Wednesday, 24 June 2020

UK Government Making No Sense On Masks Again?


Dear Michael Sutton,
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Make it mandatory to wear a face mask in public during Covid-19 Pandemic”.
Government responded:
The Government has recently updated its guidance to advise that all passengers on public transport, and those visiting hospitals must wear face coverings. We continue to follow the scientific advice.
The well-being and safety of the public is the Government’s primary concern.
Evidence from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) suggests that face coverings may help reduce the risk of transmission if someone is suffering from coronavirus, but not showing symptoms. However, the widespread use of masks in public is not yet supported by high quality scientific evidence.
Social distancing and hand hygiene remain the most important ways to guard against the virus, face coverings may help prevent individuals who have coronavirus but are not presenting symptoms from spreading it to others.
However, as lockdown restrictions ease, we recognise that more people will now be coming into contact with others and there may be incidences where social distancing cannot be maintained consistently. We have therefore continued to evolve our advice on face coverings to recognise this context.
The Government therefore made two announcements relating to the use of face coverings in specific situations last week. On 4 June the Transport Secretary announced that the Government will work with transport operators to make it mandatory for passengers to wear face coverings when using public transport in England from the 15th of June. On 5 June, the Health Secretary announced that all staff in hospitals in England will be provided with surgical masks which they must wear; and all hospital visitors and outpatients should wear face coverings, also from the 15th of June.
These face coverings can and should be made at home, using scarves or other textile items. We have published guidance to show people how to do this which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-wear-and-make-a-cloth-face-covering. We urge the public not to purchase medical or surgical masks as these must be reserved for health and social care workers who face the greatest risk.
The Government continues to look to the scientific evidence and advice it is given to review and refine our advice, and our overall response to COVID-19.
Department for Health and Social Care
Click this link to view the response online:
The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament

Dear Michael Sutton,
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Make it mandatory to wear a face mask in public during Covid-19 Pandemic”.
Government responded:
The Government has recently updated its guidance to advise that all passengers on public transport, and those visiting hospitals must wear face coverings. We continue to follow the scientific advice.
The well-being and safety of the public is the Government’s primary concern.
Evidence from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) suggests that face coverings may help reduce the risk of transmission if someone is suffering from coronavirus, but not showing symptoms. However, the widespread use of masks in public is not yet supported by high quality scientific evidence.
Social distancing and hand hygiene remain the most important ways to guard against the virus, face coverings may help prevent individuals who have coronavirus but are not presenting symptoms from spreading it to others.
However, as lockdown restrictions ease, we recognise that more people will now be coming into contact with others and there may be incidences where social distancing cannot be maintained consistently. We have therefore continued to evolve our advice on face coverings to recognise this context.
The Government therefore made two announcements relating to the use of face coverings in specific situations last week. On 4 June the Transport Secretary announced that the Government will work with transport operators to make it mandatory for passengers to wear face coverings when using public transport in England from the 15th of June. On 5 June, the Health Secretary announced that all staff in hospitals in England will be provided with surgical masks which they must wear; and all hospital visitors and outpatients should wear face coverings, also from the 15th of June.
These face coverings can and should be made at home, using scarves or other textile items. We have published guidance to show people how to do this which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-wear-and-make-a-cloth-face-covering. We urge the public not to purchase medical or surgical masks as these must be reserved for health and social care workers who face the greatest risk.
The Government continues to look to the scientific evidence and advice it is given to review and refine our advice, and our overall response to COVID-19.
Department for Health and Social Care
Click this link to view the response online:
The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
.

Saturday, 20 June 2020

Dysology kills

Dysology is not only embarrassing for those that are the cause of it, dysology also kills people.


Sunday, 17 May 2020

The Masks Supermyth is Bust with Experimental Research

Where, exactly, is the experimental research to test the hypothesis that masks do not help reduce the spread of Covid19?
'
Brian J Ford kindly shares a journal article looking at how effective masks are against Covid19


.
.

