Please click the title above for the latest blog post
Thursday 25 June 2020
IDD method and Google's Bot Asks If I am A Bot
Google, it appears on the basis of this evidence, is not designed to be interrogated by this powerfully unique method. Maybe that is why if it were used today rather than back in 2013/14, when I first used it to look to see who really did cite Patrick Matthew before Darwin plagiarised his theory and claimed in his lying defence that no naturalist / no one whatsoever did read it, the books that I uniquely discovered, and we now know exist and can, thankfully therefore, read in libraries, can sadly no longer be detected with the IDD method. It seems that it is Google's Rank Brain (AI) that has diminished the power of Google to search Google's Library of millions of scanned books and other publications. See Sutton and Griffiths Here.
Thursday 21 May 2020
Unscientific, Thick, Incurious, Credulous Scientists, Patrick Matthew and Covid19
Get the full story on the Patrick Matthew website: https://patrickmatthew.com/
.
Scientists often turn to the past to understand where we are today. To understand why the government has been misled by scientifically incurious, credulous ludicrous dogma following pseudo-scholars we can learn much studying imbecilic Darwin worshippers: https://t.co/RKbJV7ogAU
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 21, 2020
Tuesday 19 May 2020
Rob Roy
HERE
Sunday 10 May 2020
Tackling the Darwin Myth Pandemic Using Track and Trace Research
.Tackling a virus & fraudulent Meme pandemic. Following evidence of "knowledge contamination" "tracking & tracing" used to see, contrary to Darwin's science myth that none whatsoever read Matthew's published discovery of natural selection. Who did cite it! https://t.co/aInM0fTdvH pic.twitter.com/9FgYWyznK5— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 10, 2020
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
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
Monday 4 May 2020
Masks and the Matthew Awards
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?
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
.
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