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

Thursday, 30 June 2016

Wednesday, 29 June 2016

Careerism Leading to Intellectual Corruption at the Heart of the Scientific Community

Right of Reply to Misleading Book Review


The science Journal Philosophical Aspects of Origin kindly allowed me a right of reply to Grzegorz Malec's review of my book  You can read my reply here.


Excerpt from:

Darwin’s Greatest Secret Exposed:Response to Grzegorz Malec’s De Facto Fact Denying Review of My Book - By Mike Sutton


To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin’s greatest secret is that he and Alfred Wallace fallaciously claimed alternately that no naturalist and no one at all read Matthew’s prior-published discovery and explanatory examples of natural selection before they replicated both. The “New Data”, originally presented in my book, conclusively proves that is a fallacy. The proof of the fallacy is in the previously undiscovered 19th century printed words in publications that absolutely prove Matthew’s book, and the original ideas in it, were cited by influential naturalists, known both to Darwin and Wallace and their influencers, and their influencers’ influencers, before they replicated those same ideas — claiming they alighted upon them independently of Matthew’s prior publication of the same. Darwin would later fallaciously excuse himself from 1860 onward by claiming those ideas were unread before he and Wallace replicated them. Darwin is proven to have lied in writing that excuse, because he wrote that as an absolute self-serving lie after Matthew had informed him of two influential naturalists who read and understood his original ideas, and their significance, and that his book had been banned, because of those same bombshell heretical ideas, by Perth Public Library in Scotland. Credulous Darwin scholars have been parroting their namesakes’ lies about the supposed lack of pre-1858 readership of Matthew’s original ideas ever since. They have done so in order to necessarily construct and maintain the now newly busted myths that support the Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew’s prior-published conception of macro evolution by natural selection.

Conclusions and the Way Forward 

Alarmingly, there are scientists and historians of science working in our universities today who are prepared to deny that facts exist, or else — for whatever reason — to misrepresent work through cherry picking, de facto fact denial behaviour and other gross distortions of published evidence, that effectively misleads the public about their existence and what they mean for the history of scientific discovery.

Darwinists, named for their much deified hero, have traditionally worshipped Darwin for his honesty, integrity and originality. The “real facts”, newly discovered and originally presented in my book, originally prove they have been worshipping nothing more than a lying, replicating glory thief. In other words, they have credulously bet their careers on the wrong scientist. We should not expect an admission of this inevitability to be forthcoming anytime soon. Because esteemed research teaches us that paradigm changes in science take time and are at first met with fierce resistance.


Monday, 27 June 2016

Facing Paradigm Change in the History of Great Scientific Discovery: Pseudo Scholarly, Darwinist, Propagandising, Fact Denying, Cranks Expose Themselves Online

Join the debate on what the new data facts on Darwin's lying and cheating mean for the history of discovery of the greatest scientific theory of all tme - natural selection:
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/did-darwin-plagiarize-idea-natural-selection

See my latest comment in response to a claim by Dr Joachim Dagg that Darwin did not lie:

"Read the facts. Your wishful thinking cannot magic them away.
Beginning with the facts of the context in which - having been told by way of Matthew's (1860) first letter in the Gardener's Chronicle on this topic - that Loudon had reviewed Matthew's book in 1832. why did Darwin reply in published print that "apparently no naturalist" had read Matthew's prior published complete conception of macro evolution by natural slection? It was for one possible reason only. Darwin made that statement, in published print, as an excuse to add a notion of reasonableness for his claim, and to add a sense of blamelessness for his excuse, not to have read himself, or been made aware of Matthew's book by other scholars known to himself and his circle of friends, associates and correspondents. So by denying any knowledge that a naturalist had read Matthew's book, Darwin was seeking to convince the world that no one whose work he knew, or who whose work was known to his friends, or who actually communicated with his friends and associates and the wider scientific community had 'apparently' read Matthew's original ideas before he replicated them and claimed them as his own independent discovery.
However Darwin and his friends DID know Loudon and they loved his work! The facts that prove that fact are covered in what follows. But before reading on it is important to note that Darwin's excuse - based on his obvious reason for writing it - is already undone by the fact Darwin and his crones did know Loudon and his work very well indeed. NOTE: Loudon had been dead for 17 years when Darwin wrote his sly lie.
Furthermore, Darwin and his friends knew Loudon was a naturalist: They knew it because it is a fact that Loudon was a noted botanist hence a famous naturalist. He edited and owned the Naturalists Journal (note its significant name!). Darwin's notebooks of his books read are full of references naming Loudon's books on botany and heavily annotated by Darwin. Indeed, several of those books written by Loudon - proven by his own notes to have been read by Darwin - actually cite Matthew's (1831) book - which contains the full prior-published hypothesis of natural selection.
Note also that Loudon wrote in his 1832 prominently published review of Matthew's *1831) book:
" One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of
the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon
originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he
has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner."
Note Loudon used the term "origin of species" - the title of Darwin's famous book - which replicated Matthew's original ideas and idiosyncratic explanatory examples, and so much more besides, but was published decades later with Darwin referring to Matthew's original bombshell conception of macroevolution by natural selection as "my theory" many times throughout - even though we know he definitely knew from 1860 onwards (following Matthew's two letters in the Gardener's Chronicle on that topic) that it was not his theory at all - because it was Matthew's.. So that was yet another glory stealing plagiarizing science fraud lie told by Darwin - continued throughout every edition of Darwin's book.
Darwin's correspondence mentions Loudon - favourably - many times. Joseph Hooker - a noted botanist and Darwin's best friend - wrote in a famous and prominent book review of Loudon's work on botany that he thought Loudon "better than a dozen European naturalists". Loudon co-wrote on botany with the famous botanist Lindley. Note a botanist is a naturalist. Everyone in Darwin's circle - including Darwin - knew Loudon was a botanist. That means they all knew he was a naturalist.
Furthermore, by way of analogy, just because I have not literally written here that I think a certain person is a pseudo scholarly, deluded, Darwin worshipper and Darwinist wannabe toady does not mean that I do not - obviously - consider him one.
Moreover, as if that is not enough to prove the point you apparently wish was not true - it is another significant fact that in his second letter of 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle Matthew literally told Darwin he was wrong to write that no naturalist had read his work. Matthew spelt it out that an eminent naturalist (note Matthew used the word "naturalist" at an eminent university - a professor - had read his original ideas but feared to teach them for fear of pillory punishment. And yet Darwin still went on to write in the third edition of the Origin of Species and every edition after that Matthew's ideas had gone unread untill Matthew brought them to his attention, hence Darwin was denying - hence lying about - Loudon and other naturalists of whom he had been told about. Darwin wrote the same lie to Jean Louis Armand de Quatrefages de Bréau.
Thereafter, the myth that no naturalists, or no one at all, had read Matthew's original ideas before 1860 (as started by Darwin's deliberate lies) have been credulously trotted out by the world's leading evolutionary biologists and their acolytes these past 154 years - "experts" such as Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS - Darwin Medal winner) and Ernst Mayr (FRS - Darwin Medal winner) - as the premise upon which they have built the now newly debunked Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's immaculate independent conceptions of Matthew's prior published hypothesis.
All the 100 per cent proven facts are in the 19th century publication record, in historic print. References to those facts are here. http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz....
All the references to prove the facts are in that article. No need be punterised by biased, desperate Darwin worshipping, pseudo scholarly, agenda driven, fact denying, propagandizing, magical thinking - Darwinite cranks."



Sunday, 26 June 2016

Why Darwinists Need to Face the New Facts Rather then Deny they Exist


Today, I wrote the the comment below on a blog about my workhttp://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/did-darwin-plagiarize-idea-natural-selection


A good point to try to get to the bottom of the matter.
I suggest it is important to stick to facts alone.

