Other mugged originators?

Are there other empirically evidenced cases of invented or corrupt "establishment" science, or other establishment heroes, intellectually mugging the true originators, the real heroes?

This page does not go into any depth of personal research by myself. Instead it provides an on-going dynamic list of other cases where other scholars have unearthed compelling empirical data that challenges orthodox, mainstream "establishment" accounts of first conceptions, originations, discovery, invention and other knowledge or cultural breakthroughs.

Three Rediscoveries of Mendel’s Law? Some background of a plagiarism case in 1900

                                                                                                 by Ton Munnich (2023)

Once again jealous famous Darwinists are caught out slyly plagiarising the work and original discoveries of those they wish to bury in oblivion. And once again Darwinists serial lied to try to hide it.  Read the open access peer reviwed journal article here in the Internet Journal of Criminology. The whole article pdf is free Here

The Case of Gustav Whitehead

Did Gustav Whitehead get there before the Wright Brothers? See the documentary on Amazon Prime “First Flight: Conquest of the Skies.” Here Archived here. If you watch this documentary check out the logic of the museum curator Dr Tom Crouch. This is a foolish and very naive mistake of reasoning, which is the silly opposite of the perfectly logical "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" research reasoning Obviously, "men of letters" kept a diary and certain correspondence to be used by themselves and others to tell only the story they wanted to be told. Anything else, as in Charles Darwin's case, was deliberately burned or otherwise destroyed by the suspected fraudulent correspondent, or by their friends and family. The 100% proof Darwin and his pal Joseph hooker did this is in my book "Science Fraud". In that book I reveal how Darwin superfan and so called "historian of science" Peter Bowler (1983) makes that exact same most basic research mistake where he writes "Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any other alleged precursors."

Read documents in the Stella Randolf Collection HERE (archived here).

A paper by Dr Crouch (here). Is he unfairly extremely biased and ignoring major empirical facts and evidence that disconfirm his arguments, or is he being objective and scholalry? You decide.

More examples of possibly neglected originators will be added here on a regular basis. Similarly those who, like Patrick Matthew, have been intellectually mugged by corrupt members of the so-called "establishment" will also be added here.

What is at stake here is the truth and credit where it is due, not credit where it is not due.