Patrick Matthew
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.
Further reading on the Charles Darwin and Patrick Matthew Supermyth can be found on Supermyths.com HERE
THE ANSWER IS 30
And so we see that the science problem of Darwin's and Wallace's claim of miraculous virgin brained dual independent conception of a prior published theory, which both admitted was essentially the same as their own, and which Wallace wrote was even more complete, is solved by disproving the consensus that 0 people read Matthew's theory before they replicated it. Hence, any notion that mysterious forces govern the affairs of humans with otherwise amazing improbable coincidences is disproven in this case. The solution to this particular virgin conception problem is 30, which is the difference between 0 and 30. Hence, there were 30 routes for knowledge contamination to directly or indirectly prior-impregnate the brains of Darwin and Wallace with Matthew's bombshell breakthrough before they replicated it and then each claimed it as their own original idea.
From this example, we can learn how to solve the science problem of the Christian belief claim in the virgin conception of Mary with Jesus. All we need to find out is how many probably fertile human males were in a position to impregnate her.