The New Subnormal

#MasksAgainstCovid19   #MasksAgainstCoronavirus   #CultOfManagerialism 

When did England fall asleep at the brain?

 "Going forward, mindfully, with granular data".
.
 

Saturday, 16 May 2020

Intentional Incompetence?

I think the phrase "intentional incompetence" is very close to Stan Cohen's notion of  "state of denial"




.

Monday, 11 May 2020

The Face Mask Supermyth is bust

Today a new busted supermyth has been added to the Supermyths website https://supermyths.com/supermyths-discovered.html

The face of Covid-19


The story of the myth can be read in full on the Supermyths blog: Here



.

Masks and Covid19: How many thousands have died due to expert idiots advising the gumptionless, credulous, UK Govt

Elect a clown, expect a massacre!


.

If face masks work 11 May to reduce deaths from Covid19 then logically they worked before. That means the previous advice killed from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.

. .

Sunday, 10 May 2020

Bodger Boris the Butcher of Britain?

General Heelspurs

Mind Control to Captain Tom

.

Saturday, 9 May 2020

Jonathan Um-Er-Um-Um-Er Van Tam on Facemasks and Covid19

More UK Govt adviser deadly nonsense from two Deputy Chief Medical Officers


Is Van Tam's mere illogical guesswork part of the UK Government's earlier deliberate inaction herd immunity catastrophic policy as outlined by his colleague - Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Jenny "going forward" Harries? Note how she is also spouting made-up raving mental mere guesswork on masks!

.


Is Jenny Harries Advising Boris how to best infect the UK population! from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.
.

Thursday, 7 May 2020

Is Boris Johnson now Guilty of Unmasked Murder?

The Prime Clown is in big trouble, isn't he?


. .

Darwin did not invent terraforming

Another supermyth about Darwin is busted


Wednesday, 6 May 2020

UK Government Propaganda Bullshit Spreading to Cover up Massive Mask Mistake

Here we see one of the UK's science advisers covering up the fact the so-called experts and Gov in the UK got the science and logic wrong about public use of face masks. Now they are spinning it that most people think masks are the ONLY solution. Who ever thought that? No one I know. Those with half a brain always knew they were part of the solution to slowing the spread of Covid19. The Government advisers and Bonkers Boris clearly do not have even half a brain. Utter morons! .

Herd Immunity Nonsense and Covid19 Killer Advice swallowed by the Prime Clown

This is an utter disgrace. What a pillocking wombat!

Elect a Killer Clown: Expect a Massacre

Does a country get the leader it deserves?


Tuesday, 5 May 2020

Latest bullshit waffle from the UK Government on Masks Against Covid19

This is an absolute  disgrace.

Monday, 4 May 2020

Masks Against Covid-19 and Proper Academics Versus the Cult of Managerialism


The UK Government has been misled by a bunch of managerialist "going forward vacuous buzz-term signalling obsessed" idiots, not only did the UK lock-down three weeks too late, as the #PrimeClown Boris Johnson was clowning around boasting about shaking hands in hospitals with Corona19 patients and saying it was OK to continue with mass sporting events - and his scientific advisers treated the pandemic like the flu and advised a herd immunity "let 'em die" strategy, other counties, such as Greece locked down before they suffered a single death from Covid19.

Today the UK has the worst death rate in Europe and Greece the lowest! Boris was, unsurprisingly infected and wasted NHS resources taking up a critical care bed for days - all due to his own clownish idiot stupidity. BULLSHIT KILLS! #NulliusInBurger

In the video snippet below - PRESENTED HERE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO SAVE LIVES -Professor King tells the BBC (4th May 2020), quite sensibly, that the public should be compelled to wear masks outside the home during the Covid19 pandemic



Now compare and contrast the advice given by Professor David King with that of the total idiot managerialist vacuous buzz-term signalling Jenny "going forward" Harries who believes all the public are as stupid as the Prime Clown Boris Johnson. Note also how she thinks mass public gathering events are fine during the Covid19 pandemic. The idiot and her managerialist cult  colleagues bosses should have been "going forward" 😬 advising lock-down and face-masks. Instead Harries was seemingly simply desperate to please the Prime Clown with whatever he wanted to hear and say so she could remain wallowing in her ludicrous managerial role. She is worse than useless, she is deadly. How many lives have been lost due to such incompetent stupidity?




