'create my book' and their sales channel 'shop my book'.
Authors, you do not have to tolerate criminal identity fraud & related criminal Internet #Piracy [ #BookPiracy ] of your Book. Use an International Copyright Law and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) cease & desist order, as I do: Details Here: https://t.co/nM2JLrnnOd pic.twitter.com/6pnQ6afvGd— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 18, 2018
The 2014 1st edition Kindle edition of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret is currently unavailable. I retain the full copyright. The original publisher Thinker Media ceased trading in December 2017.
Please note that fake grass roots (astroturfing) agenda editor "mythmonger" trolls on Wikipedia are at it once again. They were caught out recently in a live experiment (here), which proved they were with malicious and maelevolent intent serially and deliberately deleting facts, and then lying to claim the 19th century publications of them did not even exist, simply because those uncomfortable 'New Data' facts disconfirmed the childish Darwinite comforter myth, started by Darwin as a proven deliberate lie (see Sutton 2015) and credulously parroted by Darwin scholars for 155 years, that no one read or understood Patrick Matthew's prior-published theory of natural selection before Darwin and Wallace replicated it. The verifiable fact of what was written in that review proves also that Matthew's breakthrough was considered heretical, because the 19th century reviewer implored readers not to even think about it. Matthew told Darwin, in his second letter published in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860, of a professor of an esteemed university who feared pillory punishment should he teach or otherwise disseminate Matthew's (1831) prior-published discovery of the 'natural process of selection'. All of these facts, with full citations to their publication source in the 19th century literature record can be found in my book (Sutton 2017) here. Wikipedia editors have a long history of disgraceful pseudo scholarly behaviour. For example, back 2013 they stealthily plagiarised both my selfish gene myth bust and presented it as their own discovery. When challenged, they defended that behaviour using two totally childish and irrational arguments (1) that experts are scum and (2) that the professionally run and moderated site that published my original discovery, and from where they stole it, is an unreliable source! Here is the fully archived proof of it.
In January 2018, Wikipedia editors irrationally seek to imply on their page about me that 'Nullius' was self-published on grounds that the professional publishing house's, Thinker Media's, own website is an unreliable source of its own existence and publications! That nonsense, most amusingly, is, in my opinion, analogously very similar to desperate 'uncomfortable de facto fact denial' reasoning adopted by Darwinites who claim (e.g. Norman 2013) that Darwin and Wallace were wrong to admit that Matthew conceived the entire theory of evolution by natural selection before they replicated it and claimed it as their own. As though these modern Darwin scholars are more expert on knowledge of what is in Darwin's own 'Origin of Species' than Darwin was himself! Despite such typical fact denial nonsense, the proof my e-book was professionally published by Thinker Books of Thinker Media is reliably archived here and here. It is also listed by publisher on Irep (which is thoroughly validated): Here (Irep page archived: here). Goodreads software identifies the book to its ISBN and publisher here.
Precisely for reasons such as this kind of deliberate editorial agenda-driven dishonesty, and other incompetent unreliabilty of Wikipedia editors, all universities world-wide declare Wikipedia an unreliable - and not to be trusted - source of anything other than the fact it is most ironically reliably proven to be an unreliable source. Wikipedia's laughably desperate Patrick Matthew page can be seen archived in April 2018 here.
Scroll to the bottom of this page for detailed information about the activities both on and off Wikipedia of the editors of their Patrick Matthew page. That Wikipedia page is currently completely misleading the public about what has newly been discovered and published in books and peer reviewed academic journals. Wikipedia is arguing instead with mere opinionated, factually incorrect and fact denial claims made by its Darwin superfan editors, their friend's personal pseudo scholarly polemical blog sites and claimed private email communications. All that ridiculously biased agenda driven behaviour is contrary to claimed protocols and rules of Wikipedia. Yet in this case, Wikipedia's own rules are consistently being ignored. The telling question is why?
At the time of writing, the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page cites a dreadfully misleading review of my (2014) book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret to support the claims of its editors. The review is by Grzegorz Malec (2015). However, with typical "Darwin Lobby" bias, Wikipedia does not cite my published reply in the same journal as that review (Sutton 2015), presumably simply because my published right of reply completely refutes, with reason and independently verifiable evidence, all but one genuine, and acknowledged as useful, claim in that review.
Dealing with biased and corruptly malicious and malevolent Wikipedians and their editors is like playing Whac-a-mole. In my opinion, it is better to do what professors Ben-Yehuda and Oliver-Lumerman have done, which is to publish in scholarly publications links to allow readers to see exactly what Wikipedia editors are up to. On which note, those two highly respected academics, Professor Nachman Ben-Yehuda and Amalya Oliver-Lumerman, in their 2017 book 'Fraud and Misconduct in Research: Detection, investigation and organizational response (here), note that the Wikipedia page about me reveals the backlash against the facts published in the first edition e-book of 'Nullius' (for proper academic reference purposes, page details and full quotations of what they have written in their book on this precise topic is available on a PDF file here).
Please also note that the Wikipedia page about me gets the facts totally wrong about my life and work in so many ways (they just make stuff up like ne'er-do-well pseudoscholars always do) you should visit my official, "academic bragging rights", page for the actual facts (here). Moreover, on the Patrick Matthew page, in a long history of publishing the most incredible and easy to detect malicious falsehoods, Wikipedia currently publishes the lie (even though the lie has been "whack-a-mole" corrected countless times with full citation to the independently verifiable facts) that my peer-reviewed British Society of Criminology paper was not peer reviewed. The fact that it in fact most certainly was peer reviewed - as dishonest Wikipedia editors know very well because they have published the truth of it in the past (see the archived history page of edits on the Wikipedia page in question - here) - is proven by what the British Society of Criminology Journal's Editor wrote on that very topic in the British Society of Criminology's online journal: here (also archived), where the article on Darwin's BigData detected plagiarism and lies (Sutton 2014) can be found.