It is a 100 percent certain (because what he wrote is actually in print in the publication record ) fact that three times after Matthew had informed him that the very opposite was true that Darwin claimed Matthew's original ideas had not been read pre-1860. That proven deliberately misleading lie deflected attention away from the fact - discoverable at the time - because Matthew in 1860 informed Darwin about Loudon having read and reviewed his book in 1832. This is important because Loudon was a most famous and influential naturalist who then went on to edit two of Blyth's highly influential articles on organic evolution. And Darwin - from 1861 onward admitted Blyth had been a prior-greal informant for his work on natural selection. Hence, here we see that another factiod - the Darwinist myth (based on Darwin's lies) that Matthew's original (1831) ideas were unread pre-1858) is burst. This new information reveals one route of knowledge contamination from Matthew's pre-1858 conception to Darwin's replication. Hence, the facts prove that the premise underpinning the paradigm of Darwin's independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published conception of macroevolution by natural selection is now a punctured myth. Am I a crank for discovering that - as opposed the old factoid - published by the world's leading Darwinists that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas that in fact Loudon was a naturalist who edited the articles of Darwin's great influencer? Am I a crank for busting the myth that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas before 1858? Moreover Darwin knew Loudon. He heavily annotated his work and he spoke highly of it in correspondence.
And that is just the beginning - because besides Loudon I discovered that out of 25 people who cited Matthew's book pre-1858 that six other influential naturalists - who are known to have influenced both Darwin and Wallace also cited Matthew's book and the ideas in it pre 1858. - indeed before either Darwin or Wallace put pen to private notepad on the topic - cited Matthew's book and the original ideas in it pre-1858.
Many of the new mythbusting details are in my latest peer reviewed science article on the topic. http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz....
I think the cranks are those who cannot accept painfully new disconfirming facts for their cherished unevidenced beliefs that have led them to deify Darwin - who is newly proven to be a liar as well as a mere replicator, whose friends and influencers were capable of finding Matthew's ideas. So what do the real cranks wish to reward Darwin for now? Being a liar and poor scholar - who could not (he claimed) find the one book in the word that he most needed to read because he replicated the original and highly complex theory, and very same idiosyncratic explanatory examples, in it - well have been influenced by the originator of very same great idea he was 28 years too late with yet still called "my theory" by using the exact same four words to nae it that Matthew used 28 years earlier? Matthew (1831) originally and uniquely called it the "natural process of selection" Darwin (1859) four word shuffled that term into "process of natural selection".
Do Darwinists wish now to believe in Darwin's and Wallace's dual miraculous immaculate conceptions of Matthew's ideas - whilst Darwin and Wallace were surrounded and influenced by men whose brains are now proven to have been fertile (to some admittedly unknown degree) with Matthew's original ideas? Just like the Blessed Virgin Mary then? Who is the crank. I mean...really? it's time Darwinites got real and stopped crankily fact denying what I have uniquely discovered. 

On Knowledge Contamination


PARADIGM CHANGING ARTICLE ON KNOWLEDGE CONTAMINATION HAS KNOWLEDGE CONTAMINATED WELL OVER 4000 BRAINS

(Click for free inoculation    against the dreaded pseudo scholarship virus)

Saturday, 25 June 2016

The Academic Abuse Continues: This time its from Associate Professor Jason Rosenhouse

I sent an email today to Associate Professor of mathematics, Dr Jason Rosenhouse of James Madison University (USA).

My email was sent in response to his abusive blog about my research.

On his blog, Jason Rosenhouse is engaging in abusive criticism based upon de-facto fact denial in the published public domain regarding fact that Darwin's and Wallace's known influencers read Matthew's original ideas pre-1858. Indeed, based on what I have discovered, and what he is not aware has been discovered, according to Jason has published his opinion that I am a "big time crackpot". He writes:

 ' Apparently a big-time crackpot named Mike Sutton has made the astonishing discovery that Patrick Matthew, a Scottish farmer, anticipated Darwin in an appendix to an obscure book called Naval Timber and Arboriculture, published in 1831.'

I wrote the polite email to him to inform Jason Rosenhouse where he could find the facts about my research of which he is so apparently ignorant, and to thank Jason for so kindly being such an apparently ignorant doofus to enter the data of his de facto fact denial into the public domain so that he can be quoted and cited for the historical record in my forthcoming scholarly work and that of other scholars on the topic of de facto fact denial in academia.

What AssProf Rosenhouse ignores in his unevidenced (and therefore apparently pseudo-scholarly) criticism of my peer reviewed, published original research findings  (see Sutton 2016) is the brand new original and independently verifiable discovery that overturns all prior Darwinist knowledge claims that Matthew could not have influenced Darwin with the bombshell ideas in his (1831) because it was believed (fallaciously it now turns out) that the ideas in his book went unread by any naturalists until Matthew told Darwin about them in 1860. Jason is also, seemingly, completely ignorant of the fact that Darwin deliberately lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas went completely unnoticed until 1860. Because Matthew had prior informed him of two naturalists who had read it, one who feared pillory punishment were he to teach Matthew's ideas and the fact Matthew's book had been banned by Perth public library in Scotland for it heretical ideas on natural selection.

