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

Sunday, 8 May 2016

"The Blind Eye is the Backward Eye": The Social Danger of Darwin Scholar Fact Denial Punterizing Propaganda Techniques


I think that allowing any kind of fallacy and myth to be accepted as veracious might just create an enabling environment in which credulous belief in far more serious myths and fallacies might flourish and lead, ultimately, to significant social harms, with murderous hate crimes and genocide being at the far end of a "states of denial spectrum" . 

The dreadful story of August Landmesser - the man who refused
 to salute Hitler - is an example of the blindsight paradox

As founding Director for the Nottingham Centre for the Study and Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crime, at Nottingham Trent University, I see this as a particularly important topic worthy of further scholarly research.

In the Public Interest

In the public interest, I have been compelled to write a professionally reviewed essay in response to online obscene and misogynistic abuse, other abuse, and claims, which have been submitted to the Scottish press, about my expert and independently peer-reviewed scholarly science journal publication of my original research findings. You can read it here (Sutton 2016).



To avoid mockery and humiliation in a fact fight fuelled scholarly debate, one needs to bring something more than mere unevidenced opinions. 



The main aim of this blog post is to encourage readers to not let pseudo scholars punterize the public with their unevidenced mere agenda-driven fact denial opinions. I wish to encourage others to do what I do, which is to insist that fact deniers and concealers provide independently verifiable facts of their own if they wish to challenge the significance, or very existence, of independently verifiable and 100 per cent proven facts, which they find uncomfortable. 
In his excellent book "State of Denial" the late Stan Cohen (2001, p. 138) wrote: 
'Collective memory is pressed into shape by being repressed.

'Uncomfortable knowledge, though, can be forgotten without direct state manipulation. Whole societies have an astonishing ability to deny the past - not really forgetting, but maintaining a public culture that seems to have forgotten.The blind eye is the backward eye. When circumstances change -  renewed pressure from victims, the chance opening of an archive - then newspaper editorials (without irony) remind us that 'this is what we always knew'.
The "New Data" fact that seven naturalists - as opposed to the old Darwinist story of "none" - read patrick Matthew's book, containing what leading darwin scholars admit is the full prior published hypothesis of natural selection, before Darwin and Wallace (1858), Darwin (1859) replicated the hypothesis without citing Matthew, was first published in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Sutton 2014). Moreover, I originally discovered that Darwin knew four of the seven naturalists who cited Matthew's book pre-1858 and that three of them played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the work of Darwin and Wallace and that of their influencer's influencers (see Sutton 2016).
Of course, these bombshell new discoveries are uncomfortable "tri-independent discovery paradigm" busting independently verifiable "New Data" facts about the newly discovered 100 per cent proven routes of possible knowledge contamination (see Sutton 2106) that Darwin and Wallace scholars, such as Dr John van Wyhe, Professor James Moore, Professor Vince Gutschick Mr Julian Derry, Professor Nathaniel Comfort Dr Mike Weale, and Dr George Beccaloni  (See also here for more on Beccaloni) have railed aggressively against with nought but unevidenced, misleading / dishonest, new fact-denial/fact-concealment propaganda.

Every Darwin scholar defence, raised so far against the "New Data" facts has been completely rebutted with reference to independently verifiable facts: Here.



Please note, contrary to the sly and misleading fallacies written about me by Darwin scholars, I have, in fact, never once claimed it is 100 per cent proven that Darwin and Wallace read Matthew's book, as several of the above scholars have claimed or implied. Instead, I have very plainly and deliberately written that, when all the evidence is weighed together, that I personally believe, subjectively, that it is more likely than not proven beyond
all reasonable doubt that they did. And I have very pointedly and clearly insisted that others must read and weigh all the "New Data" facts together to reach their own subjective opinion on the matter (see Sutton 2014). 

What is 100 per cent proven is that Darwin's friends and influencers, and his and Wallace's influencers and their infuencer's influencers read Matthew's (1831) book (because they cited it and the ideas in it), that Darwin read five books that cited Matthew's (1831) book, knowledge contamination routes from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace are now discovered, Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book, and he told several more lies besides in order to steal Matthew's glory by way of plagiarising science fraud after 1860, and that Wallace lied in his autobiography by deleting incriminating text in his transcription of a letter he sent his Mother. See Sutton 2014  (and 2016) or all these 100 per cent proven facts and their contextual details. 