In actual point of fact: "In 2014 the British Society of Criminology Conference was hosted by the University of Liverpool. Held from 9th to 12th July the conference had the title “Crime, Justice, Welfare: Can the Metropole Listen?”. Sixteen papers were submitted to this conference journal, with five being accepted for publication. The journal has a rigorous peer-review process but (hopefully) a sympathetic approach to authors – especially early career and postgraduate authors – with helpful feedback and advice. I am hugely indebted to the editorial board, the various reviewers and the authors for making this journal a success in a very tight timetable."
My British Society of Criminology (BSC) paper (Sutton 2014) 'The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery' (here), was in fact anonymously peer reviewed by two experts in the field - exactly as one would expect from a prestigious academic organization such as the BSC. I know this simply because I had to revise the paper quite considerably according to their comments and expert recommendations. Of course, the "Darwin-Lobby" agenda editors on Wikipedia clearly don't like this fact and, as in so many other areas of the story of Darwin and Matthew, they are, it certainly appears if they are not simply deliberately lying, in a fact denying 'state of denial' (Cohen 2000), which is a sociological and psychological condition, akin to cognitive dissonance that is well understood by all good scientists, sociologists, criminologists and psychologists. The motive for this behaviour is clear. It is simply because the original and independently verifiable 'New Data' in this paper proves that Darwin lied about who he knew had read Matthew's (1831) breakthrough. The paper further proves that those who did read that breakthrough before Darwin and Wallace replicated it, played major roles at the epicentre of influence on their subsequent replicating work, which Darwin and Wallace each claimed as their own dually independent conceptions. As the title of the paper says, the verifiable original facts in it re-write the history of discovery of the unifying theory of biology and condemn Darwin and Wallace as plagiarising science fraudsters by glory theft of Matthew's bombshell breakthrough.
In their (2017) excellent book, 'Fraud and Misconduct in Research: Detection and Organizational Response', Professors Ben-Yeuda and Oliver Lumerman (2017. pp. 20, 174, 217, 232) write about my original (Sutton 2014) research discoveries:
'Mike Sutton, a criminologist, who relied on text-mining software to claim in an e-book he published in 2014 (Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret) that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace plagiarized the theory of natural selection from Scottish naturalist Patrick Matthew. This claim—as could be expected—created much turmoil and remained controversial.3’
‘3. For a concise review see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Sutton_(criminologist)'
‘French astronomer Pierre-Simon, Marquis de Laplace was suspected of stealing ideas “outrageously, right and left, whenever he could,” and German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz was also suspected of similar acts. Italian physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei was said to “shamelessly” have stolen ideas from German astronomer Johannes Kepler and others. Likewise, Graeco-Egyptian mathematician and astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, as well as Dalton, Lavoisier, and Pascal, may have all been involved, and possibly guilty of, some form of deceit in their work. 80’
‘80. Given Sutton’s previously mentioned work, Darwin may have to be added to this list’
I have no immediate plans to have my e-book re-published as an e-book. That is because Kindle has been hacked and my original e-book has been illegally pirated online. Instead, the immediate plan is to publish the book in three paperback volumes. Vol. 1 was published in August 2017. It is available on all Amazon sites worldwide and from all libraries and good bookshops. Volumes 2 and 3 will follow eventually. The review information below is for historical purposes and relates only to the original e-book. Reviews of vol. 1 in paperback can be found on Amazom.co.uk and Amazon.com.
Screenshot (taken on 24/01/2018) of several Wikipedia falsehoods being published and disseminated about me and my scholarly research publications on their Patrick Matthew page.
PatrickMatthew.com HISTORIC PAGE
Astoundingly, George Beccaloni, Curator of the Wallace Collection at the Natural History Museum, London, claimed to review my book, even though he had failed to disclose that he had not even read it. Here and Here. No wonder he got the facts that in my book all muddled up and failed to understand the notion of "knowledge contamination". My Publisher Bob Butler of Thinker Media Books was so incensed by the deceit that he pursued Beccaloni - who only then admitted in full view on social media he had not even read my book despite having rejected what he had not even read in it: Here. As can be seen in his exchange with the respected professional publisher of long standing, Bob Butler, Beccaloni weirdly thinks, once cornered and confronted with his deception, that his mere knowledge belief that he "knows" the facts he has never read and is unaware of are not there is some kind of legitimate excuse for his biased and unscientific behaviour.
There Is No Darwin's Secret. A review in the science journal 'Philisophical Aspects of Origin' by Grzegorz Malec - Here.
Note: I have considerable serious concerns about Malec's review being patently disingenuously misleading at the highest level because it is published in a science journal, whch lends it a degree of undeserved gravitas. I have raised these issues with the author and have been granted a full right of reply. My right of reply by way of a published response to Malec's review is Here
That said, you will see also that Malec does disprove one very small point in the book. Good! Bravo for that useful academic mercy.
Demand evidence. Say "nullius in verba" to the so called experts, then ask yourself (and there will be some): what relevant facts do you really know for a fact? Are you 100 per cent sure they are solid independently verifiable facts? I have some here: https://t.co/zcJGrKDz05 pic.twitter.com/J9Q0KmYqjs— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 28, 2018
On the weirdo #cult of #Wikipedia. They even have a weird cultish page recording details of their fully evidenced wrongdoing. You can see the proof of its editorial sly plagiarism of some of my original discoveries, and ludicrous excuses for that behaviour https://t.co/BoI2rRegAi pic.twitter.com/zHmaCIePTU— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 24, 2018
Premise: This book explores the bitter virtues of making a discovery, and the protection of it and its discoverer, over the issues of context surrounding the knowledge of it by a subsequent (in time) discoverer of the same discovery. This book, in part, charts a story of another who uncovered a wrong-doing before Sutton’s investigation began. And although due diligence was applied by the former investigator, and injustice and fallacies were exposed to the best of his ability, from the middle of the twentieth century to 2008 his published findings were soundly ‘stomped on’ by the scientific elite. But the story will not lie down and die. Sutton has courageously picked up and run with the baton and given life again to this story of abuse and he will be the one to preside over its dénouement.