I let Jason know that I will pay a visit to his university when I am next in the USA so that he can have the manly and scholarly chance to call me an apparent crackpot to my face. Meanwhile, Jason is now data in the story of desperate, and fiercely ignorant resistance to the new data facts that completely punctures the myth upon which stands the old paradigm of tri-independent discovery of macro evolution by natural selection. I thanked him for that in my email and do so again here.

For use by scholars in the future, I have archived Rosenhouse's apparent abusive blogpost in case it ever disappears.  Meanwhile, you can read it here- if its not yet deleted or heavily edited.

My Email to AssProf Jason Rosenhouse (sent 26th June 2016)

Dear Professor Rosenhouse

I see - without, apparently, having even bothered yourself to find out about the  actual details of what you criticise that you have used social media to publish that you think I'm a "crackpot". Here: http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2016/05/02/crackpots/  How weird of you.

You are welcome to your uninformed abusive opinion Jason - but might I suggest you actually do a little research before jumping in like an ignorant doofus and abusing and publicly defaming another university scholar on published social media. What on Earth are you thinking of man? You do realise I'm sure that such behaviour is against the social media  code of conduct of your University - don't you? Don't worry - I have absolutely no intention of reporting you. I'm interested in ideas and facts and how others resist - by de facto fact denial behaviour - new discoveries of 100 per cent proven facts. So I welcome what you have published - for the historical record.

Your blog reveals that you don't even know who  we now newly know - thanks to my original research - actually did read Matthew's ideas pre 1858 and how this new discovery completely demolished the old Darwinist story that no naturalist read Matthew. Have you heard of  Robert Chambers (author of the Vestiges of Creation) or Prideaux John Selby (editor of Wallace's Sarawak paper)? How about the fact Loudon (who cited Matthew) went on to Edit two of Blyth's famously influential articles on organic evolution? Well if you have then you know they are newly discovered to have read and cited Matthew's book pre-1858. And if you know that fact then you could only have got it from reading my original "crackpot" (claims you) research. 

If you feel like finding out the independently verifiable new facts. It's all here: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05 Of course, the problem is, you actually have to read something to find out.

There may be lots of crackpots criticising Darwinists Jason, everyone knows that, but I think we both know they do not do so using new data that completely disconfirms prior knowledge claims by the world's leading Darwin scholars. 

Might I suggest you come up to speed with the facts by reading the independently verifiable disconfirming facts for the current paradigm of tri-independent discovery of macro evolution natural selection and the proof that Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew' original ideas.

Anyway, thank you for your ignorant, rude and deliberate public defaming insults. Indeed,  thank you for publishing your silly and uninformed abuse and attempt to attack my reputation with childish insults based on no more than your pseudo scholarly ignorance. I have archived it and will be citing you in future scholarly articles regarding  how those who make new discoveries of uncomfortable facts are so defamed by pseudo scholars.

So thanks for the valuable published insulting data Jason. When I'm in the USA next I will take a trip to your university and make a point of asking you face to face, as one university academic to another, if you still think I'm a crackpot and would like to tell me so to my face. 

Best wishes

Mike



Friday, 24 June 2016

Debate the Facts

Monday, 20 June 2016

Myths about Darwin (No 1.) The Darwin Archive Myth

On my way home from work one evening in May 2016, I happened to glance in the window of a second hand book shop. A small paperback on Darwin had caught my attention. I went in and purchased it for a mere £1.50.

The book is Entitled simply "Darwin". It is authored by Jonathan Howard and published in 1982 as a rather prestigious Oxford University Press paperback.

On opening it I was amazed to find that Chapter One begins by spouting one complete fallacy after another about Darwin.

I have not yet progressed beyond page 1, but decided to I would write a blog post for each fallacy I find in the book and publish them here as I read my way through it

Darwin Fallacy No.1. (page 1, of Howard 1982)

'Darwin then married his first cousin, and the family seems to have thrown practically nothing away ever since... The notes and records of a whole lifetime's scientific work have been maintained virtually intact.'

