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
Saturday, 9 May 2020
Did T Horton James read On Naval Timber?
Here is an article citing Matthew's Emigration fields and Matthew as the author of "On Naval Timber". It is reproduced in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine in 1839 (Here).
There is no evidence the author read On Naval Timber. But it is further evidence of the extent to which Matthew's book was cited in popular literature long before Darwin and Wallace plagiarised it.
Thomas Horton James was a merchant and traveller: See: https://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/page/A137272
Thursday, 7 May 2020
Terraforming: and Patrick Matthew
Veracity v Myth and Matthew V Darwin in the invention of terraforming
Based on the Supermyth that Darwin and Wallace uniquely and independently discovered the natural process of selection, there is a related, daughter, myth that Charles Darwin, together with his botanical mentor and best friend Joseph Hooker uniquely invented terraforming by way of what they did on Ascension Island (e.g. that story here).
In reality it is Patrick Matthew, the plagiarized and cheated 1831 originator of the theory of natural selection, whose research and observations of nature provided the factual and theoretical base for terraforming.
When, in 1831, Matthew published his theory in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, it contained, amongst other religious heresy at the time, the heresy that trees could grow better in other than their "natural" habitats when transplanted there by humans. This heresy was heretical because it went against then Christian doctrine that "God", as designer and creator, placed every living thing in its ideal location. Matthew's heresy probably just one of those that led his book to banned by Perth public Library in Scotland and for reviewers to demand readers not even think about his ruminations on the laws of nature. Indeed, Selby (a regular church-going Christian naturalist, who I, in 2014, 2014a, 2015 see my later 2016 paperback uniquely discovered cited Matthew's book in 1842 and wrote that he could not understand this idea before going on to be chief editor of the journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper. NOTE: My Selby discovery was later plagiarized in the Linnean Journal by Dagg The Jealous and Sly Plagiarist - facts here).
In 1843, a year after Selby (1842) noted what Matthew had written abut some trees doing well outside their natural habitat, Joseph Hooker landed on Ascension Island (see here and here) and arranged for an abundance of different species of tree to be planted there.
Selby wrote that he could not understand how it could be so that Matthew said trees could do better when grown outside their natural habitat. See Prideaux John Selby, A History of British Forest-Trees: Indigenous and Introduced, Van Voorst, London 1842. In this way, whether he really could understand it (but pretended otherwise to appease the powerful church) or not, Selby drew attention to Matthew's heresy. Later it was picked up upon as no more than an important fact for economic botany and cited prominently by William Hooker's (William being Joseph Hooker's father and also a friend of the Darwin and his wife) correspondent William Jameson in 1853 (facts here).
The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine:
"But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments."
Darwin and his cronies capitalized upon the opportunistic fact Matthew had been earlier silenced in the first half of the 19th century when the church was still in its ascendancy to steal his ideas. Indeed, while Matthew mocked the church and priests, in many editions of the Origin of Species Darwin kept the notion of "The Creator" in as a supernatural deity that created evolution by natural selection.
In reality it is Patrick Matthew, the plagiarized and cheated 1831 originator of the theory of natural selection, whose research and observations of nature provided the factual and theoretical base for terraforming.
When, in 1831, Matthew published his theory in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, it contained, amongst other religious heresy at the time, the heresy that trees could grow better in other than their "natural" habitats when transplanted there by humans. This heresy was heretical because it went against then Christian doctrine that "God", as designer and creator, placed every living thing in its ideal location. Matthew's heresy probably just one of those that led his book to banned by Perth public Library in Scotland and for reviewers to demand readers not even think about his ruminations on the laws of nature. Indeed, Selby (a regular church-going Christian naturalist, who I, in 2014, 2014a, 2015 see my later 2016 paperback uniquely discovered cited Matthew's book in 1842 and wrote that he could not understand this idea before going on to be chief editor of the journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper. NOTE: My Selby discovery was later plagiarized in the Linnean Journal by Dagg The Jealous and Sly Plagiarist - facts here).
In 1843, a year after Selby (1842) noted what Matthew had written abut some trees doing well outside their natural habitat, Joseph Hooker landed on Ascension Island (see here and here) and arranged for an abundance of different species of tree to be planted there.