A genuine and unique scientific discovery of such a magnitude as to change the course of scientific knowledge does not happen often and may only happen to an individual capable of making such a discovery once in his or her lifetime. This is the reason for the codification of the scientific rules and recording of the conventions of priority, described in Chapter 11, which define the credit given by other influential scientists to the person or group who made the discovery. And priority of discovery transcends the populist theory of context, or the times and influences under which he, she or they worked. Through careful use of excerpts from letters from verifiable sources, Sutton’s discourse tells the story behind one such contextual claim and the discrimination and unfairness of treatment for the original discoverer at the hands of his peer scientists.
The question is posed…Why defend such a scurrilous practice? And why does it still happen today?
Riveting in contextual and statistical evidence, Sutton’s book is a must-read for anyone in any field who suffers from injustice at the hands of their peers.
Nullius in Verba tells the story of the finding and further collation of an overwhelming quantity of incriminating facts and statistics, adding to the prior damning evidence already collated, to further dash the unjust claimant, the perpetrator, and by the power of the ‘World Wide Web’, gifted to us by the celebrated Tim Berners-Lee, along with one of its search engines, Google, expertly queried and questioned by the present author who devised his own techniques to exploit a research method that he has dubbed ‘Internet-Date-Detection or ID, to reveal many more incriminating facts, fallacies, myths and lies from published sources which have led to the debunking of a London-based priority claim. A full 28 years beforehand, Patrick Matthew had published, and gifted to us, his ground-breaking theory of ‘the natural process of selection’, in his book, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.
Throughout the ebook, Sutton asks many questions about why Patrick Matthew has suffered anonymity through malicious myth-making by his peers during his lifetime, and those men of science who continue to refuse him satisfaction today.
Sutton skilfully sets the scene in context and in time when this myth was formulated by a crafty mind. He makes it very clear that there is absolutely no evidence for a conspiracy or associated theory for such a myth. Instead, he gives us an everyday and plausible explanation of taboo, political and scientific prejudice, religious intolerance, biased and immensely loyal friendship networks. Famous names of men of science of that time are intertwined with the one man whose name has become synonymous with another man’s discovery right up to the present day… London’s smog has become a pong.
The replicator of Matthew’s work is exposed through Sutton’s evidence supporting ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ his claim in favour of Matthew, the originator.
Sutton documents his research method, Internet-Date-Detection, and sets forth the explanation that accounts for the sinking of the Matthew barque of knowledge. Sutton champions the story of a predecessor’s wake for Patrick Matthew’s ‘prior discovery’ proving that the perpetrator gave the originator the ‘mutually approved status of obscure curiosity’ (Sutton, 2014). But such ‘objets d’art’ have ways of revealing themselves as collectors’ items!
‘Level’ by ‘Level’ of a well-thought through schematic of attack, Sutton uncovers the systemic cover-up using the ‘first to second-publish’ hypothesis.
By caveat emptor, Sutton announces potential unreliability in his ID analysis. But by graduated change in coding, Sutton’s confidence in his method returns.
In a statement of prediction, Sutton warns that ‘All potential plagiarists need to be reminded that their reputations may be destroyed either while they live and/or after they die.’ Sutton invites you to enter a phase of educating the mind, that of ‘think for yourself’, like never before. And look for yourself in ways never before imaginable.
Dysology, a term invented by Sutton, describes the false understanding that a claim that the fault lies with the originator for his failure to convince another of his/her discovery, opens this up to others in the field and it, therefore, cannot be named plagiarism ‘to disseminate amid ‘myths and fallacies’, the baby, ‘an original thought’, as that other’s own.
Maybe Sutton hits on a valid point that global society was not ready for an explanation of our origination except, that is, when you – if you are a replicator - ‘forget’ to cite your sources!
Sutton uses the issue here as a reveille to decompose, by comparative framework, for the purpose of identification of primacy, historical literature, published and unpublished, the data, wherein an author first coins a phrase or word. He also plumbs the depths even further and deeper than before of the disgraceful use of networking for personal and social gain at the time of the subject of his e-book.
Sutton’s big analysis-reveal begins with the beginnings of this evidence-based story of a cover-up of a century and a half, packed with well-researched detail, he masterfully brings it to light for all the world to see, and fear, and remember when writing their own University papers, lest they be discovered also.
The late 1800s was a time when gentlemen still fought duels, outlawed by law, but where satisfaction was held by codes of honour; their rules of combat were agreed between the two adversaries in a meeting that took place prior to the event. The most recent discoveries in this new 21st century of ours, of sensational impact in this current story, indicate that for those men of science it was as if the perpetrator ‘had been missed off their inclusive meeting agendas’.
Sutton’s comparative framework discusses the idea of primacy for the issue of the development of the hypothesis which is here continued with most accurate revelations from letters written by the perpetrator’s contemporaries and subsequent science-field ‘prop forwards’: Grave warnings are issued.
The replicator chose a populist style as times they were a-changing in the late 19th Century. It was necessary to find a style of writing that would be accessible to all and in the perpetrator’s own hand it is written thus of a publication by a contemporary:
“The work, from its powerful and brilliant style, … immediately had a very wide circulation. In my opinion it has done excellent service in calling in this country attention to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for the reception of analogous views.” (‘the perpetrator’, in Sutton, 2014).
