On Plagiarism: A strangely unexplored area of criminology
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 30, 2016
1. https://t.co/JUd91nR87p
2. https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL
3.https://t.co/SXiHqXQlsx pic.twitter.com/kNXfK8iWnH
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
Friday, 30 December 2016
Plagiarism
Tuesday, 27 December 2016
Today in 1831
Today in 1831 Darwin sailed on the Beagle. But.Matthew had already conceaved macroevolution by natural selection https://t.co/ldMK5Ipfqu pic.twitter.com/ljGZ3fFGpY
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 27, 2016
Friday, 23 December 2016
Christmas Day 1859: Is Darwin Drunk Before Dinner?
From Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Currently unavailable in full 600 page original e-book form, following the publishing house [Thinker Books, of Thinker Media] closing. Volume 1 of the paperback is now out and on sale on Amazon and from all good bookshops - vols. 2 and 3 are forthcoming.)
'Subsequent to his successful manipulation of Hooker and Lyell in 1858, to ensure that Wallace did not get his priority over him, the following year, and just weeks before defending his priority to Baden Powell in 1859, Darwin writes to Hooker on Christmas Day, 1859, to say that he has always strongly felt that no one should defend their priority (Darwin 1859b). Seemingly, this most weird letter is meant to be both appreciative and self-flattering that he manipulated Hooker and Lyell to do so on his behalf, even if that meant unethical conduct on their respective parts. We know that Darwin had a weirdly unethical mindset when it came to scientific priority, but in this case, one might wonder whether perhaps he had started just a tad too early on the mince pies, rum source, sherry and port, or perhaps he was using something stronger? Or perhaps there was simply something far more profoundly wrong with the moral wiring of his mind.'
Darwin was a serial liar who was in fact obsessed with slyly stealing priority from others for his own glorification. Years earlier he started a prolific letter campaign to try to get Royal Society and British Association for Advancement of Science to re-write the rules on priority for discovery changed so that mere replicators like he could claim priority for the prior-published discoveries of lesser known scientists. Those independently verifiable facts are here.
Below, you can see the facts of how Darwin blatantly and clearly lied in order to plagiarise by glory theft Patrick Matthew's original ans prior published conception of macroevolution natural selection.
The peer reviewed facts of Charles Darwin's lies and independently verifiable evidence he committed plagiarism, to effectively claim independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published hypotheses of the process of macro evolution by natural slection, can now be read in learned journals:
1. Here
2. Here
3. Far more details, evidence and context can be found in 'Nullius in Verba': Here
'Subsequent to his successful manipulation of Hooker and Lyell in 1858, to ensure that Wallace did not get his priority over him, the following year, and just weeks before defending his priority to Baden Powell in 1859, Darwin writes to Hooker on Christmas Day, 1859, to say that he has always strongly felt that no one should defend their priority (Darwin 1859b). Seemingly, this most weird letter is meant to be both appreciative and self-flattering that he manipulated Hooker and Lyell to do so on his behalf, even if that meant unethical conduct on their respective parts. We know that Darwin had a weirdly unethical mindset when it came to scientific priority, but in this case, one might wonder whether perhaps he had started just a tad too early on the mince pies, rum source, sherry and port, or perhaps he was using something stronger? Or perhaps there was simply something far more profoundly wrong with the moral wiring of his mind.'
Darwin was a serial liar who was in fact obsessed with slyly stealing priority from others for his own glorification. Years earlier he started a prolific letter campaign to try to get Royal Society and British Association for Advancement of Science to re-write the rules on priority for discovery changed so that mere replicators like he could claim priority for the prior-published discoveries of lesser known scientists. Those independently verifiable facts are here.
Below, you can see the facts of how Darwin blatantly and clearly lied in order to plagiarise by glory theft Patrick Matthew's original ans prior published conception of macroevolution natural selection.
The peer reviewed facts of Charles Darwin's lies and independently verifiable evidence he committed plagiarism, to effectively claim independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published hypotheses of the process of macro evolution by natural slection, can now be read in learned journals:
1. Here
2. Here
3. Far more details, evidence and context can be found in 'Nullius in Verba': Here
Thursday, 22 December 2016
An interlude in social media with Darwinites
@DISSENTOFMAN @interUNFAO @intelligent50 No error in verifiable facts. The big error is to write fact denial statements in your own name. pic.twitter.com/ethenEtwvu
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 22, 2016
Wednesday, 21 December 2016
What would your sandwich board say?
If everyone had to wear a billboard for one day every year, what would yours say? Here is mine. pic.twitter.com/v6eIQHZHhu
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 21, 2016
Monday, 19 December 2016
More fact denial behaviour in social media captured for the historical record
++.@Lorienen @interUNFAO @DISSENTOFMAN Read facts. Perhaps you might then abandon the Darwin worship fact-denal cult: https://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m pic.twitter.com/BLuO9TRfSX
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 19, 2016
The words you are reading here are 100% proven to exist. Look 100 times - count the number of times they disappear.: https://t.co/WOiVuLvCho
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 20, 2016
Kindle Notes on Nullius
Having your book on Kindle & Amazon is a great way to share the findings & ideas in it so others cans see for free: https://t.co/7kYjx0QF2D pic.twitter.com/V4GKTQVZYD
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 19, 2016
Sunday, 18 December 2016
RankBrain and the IDD Mehod
++@guardiannews About time. Google' AI Rank Brain is possibly out of control: https://t.co/jt4VaEwOUz pic.twitter.com/NP0jMsHEMk
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) December 18, 2016
Google's racist RankBrain now likely to be regulated by the UK government
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 18, 2016
1. https://t.co/nG7VeWlhyD
2. https://t.co/o32zkwE6JL pic.twitter.com/shlpCFXmbX
Blame it on the Pseudo Skeptical Zombie Sheep Herders
My resolution for 2017? I'm simply blaming everything that is bad on the credulous & incurious zombie horde & their pseudo-skeptical leaders pic.twitter.com/nH2Eo1e1Oa
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 18, 2016
The Problematic Darwinian Defence of Multiple Coincidence
When it comes to the problem of a supposedly independent replication of a prior published discovery, science cannot tell us how many coincidences sum to a number that would render the replicator's defence of multiple coincidence improbable. Moreover, how many routes for knowledge contamination sum to a number that makes it more likely than not that at least one was taken? HERE
Nullius in Verba': On sale HERE. The ideal present for the genuine scientist, skeptic, historian or sociologist.
++Attention @sherlockmichael @DISSENTOFMAN @TakeThatDarwin @Lorienen @Jackthelad1947 @SamHarrisOrg https://t.co/JEaSsXeRwy— HUMANIST (@interUNFAO) December 18, 2016
++Calculating improbable multiple coincidence in independent discovery replication. Science problem requires solution https://t.co/tjS3g9kZ25 pic.twitter.com/xuwGIgk5N2— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 18, 2016
Nullius in Verba': On sale HERE. The ideal present for the genuine scientist, skeptic, historian or sociologist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)