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

Tuesday, 21 January 2020

A Dishonest Toff Scientific Establishment Model in Crisis

Newly unearthed and expert peer reviewed facts prove that King Charles Darwin has no clothes.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Let's Bin the Dog's Breakfast History of Discovery Science sold by Darwinians


To date, most historians of science and scientists have credulously swallowed the toff, King Charles Darwin's, serial lies about the discovery of evolution by natural selection and instilled that palpable nonsense into to minds of the general population. But in 2020 we can see a paradigm change taking place. Proper scientists and other veracious scholars are now citing the independently verifiable facts of how Darwin's and Wallace's influencers, friends, Wallace's Sarawak paper editor, and their influencer's influencers red and cited Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published theory years before Darwin and Wallace even put pen to paper on the topic in a private notebook.

This is what a paradigm change looks like.






































Over the past few years, I can’t think of a single conversation that we have had that both Darwin and Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret (“Nullius in verba” is Latin for “on the word of no one” or “take nobody’s word for it”) and as a result of it has experienced a torrent of verbal abuse on social media. So why has Dr. Sutton been the victim of such abuse? In a nutshell, Sutton has asserted that Darwin is a fraud and that his main thesis on natural selection was stolen from Matthew without any acknowledgement. Furthermore, using a new methodological technique that Sutton developed, he believes Darwin lied about his knowledge of Matthew’s work.
Professor Dr Mark Griffiths
Matthew’s didn’t get talked about at some point. In 2014, Sutton published his book
Over the last few years, I have read over a dozen of Sutton’s online articles about Darwin and Matthew, and I was also one of the first people to read Sutton’s book before it was published. Sutton’s work is meticulous, rigorous, and fully referenced. Most of his critics have never read (or simply don’t want to read) his book. Instead they appear to take potshots at his research and reputation without bothering to read the original source.
The first thing to note concerns Sutton’s methodology. His method – sometimes referred to ‘internet dating’ in his articles (but nothing to with people meeting up online, so apologies if the use of the words ‘internet dating’ in my article lured you to read this blog on false pretences) but called ‘Internet Date-Detection’ (ID) in his book – relies on the 30+ million books and documents that the Google Books Library Project has digitized and dating back centuries. Using the ID method, Sutton has used a search engine to track down obscure books, articles, and letters (and short phrases within these documents) to work out who published what and when with pinpoint accuracy. (For instance, back in the 1990s, I thought I had first coined the word ‘screenager’ but Sutton used his ID method and proved that others before me had used the word in print prior to my own articles).

Page 20 of Fraud and Misconduct in Research:
  ‘Plagiarism may present a particularly difficult challenge because sometimes establishing
deliberate plagiarism is not simple. Issues concerning the nature of giving proper credit, being influenced by ideas vs. “stealing” ideas, simultaneous discoveries, or interpretations may create a gray area where the intent to plagiarize is difficult to establish. While today there is computer text-matching software that can—under certain conditions— identify similar texts and thus raise the suspicion of plagiarism, human examination is always required to actually decide if plagiarism is involved (see also Biagioli 2012). If quotation marks or proper references are provided then matching texts may not necessarily constitute a case of plagiarism. Nevertheless, with so much of the scientific research floating in cyberspace, such text-matching programs can have an important role in identifying plagiarism. Yet even with this technology, establishing bona fide cases of plagiarism may not be simple. One recent illustration involves Mike Sutton, a criminologist, who relied on text-mining software to claim in an e-book he published in 2014 (Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret) that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace plagiarized the theory of natural selection from Scottish naturalist Patrick Matthew. This claim—as could be expected—created much turmoil and remained controversial.3’ Page 174 ‘French astronomer Pierre-Simon, Marquis de Laplace was suspected of stealing ideas “outrageously, right and left, whenever he could,” and German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz was also suspected of similar acts. Italian physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei was This document contains independently verifiable evidence from the publication record that the original findings in Mike Sutton’s (2014) book ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ have been interpreted as being so significant the author’s write that Darwin’s name may now have to be added to a list of plagiarising science fraudsters. 2 said to “shamelessly” have stolen ideas from German astronomer Johannes Kepler and others. Likewise, Graeco-Egyptian mathematician and astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, as well as Dalton, Lavoisier, and Pascal, may have all been involved, and possibly guilty of, some form of deceit in their work. 80’ ‘George Becker (1984) accused Merton of misinterpreting and ignoring sources (to the point of faulty use of evidence), thus calling into question Merton’s conclusions regarding the relationship between German pietism and the rise of science over the past four centuries.81’ Page 217 Notes to Chapter 2 ‘3. For a concise review see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Sutton_(criminologist) Page 232 notes to pages 172–175 ‘80. Given Sutton’s previously mentioned work, Darwin may have to be added to this list'.


