable new facts. It's all here: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05 Of course, the problem is, you actually have to read something to find out.

There may be lots of crackpots criticising Darwinists Jason, everyone knows that, but I think we both know they do not do so using new data that completely disconfirms prior knowledge claims by the world's leading Darwin scholars. 

Might I suggest you come up to speed with the facts by reading the independently verifiable disconfirming facts for the current paradigm of tri-independent discovery of macro evolution natural selection and the proof that Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew' original ideas.

Anyway, thank you for your ignorant, rude and deliberate public defaming insults. Indeed,  thank you for publishing your silly and uninformed abuse and attempt to attack my reputation with childish insults based on no more than your pseudo scholarly ignorance. I have archived it and will be citing you in future scholarly articles regarding  how those who make new discoveries of uncomfortable facts are so defamed by pseudo scholars.

So thanks for the valuable published insulting data Jason. When I'm in the USA next I will take a trip to your university and make a point of asking you face to face, as one university academic to another, if you still think I'm a crackpot and would like to tell me so to my face. 

Best wishes

Mike



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, 1 February 2016

Proof Darwinists are in a Classic 'State of Denial' of Obvious and Significant Facts

When asked to say whether they were denying the fact Darwin is 100 per cent proven to have lied about the pre-1860 readership of Matthew's (1831) book that contains the first published explanation of macro evolution by natural selection, an anonymous Darwin scholar responded:


I  asked the Twitter account user "The Dissent of Man"  to let me have their name so that I could cite it for the record. After all, it is only right to cite what others publish - is it not? I'm sure they have no reason to hide. There was a bit of confusing procrastination involving a strange Twitter account user copying me into their Tweets whilst claiming - implicitly - to represent The Dissent of Man:
Nevertheless,  I awaited their response to my request.

When a response finally came from it was from  the new "J.F. Derry" Twitter account. Laced with aggressive anger and foul vitriol. The author of the Twitter obsenties, J.F. Derry, has written a book about Darwin. He does seems to be a bit of a Troll. I wonder if this angry Darwinist will come to one of my public lectures? I would be most interested to see what he would do in such a case were I to ask him - as I would - to be so good as to kindly repeat these words in public, in my presence. Perhaps he would froth, rabidly, at the mouth again?


The first Twitter responses from "The Dissent of Man" is one very small item of hard evidence that perhaps  confirms Stanley Cohen's (2001) sociological concept of  'States of Denial' . The second from "J.F.Derry" is open to several possible interpretations that may or may not involve his unrealised, and hence subconscious, desire to wield both colposcope and proctoscope for a living or hobby.

A Typology of Cohen's Concept 'States of Denial' of obvious and significant facts.

And so there we have it, after considerable evasion, we finally learn that someone calling themselves  "J.F. Derry" and elsewhere - apparently - "The Dissent of Man" on Twitter has responded to my request to the account holder of  a Twitter account named "The Descent of Man" to name themselves.They respond as though  they hold the "Descent of Man" account. Who knows, but whatever the case, this "J.F, Derry" Twitter person also writes desperate foul language when cornered by the unbearable real facts they deny.

Such understandable anger.  Poor chap. Like so many Darwin worshippers, he's been successfully punterized by Darwin and the Darwin Worship Industry.

As I collected more data from Twitter users responding to the facts of Darwin's serial lying, I found that one of J.F Derry's Twitter associates kindly copied me into his published thoughts. This chap's Twitter account name is "Thony Christie", and from what he writes, it is clear that he is equally annoyed by  my insistence on sharing the independently verifiable "real facts" discovered by my research. He believes this defines me as mentally ill. How amusing and interesting.  Well, if I'm mentally ill - I'd sure as hell hate to be as "sane" as him.
Perhaps, for being successfully, credulously, straitjacketed by the Darwinist Worship Industry's punterization - "Thorny Christie" has never discovered anything veracious in his life that goes against a factually incorrect majority view in this particular field of inquiry? Whatever the case, he  is most welcome to the 'New Data' that I have originally contributed to the history of discovery of natural selection. And likewise, I must thank him for his public response to that data. Because his published response, and the published  response of Derry, is now public domain data to be used by anyone who so cares to use it in future peer reviewed sociology publications on how paradigm changing discoveries in science are first received by the masses.

