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
Showing posts with label Darwin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darwin. Show all posts

Sunday 15 January 2023

The Patrick Matthew Song

 This song is to accompanied by violin. The Patrick Matthew Violin (made by a master violin maker) will be completed in 2023. Performances of the Scottish heritage instrument will be by leading soloists and by players at grass roots levels upwards.


"You Who Lie With Darwin"   

(AKA "The Patrick Matthew Song" 

In the tune of "Scots Wha Hae") 

 

 

You who lie with Darwin dead,

Who Alfred Wallace astray led,

Welcome to your muddled head, 

Theory thievery.


(Narration)

‘… if the first description was originally imperfect, & had been superseded by any better description, it would perhaps be better to omit all reference to it, for the sooner such an author’s name was buried in oblivion the better.’

(Charles Darwin 1849)

Yesterday's the day, not now the hour,

See the face of Darwin dour,

See approach old Linnean power,

Lies and plagiary.


(Narration)


‘This discovery recently published by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully... as far back as January 1, 1831... reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity...by Loudon…and repeatedly in the United Service Magazine for 1831 etc.’

(Patrick Matthew 1860)


You are just a fraudster's knave!

You will fill a dullard's grave!

Nothing but a liar's slave!

Full of credulity.


(Narration)


‘I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew’s views…’

(Charles Darwin 1860a)


It's Patrick Matthew's Natural law,

Facts and empirical data draw,

Truth not Darwin's spin of yore!

Why not follow me?


(Narration)


‘I notice in your Number of April 21 Mr. Darwin’s letter honourably acknowledging my prior claim relative to the origin of species. I have not the least doubt that, in publishing his late work, he believed he was the first discoverer of this law of Nature. He is however wrong in thinking that no naturalist was aware of the previous discovery. I had occasion some 15 years ago to be conversing with a naturalist, a professor of a celebrated university, and he told me he had been reading my work “Naval Timber,” but that he could not bring such views before his class or uphold them publicly from fear of the cutty-stool, a sort of pillory punishment, not in the market-place and not devised for this offence, but generally practised a little more than half a century ago. It was at least in part this spirit of resistance to scientific doctrine that caused my work to be voted unfit for the public library of the fair city itself. The age was not ripe for such ideas, nor do I believe is the present one,..’

(Patrick Matthew 1860a, p.433)



Darwin lied and Darwin stole!

Alfred Wallace's same role!

BigData down their rabbit hole,

Found dysology!


(Narration)

‘…an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly & clearly anticipated my views — though he put the case so briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book…’

(Charles Darwin 1861a) 

‘Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in The Gardeners’ Chronicle, on April 7th,

1860.’(Charles Darwin, 1861, p.xv)


Lay the theory stealers low!

Myths fall, facts their foe!

Matthew's words in every blow!

It's Scotland's theory!!!

 

"...on what is termed Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, but which theory was published by me about thirty years before Darwin (honourably acknowledged in his last edition by Darwin) at a time when man was scarcely ready for such thoughts, I surely had the best right to be heard upon this subject. Yet others were allowed to speak upon it, and its parent denied to do so. Such is the conduct of a Society terming itself the British Association for the Advancement of Science." 

Matthew (1867) the Dundee Advertiser . September 12. 

 



                  Arrangement and part composition by Mike Sutton January 14th 2023.


Archived. Here


See also the blues number "Darwin The Kidnapper" HERE

 

 Other great performances of Scots Wha Hae (the Stanza by Robert Burns)

 Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZiUHG2u4G0

Here https://youtu.be/WgskbClWZ68?t=1

Here https://youtu.be/o5kE3of1Lzo?t=2


Monday 11 July 2022

Pitfalls of Plagiarism: The Case Study of Joachim Dagg AKA "Dagg The Plagiarist"

An important finding from my original research data on who cited Patrick Matthew's 1831 book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture" before 1858 has been plagiarised by Joachim Dagg. 