Sutton adopts the populist style in ‘Nullius in Verba’, and swoops in with an incisive dart to the system of the scientists and symbolizes how a hypothesis is made by one and evidenced by others using the conquest of the populist-known “God particle” of recent times.
The growing circumstantial evidence was compelling prior to Sutton’s deft analysis using his Internet-Date-Detection method which has revealed so much more fact-based evidence to support his current call to action.
Sutton forcefully concludes that ‘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.’ (Sutton, 2014).
Setting the scene where the dreadful deed is begun, vastly increasing research compiled from the mid 1980s to 2008, Sutton’s own research and ID results are brought in line to expose a storyline which would befit a truly great comedy of errors. Sutton explains that ‘potential interest in truth does not trump current comfortable fascination with the subject matter it disproves.’ (Sutton, 2014). The scissors are snipping already at the rocks and papers of the once-revered, even through the smog of distortion.
So, Sutton’s subtle reminder in his ‘first to second-publish’ research is to show us one of the greatest scams of all which, through the adjunct of mutation, has been hailed as beckoning in a new era of understanding in the scientific field. Sutton has shown it up to be a mere ‘Placeholder’ in the ‘Hidden Text’ of a ‘Merge Field’ that returned ‘Error Messages’ that have not until now been fully detected.
Sutton skilfully sets the scene.
Still warming up for the grand reveal, Sutton, an educator and influencer himself, will perhaps appreciate the following commentary; a quoted letter from the era under the microscope states that one such book had been “written more for the poor working class of England rather than the scientific elite for it appealed to their desire to ‘evolve’ beyond their wretched economic circumstances.”
The quote reflects a changing society of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain and a changed moral code (the recent ‘Liberté’ of France) which the scientific community seemed reluctant to accept. So, in producing the book under analysis, the author unwittingly or wittingly, supported the up-and-coming classes which would be unstoppable in this age of expansion not only travelling by the great network of Victorian railways, but also the minds of the great unread, which gave rise to the foundation of the Liberal Party (1859).
Despite the harsh criticism, books written in the populist style sold very well at this time, scoring an own-goal as the scientific elite had ruled the education of the underclasses by oppression, stifling them of knowledge. The government of the day showed great moral sensibility to the lower classes and, even though they were distrustful of them, tried to help improve their lifestyle: they committed to the Statute Book some knee-jerk reactions to civil unrest.
Liberal inclusion of hard-working industrialists from outside the social elite at this time reflects the Roman idea of gradual release from slavery and admission to elite circles to quell any riots borne of discontent.
Even more back-peddling by more recent chroniclers is uncovered by Sutton and so paves the way for the common (wo)man to understand there must come a time when the excuses made for the greatest scam should, must and furthermore will be expunged from their consciousness where, fetid and clammy, it has lain like a fungus of pathogenic intrusion. Sutton deftly lights the home fires with hope.
Sutton revisits often the Scientific Rules of Priority and does ‘ghostly’ battle with pistol and sword to explain their relevance to the scam. The perpetrator stands his ground and sees to it that everyone else involved does too, except cracks develop in letters and accounts of meetings that undergo further examination under Sutton’s critical eye.
He makes a swash-buckling attack on the myths and excuses that surround the perpetrator and so denies the perpetrator the continued pleasure from beyond the grave of the letter campaign so craftily thought-out and executed on those who were in too deep with him already to allow them to surface dry with wig intact. As Sutton intones, cowardice does not become this perpetrator who in fevered scripts lets out the secrets that previously were so carefully kept in.
Sutton shows how an organigram of mug shots can show that an ugly nepotism had taken place in the most highly respected associations of this land and that it continues on today.
This commentator calls, “Time, gentlemen, please. Come… let us divide up the face of the perpetrator of this myth from its attachments, its many masked warriors who through the century and a half have kept its memory safely in their hearts”. Sutton would call for restitution of the face of another that should always have adorned this true story.
Sutton draws to introspection when considering an original thought, that it may be the smallest element in a hypothesis, drawn up upon the influence of predecessors, but it is the catalyst that matures the hypothesis into the concreteness of a theory. Without the hypothesis and its catalytic converter there can be no evidence-based theory develop out of it.
Sutton warns that for a well-educated man of science, growing up in the Regency era of “low morals and high fashion” (David, 2014), where who you knew not what you knew was acceptable, you might have expected the opportunistic young perpetrator to be more aware of the French that he was employing to maintain the air of superiority so characteristic of that time. In one cited case, it was the collocation for Sutton, that was just one of the keys to the perpetrator’s undoing: ‘At the soi-disant science meeting,…’ [the so-called science meeting]. Maybe the scammer just had no respect for the men of science at all.
Sutton makes some observations on the creation of myths and legends ‘to fill the knowledge gaps.’ (Sutton, 2014) and he defines some very plausible reasons for this. But the creation of a supermyth about a mortal human being and contemporary scientist, just mystifies him and draws the reader in to contemplate on the ‘four bridges’ of deceit. Neither the originator’s international reputation at that time, new magazine headlines nor the addition of revealing strap-lines of reasoned argument could save this mortal from ultimate derision and eventual oblivion in the field of science. This mere mortal human being with the courage of his own conviction and following the accepted publishing codes of the day, found his efforts were all in vain. Even plastering his own name upon these subsections did not work out well for him for it was all to be thrown back upon him as inconsequential with a rhetorical question of just who would look in his book for a hypothesis anyway?
But, as Sutton makes clear, the originator did not lay down his pen believing it to be far mightier than the sword or any chastisement or derision he should suffer at the hands of other mere mortal human beings, his ‘groupies’, led in bleakness by the perpetrator’s black heart.
