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

Monday, 4 April 2016

Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell Lied to the Linnean Society: Jim Dempster's Private Correspondence with Ian Hardie


Jim Dempster
The letter below is from Jim Dempster. He writes to Ian Hardie in December 1994. Ian was, at the time, this letter was typed, the solicitor of the Patrick Matthew Trust. The "Trust" was set up by the descendants of Matthew.

In this letter, Dempster writes to inform Hardie of the difficulties of conducting sound research outside of a university environment, and of his discovery that Hooker and Lyell lied to the Linnean Society that Wallace had given his consent to have his paper read alongside Darwin's.

Dempster and Matthew scholars (perhaps even curious Darwinists) will be interested that one of the illustrious John Hunter's descendants was, apparently, interested in Dempster's work on the topic of that great original thinker. Curiouser and curiouser!

Note, in 2005, Dempster was compelled to vanity published his third important book on the history of the discovery of natural selection "The Illustrious Hunter and the Darwins".

Over a decade before this letter was written, in 1983, Dempster published Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection. But soon after the publisher went bankrupt. The Patrick Matthew Trust helped the widely published scientist Dempster to promote and fund in part his second hugely important book on the history of discovery of natural selection (compelled to be vanity published with the Pentland Press): Dempster, W.J. (1996) Natural Selection and Patrick Matthew. Edinburgh. The Pentland Press. (for more details and full references see my blog article on Dempster: here). See also a November 1993 press article on the topic here and another here.

This letter is the first evidence that I can recall seeing where Dempster writes about that  sly lie, which Hooker and Lyell used to deceive the Linnean Society. I nail it myself in Nullius  (Sutton 2014) - but I thought I arrived at it independently of Dempster. Perhaps not - perhaps my brain was "knowledge contaminated" from one of Dempster's three books on the topic of Matthew and discovery of natural selection? I am most interested to find out. Indeed the evidence for subconscious/forgotten  'Dempsterian knowledge contamination' of my brain - one way or the other - will be fascinating in light of my most recent peer reviewed article on the very topic of the phenomenon of the notion of 'knowledge contamination' (Sutton 2016).  Now I must go back with great curiosity and read all three of Dempster's superb books on Matthew with a fine toothcomb for the fourth time! When I find my answer I shall write about it.






Most importantly, in this letter, Dempster informs Hardie that his research reveals that both Darwin and Wallace lifted much from the articles on organic evolution that were written by Edward Blyth. Had only Dempster - and other Darwin and Matthew scholars before him done what all good scientists should do and - "followed the data" from the botanist and polymath John Loudon's 1832 review of Matthew's (1831) book, where he wrote that Matthew apparently had something original to say on "the origin of species", my science hero, Dempster, would have discovered what I was first to discover in 2014 (Sutton 2014).  Namely, that Loudon went on to be Editor of the journal that published two of those important and influential Blyth articles! Potential Matthewian 'knowledge contamination' via Loudon -> Byth -> Darwin & Wallace is thus uniquely now proven!

I see that, as Dempster informed Hardie, Longman and Co of London, and Black of Edinburgh - the original publishing houses of Matthew's (1831) On Naval Timber - were not interested in publishing a book about Matthew, written by a scientist of Dempster's calibre and proven abilities. I wonder why not? Had either "House" published Dempster's work they would have added to their catalogue the brilliantly objective scalpel-like scholarship of one who removed the cognitive cataracts from his own "eyes" to see the facts beyond the Victorian smog of Darwin's deceptions. Consider, for example, what he shows us here in his private red-inked assessment of the lies about Matthew's book that Darwin slyly wove into the Origin of Species from 1861 (3rd edition) onwards. The context and precise significance of the red-ink notes Dempster wrote on his copy of Darwin's "Historical Sketch" is examined, in-depth, here   ):



His textbook on surgery that Dempster mentions to Ian Hardie




No comments:

Post a Comment

Spam will be immediately deleted. Other comments warmly welcome.

On this blogsite you are free to write what you think in any way you wish to write it. However, please bear in mind it is a published public environment. Those who seek to hide behind pseudonyms may be exposed for who they actually are.

Anyone publishing threats, obscene comments or anything falling within the UK Anti-Harassment and the Obscene Communications Acts (which carry a maximum sentence of significant periods of imprisonment) should realise Google blogs capture the IP addresses of those who post comments. From there, it is a simple matter to know who you are, where you are commenting from, reveal your identity and inform the appropriate police services.