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 William Hooker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label William Hooker. Show all posts

Sunday 14 March 2021

On The Charles Darwin Fake Discovery Alternate Reality Show

 When confronted by Matthew in 1860 for plagiarising his work. Darwin smogged the scientific world by claiming he had not read Matthew's work, which he claimed was unsurprising given it was a book on the 's book also contained topic of naval timber. However, Darwin's dishonest wriggling failed to mention the full title of Matthew's (1831) book is On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. Arboriculture was a great passion among the landed gentry - many of whom were naturalists.  Darwin was a member of the landed gentry as were many of his friends. The naturalist Selby - who cited Matthew's (1831) book in 1842 -  was a member of the landed gentry and editor of the journal that published Alfred Wallace's Sarawak paper (a fact I discovered in 2014 that was slyly plagiarised in the Linnean journal by Dagg The Plagiarist).

 Darwin's deliberate obfuscating of the facts also hid from the incurious and credulous scientific community the fact that naval timber was a very important subject for economic botany. Darwin's best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker was an economic botanist, as was his father William. To prove the point, we can see that very subject of naval timber raised in Hooker's Journal of Botany: HERE in 1854.  The same subject of naval timber was also written about by other friends correspondents and influencers of Darwin, including Lindly, a friend and co-author of Loudon - who cited Matthew's 1831 book in 1832 and wrote that Matthew appeared to have something orignal to say on the "origin of species" no less! A term that would become the very title of Darwin The Plagiarist's 1859 book. 


Contrary to Darwin's proven deliberate lies, written after he had already been told of naturalists who did cite Matthew's book pre-1858, that no naturalist had read Matthew's unique ideas long before he replicated them in 1858 and 1859, many naturalists did so. See my List 1 (updated) below:

List 1 (From Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret 2014 See blog here)

Those who/that cited Matthew (1831) before Darwin's (1858) and Wallace's (1858) plagiarism of Matthew's theory in the Linnean Journal, where they further stole his unique terminology and explanatory examples, and before Darwin's plagiarising 'Origin of Species' (1859)


1. Matthew's (1831) Edinburgh publisher Adam Black
2. Matthew's (1831) London publisher Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green 
3. The Farmer’s Journal – Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
4. The Perthshire Courier - Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
5. The Elgin Courier - Currently unknown reviewer (18311)
6. The Country Times - Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
7. The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine (1831) – unknown reviewer
8. The Edinburgh Literary Journal – unknown reviewer (1831)
9. The Metropolitan – unknown reviewer (1831)
10. John Claudius Loudon (1832) (And cited many times by Loudon thereafter. All refs in 'Nullius').
11. Robert Chambers (1832)

12. The Quarterly Review (here) Unknown reviewer on topic of dry rot. (Newly added here 14th March 2021)
13. John Murray II in (1833)
14. John Murray III (1833) personally or by association – via the same publishing house as John Murray II
15. Edmund Murphy (1834)

16. Thomas Horton James (1839) [Newly added: Discovered May 2020] (and here)
17. Gavin Cree (1841)
18. John William Carleton (1841)
19. Cuthbert William Johnson (1842)
20. Prideaux John Selby (Selby 1842)
21. The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (1838) (1842) – Anonymous 
22. Publishers - Cradock and Co. (1843)3 in ‘British Forest Trees’
23. Henry Stephens (1851)
24. John. P. Norton (1851)4 (Co-published with Stevens above)
25. Levi Woodbury (1832) (1833) (1852)

26. William Lauder Lindsay (1852) [Newly added: Discovered Jan 2019]  (and here)
27. William Jameson (1853)
28. Wyatt Papworth (1858)


Saturday 25 January 2020

On Navel Timber: Plants as technologies and artificial selection

Darwin fanatics have parroted their bearded deity's lies for years that no naturalist/no one at all read Patrick Matthew's prior published theory untill after Darwin and Wallace replicated it in 1858 /59 completely independently of Matthew's book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' of 1831.

We now know - thanks to what I uncovered with the Big Data IDD method - that in addition to the anonymous citations of it and many advertisments for it, that at least 24 named and known people cited Matthew's 1831 book pre-1858. One of these 24 is the economic botanist William Jameson.