The story of Dagg's research plagiarism in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is told on a couple of pages of my latest book (Sutton 2022) "Science Fraud", which is published by Curtis Press, and is available directly from the publisher (here).

 My book's full title is: "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory". It can be ordered from any good bookshop, many online bookstores and is available on Amazon UK (here), elsewhere throughout all Amazon sites in Europe and most recently in the USA (here).

Dagg's Confession is now Published in the Public Domain

Last night Dagg let it slip that he is "rationalising" his plagiarism of my data. 

Such guilt neutralisation rationalisation is a well know pitfall leading people to commit acts of plagiarism (e.g. here) In his desperate haste to seek to rationalize his malicious plagiary, Dagg writes 1942. of course, the real date of Selby's newly discovered citation of Matthew's (1831) book is 1842. 



There is a page dedicated to the repeat plagiarism of  Dr Mike Sutton's original, prior published, research data on PatrickMatthew.Com. The specific page is here

Dagg's accidental confession is forensically archived here 

This blog post is archived here for easier citation and for posterity.

Sunday 1 May 2022

UK National and Regional Press Coverage of "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Tgheory"

 Science Fraud in the press since published in the UK ans Europe in February 2022



1. The Mail on Sunday (Feb 2022) (archived)

In Press Reader  (archived)  

2. Sputnick (Feb 2022) (archived)

3. The Scottish Sun (Feb 2022) (archived)

4. The Times (Feb 2022) (archived in full)

and here

5. The Courier (Feb 2022) (archived) (pdf)

6. The Daily Squib (Mar 2022) (archived)

7. Sunday Express (Mar 2022) 

8. Sunday Express serialized 1 (13 Mar 2022)

9. Sunday Express serialized 2 (20 Mar 2022)

10. Sunday Express serialised 3 (27 Mar 2022)

11. Sunday Express serialised 4 (3 Apr 2022)

12. The Courier (April 30 2022) (archived)

Monday 18 April 2022

Could you be hoodwinked by state propaganda? If you live in the West, you already are.

 Is anyone immune to being misled by state and institutional propaganda? Are you?



Monday 7 March 2022

Oh the Satire of it all: The Daily Squib Nails the Credulous Darwinite Zombie Horde to the floor of their own stupidity

Today (07 March 2022) The Daily Squib sets the record straight on the Charles - The Dirty Plagiarist -Darwin, the "Darwin Industry" and its enablers - such as the fact censoring and malicious disinformation spreading pseudo-scholars of Wikipedia. Here (archived here) .





The cat is out of the bag on Charles Darwin's filthy science fraud by lies and plagiarism and no amount of the traditional fact denial pseudo scholarship of the Darwin Industry can ever get it back in
https://t.co/QgQGmQ8wcM @CurtisPress_ @DailySquibs @DAILYSQUIB @SoniaPoulton
. .

Tuesday 22 February 2022

Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, Patrick Matthew and Mike Sutton - Who is the Beast?

😂 Is Amazon the beast? Is it Sutton? Or is it Darwin? Or Matthew? Or is it Wallace? In the name of God who the Hell is the Beast? Buy the book and read the shocking "revelations" in it to find out. Is this the "end of days" for Charles Darwin? 😈💀 

Buy this bombshell book on Amazon for the price of the "mark of the beast" and exorcise - or else exercise, your demons now. 




Thursday 3 February 2022

Every lying cheating two-faced plagiarising dog has its day

 With no original ideas of his own, Darwin stole Patrick Matthew's theory and pretended it was his own. When Matthew caught him, Darwin told serial lies about the true originator and who had read his book who Darwin actually knew. The details of the World's greatest science fraud are all in the book Darwin now holds ultimate responsibility for bringing into print in the 21st century. Darwin clearly never "anticipated" BigData.





