Encyclopedia Britannica

The Encyclopedia Britannica @john_p_rafferty, https://t.co/fpqIzJlEdy is producing a nicely slowly evolving version on the truth about Darwin's and Wallace's replications of Matthew's origination. Perhaps work on Darwin's proven lies about Matthew next? https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 16, 2018

Research with "Outstanding Impact" fnar fnar

My research into Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism led to me, Prof Mark Griffiths, the Pro-Vc & VC of Nottingham Trent University being harassed and cyber stalked. They had to get the lawyers in. Is that not research with "outstanding Impact"? 🤣@DrMarkGriffiths @TeessideSitP pic.twitter.com/LTk7kriQdX

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 14, 2018

New £50 note and the Royal Society

Patrick Matthew. Because he was first in print with theory of macroevolution by natural selection. And because YOU the @royalsociety have uniquely breached the #AragoRuling for priority in science in claiming it's Darwin's theory. Explain yourselves please https://t.co/v7H5Dx9r5x https://t.co/RUzO5xOxc8

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 13, 2018

Why might an anonymous authorship journal be a good idea?

When he read a draft of my book a professor of biology told me that whilst it was factually correct and the new data in it proved those writing about the history of discovery of natural selection were incorrect that the "lads" would absolutely go for me and I should not publish. pic.twitter.com/7F7B7p1CPw

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 13, 2018

Did Darwin have a disturbed sense of reality akin to a problem gambler?

Should this literature give historians science cause for concern that Charles Darwin had a disturbed sense of reality akin to that of a problem gambler? @DrMarkGriffiths. Science fraudsters thinking they can get away with it are like problem gamblers thinking they can beat odds. pic.twitter.com/Hg2KjUG5Yd

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 10, 2018

Quasi artificial selection?

They are changing as a result of the interference of man - a sort of unintended consequence artificial selection is taking place in the wild - analogous to natural selection. And that is how Matthew explained NS and sly Darwin & Wallace then replicated https://t.co/vX8JyWLHxw pic.twitter.com/c2XxkGGTFA

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 10, 2018

Bent Book Review Debunked

 
Please take note if interested in how the scientific establishment ever so subtly relies upon actions of desperate shocktrooper toadies and trolls etc to cover-up independently verifiable facts that embarrassingly bust much beloved science myths linked to the careers of leading scientists who got their facts wrong. Get the independently verified and peer reviewed newly unearthed facts (here) that Wikipedia astroturfing bent editors are consistently and currently deleting on its Patrick Matthew and Mike Sutton (criminologist) pages.

It's good when an academic journal allows you the right to reply to an establishment toadying cock-eyed, contrived, misleading review of proper groundbreaking research that uncovered new facts, which shockingly prove beloved myths are now completely busted https://t.co/wwB8xCDbQU pic.twitter.com/1UyPx0LPek

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 9, 2018

.

pic.twitter.com/z4RoyFpwlj

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 8, 2018

Latest Interpretation is Hilarious: Newly discovered myth busting facts are a conspiracy

Desperate, arguably disingenuous & dishonest nonsense from an arch career Darwin worshiper misleading the press. Dr John Van Wyhe was very happily on the editorial board but resigned only when my bombshell #BigData mythbusting article was published in it https://t.co/eHYTc5UW92

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 5, 2018

Dr John Van Wyhe engages in typical Darwin worshipping fact denial behaviour to effectively claim the newly unearthed facts are a conspiracy

According John Van Wyhe the newly discovered facts are not facts but a silly conspiracy theory. How can newly unearthed and independently verifiable disconfirming facts for badly unevidenced beliefs be a conspiracy? Maybe a conspiracy to debunk myths?
1. https://t.co/y6D1rl1NIy

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 4, 2018

Facts trump claptrap everytime: 

Read this Amazon book review for what the newly unearthed facts actually mean for the history of science and history of science myth making and pseudo scholarship nurturing:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/RG1IFI095K0SU/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1541343964

I've one for the VC. Maybe one of his staff will use it & win a prize. Goes like this "I shouldn't feel I have to tell the press that newly discovered disconfirming facts for old mere beliefs are a silly conspiracy theory." e.g. staff member John van Wyhe: https://t.co/y6D1rl1NIy

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 6, 2018

Wallace the sly plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft

What the sly plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft, Alfred Wallace never admitted is that the editor of his famous Sarawak paper (Selby) cited Matthew's bombshell breakthrough before he (Wallace) wrote a single word on the discovery he replicated: https://t.co/yjnBYK6aji pic.twitter.com/AnqBSTsxSJ

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 4, 2018