The respective English and Welsh theft by Fellow of the Royal Society, Charles Darwin (FRS), and Alfred Wallace of the discovery of the theory of natural selection from the Scottish botanist and farmer Patrick Matthew see my book: (Nullius in Verba) is not the first time that a Royal Society member from south of the border managed to steal the great discoveries of one their northern neighbours. Darwin and Wallace got away with it for 154 years. However, an earlier science swindler, Sir Charles Wheatstone, was less successful at evading detection.
Sir Charles Wheatstone (FRS) convicted science fraudster
In 1840 Sir Charles Wheatstone (FRS) dismissed the worth of the invention of the electric clock by the Scottish genius Alexander Bain with a wave of the back of his hand. Bain, who had little money to promote his invention had hoped for Wheatstone's support. Instead, Wheatstone capered off to "independently invent" an electric clock of his own. A few weeks later Wheatstone slyly demonstrated his new invention of the electric clock to the Royal Society, which he claimed to have invented all by himself. Next, Wheatstone followed-up that conscienceless rip-off by trying to have Bain’s patent expunged.
‘On 26 November 1840, he exhibited his electro-magnetic clock in the library of the Royal Society, and propounded a plan for distributing the correct time from a standard clock to a number of local timepieces. The circuits of these were to be electrified by a key or contact-maker actuated by the arbour of the standard, and their hands corrected by electro-magnetism. The following January Alexander Bain took out a patent for an electro-magnetic clock, and he subsequently charged Wheatstone with appropriating his ideas. It appears that Bain worked as a mechanist to Wheatstone from August to December, 1840, and he asserted that he had communicated the idea of an electric clock to Wheatstone during that period;but Wheatstone maintained that he had experimented in that direction during May. Bain further accused Wheatstone of stealing his idea of the electro-magnetic printing telegraph; but Wheatstone showed that the instrument was only a modification of his own electro-magnetic telegraph.’
Warning: don’t trust Wikipedia!
As we can see in the above example - some Wikipedians are as biased as Darwinists when it comes to failing to equally weigh and honestly present any evidence against their Royal Society idols. Moreover, in my personal experience, some Wikipedia senior editors are as morally bankrupt as Wheatstone when it comes to stealing the discoveries of others and effectively passing them off as their own - see Sutton 2013 for details.
‘Bain died poor at 67, in a home for the terminally ill. And we're left asking why things work this way. In fact, our sense of justice recoils. Yet creating ideas and making money are two separate human enterprises. Bain managed only the idea part. Yet history might be more just than it first seems. For when we trace the story of these devices, we find Bain wearing the crown for having changed his world after all. And that's really no small reward.’
Interestingly, the science swindler Wheatstone can be seen in this picture sitting close to another famous Royal Society science crook - Charles Darwin (FRS).
So even famous and much loved powerful members of the scientific elite are proven plagiarists. That is a fact of life. Why then, in the case of Charles Darwin, do Darwin scholars (Darwinists) deny this same fact of proven lying plagiarising glory theft? They are currently denying the facts in the teeth of the 100 per cent independently verifiable peer reviewed evidence (Sutton 2014) that, just like his famous grandfather and fellow member of the Royal Society before him, the famous Charles Darwin (FRS) was also a dishonest plagiarising science fraudster.
Are Darwin scholars not genuine and objective skeptics?
Clearly, obviously and significantly, the facts of what he was told by Matthew in 1860 and the facts of what Charles Darwin then wrote in 1860 and from 1861 onwards to the self-serving (and Matthew glory robbing) benefit of himself were lies. They were lies as we all commonly identify lies. Why then do Darwin scholars award Darwin extra-special status (above and beyond all other human beings) as a non-liar when he is proven to be a serial liar?
Gonzo Criminology: Engaging with the wider public on the proof of Darwin's lies
This week, the national British newspaper, the Telegraph, in a blog post entitled: 'Charles Darwin was no 'heroic genius', say scientists',covered the conclusions of a research paper published by Dr Michael Muthukrishna, and Professor Joseph Henrich that claims "collective intelligence" - as opposed to individual brilliance - particularly characterises great breakthroughs in thought and discovery. Personally, I think the authors overstate the commonsense fact that every great leap making discovery genius builds upon the foundations of prior knowledge. Besides, the authors, themselves, failed to tap into the so-called collective intelligence of the published literature that acknowledges Patrick Matthew originated the notion of macro evolution by natural selection and took it forward in a book (Matthew 1831), published by major Edinburgh and London publishers at a time when such ideas were deemed seditious and heretical (see: Sutton 2014).
Whatever the case, the Telegraph journalist Tom Morgan informs us:
Dr Muthukrishna explains: “To be an innovator, it’s better to be social rather than smart. There’s no doubt that there are variations in people’s raw skills, but what predicts the difference between a Steve Jobs and a Joe Bloggs is actually their exposure to new ideas that are wonderful and different.
“If you want to be more creative the best thing you can do is to talk to people who disagree with you.”
Taking up Dr Muthukrishna's advice I (in the guise of 'Supermythbuster'), and Howard Minnick - third great grandson of Patrick Matthew (in the guise of 'wheresstockton') engaged in some Gonzocriminology by putting ourselves in the story, becoming part of the story and then reporting on the story.
One character we encountered, who goes by the moniker 'Wittgensteinsfoot', responded - to the evidence in the historic publication record, which I presented for the proof that Darwin lied about the readership of Matthew's book - with the following conclusion:
'You may be right in detail but I very much doubt that Darwin was the sort of man who would perpetuate a known act of plagiarism. Many, including Darwin's grandfather postulated or skirted the idea of NS but Darwin was the only one who deduced NS as a consequence of detailed physiological study. Anyway, who cares?'
Having read the detail of the irrefutable publication record that proves Darwin a liar - a fact that I originally spotted and shared with the world in my (Sutton 2014) bookNullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret, Wittgensteinsfoot sought to deny the irrefutable newly discovered and independently verifiable facts by adopting the exact same wilfully ignorant pseudo-scholarly Semmelweis-reflex anti-reasoning of Darwin's biographer James Moore in an earlier Telegraph blog (Knaption 2014) article on my original discoveries.Wittgensteinsfoot:
'If this were the case, I.e. conscious plagiarism by Darwin and others, I'm pretty certain that someone of scientific repute (no offence intended) would have revealed the whole thing with meticulous research to back up the assertion. TV programmes would follow. ..'
In my mere opinion, it is this kind of gumption-deficient and bone-headed intellectually idle - if it was true we would have learned it as truth from someone more expert than you- 'state of denial' blindsight to the 100 per cent obvious and significant proven great dishonesty of Darwin, and also of many more who are lauded by the general public, that leads some people to become as irrational in seeking to explain it as those who are irrational in their denial of it. Why else, for example, does David Icke's cult think I have proven Darwin is a giant shape shifting alien lizard who somehow hypnotized the world?
Wednesday, 3 August 2016
Fall of the House of Darwin Part 2
Fall of the House of Darwin. A disgrace to the Royal Society
Years before his own great science fraud (Sutton 2016), fellow of the Royal Society, Charles Darwin's (FRS) grandfather (Erasmus Darwin FRS) almost got away with the first recorded case of pharmacological plagiarism by claiming that Withering's discovery of digitalis as a cure for dropsy was that of his own deceased son. Erasmus sought to build up his own fame by slyly establishing that it was a Darwin family discovery (see here). Full details can be read here.
This was not Erasmus Darwin's only famous act of plagiary. He also plagiarised verses from the poet Anna Seaward for his most famous poem The Botanic Garden. Here,