I wrote a blog post for the Crime Talk website on the theme of deadly bullshit. If you are interested in exploring this issue further then please click here to read it.

We need to kick out the cult of lethal idiot managerialism "going forward" from all our universities.

CONCLUSION AND THE WAY FORWARD

Firstly, the most obvious point so many miss is that it is NOT so much a question of how much protection one wearer of a face masks gets from infected others not wearing a mask. The proper question to ask is this: “What extra protection do we ALL get if EVERYONE wears a mask OUTSIDE THE HOME? This question is especially important given that many carriers - and so spreaders - of Covid19 are asymptomatic and coughing and sneezing and otherwise spreading infected droplets in public and semi-public places.

This is not rocket science. Even children understand it.



Proper research into this issue concludes everyone is better protected from the spread of Covid19 into the air via water droplets and onto surfaces-then-to-hands-to-face. See the the top BMJ paper written by Prof Trisha Greenhalgh on this. Published this month and available free online (HERE).

The science about how Covid19 is spreads and how effective masks are is NOT about how well the odd mask wearer is protected but how much better protected we all are if everyone is forced to wear a mask outside the home during the Covid19 pandemic.

Beware of being led down the garden path by those who would rather tens of thousands more people die than admit they were wrong about compulsory wearing of face masks during this pandemic.

The UK government will recommend everyone wear face masks in shops etc as we come out of lock-down. This is policy in Scotland today and on all Eurostar trains leaving London.

The telling question is this: If face masks save lives coming out of lock-down , why not right now during lock-down? Why not right from the start of the pandemic?


.

Thursday, 30 April 2020

Lethal Bullshitting Boris

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson finally backtracks and admits masks do work "epidimiologically" to reduce the spread of Covid-19 but fails to apologize - as he stands besides his science advisor Chris Whitty who, along with Jenny Harries and others, said masks for the public do not reduce the spread of the virus and may make it worse. Boris is going to be recommending them soon he says as we come out of lockdown. But that is lethally illogical. Because if masks and other face coverings most likely do work then they should be insisted upon immediately, or else thousands more lives will be needlessly lost!


.
.


It seems that Boris and his motley crew of science advisers would rather more people die as a result of their flawed thinking and whack-job mere beliefs and idiotic assumptions than admit they have been wrong all along about public use of face masks.

There is sound logic and reasoning - published in the British Medical Journal - for governments insisting the general public wear masks outside the home HERE

.
.

Wednesday, 22 April 2020

Lies, Bullshit or Something Else?

Here we see Jenny Harries  - UK Deputy Chief Medical Officer - telling Boris Johnson on March 11 2020 that we should not close mass events and the public should not wear facemasks to reduce the spread of Covid-19 outside the home!



Now, in contrast, there is evidence, logic and rational argument published in the British Medical Journal for why all governments should be advising members of the public to wear face masks during a Covid19 pandemic HERE
. More on the video and what scientists actually knew on the matter on March 11 HERE 

The UK Government and US Government have the highest death rates for Covid19. Neither Boris Johnson nor Donald Trump recommend the general public wear masks outside the home. Although US Government advisers advise their general population to do so. Trump told the general population that it's voluntary and the he won't wearing one. Since both idiots have clown hair as their trademark you have to wonder about the idiot hair vanity clown effect in their world leading death rates. Is it that they think masks would make them look even more ridiculous?



For those who prefer excellent scientific articles on the topic - as opposed to total nonsense based on the assumption of public stupidity - please read this (here).

With thanks to Trisha Greenhalgh


.
.
.
Copy made in the public interest in case the Tory Government deletes the evidence



Is Jenny Harries Advising Boris how to best infect the UK population! from Mike Robert Sutton on Vimeo.