Selby wrote that he could not understand how it could be so that Matthew said trees could do better when grown outside their natural habitat. See Prideaux John Selby, A History of British Forest-Trees: Indigenous and Introduced, Van Voorst, London 1842. In this way, whether he really could understand it (but pretended otherwise to appease the powerful church) or not, Selby drew attention to Matthew's heresy. Later it was picked up upon as no more than an important fact for economic botany and cited prominently by William Hooker's (William being Joseph Hooker's father and also a friend of the Darwin and his wife) correspondent William Jameson in 1853 (facts here).
The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine:
"But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments."
Darwin and his cronies capitalized upon the opportunistic fact Matthew had been earlier silenced in the first half of the 19th century when the church was still in its ascendancy to steal his ideas. Indeed, while Matthew mocked the church and priests, in many editions of the Origin of Species Darwin kept the notion of "The Creator" in as a supernatural deity that created evolution by natural selection.
Tuesday, 5 May 2020
Patrick Matthew's Book donated by J Strang - 1848 Mechanics Institute Library
The 1848 list of books held by Glasgow's mechanics institute lists Patrick Matthew's (1831) book amongst others on botany. The copy was donated by J. Strang. HERE
Monday, 4 May 2020
Masks and the Matthew Awards
Another nominee for the Mathew Awards in natural v artificial selection
Ever wondered how @realDonaldTrump got elected?
— Adrian Littlejohn (@yorksfella59) May 4, 2020
Puzzle no more... https://t.co/t5PzzwrdYI
Tower of Babel Moment on the Internet?
Why did AI stop me and others from discovering more bombshell breakthroughs with the IDD method?
.
In the entire history of human technology, is it true we have never thwarted related scientific progress? What about when #RankBrain AI thwarted functionality on Google's Library? Were we getting to know too much? Too close?— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 4, 2020
Is it a #TowerOfBabel analogy? https://t.co/Nli3gCzRvO pic.twitter.com/Tm2tmZRCwX
.
And is it better, or worse, that it was (presumably) driven by a mindless and valueless (by which I mean 'without values' rather than worthless) commercial imperative rather than a philosophical or ideological position? Tragic, either way.
— Andy Sutton (@faceblindandy) May 4, 2020
Thursday, 30 April 2020
World's Greatest Irony: The Patrick Matthew Awards
Should the Chinese government should be entered in competition for a Patrick Matthew award for irony?
.
.
According to an email I received from an academic today, #China is making it difficult for researchers there to examine the evidence that the landed gentry #Toff Charles Darwin plagiarized the theory of a Chartist leader Scottish botanist: pic.twitter.com/jt2QSyghtC
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 30, 2020
Tuesday, 28 April 2020
Patrick Matthew, Mike Sutton and Wikipedia Fraud and Falsehoods
If ever you doubted the claims made by proper academics that Wikipedia is the world’s worst encyclopedia full of fake news and bogus, biased claims made by dishonest fabricating fanatics who've found their niche amongst cultish, obtuse, idiots then please read on.
Examining the archived Wikipedia page on Patrick Matthew you’ll find the most hilarious endlessly obsessive nonsense written - mostly by the whack job obsessed stalker who pretends to be professionally affiliated to Edinburgh University (but isn't) Julian Derry who repeatedly cites the ludicrous falsehoods written by Darwin fanatic Dr Dagg in nothing more than his anti-academic blog site in non-peer reviewed ludicrous hatchet job blog posts created by his own dishonesty and lies. Dagg is so jealous of my unique discoveries that he even blatantly plagiarised (see the facts here) my original bombshell discovery that Wallace's Sarawak paper editor editor Selby, who was also a friend of Charles Darwin's father and Darwin’s great friend, Jenyns, cited Matthew's (1831) book and the ideas in it in 1842.
The Wikipedia Matthew page cites a totally disingenuous fact denial and Darwin rambling desperate deification tract written by Malec, but fails to cite my fact-based refutation response to Malec's disingenuous nonsense in the very same journal (here). (archived here). How biased is that?
