Please click the title above for the latest blog post
Friday 10 June 2016
Poet Protests Revisionist History, Fact Denial and Other Abuse in History of Scientific Discovery
Thursday 9 June 2016
Vote to Put an End to Disgraceful Fanatical Revisionist History by the Darwin Worship Industry
Brexit relief - Vote for historical facts over fanatical revisionism
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 9, 2016
1. Facts: https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL
2. Vote: https://t.co/rDE9bSQxqb
Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Premier League Liar
Read the science journal article that is driving Darwinites to extreme deviant behaviour: https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI pic.twitter.com/ADZbbjk5FM— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) June 9, 2016
Hierarchy of Credibility
The hierarchy of credibility is a concept that was coined by Howard S. Becker (1967) in 'Whose Side are we on?', It explains social inequalities and the moral hierarchy of society. For Becker, those at the top of an organization or a society are seen to be more credible, those at the bottom less so.Wednesday 8 June 2016
Mythomania in the Darwin Industry
Mythomania permeates Darwin Industry. If it doesn't smell right its probably rotten:
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) June 8, 2016
1. https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI
2. https://t.co/ILPZ04BaXk
Sunday 5 June 2016
Know the Difference Between "Differences of Opinion" and Proven "Fact Denial"
History teaches us the danger of allowing any "fact denial" behaviour to pass unchecked: https://t.co/BZTDgjpPml pic.twitter.com/NLwSnVzxtz— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 5, 2016
Saturday 4 June 2016
Fortune favours the bold! And fallacies favour the fearful.
They Dethroned Muhammad Ali of his World Champion Title and Imprisoned Him for Refusing to Kill People in the Vietnam War.
They did that because they wanted to disgrace him for telling the truth, for speaking out for justice against the "majority view" that was held by so many idiots in the USA at the time.
Ali's body died today but an immensely inspirational force will stay with us forever. And that is how people become legends. Today a legend was born.
Friday 3 June 2016
On The "Rubbishing" of My Peer Reviewed Science Journal Article. So Are the New Data Facts Really "Not New"? "Very Silly" and a "Conspiracy Theory?" As Esteemed Darwinite Dr John van Wyhe Informs the Scottish Press? Is There a Single Word of Truth in His Completely Unevidenced Fact-Denying "Rubbishing" of My Scholarship? Find Out for Yourself. You Can Decide the Truth of It. Simply Read My Fully Evidenced New Discoveries
Trashing my peer reviewed and science journal published research and scholarship by effectively denying the existence of Darwin's and Wallace's independent discovery paradigm changing newly discovered facts that are 100 per cent proven to exist - because they are in print in the newly discovered literature that Darwinist experts failed to find - Dr John van Wyhe's totally unevidenced (and therefore pseudo scholarly) accusations were reported in the Scottish press on May 17th::
'Dr John van Wyhe, a senior lecturer at the Department of Biological Sciences, at the National University of Singapore, said the recent claims by Dr Mike Sutton of Nottingham Trent University were “so silly” and “based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'
So are new facts really not new, so silly & a conspiracy theory as van Whyhe claimed, with zero evidence to support those serious allegations, in his full statement to the press, where he effectively engages in fact denial:
'Dr Sutton's allegations about a purported influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace are not new. This conspiracy theory is so silly and based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'
Why would Dr van Wyhe deny the existence of 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable, newly discovered facts that completely overturn prior-knowledge beliefs in his field? Why write such a thing for public consumption about someone else's peer reviewed work? Is he "insanely jealous" or "wilfully ignorant"? What on Earth is the reason for such behaviour? Why deny the existence of 100 per cent proven newly discovered facts?
"Conspiracy theory" "Not new" "very silly" ? Really? By "rubbishing" my peer reviewed science journal published new discoveries in this way, with zero evidence to back up his public allegations, Van Wyhe is engaging in pseudo scholarly (completely unevidenced) propagandising fact denial about the new discovery of routes of knowledge contamination between Matthew and Darwin and Wallace.