From my orignal unearthings in the historic literature  we now newly know that Darwin's and Wallace's friends and mentors William and Joseph Hooker, father and son top UK economic botanists, were in regular contact with William Jameson (see Sutton 2014 2017), who we also now newly know cited Matthew's (1831) book in 1853. Jameson wrote about how Matthew explained that trees could grow better in environments that were not their "natural" habitat.  This was a religious heresy that confused (at least he conveniently claimed he was confused by it) Selby (Wallace's Sarawak paper editor), who cited Matthew's book on that topic and others back in 1842. It was heresy because Christian doctrine dictated that "God" placed every living thing in the best place (natural habitat) possible for it to be exploited for the benefit of humankind.

Today - as we enter a new paradigm on the history of discovery of evolution by natural selection that views Darwin and Wallace as serial lying, glory thieving, science fraud plagiarizers - there is an interesting book chapter published on the 19th century importance of Matthew's radical economic botany thinking.

Histories of Technology, the Environment, and Modern Britain
by Jon Agar and Jacob Ward. UCL Press9 Apr 2018   
See Chapter 12 by Mat Paskins: pp. 230-232 on Patrick Matthew. Read the relevant text Here.


"Histories of Technology" demonstrates just how important Matthew's book was in the 19th century for economic botanists such as Darwin's close friends the Hookers of Kew. Indeed Joseph Hooker was Darwin's best friend! Of course Joseph Hooker read Matthew's book before 1858 and told Darwin about it. Of course others such as Wallace's mentor William Hooker, and his editor Selby, told Wallace about it before Wallace wrote a word about natural selection. What planet are radical fact denial Darwiboppers on? demented Planet Darwin Fantasy World, that's where. 

Back in the real world, Matthew (1831) used artificial selection as an explanatory analogy of differences to explain his theory of what the IDD method reveals he uniquely coined the 'natural process of selection'.  Darwin then uniquely four word shuffled Matthew's term to its only possible grammatically correct equivalent 'process of natural selection'. Darwin had no choice but to so plagiarize Matthew's term because the theory  he stole is about a process, that is natural and involves nurture's selection of the best circumstance suited varieties and species. Likewise, Darwin opened Chapter 1 of the Origin of Species by plagiarizing Matthew's analogy of differences between artificial and natural selection. Earlier in 1844, in a private essay, Darwin even used Matthew's highly idiosyncratic forester, botanist,agriculturalist, abroriculturalist, trees raised in nurseries versus those grown in the wild unique analogy of differences (see the facts here). 


Thursday 24 January 2019

The Lindley Files


Image result for john lindley botanistInteresting, is it not that in a host of otherwise massive mere multiple coincidences that John Lindley, who would later steal Matthew's priority rights to Giant Redwood importation, first UK growing and planting fame, had his work reviewed in Loudon's journal immediately below Matthew's (1831) in which Loudon (1832) wrote Matthew had something original to say on "the origin of species". See the facts of that Here . And the facts of Lindley's aforementioned apparent Giant Redwood fame fraud Here.

NOTE Lindley was a friend and co-author with Loudon, and ....wait for it...a great friend of William Hooker - him again - (acquaintance of the proven serial liar and plagiarist Charles Darwin, and Father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker).

Full facts in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret

Wednesday 23 January 2019

William Hooker

Many links have been found between William Hooker (Darwin's acquaintance and father of Joseph Hooker who was Darwin's best friend and botanical mentor) and Patrick Matthew - in terms of who cited Matthew who William Hooker knew (see Sutton 2017). This is because the Hookers were economic botanists. In this 1838 anonymously authored essay (cited in Sutton 2014) we find Matthew and Hooker each cited in the very same essay on economical uses of the Willow : https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E1oFAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA435&dq=%22Mathew%22+%22naval+timber%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjohti42YPgAhXKQxUIHRKHC5YQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=%22Mathew%22%20%22naval%20timber%22&f=false

The many newly discovered routes for pre-1858 Matthewian knowledge contamination of the replicating brains of Darwin and Wallace just just keep on heading toward the Hooker's of Kew (father William Hooker and his son Joseph - both leading economic botanists) - particularly William Hooker who was also Wallace's sponsor, mentor, specimen customer and correspondent. The question is - how many such possible multiple coincidences do we need to to sum to the probability that they are not coincidental at all?