Some people, as Sutton asserts, have the ability to lead people to water and making force seem gentler, let them quaff back the juice of life itself though tainted. And the perpetrator had this very quality in his bleak and blackened heart. As Sutton makes clear, untruths led this perpetrator to the next step… that of despicable extortion which was used as a last resort to maintain ‘his groupies’’ thirst.
Sutton, being an influencer of quite some distinction, has to ask the question, did the perpetrator express in later years ‘remorse’ for the injustices of this publishing combat and thus brought back his ‘groupies’ into his fold? He leaves the reader to form his or her own opinion.
Sutton seeks contextual evidence and asks, ‘Who was this mere mortal who was so wronged and blackened?’ Sutton lays before us an honest man whose self-motivation and international reputation was ripped away from him and for what?... a lie, a myth by human hand created? Money, perhaps, to shore up a failing brand? Who really knows the warp and the weft of it? But as a man of an industrious family of long line, he simply could not keep up through the age of discontent that was to follow, because the originator simply died.
Fortunately, his bequest lives on in the form of the crushed fruit drink that is so popular today, as long, that is, that the pollinating insects do not die in a similar shamed way.
Sutton gives light to a number of predictions made by the originator and down-trodden mortal of this story and it is his firm wish that the reader may enjoy the knowledge once so brutally betrayed that is now restored to the world’s consciousness.
Not only was this mortal human being of scientific mind and integrity but also a snoeier from north of the border, skilled in the art of pruning, (as opposed to a snoek or schnook from down south, skilled in the art of disembowelling its catch), whose tender care and understanding of fruit trees as well as his contribution to engineering solutions represented in the standardization of production of construction materials motivated by the potential to save the lives of his fellow human beings are both of benefit to us today. And what of DNA or waterborne Cholera?
To say in different words what Sutton means, whether it be an electronic whiteboard and a colourful marker pen of today or a black/grey slate and stick of chalk of the 1800s, Sutton makes it very clear that as an advanced society, we owe a debt of gratitude and should therefore be proud now to chalk up his name and consign the imposter and perpetrator to behind the wardrobe for the misdeed of publishing his book without references or attributions to contributors.
Sutton often fills the textual elements with tables of inquiry into the veracity of the principle where more is said on the hypothesis of ‘first to be second-published’ and thereby the personal and social empowerment that comes with the claim of ‘genuine origination’ (Sutton, 2014).
Taking many examples of other false claimants, young and old, from history and the modern day, Sutton systematically ‘downgrades’ the imposters to the dregs where they should start life all over again, having learned humility and the arts of the unselfish gene pool.
‘You can’t keep a good man down’ should be the statement replacing ‘only the good die young’.
Close to his summation, Sutton deals with ‘Advancement’ in a broad sense and we are transported back to the pistol and sword rules of engagement of yesteryear. The one thing that maybe is in the favour of the perpetrator, is that he popularised a stolen hypothesis that would otherwise still, even today, be kept under wraps of Science and Associations for the unique delectation of the upper classes. But circumstantial evidence borne of guilt is in no century an excuse!
And Sutton should be reminded that a Rosetta Stone is most certainly better, but should not exclude faith in the diviner’s twig of in-spirit-ation, that sudden light-bulb moment.
The perpetrator’s ’15-minutes of fame’ will have run its course at last, after 155 years of scamming the nations around the world. Caveat: he who laughs last, laughs longest.
The cry should now be, ‘Je suis Patrick’ to the end of time itself.
Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret, authored by the criminologist Dr Mike Sutton, is out now as an e-book for all the world to see and duly accords the victim, Patrick Matthew, the author of the book which had no precedent, ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’, his rightful place in the SOLVING OF THE RIDDLE OF THE EXISTENCE OF MAN on this earth.
By "A commentator" (May 2015)
New and uniquely discovered publications disconfirm earlier Darwinist ‘knowledge beliefs’ that Patrick Matthew’s (1831) prior published discovery of natural selection was not read by other naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace, years before they each replicated it, claimed it as their own, claimed no one else had read it, and claimed to have discovered it independently of Matthew’s 1831 published discovery.
It is now 100 per cent uniquely proven in ‘Nullius’ (Sutton 2014) that Matthew is more likely than not the sole independent originator of the theory of natural selection, since knowledge contamination from his 1831 publication to Wallace’s 1855, Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858) and Darwin’s (1859) work on natural selection is now established.
Knowledge contamination is established by the fact that Loudon cited Matthew's book in 1832 and then went on to edit and publish Blyth’s highly influential papers of 1835 and 1837 on species variety and organic evolution. In the third edition of the Origin of Species Darwin fully admitted that Blyth was his most helpful and most prolific informant on the subject of species as it related to organic evolution. Chambers cited Matthew's book in 1832 before writing the best-selling 'Vestiges of Creation' in 1844. And both Darwin and Wallace admitted the huge influence of Robert Chambers’s ‘Vestiges of Creation’ on their own work in the field of natural selection. Selby, who cited Matthew’s book many times in 1842, went on to edit and publish Wallace's famous Sarawak paper of 1855.
To establish the high likelihood of knowledge contamination from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace, it does not matter what Loudon, Chambers and Selby actually wrote about Matthew’s (1831) book. And it does not matter whether or not Darwin or Wallace actually read the publications by Loudon, Chambers and Selby that cited Matthew’s 1831 book, because the fact that those three naturalists read Matthew’s book is enough to prove that it is more likely than not that Matthew’s work both indirectly and directly influenced the pre 1859 work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection.
To reach any other conclusion than that expressed in the above paragraph, anyone denying the likelihood of knowledge contamination would have to base such reasoning on the belief that it is no more than an incredible tri-coincidence, improbable beyond rational belief, that three out of only seven naturalists known to have cited natural selection played such pivotal roles at the very epicenter of influence and facilitation of the pre-1859 natural selection work of Darwin and Wallace.