Please read the newly discovered and fully evidenced paradigm changing facts in my article to decide for yourself: (Sutton 2016).
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 3, 2016
The Criminology of Science
Lots of theft & science fraud criminological interest surrounding Darwin's letters
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 3, 2016
1. : https://t.co/uUTDe11lnu
2. https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL
Friday 20 May 2016
Patrick Matthew and the "New Data" facts
English academic says Scots farmer could be true origin of Charles Darwin’s most famous theory -... https://t.co/Cqb60SfXGb via @supermyths
— Perth Top News (@PerthTopNews) May 20, 2016
Wednesday 18 May 2016
Don't be Punterized by Career Darwinites who Failed to Find the Facts
Behind the Mask of Respectability, Get the Fully Evidenced Facts Behind Blatant Darwin, Darwinist and Darwinite Fact Denial Behaviour - Here
The World's Top Evolutionary Biologists, Including Richard Dawkins, Admit that Patrick Matthew (1831) Conceived the Full Hypothesis of Macroevolution By Natural Selection Years Before Darwin and Wallace. But, Like Darwin, they Claim Matthew's Bombshell Ideas Went Unread Until After the Publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Today the "New Data" facts Prove Them Totally Wrong. They Were Read! And they Were Read By Darwin's and Wallace's Influencers and their Influencers Influencers - Loudon, Selby and Chambers - and by their other Associates and their Associates friends. Routes of Matthewian Knowledge Contamination are thus, Newly, 100 per cent Proven.
The Only Reason we Now Newly know Matthew's ideas were Read by Darwin's and Wallace's Influencers, Years Before Darwin and Wallace Replicated them, Each Claiming them as their Own, and Failing to Cite Matthew, is Because I Originally Discovered That - As opposed to the Old Knowledge Belief of None - Seven Naturalists Did In fact Cite Matthew's Book in the Literature Years Before 1858.
Don't be punterized by those who have built their academic careers out of ignorantly denying the importance of Patrick Matthew. Get the New Data facts, about those naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace, who read and cited Matthew's 1831 book in the literature pre 1858. Naturalists who Darwin scholars failed to find. Decide for yourself. Darwin's proven lies about the prior readership of Matthews ideas, and the newly proven routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination can be read in my latest peer reviewed science journal paper Here.
The full details and explanations, further lieas Darwin told about Matthew and others, Wallace's dishonest editing of one of his letters for his autobiography, a plagiarism text analysis and much more can be found in my book Here.
@BiologiaPensamt Your accusation raises rational questions. Q.1: "Why did no historian of science spot these lies?" pic.twitter.com/4l7d4HaJUI— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 19, 2016
@C_MAlexander The Courier is a paper that is not afraid to cover uncomfortable facts objectively. That's rare today. https://t.co/jeLxlm9Shz— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 20, 2016
Beware of Hacked-Book Sites: Payload More Likely to be Malware
The new case in question is a website that claims to be offering a free (hacked) copy of my e-book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret"
I think the gleeful "look what I got for free" reviewer's pictures and language fails to match-up to the type of folks who would want to read my book. Moreover pictures of men have girls names and vice versa.
Of course for just a few Pounds/Dollars/Euro etc, it's available on Amazon - and also on my publisher's website (here), both of which are a much safer bet, I'd say.
Tuesday 17 May 2016
Read the Story, Read the Facts, Weigh the Evidence: Spread the News
Read full story https://t.co/y6D1rl1NIy
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 18, 2016
Read the New Data facts
https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL
Then weigh the evidence pic.twitter.com/WxZYtiVSDR
Possibly the Most Ironic Thing in the History of the World
I wonder, what is the most ironic thing of all time?
What about the "Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Point Error Myth" (SPIDES)?