Darwinists have no dis-confirming facts to bring to a fact fight to argue against the newly discovered 100 per cent  proof of potential Matthewian knowledge contamination routes of the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace


For their part, Darwin apologists have no 100 per cent verifiable proof that Darwin or Wallace conceived the
Sutton (2014)
The Bombshell Book that
Re-Wrote the History of
Discovery of Natural Selection
theory of macro evolution by natural selection independently of Matthew's (1831) orignal conception. The best evidence they have is Darwin's private notebooks and essays. But these do not help them a jot, because several of Darwin's and Wallace's associates, and their associate's friends and associates, and their influencers, and their influencer's influencers, had read and cited Matthew's (1831) book, and mentioned the orignal ideas in it, before Darwin even began his first relevant private notebook of 1837-38 (Loudon and Chambers) and in the same year he penned his first private essay of 1842 (Selby). See Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016 for the fully referenced and independently verifiable fact-led details. T
he unwelcome "New Data" facts prove also that both Loudon and Chambers, and Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper's editor Selby, and Jameson - the regular correspondent of Wallace's mentor and correspondent William Hooker (William being the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) - all cited Matthew's (1831) book before Wallace made his first private jottings on the topic. Finally, Darwin's pre-1858 notebooks in fact prove that Darwin held in his hands five books that actually cited Matthew's 1831 book!

The newly rendered useless evidence of the existence of his notebooks and essays aside, the only remaining evidence Darwin scholars have that Matthew's (1831) book could not possibly have influenced Darwin pre 1858 is a letter that Darwin wrote to his great friend  Charles Lyell in 1860.

Following Matthew’s (1860) first priority claiming letter in The Gardeners’ Chronicle, of 7th April, Darwin wrote on 10th April to his friend Lyell that he had ordered a copy of Matthew’s book. This might be taken as strong confirmatory evidence that Darwin had never read Matthew’s book or been influenced by its original contents. Rationally, it is nothing of the sort. Darwin’s letter to Lyell merely proves, and only then if the proven liar Darwin was then telling the truth, that he did not have a copy of Matthew’s book in his possession in 1860. Darwin could easily have prior-borrowed a copy from an associate and made extensive notes. Or been supplied by others with such extensive notes. He could just have easily borrowed a copy many years earlier from the London Library, which was founded in 1841, the same year Darwin joined, and the year before he penned his private 1842 essay on natural selection. Or Darwin might have borrowed a copy of Matthew’s book years earlier from Mudie’s Library — founded in 1842 — because he was a noted keen member of both lending libraries

See Sutton 2014 for all of the references to these independently verifiable facts and much more besides that Darwin scholars apparently do not want you to read.

What Possible Motives Might Darwin Scholars have for Propagandising to Deny or Hide Uncomfortable New Facts?


I strongly suspect that professional jealousy and fear of ridicule for their own poor scholarship in failing to find what I originally discovered, in equal proportions, drives the shamefully pseudo scholarly propagandising behaviour and cannily indifferent silence of Darwin scholars who are aware of the "New Data" facts.

Dr John van Wyhe attempted to mislead the Scottish people by claiming my
peer reviewed science paper (Sutton 2016) is a conspiracy theory

I challenge any leading Darwin scholar to debate the "New Data" facts with me before an academic audience, the wider public and the press. 


Dr Mike Weale, who has written (Weale 2015) - with zero evidence to support his mere opinion that the evidence Darwin read Matthew's ideas is weak - adamantly refuses to face me in an academic debate before his peers to defend his completely unevidenced accusations that I have created a supermyth of my own about Darwin and Matthew. Weale writes, by way of excuse, that he fears, despite knowing the fact I have presented and debated  the "New Data" facts before skeptical audiences in universities and elsewhere, that I will mock him in public (Weale 2016) for his unevidenced opinions. The fact of the matter is that Weale's Darwin worship propagandizing opinions are completely disconfirmed by the new hard facts he refuses to engage with in any kind of rational honest open and public debate. 

The "New Data" facts are chasing dishonest propagandising Darwinists
For the sake of veracity in the history of scientific discovery, I will continue to present my research findings and debate them in public before academic audiences and beyond. I am more than willing to debate the facts with any leading fact denying and propagandising Darwin scholar, historian of science, or biologist who cares to do so before video cameras, 

Darwin scholars should consider me and my publications and presentations on the "New Data facts a standing open challenge to all the dishonest scientists and historians lining their pockets by misleading the public in order to promote the pseudo-scholarly publications and  profiteering paraphernalia of the Darwin deification industry.


There is a 156 year old tradition of shameful pseudo-scholarly propagandising fact denial dishonesty and blatant lying in the Darwin industry, beginning with the it's namesake's own 100 per cent proven plagiarising science-fraud by glory theft (see peer reviewed journal article proof: Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016sly self-serving lying about the prior readership of the original ideas in Matthew's (1831) book. 




















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.