Following the many newly unearthed citations of Matthew's (1831) book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture " revealed in 'Nullius in Verba Darwin's: greatest secret' (Sutton 2014, 2017), here are some newly discovered others that I found in Jan 2019
1. The anonymous essayist "S G 2" pp 226-227. "Economical uses of the Larch" in Knight's Penny Magazine, Volume 3, [edited by Charles Knight.] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W-E2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA227&dq=%22Mathew%22+%22naval+timber%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizr_2xvIPgAhURtnEKHRn9BQwQ6AEIXjAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Mathew%22%20%22naval%20timber%22&f=false
2. Patrick Matthew citing his (1831) book in 'Testimonials in favour of W.L. Lindsay ... as a candidate for the office of Conservator of the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh (1852). - Note in this same publication we find a testimonial by Robert Jameson (Darwin's Geology professor no less!Moreover the testimonials are for a naturalist whose work Darwin later relied upon!) (Click here for the details)
Wednesday, 23 January 2019
Sunday, 20 January 2019
Juxtasupposin the Popeye Iron and Spinach Myth
#JUXTASUPPOSIN
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 20, 2019
Naturally, #Popeye was a liar as well as a hooligan:
1. https://t.co/ofHGJjKe5C
2. https://t.co/EzQjyX6aEo pic.twitter.com/VlLG7YOuDO
Friday, 18 January 2019
The Evolution of Fraud
Natural selection aids species in fraud. Darwin was a plagiarising science fraudster by glory theft of that theory. His abilities in deception aided him enormously. Only now, is new technology unweaving his tangled web of lies & science fraud by plagiarismhttps://t.co/yMLRSHW8Vc pic.twitter.com/DKQ2uZoi7k
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 18, 2019
Tuesday, 15 January 2019
Credulous Darwin Worshippers
Darwin and Wallace worshippers (those who unscientifically and credulously desperately deify the proven liar and plagiarist Charles Darwin and his plagiarist friend Alfred Wallace) have lost their pants in public as a result of the new data that has acted like an unwelcome enema, leading them to soil themselves in public (e.g. here).
Here is just one very small, yet not insignificant, example of the New Data (detected with the innovative Big Data IDD research method), which completely debunks the Darwinist myth, started as a lie by Charles Darwin (because Matthew had already told him the opposite was true) that Matthew was a little know author on scottish forest trees, whose original ideas no one read. In reality, Matthew's (1831) work was prominently advertised in the Encyclopedia Britannica (p. 407) of 1842, the very year in which Darwin wrote his first private essay on the topic of Matthew's prior published theory of what Matthew originally coined the 'natural process of slection' and Darwin four-word shuffle plagiarized into the 'process of natural slection'. This is just one of so many newly uncovered examples of the prominence of Matthew's book and the bombshell breakthrough ideas in it in the first half of the 19th century.
Here is just one very small, yet not insignificant, example of the New Data (detected with the innovative Big Data IDD research method), which completely debunks the Darwinist myth, started as a lie by Charles Darwin (because Matthew had already told him the opposite was true) that Matthew was a little know author on scottish forest trees, whose original ideas no one read. In reality, Matthew's (1831) work was prominently advertised in the Encyclopedia Britannica (p. 407) of 1842, the very year in which Darwin wrote his first private essay on the topic of Matthew's prior published theory of what Matthew originally coined the 'natural process of slection' and Darwin four-word shuffle plagiarized into the 'process of natural slection'. This is just one of so many newly uncovered examples of the prominence of Matthew's book and the bombshell breakthrough ideas in it in the first half of the 19th century.
Wednesday, 9 January 2019
On The Loudon Blyth Connection: Matthewian Knowledge Contamination Probability
We know that in 1832 Loudon reviewed Matthew's (1831) book and most significantly noted that Matthew had something original to say on what he called 'The Origin of Species' no less. Other writers, such as Eiseley and Dempster have noted that Loudon was founder and editor of the Journal that later published Blyth's important articles in the 1835 and 1836 on natural selection. However neither writer appears to have noted - because they most certainly never pointed it out - that Loudon (as editor) could have in some way provided a route for unique Matthewian knowledge contamination of Blyth's brain - and therefore of Darwin's and Wallace's brains, pre-1858. Because we know both Darwin and Wallace read those Blyth articles before they replicated Matthew's theory.
+
+
+
+Eureka Hugh! Page 52 of Dempster 1996 does state that Loudon founded and edited the Magazine of Natural History in which Blyth's papers appeared. But Dempster completely fails to make the link that Loudon could have influenced Blyth through some kind of knowledge contamination.— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 9, 2019
+
Thanks! Now found it pages 47+ of hardback copy Hugh. But Eisley failed again to note any knowledge contamination (re his 1832 review) probability— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 9, 2019
Dempster = yes and I see elsewhere (thank you) However, see my reply. He also failed to note any knowledge contamination probability
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)