In reality, we know that several of Darwin's notebooks and essays are missing. His remaining notebooks are missing many torn out pages, he destroyed copies of letters he sent, others are lost or missing and he habitually burned many of the letters he received.

From (Sutton, M. 2014. Nullius in Verba:Darwin's Greatest Secret).

'As Beddall (1968, p. 310) so precisely puts it in her excellent and classic article on the Linnean Debacle: "It seems surprising that all the material relating to the most dramatic (not to say traumatic) moment in his life should disappear." While absence of those letters is not proof of what was in them, we are nonetheless rationally permitted to weigh that absence in the balance when such absence is both markedly peculiar to suspicious events and is explained away by contradictory evidence from Darwin's son. To be specific, Francis Darwin wrote contradictory accounts, claiming that his father saved all his important letters,[175] and then claiming the opposite—that his father habitually burned them (Darwin 1887, p. 119 and page v, respectively).'




Reference

Howard, J. (1982) Darwin. Oxford University Paperbacks.

Saturday, 18 June 2016

The Ad Populum Fallacy Leads to the Angry Twirling of Twisted Knickers





The Fysiks of Twisked Knickers


Thank you Brian
Very much appreciated That you thunk
Rationality can't be beat by kinking up a skunk

Kuhn powerfully predicted
Paradigm shifts fiercely resisted
By pseudo scholars waving knickers
Terribly twisked

Discoverers attacked by garotting muggers
Facts can't help those klaptrap spouting fudgers

Whose twisked knickers cold fuse the tourniquet of 
fascistkin
Stupidly powerin veracity bashin



The Creation of "False Facts", by Ignoring Disconfirming Evidence, Creates a Pseudo Scholarly Enabling Environment for Further Fact Denial Behaviour in Science


Darwinists, who failed to see that Darwin absolutely lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book (see Sutton 2014; and Sutton 2016) created an enabling environment, in the field of the history of scientific discovery, for Darwin deification pseudo scholarship in which a culture of further pseudo scholarly 100 per cent proven fact denial behaviour is currently flourishing in what is now the de facto MacDarwin Corporation


Professional Darwinians Have Forgotten What They Once Knew

Today, Pseudoscholarship is the Dark Heart of Dysology, Characterized by Fact Denial, that is Essential for the Darwin Deification Industry's Survival.

 https://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/biology_and_nature/biological_processes/the-de-facto-macdarwin-industry-and-it-s-member-s-pseudo-scholarly-corporate-denial-of-the-very-existence-of-uncomfortable-new-facts

Saturday, 11 June 2016

Proof Darwinite Historians of Science and Scientists are Misleading the Public via the Press about New Discoveries

Desperate Darwinites are writing fallacies to misinform the public via the press that I have discovered nothing new in my published research on the history of  discovery of natural selection (see the evidence of their fact denial behaviour here).


So what has, in reality, been newly discovered that eminent professional Darwin scholars apparently don't wish you to know about?

Here are the new, fully and independently verifiable, evidenced bombshell discoveries (Sutton 2014) that rewrite the history of discovery of natural selection. I originally discovered them by following the simplest rule of science "follow the data". Darwinites failed to find the New Data because they have a biased, Darwin deification habit, of ignoring any data that disconfirms their unevidenced belief that Darwin and Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of the entire thing.

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 exist between Matthew's (1831) book to the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace. 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, as they did before my book was published, that Darwin was an honest scientist. Because it is absolutely 100 per cent 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. Moreover, Darwin told at least seven additional 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.

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, Matthew told Darwin as much when he explained his book was banned from Perth public library in Scotland and that an eminent naturalist could not teach the original ideas in it for fear of pillory punishment.

6. Darwin, in 1859, originally four-word-shuffled Matthew's (1831) original term for his original conception from Matthew's (1831) 'natural process of selection' into 'process of natural selection', which is the only possible grammatically correct re-ordering of the four words Matthew used to name his discovery.