The Guardian newspaper covers the idiot numberwanging bot brained binary stupidity of the Tory Government's so called "expert" scientist advisers on the Covid-19 pandemic  - Here

PLEASE NOTE: There is a sister blog post on the theme of death by bullshit on the Crime Talk blogsite HERE

.
.
.
.
.
.

Monday, 20 April 2020

The Bermuda Triangle

When an author writes that a particular phrase or term was first coined that is not the same as writing when the phrase or term to describe a particular concept or idea was first coined. Failing to differentiate between the two is a gumption trap fallen into by many a credulous bozo desperate to fact deny a new discovery that proves an author wrong about when a word, term or phrase was first coined.

For example, many simply claim that Richard Dawkins first coined the term "selfish gene". But he never. The term was coined years earlier in published print by his mentor William (Bill) Hamilton - see Sutton and Griffiths (2018) for the expert peer reviewed fact of the matter.

Today, during week four of the UK Covid-19 lock-down I was idly browsing through the shelves of my library looking for something interesting to read. My hand alighted on a book I can't remember reading. When I flicked through it I found a note I had written in ink pen on one of the pages. I wrote: "Check if this is true" on page 152 of the book entitled 'Think: Why You Should Question Everything' by Guy. T. Harrison (2013) where the author of that book has it: 'The earliest known mention of the Bermuda Triangle was an article in Argosy (February 1964).'  

Ironically, Harrison did not question this widely published claim himself, because following my directions written several years ago, I found an earlier mention the Bermuda triangle. The 1950 publication tells us that Pan American Airways provided trips to the area described as 'Bermuda triangle' (click here to visit the Google books scanned snippets entry, archived here).




























In fact, there are many mentions of the area described as Bermuda triangle before 1964. The notion of the Bermuda Triangle being a meme about aircraft and ships missing within it is of course a different matter, because there we are talking about a concept about the area, rather than just a phrase, term or title for the same area. But we must remember exactly what Harrison wrote above. And when it comes to earliest mention of the term Bermuda triangle, or even about the dual capitalized version 'Bermuda Triangle', he is plainly 100% wrong. But he is clearly right that we should question everything we are told.

Friday, 3 April 2020

Masks Against Coronavirus

I have been Tweeting for weeks that the UK needs to insist we all wear masks outside the home. I see today that in New York that is now the official advice. Sadly, so called experts have advised against this in the UK.

All those TV doctors and scientists etc who have been trotting out the party line the masks don't work claptrap on TV - to merely tow the establishment line to keep their money making work with broadcasters should be ashamed. Many people have most certainly died as a result of such rubbish. A mask of any kind (the better the better however) will cut down the amount of infected water droplets spread by a sneezing, coughing and talking wearer and will reduce the amount of exposure to such droplets by wearers. That is simple logic.



.

Tuesday, 17 March 2020

Protect and Survive the Borisvirus

We are all at great risk from the clown advice coming form the #Borisvirus during the #coronavirus pandemic that is impacting the UK





Monday, 16 March 2020

The Boris First Flattened Curve Death Policy for Morons

The Boris Death Curve is a Tory strategy for killing morons and the credulous  fools who wait for a clown to tell them what to do and when to do it.


Sunday, 15 March 2020

Lobotomy of a Darwinite

There may be only one way. Who knows? 😆


Saturday, 14 March 2020

Griffiths on Darwin

Professor Mark Griffiths knows his facts

Professor Ernst on Boris and the Coronavirus

Get the facts. Study the telling questions.


Sunday, 8 March 2020

Knowledge Contamination

Friday, 28 February 2020

Bullies Bashed Back

They picked on the wrong academic this time.


Tuesday, 25 February 2020

One More Reason Why Wikipedia is the World's Worst Encyclopedia

Wikipedia editors are shameless plagiarists. And worse,



See more of the even more disgusting activities of Wikipedia editors HERE

Tuesday, 18 February 2020

Is Richard Dawkins a plagiarist?