Dr. Mike Sutton, a criminologist, has used a battery of Internet search tools to demolish the main Darwinian argument, which would be either to say that Darwin did not have access to Matthew's work, which is denied by Darwin himself in the paragraph above, or that Matthew had presented his ideas in a very indirect way and with very little diffusion, as Darwin literally says:

"Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the "Gardeners' Chronicle", on April 7, 1860."

In any case, Darwin read Matthew and took his ideas from a book that, certainly was of a different matter, but not less important, since in 1831 naval wood and arboriculture were key issues for the country's economy, and therefore the book had been widely distributed. Matthew predates Darwin but his characteristics (Scottish, sympathetic to the Chartist revolts in London) did not allow him to fit the profile of the new liberal model.'
See other scholarly affirmations of the facts over credulous propaganda beliefs HERE





















Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, 19 January 2020

A Telling Question on Racism, "Royalty" in Science, Artificial Selection Among Humans and Pig-headed Stupidity

The Huffington Post interviewed me for my expert criminologist views on racism, interracial relationships, and the Royal Family. The article was published yesterday.

.
.
In light of his newly proven serial lying and plagiarism, why is the world's greatest science fraudster King Charles Darwin still the chosen king pig of small brained anti-scientific morons?


As Patrick Matthew pointed out, artificial selection among toffs is a big problem for human society


. . .
.

Another Telling Question

Today, in light of the expert peer reviewed and independently verifiable facts, are demented DarwiBoppers, fed rotten nonsense by pseudo-scholars, squealing like swill scoffing pigs? HERE.  .


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

Saturday, 18 January 2020

You have to laugh

What is a book worth? The same as a violin. Whatever someone is prepared to pay for it. 😅




Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, 17 January 2020

Tin Foil Darwiboppers

Try as they might, fanatical Darwin worshipers cannot block out the newly unearthed facts on Darwin's science fraud.



Nullius in Verba

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

Thursday, 16 January 2020

The Darwibopper Industry

Make a ton of money in religion, in the Darwin Industry, lots of idiots are at it. Or, in the veracity industry where the smart money is:

.

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

Friday, 10 January 2020

Big Data Heat


Dreadfully unwelcome facts turn up the heat in the scientific community. (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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is it Time in the 2020s for a Darwin Naughty Monkey Trial?

I don't think it is right that Darwin foot-washer cultists are let lose on school children and university students, presenting their silly debunked myths (fully debunked with newly unearthed data in expert peer reviewed books and scholarly articles) about Charles Darwin's supposed unique genius as though they are unquestionable scientific and history of science facts in need of mere blind belief, rather than the newly busted fairy-stories they really are. Do you?


.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Don't Let Darwin's Unethical Worshiping Superfan Cultists Spaff On You Any Longer

Don't let self-interested, unethical, idiot Cult of Darwin pseudo scientists and faux-historians toff-spaff their obsessive nonsense on you  anymore. Get the new and independently verifiable, expert peer reviewed uncomfortable facts. Make up your own mind. Spread the verifiable truth, not silly wishful thinking science myths that have been completely debunked by newly unearthed facts in the publication record.


On Knowledge Contamination (expert peer reviewed)- Here.
Darwin's plagiarizing science fraud (expert peer reviewed)- Here
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret - Here
The IDD BigData research method (expert peer reviewed) - Here

Finding Common Ground on research ethics (expert peer reviewed) Here


You might care to re-tweet this if you wish to spread veracity rather than bathe in corrupt toff-spaff a moment longer




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