Available from Curtis Press: Here

Available on Amazon: Here

Friday 24 January 2020

Professor Brian J Ford on Darwin's Plagiarism and Fashionistic Fashionism

The eminent scientist professor Brian J. Ford and I have both been plagiarized. Brian told me of his worst experience in a personal email communication, so I will not reveal it here. I expect he will share it with the world in his own time. In my case, I have been plagiarized a few times. Most recently my unique work was plagiarized by "Darwin Lad" Dr Joachim L Dagg in the Linnean journal (the very same journal that allowed Darwin and Wallace to plagiarize Patrick Matthew in 1858!).  Dagg - who has cyber-stalked me for years - and written two nonsense reviews of my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret - knows I discovered it yet still passed off my Selby cited Matthew in 1842 orignal discovery as though he had discovered it for himself (facts here)

Brian Ford has written two articles on Darwin's lack of originality on the the theory of evolution by natural selection (here and here). Most importantly, in his 1971 book 'Nonscience' Professor Ford writes (p. 142) on how some scientists are famous not for their genuine originality but for hoodwinking the world they were genius originators simply because they published on a bombshell breakthrough at the most timely - what Ford names "Fashonistic" - time: 


'Charles Darwin used much the same kind of ploy too, by writing his thesis at exactly the most Fashionistic time, when everyone was discussing it. He wasn't the first to propose his particular interpretation, of course, but his use of Fashionism and the clothing of the argument in detailed observations of animals in general made the whole project an obvious winner." 

What Professor Ford does not write, but which is perfect support for his 'Fashionism' argument is what Matthew wrote to Darwin and the entire world in a published open letter of  May 12th 1860 in the Gardeners Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (p 433): that his work was read and cited but that many feared to cite it - including an eminent professor - and that it had been brute censored (see Sutton 2017 p. 111 for the fully referenced details). In that and in an earlier published letter of April 1860 Matthew clearly told Darwin and the world that the world was not ready for his theory in 1831 when it first appeared in print.

.

Please note: This blog post has been added to Professor's Ford's bibliography on this topic area: Here


.

Friday 5 February 2016

Scotland: This Is Your Fight! End Darwin's 155 Years of Punterization of All Our People.

One day, Scotland will have Patrick Matthew on the back of it's £10 note.


 
  Not for nothing was the great Maya Angelou at the front of the audience listening to Dick Gaughan.

So as not to face their significance, people may not fully engaged with dreadful facts. The range of denial devices used by those in a ‘state of denial’ include what Cohen (2001) terms 'canny unresponsiveness', ‘psychotic negation of manifest facts’, ‘lying to convince your listeners and reinforce your own denial of the real facts’, ‘negation by wishful-thinking’ ‘evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious’, ‘victim blaming for their predicament’, ‘withdrawal of attention – deflecting the gaze’ and ‘compartmentalization’. These various manifestations of denial relieve the recipients of dreadful facts from immediate anxiety but, paradoxically, denial’s comforts create long-term dangers, against which we must remain alert.

The world's leading evolutionary biologists admit that Matthew was first to publish the full hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection. But scant attention has been paid to how Matthew's right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science was stolen from him by the lies, fallacies and poor scholarship of Darwin and his Darwinists. Here is a list of just some of the tactics they employed: 

1. Darwin's and Wallace's friend, John Lindley's (1853) Matthew glory stealing giant redwood seeds bogus priority claiming fallacy.

2. Wallace's replicating plagiarism of Matthew's original conception and unique explanatory examples in his 1855 and 1858 papers.

3. Darwin's (1858 and 1859) plagiarism and his Gardener's Chronicle (1860) and Origin of Species (1861) glory theft lies.

4. Darwin's friend, Professor David Anstead - or at the very least his anonymous editor weirdly added footnotes on his article - mockingly rubbishing Matthew in the Dublin University Magazine (January to June in 1860) effectively writing that he was an over opinionated crank who had written nothing original. The footnote can be read here. The Saturday Analyst and Leader (1860) then did the same thing.

5. In a gushing review of Darwin's Origin of Species. Charles Dickens's Magazine 'All the Year Round' (1860) quoted a paragraph of Matthew's (1831) original prose yet never cited Matthew as its source. The uncited quote is to be found here.

