Charles Darwin's Plagiarism Tree and the IDD Research Method

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-greatest-secret/dp/1541343964

Drawing Back the Curtain: The True Story of  the Scot Behind Darwin

The BigData IDD method so confused Google that its RankBrain autonomous AI robot asked me if I am a robot. 

IDD On the Trail of the Darwin's World's Greatest Science Fraud by Plagiarism

 The IDD research method detected that Patrick Matthew (1831) was apparently first to go into published print with the term 'natural process of selection'. Years later Darwin was apparently first to four word shuffle that orignal term into 'process of natural selection' to name the exact same theory and then claim it as his own.

Darwin's four-word-shuffle is included nine times in the Origin of Species (1859) at pages 38, 104, 178, 179, 181, 203, 235, 279 and 280.

It's not a debate about what is has been discovered. It's about what that discovery has done to a myth

 Newly unearthed facts prove Patrick Matthew influenced Darwin's and Wallace's influencers and influenced their influencer's influencers.

Dishonest Darwin Fanatics are Responsible for Heritage Trees Being Under Threat in Scotland

 

By tugging their forelocks to English Darwin fanatics, the failure of enough Scottish people to know that their countryman Patrick Matthew was robbed by Darwin The Plagiarist have already demolished Matthew's country house out of such unforgivable ignorance. Now they are all set to lose these great heritage trees.  

The pseudo-scholarly Darwin Deification Cult now threatens major heritage tress in Scotland by fact denying the major importance of Patrick Matthew and Darwin's science fraud by plagiary @AlberroHeather @LaxmiAggarwal1 @HughDower @Grouse_Beater https://t.co/tKUxNrSgqp

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 22, 2021

 

Why do some universities shy away from the most painful verifiable facts?

 J.D Benal (1954) taken here from the 1969 (third edition) Pelican publication (pages 33-34):

‘In fact at all times the individual scientist has needed to work in close connection with three other groups of persons: his patrons, his colleagues and his public. The function of the patron, whether a wealthy individual, university, corporation, or a department of State, is to provide the money on which the scientist must live and which will enable him to carry on his work. The patron will in turn want to have something to say on what is actually done, especially if his ultimate object is commercial advantage or military success. It will apparently be less so only if he is operating from pure benevolence. Or in the pursuit of prestige or advertisement; then he will only want results to be sufficiently spectacular and not too disturbing.

In a Socialist society the function of the patron is taken over by the organs of popular government, at all levels, for the factory or farm laboratory to the academy institute, and is radically changed in the process. Because such a government can, and indeed necessarily must, take a long-term view….’

On which point, I have an email safely archived from the Press Office of my old university, Nottingham Trent University (NTU), informing me that a dean has insisted my prestigiously fully funded (by the UK National Lottery Heritage Fund) trip to disseminate my published and expert peer reviewed research findings on Darwin's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's theory remove any mention of NTU from a Scottish press release on the matter.

This is how disruptive new breakthroughs are supressed by the zombie horde of anti-academic vacuous - managerialist gimp - dullards. 

Nullius in Verba is going to be up-dated and re-published this year

 A science publisher is going to re-publish the original 500 page e-book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' as a hardback, paper back and e-book. 

This bombshell of a book will be re-titled to make it more appealing to a wider readership. The book will be updated to include support for the independently verifiable new findings in it by top academics.

 The new book will also provide fully evidenced accounts of pseudo scholarly idiotic censorship fact denial/deletion behaviour of Wikipedia editors, running-scared utter nonsense written about it by two senior historians of science who have not even read it, resignation from a science journal's board of editors by one senior academic because they published an expert peer reviewed  article on the devastating new research findings on Darwin's plagiarism, stalking and vile harassment by nutters, vile abuse by academics employed in universities, research plagiarism of it facilitated by the Editor of the Linnean Society and Oxford University Press  -and so much more. 

Watch this space.

Surgery on Charles Darwin

 Charles Darwin underwent surgery today 

Today is surgery day.

Lights! Camera! Action!

Darwin, the piratical plagiarist of "On Naval Timber" has had this coming since 1858.