Conclusion

In order to further explore the applicability of the concept of 'states of denial' in the history of the discovery of natural selection, I started an appropriately sane discussion thread on Dr Mike Weale's "Patrick Matthew Project" website. The link to that thread is here.

  I confronted Dr Mike Weale with his denial of the exact same obvious significance of the facts Darwin was a serial liar.  The text below is my comment on Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project website:
Mike the facts Darwin lied are both obvious and significant.
Matthew published facts. And those facts were read by Darwin.
Darwin then immediately published a fallacy that was the very opposite to those facts published by Matthew. Obviously, therefore Darwin’s published fallacy is a lie. And it is both obvious and significant that the lie is told by Darwin because his fallacy (lie) serves as an excuse for Darwin’s replication (without citing) the prior published original ideas of Matthew.
Moreover:
Matthew in response to Darwin’s lie:  
Matthew then published a second lot of facts that directly refutes the first lie that Darwin wrote about Matthew’s first published facts. So Darwin’s second fallacy is obviously and significantly yet another lie, because Darwin published the exact same fallacy about the second lot of facts Matthew provided him with as he did for the first. Consequently, Darwin’s behaviour is doubly dishonest, because Darwin repeats the lie on having read Matthew’s fact-based refutation of their first very self-serving lie – the very one Darwin first published as a fallacious excuse for not citing Matthew’s prior-published work.
The obvious and significant facts are that Matthew (1860) informed Darwin his original ideas on natural selection were read by (1) the naturalist John Loudon in 1832, (2) by an unnamed naturalist professor of eminent university in around 1845 (15 years earlier) – who feared pillory punishment were he to teach those original ideas, and (3) by whoever it was at the Public Library of Perth who banned his book for the heretical original ideas on natural selection in it. And then – having read those three obvious and significant facts, Darwin lied and lied and lied again that the original ideas in Matthews book were not read: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23118%2c23118
Anyone not considering this data – that shows Darwin’s fallacious responses to both of Matthew’s letters in the Gardener’s Chronicle (1860) – as obvious and significant facts that prove Darwin was a self-serving liar is obviously in a “state of denial” – in my considered opinion.
The question is what kind of obvious and significant fact denier might one in such a “state of denial” of these obvious and significant facts of Darwin’s self-serving and blatant serial lying be?
If not a “psychotic negator” (surely the worst kind) how about one who is at 3 or 4 in Cohen’s typology of those n a “state of denial” of the obvious and significant facts:

  • ‘ Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts’?
  • ‘Negation by wishful thinking’?
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, 10 August 2015

Darwin Deifying Trolls Respond to the New Data with Obscene Language

Foul Trolls Serve as Volunteer Shock-Troops for the Darwin Industry

According to Kuhn (1970 p. 62) the characteristics of paradigm changing discoveries include the:

 '... previous awareness of an anomaly, the gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition, and the consequent change of paradigm categories and procedures often accompanied by resistance.'

Challenged by the logical scholarly demands of the New Data presented on PatrickMatthew.com some upset Darwinists are getting themselves into a proper old lather in the 'resistance' to the newly discovered facts. Here is the fact-led challenge they hate:

How on Earth did Darwin and Wallace discover Natural Selection independently of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of it; despite the newly discovered fact that they were influenced and facilitated on the same topic by naturalists they knew who had long before read and cited Matthew's book, which contains it? Moreover, why did Darwin lie when, contrary to what Matthew informed him, he wrote that no naturalist had read Matthew's original ideas before 1860? Furthermore, why, after Matthew informed him a second time of yet another naturalist who read his original ideas, did Darwin continue his lie that no one read Matthew's ideas from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward?

In response to the New Data demands on biased brains, this typical Darwinist worshiping troll displays wonderful unintended comic humour "i" .  Now that's one for posterity. The abusive specimen resorted to a typical torrent of foul-penned misogynistic  ("c-"word) abuse. The example of his/her craft below is actually publishable and worth a laugh.


Darwin Deifying Atheist Trolls Hate the New Data on Darwin and Matthew.

For another interesting example of 'resistance' see this one from a named academic - Professor Comfort - who was obviously very upset by my fact-led peer reviewed academic journal paper on his hero's fraud (See Sutton 2014 The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery): 


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)