Tuesday 5 January 2016

David Douglas, Scone Palace and William Hooker: The 'Douglas, Hooker, Matthew Hypothesis'

David Douglas
The Douglas fir tree is one of the most loved of forest trees. It is named after the plant collecting explorer botanist David  Douglas.  Born in 1799, Douglas was - from the age of 11 -  an apprentice gardener at Scone Palace, where he stayed for seven years.  He was befriended by William Hooker - then Professor of botany at Glasgow University. With Hookers assistance in 1823, he  took up employment with the Horticultural society of London.

Douglas Fir
From 1823 onwards, Douglas went on many plant collecting expeditions  and corresponded regularly with Hooker. Many of those letters are in the Director's Archive at Kew Gardens. Douglas met an ignoble end in Hawaii IN 1834 where he was either gored by a bull after falling into a 'wild bullock-trap  pit' or else - claim some - most likely murdered. But before that event... as the Famous Scots website explains:

'David Douglas returned to London as a hero and was fêted by all. He was made a fellow of the Geological and Zoological Societies of London. But he was not equipped to deal with fame and he had problems writing up his material from his journey despite having a detailed journal written during the expedition.

He travelled to Scotland to see his mother, now a widow, and a seed of the Douglas Fir was planted in the grounds of Scone Palace - which is still growing there (see illustration). He also visited his guide and mentor, Prof Hooker in Glasgow.'

What the story of Douglas teaches us is that Patrick Matthew would have picked up much of his forestry and arboricultural knowledge whilst living at his birthplace of Rome Farm, which sat in the grounds of Scone Palace, where Douglas became a botanist with expert knowledge of forest trees.

Born in 1790,  Matthew, in 1817, inherited the nearby house and orchards of  Gourdiehill at the age of 17. And we know that at some point between 1827 and 1829, Douglas returned to Scone Palace to see his ailing mother.

From this information, we can see that there were two periods of time in which David Douglas and Patrick Matthew might possibly have met. It is important to note: at least at the time of writing, however, we have zero evidence that they ever did meet.

Born at Rome farm in 1790, and living nearby at Gourdiehill, Matthew could have met Douglas at any point between 1810 (when Douglas was 11 and Matthew 20) and 1817 (when Douglas was 18 and Matthew 28). 

In the period 1827- 1829 they might have met when Douglas was aged 28-29 and Matthew aged 37.

What is most intriguing about the Douglas connection to Matthew is that they were neighbours. Moreover, both lived at nearby seats The Palace of Scone being the aristocratic seat of Lord Mansfield (more on him and his family links to Matthew here), and Laird Patrick Matthew's being his place as a member of the landed gentry and scottish nobility with ancestral links most likely (according to the very latest unpublished research on the topic by Patrick Matthew's third great grandson Major Howard Minnick) going back to Robert the Bruce and Admiral Lord Viscount Duncan.

Douglas and Matthew were neighbours for two significant overlapping windows of time. Both were hugely interested in arboriculture and general botany. Both published major works on that topic. Both had significant links with Scone Palace.

Most intriguingly, in the story of  Patrick Matthew, Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, is the fact that William Hooker was mentor to both Douglas and Wallace!

We know that Wallace (1855 and 1858), like Darwin, replicated Matthew's (1831) original discovery of the full hypothesis of natural selection and his unique artificial versus natural explanatory analogy of differences - claiming to have done so independently of Matthew's prior- publication, despite the fact it is newly discovered (Sutton 2014) that the editor of the journal that published Wallace's Sarawak paper on evolution had years earlier read and cited Matthew's book. And we know that the naturalist Loudon - who reviewed Matthew's book in 1832 wherein he wrote that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on the 'origin of species' was well known to William Hooker and a friend and co-author of William Hooker's best friend the botanist John Lindley. Most notably, William Hooker was the father of Darwin's best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker and Darwin also met William Hooker.

Conclusion and the way forward 


It is just possible that we might learn from what survives of the correspondence of David Douglas - particularly with William Hooker - that evidence exists to 100 per cent prove William Hooker was aware of Matthew's original ideas on the origin of species before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. I think this is certainly something worth investigating further. Let's call it the Douglas, Hooker, Matthew Hypothesis.