Plagiarising Science Fraud

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

Tuesday, 15 August 2017

Darwin Cult Marketeers

Monday, 14 August 2017

Darwin Emoji

Scholarly Journal Cites a Best Thinking Article as Busting the Cohen Coined Moral Panic Myth

My incredibly simple BigData IDD method that has bust so many academic myths in recent years - including "Charles Darwin's Slyly Coined Patrick Matthew Myth   " - is once again cited in a scholarly peer reviewed academic journal article.
In this latest case, my Best Thinking article, which blew the myth that Stan Cohen coined the term and most basic concept of moral panic is here.. It is cited by Mark Horsley of Teesside University. in his article: Forget 'Moral Panics'.- it can be read here    in the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology.
Never underestimate the ability to search 35 million publications in seconds. The method - which involves making Google do what Google does not want you to do - is fully explained in my expanded full 600 page Thinker Media e-book Nullius in Verba Darwin's greatest secret.   

Sunday, 13 August 2017

Steve Hall on Knowledge Suppression

Saturday, 12 August 2017

Monday, 7 August 2017



Poem for a plagiarist

Saturday, 5 August 2017

On A.N. Wilson's Evening Standard Article on Darwin

A Sign For Intellectual Lemmings

Knowledge Contamination

Thursday, 3 August 2017

Royal Society has Long History of Rewarding Sly Plagiarists who Toady to the "Establishment"


Vae Victus

Tuesday, 25 July 2017

The Slaying of the Beautiful Myth of an Honourable and Original Thinker


Thursday, 20 July 2017

A Paperback Bombshell for the History of the History of Science

(c) All Rights Reserved the Vae Victus group. (c) Mike Sutton. (c) Andy SuttonUsed only with express written permission
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. Second edition, Paperback.
Taking advantage of new print-to-order technology, I have published the second edition of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret as a paperback only publication. This second edition is a 200 page abridged and updated book. The paperback book, including its cover, is a product of the endeavours of the Vae Victus group, which is a newly formed and independent affiliation of university academics, artists and experienced publishers.
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret reveals independently verifiable, newly discovered, evidence that punctures the established paradigm of Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's supposed independent conceptions of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published conception of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection.
Until the publication of the 1st edition of Nullius in 2014    by Thinker Media Inc as an e-book, leading scientists believed Darwin's newly proven deliberate and various private letter penned and prominently published lies that apparently no naturalist/no single person/no one whatsoever read Matthew's breakthrough untill after Darwin and Wallace replicated it in print in 1858 and after Darwin did so in more detail in 1859. In reality, as Nullius newly and originally reveals and proves, Matthew's (1831) original breakthrough was cited by a total of at least seven naturalists pre-1858. Four were known to Darwin/Wallace and three played major roles at the epicenter of facilitation and influence of their pre-1858 work on evolution and of that of their influencer's influencers and facilitators.
This second edition (abridged and updated) of Nullius reveals a wealth of detail about the work and associations with Darwin and his influencers of those naturalists who cited Matthew's book pre-1858. By way of just one example of the seven influential naturalists who cited Matthew pre-1858, Robert Chambers (1832, p. 63) is most interesting: Here.   
The column of text is cited as: -Matthew On Naval Timber.
Chambers (1832) citing Matthew (1831)
If you click the image above it will be slightly easier to read.

Arguably, there can be no reasonable room for rational doubt that Chambers himself wrote this cobbled together information from Matthew's book, in this earliest Vol. 1 of Chambers' Edinburgh Journal, because Chambers famously did that sort of thing as a matter of routine and cited so many books and other publications, using a dash and italics in this exact same way, just as he did for the -Quarterly Review on the very same page and on the following page (64) for -Elliot's North Europe. etc. Furthermore, as confirmatory evidence, C. H. Layman (1990, p.175) informs us in a biography on Robert Chambers, on the topic of the workload he shared with his brother William, that when it came to Chambers' Edinburgh Journal: 'Robert... offered all possible literary assistance - which at first amounted to writing almost the whole of the journal himself.'