The myth was used inadvertently by expert sceptics who credulously believed it to be veracious, because they failed to check its provenance, as a most popular example of the need to check the accuracy of data before presenting it in order to prevent the creation and dissemination of fallacies and myths.
I suppose this is classed as "situational irony". However, now that you know about it, if you see someone using the myth as though it is veracious, is that not also a type of "dramatic irony"?
What about the "Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Point Error Myth" (SPIDES)?
The myth was used inadvertently by expert sceptics who credulously believed it to be veracious, because they failed to check its provenance, as a most popular example of the need to check the accuracy of data before presenting it in order to prevent the creation and dissemination of fallacies and myths.
I suppose this is classed as "situational irony". However, now that you know about it, if you see someone using the myth as though it is veracious, is that not also a type of "dramatic irony"?
HealthWatch
I wonder, Will Professor Steve Jones (FRS) now be "knowledge contaminated" about Supermyths ?
I wonder, now, will the most esteemed and leading Darwinist Professor Steve Jones (FRS) be "knowledge contaminated" on the topic of Supermyths and Charles Darwin - given that he is a notable patron of HealthWatch, which introduces the supermyth concept in its quarterly newsletter (newsletter 101) this month and given that he was on Radio 4 ,along with Dr Mike Weale, last year revealing - most unfortunately for the veracious history of scientific discovery - just how little he and Weale apparently understood - or else perhaps cared to share with the public - about the newly discovered and 100 per cent proven prior-readership of Patrick Matthew's original conception of macroevolution by natural selection by Darwin's and Wallace's associates, influencers and their influencer's influencers and Darwin's 100 per cent proven lies on that very topic (see Sutton 2014 for the Darwin and Wallace Immaculate Conception Supermyth bust).
Interestingly, Dr Mike Weale - Professor Stephen Jones's Radio 4 Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin programme associate - is well aware of my work on supermyths. When Dr Weale publically accused me on his website of creating my own supermyth on the story of Darwin, Wallace, and Matthew and the history of discovery of natural selection I sent him a challenge, as a comment for consideration on his completely unevidenced disparaging accusation about my work, via the first approved and moderated (by Weale) comments section of his website. Weale then personally published my challenge to him to debate the issue with me in any prestigious university setting of his choice, time and place, with as many supporters as he needed, before an academic audience and on camera. Despite several attempts to get him to change his mind, Weale refused on the stated grounds that he feared I would mock him and "sling mud" at him for the world to see. See my recent article on the de facto "MacDarwin Industry" regarding how Dr Mike Weale's unevidenced accusation, and refusal to defend it in public, on camera, can be understood in context of wider pseudo scholarly Darwin scholar uncomfortable "New data" fact denial behaviour. Moreover, even Wikipedia editors are systematically deleting the facts of the published historical record on this topic and pretending to the public that they do not exist. See how I caught them in an online public encyclopedia fraud sting operation - here.
"Life has a funny, funny way of sneaking up, up on you...and everything blows up in your face! "
Monday 16 May 2016
Might Professor Steve Jones (FRS) perhaps become "knowledge contaminated" about Supermyths?
There has been a "state of denial" canny indifference amongst most of the World's top Darwin scholars to the Supermyth busting "New Data" facts (e.g. Sutton 2016), which puncture the premise underpinning the old Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published original conception of macroevolution by natural selection.
I wonder, now, will the esteemed leading Darwinist Steve Jones (FRS) be "knowledge contaminated" on the topic of Supermyths - given that he is a noted patron of HealthWatch, which introduces the supermyth concept this month?
You can read my article in HealthWatch here
What makes the Spinach, Popeye, and Iron Decimal Point error Supermyth (SPIDES), possibly, the most exquisitely ironic myth in the history of the world is the fact that, whilst believing it to be true, so many experts used it as an example of the need to check your data before publishing it.