Loudon (1832) – a friend of William Hooker, who was an associate of Darwin and father of Darwin’s best friend Joseph Hooker - wrote that Matthew had something original to say on ‘the Origin of species’. Selby (the prominent naturalist whose house was visited by Darwin’s father, and Darwin’s other associates Leonard Jenyns, William Yarrell and John Gould) wrote about his failure to comprehend Matthew’s explanation for why non-native trees might at times grow better in other locations and vice versa. And Chambers met and corresponded with Darwin pre-1859. That Chambers did not replicate Matthew’s discovery in his own work, as Darwin did, is not evidence that he or none of these three authors fully understood Matthew’s work, nor is it evidence that they did not. The most likely reason why Victorian gentlemen of science such as they failed to mention Matthew’s detailed hypothesis has been fully explained by such highly respected experts as Secord (2000) and others. In sum, there were strict codes of conduct enforced by the Royal Society and British Association for Advancement of Science, which strictly forbade naturalists going into print on the presumptuous, heretical and seditious content of books such as Matthew’s that relied upon deduction, trespassed upon natural divinity, mentioned Chartist social reform politics and ‘news’ of the overthrow of the King of France. Geologists such as Robert Chambers were perhaps under more pressure than any other mid Victorian gentlemen of science to steer well clear of evolutionary heresy as powerful as that published by Matthew in 1831 and later by Darwin in 1859. By way of example, Desmond and Moore (1991) wrote on this problem for Darwin at the time Darwin began his secret Zoonomia notebook on the transmutation of species in 1837:
‘Darwin could expect a furore among his geological friends if they discovered his secret. No more ‘hail fellow, well met.’ He could be labelled a traitor. His respectability would be compromised. Not only would his science be impugned. He himself would be accused of reckless abandon.’
In light of what expert historians of science tell us about the strict conventions of Victorian gentlemen of science such as Loudon, Selby and Chambers, to demand absolute proof, for example in historical print or correspondence, that these men shared their knowledge of Matthew’s book with Darwin and Wallace and to demand the same level of written proof that those three naturalists fully understood what Matthew wrote on natural selection requires us to accept the premise that it is an amazing tri-coincidence, improbable beyond rational belief, that these three men represent three out of only seven naturalists known to have cited Matthew’s book – containing the full theory of natural selection (see Dawkins 2010) - should be at the very epicenter of Darwin’s and Wallace’s work on the exact same unique, radical, ground-breaking and heretical topic, which they both replicated then claimed no prior-knowledge of. Quite frankly that premise, which is proposed by George Beccaloni on his website on 20th August 2014, and argued further by him in the published comments section of e-Skeptic Magazine, is not just completely irrational it is made with further weird zero regard of what experts on the topic know about the very reasons why such published evidence is highly unlikely to exist.
In 1831, the Scottish laird, farmer, orchard owner, grain dealer and botanist, Patrick Matthew, authored 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.' Matthew's book is universally recognised as the first publication to contain the complete hypothesis of the theory of natural selection. New evidence proves that both Darwin and Wallace lied by pretending they had no prior-knowledge of it; both committed science fraud by plagiarising Matthew's discovery, his name for it, his examples of the process in nature compared to culture. They even ripped-off his unique creative perspective.
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret 600-page Kindle e-book. Currently unavailable due to ongoing investigations into criminal book piracy, copyright fraud, cyberstalking, criminal malicious communications, malware dissemination and ID fraud by cybercriminals who have hacked it and other criminals who are disseminating the illegal hacked files.
From November 2017, you are advised not to download any version of this e-book, because the illegal hacked file is likely to be infected with hacker malware by those sharing and disseminating it. Moreover, the content of the criminally hacked and disseminated file is likley to have been altered by the criminals involved.
Please purchase the official paperback abridged version from Amazon here. Paperback volumes 2 and 3 are forthcoming. Available only from all Amazon sites, good Bricks and Mortar Bookshops and Libraries World Wide. Bogus fake versions are being sold on various other websites online by criminal book pirates and identity fraudsters
The academic net is closing.— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) January 24, 2018
More Wikipedia @WeAreWikipedia @Wikipedia agenda editor fraud evidence, including lies & malicious falsehoods.
New book on Fraud and Misconduct in Research directs readers to look at what they are up to. see the evidence: https://t.co/5htznSFyZZ pic.twitter.com/b6TnOQAsAl
The Darwin-Lobby on #Wikipedia cannot bear fact that New Data on Darwin's plagiarizing science fraud https://t.co/3XMQL72PHL is peer reviewed in criminology journal @BritSocCrim So consistently publish the malicious falsehood that it was not peer reviewed. https://t.co/VOn05utmiA pic.twitter.com/9VSm5JPa22— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 24, 2018
Contrary to the claims of its owner @JWalesF @jimmy_wales on the BBC https://t.co/jAAx7achKl the Wikipedia community is in fact controlled by malicious and malevolent fact denial agenda editors.— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 25, 2018
See this one example of independently verifiable proof: https://t.co/icMMOyZIgT pic.twitter.com/xZgeHpuJBR
Agenda editors and other #Wikipedia Troll Fraudsters are Disseminating claptrap that is increasingly becoming a "junk-fact" diet of the public— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) January 25, 2018
One was Darwin -Lobby Editor caught repeatedly fact denying in an experiment:
Playing Whac-a-Mole with wikipedia trolls & #bookpirates lately. They are not stealing my copyright to my hard work & getting away with it. Another Digital Millennium Copyright Takedown notice does job removing pirate copies of my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" pic.twitter.com/yq82CagW5g— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 25, 2018
For 155 years, following the publication of Darwin's (1859) Origin of Species, until Sutton's (2014) Nullius in Verba, Darwinists were unobservant of the damning evidence in the literature. They had seen only what they were taught to expect about their deified namesake. The totally unexpected evidence, that they are named for a plagiarizing science fraudster, evaded them like an optical illusion.