The hard and independently verifiable facts 100 per cent prove that Robert Chambers cited Matthew (1831) in 1832.The independently verifiable hard-print evidence in the publication record 100 per cent proves it. If you doubt that audacious statement is true, then try the following experiment: cover the published text with your hand and remove it 100 times. You will note it never changes. What is published in the publication record is as proven to exist as fossils in the geological fossil record. Explaining them is another matter, of course

In detail, the various possible reasons for why Chambers most likely despised Matthew, and other possible reasons for why he did not cite him anywhere on the topic of his breakthrough conception are discussed in my new paperback abridged edition of Nullius in Verba (Sutton 2017).
Staying on the topic of objective and independently verifiable fact-enlightened rationality, as opposed to mere subjective wishful thinking, we must ask the following most telling question:
Is it a mere coincidence, as part of a snowball, or else unconnected collection, of nothing more than mere multiple coincidences perhaps, that Chambers was fascinated by trees and arboriculture, that within a decade of 1832 he had written his own guide on arboriculture and cited Matthew's (1839) second book, that in the next decade he wrote his own best selling book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation, that he both met with and corresponded several times with Darwin in the 1840's? Of course coincidences happen, which is exactly why we have a word for the phenomenon, but how many coincidences of this kind in the history of the publication of a bombshell breakthrough in science, and the citation of its published source by other influential scientists, I wonder, are required to sum to a probability that they are not merely coincidental, not unconnected?
Rationally, mere multiple coincidences of this kind seem unlikely when we are dealing with the impact on others of a prior published bombshell breakthrough in science. Clearly, Chambers represents a potential route of Matthewian Knowledge Contamination to Darwin's pre-1858 brain; as do the other naturalists we now newly know (Sutton 2014) actually cited Matthew's (1831) book before 1858; cited the very book that contains his original bombshell breakthrough of the unifying theory of biology.

As if that is not enough, in his 1859 review of Darwin's Origin of Species, Chambers was apparently "first to be second" in published print (at least out of the 35 million books and other publications scanned by Google to date) with Matthew's apparently original term "natural process of selection". That is highly significant, because Darwin was apparently first to re-shuffle those exact same four absolutely essential words to "process of natural selection." Matthew's original term containing the exact same three most crucial words that are in that Darwin-shuffled term are crucial. They are crucial to the theory of macroevolution by natural selection because natural selection occurs as an unthinking "process", and because it is "natural" as opposed to artificial "selection". Arguably, that is most likely why Darwin was compelled to replicate them in his four-word shuffle of Matthew's (1831) original published useage, along with replicating Matthew's superb origination of his natural versus artificial selection analogy of differences to explain the process.
Notably, Loren Eisley discovered that in his private penned essay, Darwin replicated Matthew's precise and highly idiosyncratic forrester explanatory analogy of differences between trees grown in nurseries and trees grown in the wild to explain natural selection. In the following decade, Darwin (1859) opened Chapter 1 of the origin with this same analogy of differences, only by then he never used trees as an example. "Why not?", is the obviously telling question. Moreover, it was Chambers who famously convinced "Darwin's Bulldog", Huxley" to return to the famous Oxford debate with Bishop Wilberforce in order to defend Darwin's "Origin of Species". Clearly, Chambers was in the "thick of things" when it comes to Matthew's bombshell breakthrough and Darwin's replication of it -Sutton Nullius in Verba   .
(c) Andy Sutton (c) Mike Sutton. All Rights ReservedUsed only with express written permission
Second Edition of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret
The cover of the second edition of Nullius is by Andy Sutton of the Vae Victus group (incidentally, no relative of mine). Andy has taken and masterfully adapted the original artwork of Tissot. On the cover we see Darwin sitting atop Matthew's (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. The book is both concealed by Darwin and it makes him appear bigger than he really is. From beyond the grave, Tissot gifted Andy the ability to have Darwin hold the title of the book that proves he committed lying, plagiarizing science fraud by glory theft as well as the name of the author who "got him!"
The newly released abridged and updated paperback is available at all Amazon stores, e.g.    and    etc
Following the publication of my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' the history of scientific discovery now has a number of original bombshell new discoveries that rewrite the history of discovery of natural selection:
1. Darwinites can no longer claim - as they did before my book was published - that Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of macroevolution by natural selection was unread by any naturalists before Darwin and Wallace replicated it. Because I originally discovered seven who cited the book that contains it in the pre-1859 literature. And Darwin and Wallace, and their influencers, knew four of them well. Hence it is most significantly newly discovered and 100 per cent proven that routes of potential knowledge contamination from Matthew's (1831) book into the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace most certainly do exist. The date evidence of this newly discovered publication record now debunks the old Darwinite claim that Darwin's notebooks and private essays prove he independently discovered natural selection.
2. Darwinites can no longer claim that Darwin was an honest scientist. Because it is proven that from 1860 onward, following information provided by Matthew himself. that he lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book and the original ideas in it by other naturalists. Darwin told at least seven other lies in order to convince the scientific community that he independently conceived the idea of natural selection.
3. It can no longer be claimed that Wallace was an honest scientist. Because I originally discovered that he edited one of his letters in his autobiography to conceal his claim that he thought he was owed money and favours by Darwin and his associates for cooperating with the presentation of his replication of the concept of natural selection alongside that of Darwin in 1858.