7.  Darwin, was the first to replicate Matthew's (1831) powerful artificial versus natural selection analogy of differences to explain Matthew's original hypothesis, whilst claiming it as his own independent discovery. Indeed, Darwin not only replicated Matthew's brilliant analogy in his private essay, he used it to open the first chapter of the Origin of Species.




Veracious knowledge is power. Get the New Data facts in my book (Sutton 2014) and my latest peer reviewed science article (Sutton 2016)


Friday, 10 June 2016

Poet Protests Revisionist History, Fact Denial and Other Abuse in History of Scientific Discovery

Writer Sude Dempster takes up her pen against the injustice of the persecution of my reputation and denial of the very existence of my research discoveries by those with a vested professional interest in fact denial.
image
(C) S. Dempster 2016Attribution
A verse from Targeting by Gaslighting, by Sude Dempster
You can read her poem here on Best Thinking. I think Dempster's poem "Targeting by Gaslighting" might be even more profound were it to be read out aloud and performed in the style of the great Dr John Cooper Clarke
A sample of the fully evidenced behaviour that so concerns the author that she took up her pen in protest, can be found here in an article published on Best Thinking.

Thursday, 9 June 2016

Vote to Put an End to Disgraceful Fanatical Revisionist History by the Darwin Worship Industry

Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Premier League Liar


 Hierarchy of Credibility

The hierarchy of credibility is a concept that was coined by Howard S. Becker (1967)  in 'Whose Side are we on?', It explains social inequalities and the moral hierarchy of society. For Becker, those at the top of an organization or a society are seen to be more credible, those at the bottom less so.

Wednesday, 8 June 2016

Mythomania in the Darwin Industry

Saturday, 4 June 2016

Fortune favours the bold! And fallacies favour the fearful.

image

They Dethroned Muhammad Ali of his World Champion Title and Imprisoned Him for Refusing to Kill People in the Vietnam War.
They did that because they wanted to disgrace him for telling the truth, for speaking out for justice against the "majority view" that was held by so many idiots in the USA at the time.

Ali's body died today but an immensely inspirational force will stay with us forever. And that is how people become legends. Today a legend was born.



Friday, 3 June 2016

On The "Rubbishing" of My Peer Reviewed Science Journal Article. So Are the New Data Facts Really "Not New"? "Very Silly" and a "Conspiracy Theory?" As Esteemed Darwinite Dr John van Wyhe Informs the Scottish Press? Is There a Single Word of Truth in His Completely Unevidenced Fact-Denying "Rubbishing" of My Scholarship? Find Out for Yourself. You Can Decide the Truth of It. Simply Read My Fully Evidenced New Discoveries


 Trashing my peer reviewed and science journal published research and scholarship by effectively denying the existence of Darwin's and Wallace's independent discovery paradigm changing newly discovered facts that are 100 per cent proven to exist - because they are in print in the newly discovered literature that Darwinist experts failed to find - Dr John van Wyhe's totally unevidenced (and therefore pseudo scholarly) accusations were reported in the Scottish press on May 17th::


'Dr John van Wyhe, a senior lecturer at the Department of Biological Sciences, at the National University of Singapore, said the recent claims by Dr Mike Sutton of Nottingham Trent University were “so silly” and “based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'

 So are new facts really not new, so silly & a conspiracy theory as van Whyhe claimed, with zero evidence to support those serious allegations, in his full statement to the press, where he effectively engages in fact denial: 

      'Dr Sutton's allegations about a purported influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace are not new. This conspiracy theory is so silly and based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'

Why would Dr van Wyhe deny the existence of 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable, newly discovered facts that completely overturn prior-knowledge beliefs in his field? Why write such a thing for public consumption about someone else's peer reviewed work? Is he "insanely jealous" or "wilfully ignorant"? What on Earth is the reason for such behaviour? Why deny the existence of 100 per cent proven newly discovered facts?

"Conspiracy theory" "Not new" "very silly" ? Really?  By "rubbishing" my peer reviewed science journal published new discoveries in this way, with zero evidence to back up his public allegations, Van Wyhe is engaging in pseudo scholarly (completely unevidenced) propagandising fact denial about the new discovery of routes of knowledge contamination between Matthew and Darwin and Wallace. 

Please read the newly discovered and fully evidenced paradigm changing facts in my article to decide for yourself: (Sutton 2016).

The Criminology of Science