One needs to retain the unblinking observancy of a curious child, whilst exercising an open mind. To succeed, it is necessary to create a physical, social and personally cognitive research environment in which things can happen and where significant new data can be searched for, detected, followed-up with intuitive instinct and appreciated. In such an environment, it is important to know and fully exploit the potential of the tools that facilitate your research and to use them in search for the unusual.
You should be inspired, tenaciously powered and moderated by the joyful application of your diligent and acute, unbiased, curiosity and observation skills.
In the words of Alexander Fleming (1959), in order to first make game changing discoveries, one should:
'Work hard, work well, do not clutter up the mind too much with precedents, and be prepared to accept such good fortune as the gods offer...'
If it happens that you find something big, to intuitively appreciate the 'bombshell' significance of your newly discovered hard facts is, at the very outset at least, an altogether more subjective matter. I don't think such appreciation is something that can be taught to everyone. One, essentially, needs the gift of an eye to notice and a mind to grasp what it means.
To argue for and disseminate the significance of your discovery, in the face of an entrenched, powerful, hostile, and self-interested 'expert' 'majority view', requires personal and intellectual mettle and sense of moral integrity for promoting fact-led progress that is too often lacking in the world.
For the social scientist, indeed, for any scientist, it is a moral duty to reveal myths and fallacies and to share as widely as possible the newly discovered facts that disconfirm them.
I know exactly what I have uniquely discovered with my carefully planned and executed research design and innovative ID research method. Therefore, I know its originality and great importance in the history of scientific discovery.
The New Data of Wallace's sly correspondence record tampering dishonesty and Darwin's 100 per cent proven audacious self-serving lies, when added to the newly discovered fact that highly influential naturalists, who Darwin and Wallace knew, read and then cited Matthew's (1831) book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the bombshell ideas in it - followed by their own fallacious defence that before 1860 no naturalist had read those prior-published ideas - re-writes, significantly, the history of the discovery of natural selection.
Macro evolution by natural selection is, arguably, the most important scientific discovery of all time. The great importance of this theory underpins the significance of the New Data for veracious scientific progress in our knowledge of how such great scientific discoveries are made.
ISSU distributed pirated copy of both my e-book and paperback in Jan 2018
Mathematician, Professor Jason Rosenhouse, seeminlgy totally unable to deal with the New Data facts that have been discovered and published in peer reviewed academic journals, proved his own case lost by reverting to no more than anti-academic childish name calling on his own blogsite. When politely challenged to actually address the newly discovered facts, he weirdly deleted my comment on his blog and immediately closed the blog to further comments. I wonder why? See him in full archived "crackpot" action here.
With further hilarity, name calling again? Hmm. I have the help of a top psychologist. Check him out on the back cover of the book that you have no doubt I need his help with. Will you "no doubt" have no doubt he has nothing of interest to say on fact denial Darwin fanatics? pic.twitter.com/3stg9FMTf7— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 14, 2018
I've no idea who this person is. He says he is a professor of evolutionary biology, based in Arizona. Following my correction of his falsehoods about the originality of what I have discovered, his abusive suggestion I seek help from a psychologist led him to block me the minute I showed him, with great personal amusement, that the back cover of Nullius proves I have done exactly that already. Archived Here
More details on this Twitter exchange Here
PUBLIC INTEREST ARCHIVE
Archive No. 2 (Public domain, published data)
In UK Law, under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1998, it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person.
Despite this, Wikipedia's organizational response is to allow this particular individual to substantially edit a Wikipedia page about me (edits here) and their Patrick Matthew page about me and my research (e.g. here).
In an apparent "state of denial" regarding verifiable hard published evidence to the contrary, Wikipedia's owner Jimmy Wales maintained on a BBC programme on 24th January that its editors are not malicious or malevolent: here. And yet we can see that is sadly untrue, not only from the malicious and obscene tweets, and other behaviour of its editors of long-standing, witnessed by way of the proof on this page, but from the information Wikipedian editors, provide about their particular bias fixated obsessions, punishments of one another, and associated grovelling archived here. They are arguably very cult like.
Libel, malicious falsehoods, defamation of character and continuation of pattern of obsessed harassment and abusive cyberstalking on the Times Higher Education website, making links to the same process of behaviour elsewhere online. Archived: Here.
And archive of continued malicious falsehoods on THES comments section.
This very same weirdly masked individual is an abusive long term and prolific Wikipedia editor of Wikipedia's 'Mike Sutton (Criminologist) (archived here) and Patrick Matthew pages (archived here), even though Wikipedia is aware he has been malevolent and malicious, because they once banned him for it (archived here).
Archive No. 3 Wikipedia organizational response to the "New Data"
Wikipedia has facilitated its editors to reference their own biased blog sites, emails and claimed emails from others to lie and publish malicious and maelvolent falsehoods about peer reviewed journal articles and the verifiable facts published in them.
Ignoring the fact, reported in the press, that Dr John van Wyhe sat on the editorial board of the journal that published my peer reviewed science journal article on the newly discovered independent facts of Darwin's glory stealing science fraud and proven lies, and resigned at the time it was published following expert peer review and respective revisions, Wikipedia editors focus merely on what they call an "open letter", which (you really could not make this stuff up) one of them sent as a ranting protest email to a number of people!
Next, they focus on Dr van Wyhe's mere unevidenced opinion that newly discovered and independently verifiable disconfirming facts for Darwin's independent conception of a prior published theory are a "conspiracy theory".