"Hand me the hacksaw, nurse...
....File!
....Scalpel!
....Glue!
...Camera!
...Justice!" pic.twitter.com/el1zkpGtRT

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 3, 2021

Charles Darwin's Plagiarising Fraud and Zombie Horde

 Darwin's Fraud and the Zombie Horde

Are you an independent rational, objective person able to weigh independently verifiable facts? Or are you just one of the zombie horde stumbling blindly, obeying authority because certainty is more comforting than disturbing new disconfirming evidence? https://t.co/YL4VkrR7sP pic.twitter.com/gEJBQ1zsmS

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) March 29, 2021

Charles The Pirate Darwin

 

Charles Darwin was a theory pirate "child" abductor @brianjford @CurtisPress_ @takedownpiracy :

"Mr Matthew", wrote Emma Darwin, "my husband is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself!"https://t.co/ymgpK1MVsV pic.twitter.com/QfjjKg1LaZ

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) March 19, 2021

On The Charles Darwin Fake Discovery Alternate Reality Show

 When confronted by Matthew in 1860 for plagiarising his work. Darwin smogged the scientific world by claiming he had not read Matthew's work, which he claimed was unsurprising given it was a book on the 's book also contained topic of naval timber. However, Darwin's dishonest wriggling failed to mention the full title of Matthew's (1831) book is On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. Arboriculture was a great passion among the landed gentry - many of whom were naturalists.  Darwin was a member of the landed gentry as were many of his friends. The naturalist Selby - who cited Matthew's (1831) book in 1842 -  was a member of the landed gentry and editor of the journal that published Alfred Wallace's Sarawak paper (a fact I discovered in 2014 that was slyly plagiarised in the Linnean journal by Dagg The Plagiarist).

 Darwin's deliberate obfuscating of the facts also hid from the incurious and credulous scientific community the fact that naval timber was a very important subject for economic botany. Darwin's best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker was an economic botanist, as was his father William. To prove the point, we can see that very subject of naval timber raised in Hooker's Journal of Botany: HERE in 1854.  The same subject of naval timber was also written about by other friends correspondents and influencers of Darwin, including Lindly, a friend and co-author of Loudon - who cited Matthew's 1831 book in 1832 and wrote that Matthew appeared to have something orignal to say on the "origin of species" no less! A term that would become the very title of Darwin The Plagiarist's 1859 book. 

Contrary to Darwin's proven deliberate lies, written after he had already been told of naturalists who did cite Matthew's book pre-1858, that no naturalist had read Matthew's unique ideas long before he replicated them in 1858 and 1859, many naturalists did so. See my List 1 (updated) below:

List 1 (From Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret 2014 See blog here)

Those who/that cited Matthew (1831) before Darwin's (1858) and Wallace's (1858) plagiarism of Matthew's theory in the Linnean Journal, where they further stole his unique terminology and explanatory examples, and before Darwin's plagiarising 'Origin of Species' (1859)

1. Matthew's (1831) Edinburgh publisher Adam Black
2. Matthew's (1831) London publisher Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green 
3. The Farmer’s Journal – Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
4. The Perthshire Courier - Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
5. The Elgin Courier - Currently unknown reviewer (18311)
6. The Country Times - Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
7. The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine (1831) – unknown reviewer
8. The Edinburgh Literary Journal – unknown reviewer (1831)
9. The Metropolitan – unknown reviewer (1831)
10. John Claudius Loudon (1832) (And cited many times by Loudon thereafter. All refs in 'Nullius').
11. Robert Chambers (1832)

12. The Quarterly Review (here) Unknown reviewer on topic of dry rot. (Newly added here 14th March 2021)
13. John Murray II in (1833)
14. John Murray III (1833) personally or by association – via the same publishing house as John Murray II
15. Edmund Murphy (1834)

16. Thomas Horton James (1839) [Newly added: Discovered May 2020] (and here)
17. Gavin Cree (1841)
18. John William Carleton (1841)
19. Cuthbert William Johnson (1842)
20. Prideaux John Selby (Selby 1842)
21. The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (1838) (1842) – Anonymous 
22. Publishers - Cradock and Co. (1843)3 in ‘British Forest Trees’
23. Henry Stephens (1851)
24. John. P. Norton (1851)4 (Co-published with Stevens above)
25. Levi Woodbury (1832) (1833) (1852)

26. William Lauder Lindsay (1852) [Newly added: Discovered Jan 2019]  (and here)
27. William Jameson (1853)
28. Wyatt Papworth (1858)