The "New Data" facts are getting in the news
Some will remember Mike Sutton at Teesside SitP last year. He's still working hard for Patrick Matthew. https://t.co/aHSpoGn1aO
— Teesside SitP (@TeessideSitP) May 16, 2016
Why Natural Selection is the Unifying Theory of Biology
@BiologiaPensamt Well here it is: In a nutshell: The unifying theory of biology. Stolen by Darwin from Matthew pic.twitter.com/PiXcbC4N94
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 16, 2016
Sunday 15 May 2016
A Good Explanation in Science
Good scientific explanations have these two main characteristics. Macro-Evolution by natural selection has both. pic.twitter.com/br8OPilU71
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) May 15, 2016
Wednesday 11 May 2016
Darwin Scholar Donkeys Stop Braying Your Newly Debunked Claptrap and Get the "New Data" Facts
You take a main claim and then match every single one of the supporting "evidences" and "arguments" for it with relevant 100 per cent proven and independently verifiable facts. Sometimes the facts support the "evidences" and "arguments", sometimes they perfectly refute them.
When you are done, if the facts refute the main claim , then all that is left is a braying donkey insisting that the claim is still valid. Today, the facts reveal that Darwin scholars are nought but braying donkeys.
For your courage @RichardDawkins & honesty retweeting link to criticism of your scholarship: https://t.co/pkRXFf97kk pic.twitter.com/12Ns9zNmnf
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 17, 2015
Sales of Richard Dawkins's e-book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret' Top Record 7 Million
WARNING!
For your courage @RichardDawkins & honesty retweeting link to criticism of your scholarship: https://t.co/pkRXFf97kk pic.twitter.com/12Ns9zNmnf— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 17, 2015
Tuesday 10 May 2016
Live Experiment with Corrupt Wikipedia Agenda Editor Bias
This is me. I stand firm and challenge the corrupt Darwin Deification Industry with 100 per cent proven facts |
Academic corruption in an area such as the history of science is likely to be subtle. Were it any other way, perpetrators who deliberately hide significant facts from the public and their peers and students, would not be able to get away with it for very long. Subtlety is not evidence of any kind of conspiracy, it is simply the only effective way that so many criminal offences are committed by those who wish to avoid detection. And just as so many legitimate members of society facilitate crimes such as theft by selling highly specialist tools such as crow-bars, bolt cutters lock picks and slide hammers to the general public, so to do many of those involved in what we might name "academic agenda project fraud" work anonymously from the inside, slyly astroturfing , or else simply assisting salaried academics to hide facts from the public by brute censorship in publications where they have power to delete facts that undermine any extremely carefully crafted and orchestrated agenda-view. Such subtle academic fraud, is today, and has for some time been happening, on the Patrick Matthew page on the Wikipedia encyclopaedia. Let me explain and reveal the facts:
Reviews[edit ]
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; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.[11] . However, it did, in Part II, on page 457 stridently criticise Matthew's then heretical conception of macroevolution by natural selection, which in fact runs throughout his entire book intertwined with his then seditious chartist politics: "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."
Experiment result 1
Postscript 10th May 2016 15.38
- (cur | prev ) 08:58, 10 May 2016 Dave souza (talk | contribs ) . . (41,646 bytes) (-449) . . (Undid revision 719532504 by 2A02:C7D:9E34:8100:6194:58D7:E3DC:219 (talk ) unsourced, contrary to published source and dubious) (undo )
- (cur | prev ) 07:33, 10
- May 2016 2a02:c7d:9e34:8100:6194:58d7:e3dc:219 (talk ) . . (42,095 bytes) (+449) . . (Added fact from the literature that the United Services journal actually DID mention Matthew's heretical conception) (undo )
Is there one or many people hiding behind this Wikipedia editor name Dave Souza?
.
.Corrupt #Wikipedia #Cult is once again begging the public to help it put misinformation online.
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 25, 2021
Proof they are maliciously publishing misinformation to mislead the public: https://t.co/1rvz2T287X pic.twitter.com/FfVmTIv7ET