Then, in true Wikipedia agenda editor fake news style, contrary to all their own claimed Wikipedia protocols, they publish at some length nonsense written on an unmoderated personal blogsite, written by what appears to be nothing more than an apparently otherwise unpublished Darwin superfan, who displays his most ludicrous muddled thinking, desperately obviously intellectually challenged misrepresentation of what I have written in my books and in scholarly articles in peer reviewed journals, all supported by so many easily proven ludicrous errors of fact (Wikipedia's biased claims all archived here).
Given all their desperate fact denial nonsense, it is small wonder these Wikipedia editors feel the need to pour petrol on the bonfire of their own dashed vanities by publishing the further proven desperate malicious and malevolent falsehood that my peer reviewed scholarly journal articles were not peer reviewed by experts in the field. In short, like all Wikipedia editor psuedo scholars, they are just making stuff up on Wikipedia and their own necessarily unmoderated blog sites, because they are unable to publish such palpable nonsense anywhere else. This is exactly why all universities instruct their students not to cite Wikipedia, other than to confirm it is an unreliable, biased and factually incorrect source written by ignorant and biased frustrated neerdowell amateurs looking for an outlet.
Archive No. 4 (currently restricted pending further action). Malicious correspondence, libel, defamation & cyberstalking. Documented evidence and organizational response
I doubt it will stop. How do you stop obsessed nutters and obscene individuals from being who they are when they have a personal broadcasting platform? Those with no filter between brain and fingers.— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) March 14, 2018
Please note: For ease of sharing in scholarly communications, research and other investigation activity, a PDF file containing this fully referenced archive of Wikipedia bias and other activities of its long standing and prolific editors can be found here.
On the historical revisions page of the webpage that Wikipedia has published about me, one of its editors has, most ironically, added under a heading "Locura", the online location details of quite a few of my Twitter posts that criticise Wikipedia. That is very weird behaviour for any organisation calling itself an encyclopaedia, rather than a malicious cult. Their published behaviour is archived here. This same individual obsessively edits with his daft-as-a-brush weird falsehoods the Wikipedia page about me and the Patrick Matthew page. Wikipedia are aware of his malicious behaviour, because they suspended his account for a few weeks. Then they let him back at it. That's typical of Wikipedia.
This same cyberstalking, harassing individual is publishing malicious defamation, libel and other falsehoods in his harassment of anyone who dares to write an honest objective review of my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'. Having published a malicious and criminl cyberstlking blogsite (all of which has now been archived pending legal action), he is now turning his harrasment and false accusations on university students. In this one example, he accuses one of my PhD students of writing this particular review of Nullius (see this pdf file with screenshot evidence of his comment). But she never wrote the review. She has not even read the book, because it has nothing to do with her area of expertise. Even if she had, grown men harassing young university students is unacceptable! The Amazon review in question was written by a Tanzanian university agent I met in a professional capacity who asked me if they might review copy of my book. This one instance of cyber stalking behaviour by Derry is typical of this prolific and long-standing Wikipedia editor's malicious falsehood dissemination and harassment obsession. I am informed that he lost a long held but very minor position at Edinburgh University for dreadfully harassing staff at the National Lottery Heritage Fund and many other people in Scotland (young women, teachers and other professionals) who are associated with my research. According to what he wrote in the comments section of a Times Higher Education article where he continued his nasty cyberstalking harrasment and falsehood abuse, complete with further C word obscenities, the poor delusional chap wrote (wrongly) that he thinks I reported him to Edinburgh University.
In what appears in my opinion to be the typical escalation pattern of any lonely and tormented, delusional, impotent, criminal harassing, threat making and intimidating cyberstalker, Julian AKA (J. F.) Derry, following nasty implied threats to do so, that he sent by email (archived - amongst many others - for legal action) has also now taken to writing malicious and defamatory statements about Professor Mark Griffiths, who is co-author of an expert peer reviewed paper (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) on the IDD method (Derry's archived harassment of professor Mark Griffiths HERE.)
Apparently, when not writing endless malicious falsehood and defamatory stalking harassment emails to my employer, academic associates and anyone else who won't listen to his silly nonsense, he tries to make money by flogging Darwin monkey statues online and has for years been crowdfund begging people to pay him to write a book on Darwin. Something of a Wikipedia editor conflict of interest? Arguably, in my opinion, this is just one reason why Wikipedia is the world's worst encyclopaedia, edited by the worst kind of people in the world for the job.
Wikipedia even has a weird cultish page recording details of its own fully evidenced wrongdoing. You can see the proof of its editorial sly plagiarism of some of my original discoveries, excuses for that behaviour Here and archived Here. An expert peer reviewed journal paper on some of those original unearthing discoveries can be read here.
Jimmy Wales, owner of Wikipedia claims its editors are neither malicious nor malevolent.
But beware fellow criminologists, if your peer reviewed BCU papers are published in the BSC journal. Biased #fakenews #Wikipedia editors, if they hate the independently verifiable paradigm busting facts in them, will insist they are not peer reviewed. See https://t.co/FC9PvGTZYD pic.twitter.com/OgjbYucEym— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) February 1, 2018
As an organisation responding to newly discovered #paradigm busting facts, #Wikipedia has a history of pseudo scholarly behaviour.— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 31, 2018
Besides what they are currently up to: https://t.co/icMMOyZIgT
Check out this dreadful plagiarizing behaviour from 2013 https://t.co/NEnV8YOSI8 pic.twitter.com/RWzqyS6O1y
Further independently verifiable & permanently archived published proof #Wikipedia has become an insidious weirdos cult. Click the link to their revisions page about me. Then scroll down to see, they have most strangely recorded my Twitter feed about them https://t.co/JoBmuvsZxc pic.twitter.com/MRqzpB4vgs— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 6, 2018