4. Darwinites can no longer claim that Matthew's conception of natural selection was contained solely in the appendix of his book. I reveal exactly how much is actually contained in the main body of his book and that Darwin lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas were solely contained in the appendix. Because Matthew referred him to just some of the relevant text from the main body of his book and Darwin wrote to admit the fact to Joseph Hooker, but wrote that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth of the matter!

5. Darwinites should no longer claim that Matthew never understood what he conceived on the grounds that he never shouted about it from the rooftops. Because I show how the first half of the 19th century was governed by laws and conventions that forbade anyone from doing such a thing, and others from discussing it. Moreover, in 1860, in the Gardeners' Chronicle, Matthew told Darwin as much when he explained his book was banned from Perth  public library in Scotland and that an eminent naturalist, from an eminent university, could not teach the heretical orignal ideas in it, or communicate them in other ways, for fear of pillory punishment.

Nullius in Verba


Nullius in Verba in paperback (second edition) now out

Monday, 17 July 2017

Big Data Proves Experts are Spreading so called "Bullshit" about Alfred Wallace

According to Harry H. Frankfurt, the Princeton University expert philosopher of  "On Bullshit", the difference between a liar and a bulshiiter is that the former is concerned with the truth but the other could not give a.... (ahem) care. The liar knows what the truth is and wishes to convince us that the opposite position is true. The bulshitter, however, does not care what is true when making a claim, only that you believe what they say is true.

In yesterday's Guardian newspaper you can find an article on Alfred Wallace. It's, arguably, a load of grade-F philosophical-grade bullshit, because it studiously ignores the fact Matthew - not Wallace or Darwin originated the theory of macroevolution by natural selection (see: Sutton 2015). But the greatest dollops of bovine incontinence come with the claims in the Guardian that:
  1. Alfred Wallace coined the term "Natural Selection."
  2. Alfred Wallace coined the term "Darwinism"
OK, so let's look at the independently verifiable facts. The earliest so far discoverable published use of the term "Natural Selection" in a biological/actuarial/sense is by Corbaux (1833). At that time Wallace was just 10 years of age. See Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret for other independently verifiable  earlier and later examples of published use of this term - all published before Wallace wrote a word on the topic!

Wallace did not coin the term Darwinism. In reality, the modern usage of the term was coined by Huxley in 1860 (see here) . The term was also used to refer to Charles Darwin's grandfather as early as 1840 (see here).

So that's several more piece of bullshit bagged and dropped in the dysology bin.

Moreover, when Wallace was just 9 years old, in 1832, John Loudon wrote of Patrick Matthew's (1831) origination of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection that he appeared to have something orignal to say on "origin of species" no less!  (see: Loudon, J.C. 1832. Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener’s Magazine. Vol. VIII. p.703.). 

Among seven naturalists who cited Matthew (1831) pre-1859 Loudon went on to edit two influential papers on evolution written by Blyth, who was a great influence on both Darwin and Wallace. This is just one of several routes for Matthewain knowledge transfer that have been newly discovered (see Sutton 2015 for more information).

Perhaps the Guardian should at least bother to fact-check claims before going into print to spread even more myths on the topic of the discovery of the unifying theory of biology.

An article in the Guardian on the genuine originator, Patrick Matthew would perhaps help to set the factual record straight in the press. Here is some real news! And also here.


That sloppy mythmongering article in the Guardian confirms the Dysology hypothesis:

.Letting scholars get away with publishing fallacies and myths signals to others the existence of topics where guardians of good scholarship might be less capable than elsewhere. Such dysology then serves as an allurement to poor scholars to disseminate existing myths and fallacies and to create and publish their own in these topic areas, which leads to a downward spiral of diminishing veracity on particular topics.


Dear Snoozepapers: Please do try to keep up with the news

+ +