By way of just one more example amongst all of Derry and Dagg's totally fabricated lying nonsense on this Wikipedia page about me mistaking things for things they are not (note in my 2014 e-book, Nullius. I don't mistake the publications for anything other than what they are. Namely, published sources that are independently verifiable as named publications. I only ever say these are the first currently discovered/now known places the terms, words or phrases are used that were either perhaps overheard thereafter, or more likely than not read by those who were apparently first to be second in using them).
Moreover, Dagg the Plagiarist wrongly claims (because he makes a habit of being either dishonest, maliciously fraudulent or plain wrong throughout his Darwin deification work) that I made a mistake in discovering a Matthewism later used by Selby. Dagg, credulously cited on this particular falsehood in Wikipedia by his co-nutter, lazy academic failure and obsessive and delusional Wikipedia editor, Derry, wrongly co-claims Selby did not even use the term "greater power of occupancy". In reality, the total 100% proven and independently verifiable fact is that I originally found Selby was apparently first to be second with it in published print. The image below is of my List 2 published in my 500 page e-book (Sutton 2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.
Moreover, Dagg the Plagiarist wrongly claims (because he makes a habit of being either dishonest, maliciously fraudulent or plain wrong throughout his Darwin deification work) that I made a mistake in discovering a Matthewism later used by Selby. Dagg, credulously cited on this particular falsehood in Wikipedia by his co-nutter, lazy academic failure and obsessive and delusional Wikipedia editor, Derry, wrongly co-claims Selby did not even use the term "greater power of occupancy". In reality, the total 100% proven and independently verifiable fact is that I originally found Selby was apparently first to be second with it in published print. The image below is of my List 2 published in my 500 page e-book (Sutton 2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.
The falsehood created by Dagg and replicated on Wikipedia that Selby never used the term 'greater power of occupancy' is just one amongst all of Dagg and Derry's mere blog post fact denial falsehoods. Because you can independently verify here that it is used in the very source I cite in my e.book along with an image of the term in my e-book on my Kindle. Click here to see that the term IS in Selby's (1842) book A History of British Forest-trees: Indigenous and Introduced, on page 391.
Wikipedia has done the world a great service in allowing these Darwin worshiping vacuous morons to edit its page with their comprehensive dog’s breakfast fake facts malicious attack on the discoverer of painful and independently verifiable truths. They have provided the world with wonderfully concentrated proof of just how useless, dishonest and totally biased Wikipedia is.
Ultimately, fact denial fake news about scientific and other discoveries of the kind published by gleefully imbecilic Wikipedia editors will cost lives. If you think that is an exaggeration then please read my blog post on the Crime Talk site: Here
Ultimately, fact denial fake news about scientific and other discoveries of the kind published by gleefully imbecilic Wikipedia editors will cost lives. If you think that is an exaggeration then please read my blog post on the Crime Talk site: Here
Saturday, 25 April 2020
Bullshit in Science and the History of Science Kills People
On Bullshit:
We are all in is a massive Pandemic of Bulls#it
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 25, 2020
Are university #managerialists & idiot scientists ultimately killing more people than #Covid19?
On the Crime Talk site, I argue why I think the answer is yes, they are! @DrMarkGriffiths @EdzardErnst https://t.co/uPXibahT7C pic.twitter.com/LD7ZkManf8
The Matthew Awards 2020
Another candidate for the Patrick Matthew Awards 2020. Category for the World's Greatest Irony
Solidarity with the brilliant @DrJessTaylor, who is being subjected to horrendous abuse by men committed to misogyny at all costs. This only shows the importance of her work, which these men could learn so much from were they to actually engage with it... https://t.co/RcBMWrASHT
— Stephen Burrell (@the_daily_panda) April 24, 2020
Saturday, 18 April 2020
The Matthew Awards
.Got 11 videos sent to me of screws dancing outside prisons! All videod in last 6 days in which time 13 deaths in custody and 218 confirmed cases and counting. Ill put them all up later for your pleasure guys #prisonerspeopletoo pic.twitter.com/EXRWgiao4V
— Anon Inmate (@anon42680381) April 18, 2020
No masks. No social distancing. If genuine, here we would see an example of Patrick Mathew's (1831) "Natural process of selection" in action during a pandemic. #TheMatthewAwards https://t.co/I8BK3UCf8x
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) April 18, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)