6. The Dundee platform blocking of Matthew at the 1867 meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science.

7. Royal Society Darwin Medal winners Ernst Mayr's and Sir Gavin de Beer's published glory stealing fallacies that the original ideas in Matthew's book went completely unread/unread by any biologists - before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860.

8. Richard Dawkins's pseudo-scholarly history and context free typical "state of denial" victim blaming of Matthew for what Darwin and his adoring Darwinists did to him.

DARWINIST DYSOLOGY

In addition to confirming the importance of understanding repeat victimization, their 100 per cent proven Darwinist fallacy spreading and dreadful pseudo-scholarly treatment of the facts confirms that the Dysology Hypothesis explains the Darwin Worship Industry's biased history of the discovery of natural selection:

'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.'


A Criminological Comparison


The following comparison may appear odd, but I would argue no more odd than the similar ways experts in completely different areas can be so wrong about the subject of their claimed expertise in the most dissimilar of cases.

The Metropolitan Police Service officers who bungled the Colin Stagg Case, and top academic Darwinists who have bungled the history of discovery of natural selection have several key characteristics in common:
(1) Breathtaking incompetence
(2) Blinkered decision making
(3) Wholesale failure to follow evidence
(4) Justifying victimization by targeted injustice through a media process of what we might call: "obscure person weirdofication".

All four characteristics are evidenced in the materials provided about the story of Matthew Darwin and Wallace and the discovery of natural selection by clicking the supporting links to the eight numbered examples above.

Furthermore, in relation to characteristic 4, an expert psychologist and the Metropolitan Police used the media to portray Colin Stagg as an obscure personality disordered virgin loner who fits the profile of a rapist and murderer. As it turns out, he has never raped or murdered anyone in his life. Similarly, Darwin (from the 1861 third edition of the Origin of Species onward) and his Darwinists - in the press and Darwinist literature - portrayed Matthew as an obscure writer (a naturalist loner) with a delusional superiority complex who weirdly believed in meteorological catastrophic extinction events. As it turns out, Matthew was far from being an obscure writer (See Weale), Darwin's and Wallace's friend John Lindley perpetrated a proven great myth creation to rob Matthew of the fame and glory of being attributed with being first to introduce giant redwood trees into Britain, and Matthew is today proven correct by facts - as explained first by Dempster - (see also Rapino) and Darwin wrong, because meteorological extinction events most certainly happened.

The Metropolitan police finally apologised to Colin Stagg.

Darwinists have yet to apologise for Darwin and for their own poor scholarship in punterizing us all about Patrick Matthew.

Muddle-headed biased police officers took quite a while to realise they were totally wrong about Colin Stagg. We should perhaps not feel too surprised therefore that their counterparts in the Darwin worship industry are similarly slow on the uptake of new and independently verifiable disconfiriming evidence for their own credulous and biased beliefs. 



Many were convinced of Colin Stagg's guilt for a mere month or two. But "scientific" belief in the supernatural miracle of Darwin's and Wallace's dual immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior published original hypothesis of natural selection - whilst surrounded and influenced by those who read it before they replicated it without citing Matthew, and then excused that behaviour by 100 per cent proven lying that none had read Matthew's original ideas before they replicated them - is over a century and a half old. And, amongst others who have been spreading the myth of Darwin, Wallace and Matthew, the Royal Society has been happily awarding Darwin medals to those who gladly parrot its namesake's proven, self-serving, glory stealing, lies as the gospel truth about Matthew. 

Were they to see and admit to the truth about the obvious and significant newly discovered facts in their field, Darwinists have far more than the the Metropolitan Police Service ever had to lose for doing so in theirs. This is because Darwinisits have a proud 155 year old tradition of credulous pseudo-scholarly Darwin worship and prolific output in "scholarly" publications on the topic. Consequently, we should perhaps expect it to take several years, therefore, for the new evidence to sink into the brains of Darwin scholars.

 Who knows, it may never sink in. Perhaps they will simply form the Church of the Immaculate Conception of a Prior Published Theory?