Dawkins, why doesn't he get on a roof and trumpet the truth?




Monday, 17 February 2020

Mike Sutton's Bragging Rights: Brag No. 1. The Richard Dawkins mythbust

Despite what hundreds of text books and articles claim, Richard Dawkins did not originate and coin the term and concept of the 'selfish gene'. 






Sunday, 16 February 2020

Mike Sutton's Biography and Bragging Rights

Biography and Bragging Rights (BBR)


Read my bombshell💣💥 BBR HERE 
.

Saturday, 15 February 2020

April Fools: Etymological Origins

On April Fools Day

By Mike Sutton



There are many competing explanations for the cultural origins of April fools day.
Wikipedia   has it that: “In 1508, French poet Eloy d’Amerval    referred to a poisson d’avril (April fool, literally “April fish”), a possible reference to the holiday.  In 1539, Flemish poet Eduard de Dene wrote of a nobleman who sent his servants on foolish errands on 1 April.   In 1686, John Aubrey    referred to the holiday as “Fooles holy day”, the first British reference.  On 1 April 1698, several people were tricked into going to theTower of London    to “see the Lions washed”.”



Today, April 1st 2015, no joke, honestly, with the ID research method, I found what appears to be the first English use of the term “April fools”:
April Fools: Etymological Origin 1678
“April fools – People sent on idle errands.”
F. Ray is described as being a Fellow of the Royal Society. From his work, including a book on birds and another on poisons he appears to have been something of a polymath.

Friday, 14 February 2020

Dagg the Plagiarist

Desperate Dagg:


Monday, 10 February 2020

How Google Once Found the Original Google with the Big Data IDD Method


Fame at Last: Google Finds the Original Google after 110 Years in a Library 'Wilderness'




Feb. 23, 2013 4:47 am

Postscript Feb 11 2020

This blog post was first published on the Best Thinking website on Feb 23 2013. That website no longer exists but the original post is archived HERE with all the images.

The Big Data IDD method used to find the orignal Google no longer works. Indeed Google's functionality has been so reduced that unless I had found the original Google when I did then it may have remained buried for many more years. You can read about some other discoveries made with the IDD method in a peer reviewed paper HERE, which explains how the method was used and can still be employed today albeit with limited capacity since the search engine is now impeded by Google..


Original article begins:
Readers of my recent mythbusting work  will know that I have developed a research technique called internet dating (so called because it’s remotely like carbon dating the veracity or the published origins of words and phrases). Internet dating as a research technique relies upon efficiently and systematically sifting and synthesizing knowledge inside books, journals, newspapers and other documents scanned by Google. My own recent use of Google to bust a number of etymological fallacies about who said what first and where certain words and phrases originated quite neatly brings me to the theme of this particular peer-to-peer articlette. Namely: what is the origin of the word Google?
Latest Internet Dating News
Last week, I ‘discovered’ the earliest (to date) known publication of the word google by using Google to search on the word google. And I can attest that it’s earliest published use appears as the title of a book. The reference for that book is Hildebrand, A. F. (1903) A Voice from the Wilderness: Meditations of a Google. San Francisco, California    (hereafter The Original Google). In its first chapter, Hildebrand reveals that he also wrote and self published an earlier book, in 1901, entitled The Conglomerate de Omniferia; Or, The Meditations of a Hobo under the pseudonym Aristotle Flavius Hillogrates.   
It’s something of a duel-mystery why only a single copy of each book appears to be in existence and why they have survived at all. Both were self-published, which leads me to wonder whether perhaps the reason for the rarity of Hildebrand’s work and its survival is that it was perhaps surreptitiously inserted onto several library shelves by the author himself and that the two surviving copies of his unremarked literature survived library fires, librarian purges, merges, thefts and audits long enough to have been scanned as part of Google’s remarkable Library Project   . Perversely, one reason for their library survival may be that the books have remained in excellent condition because so few people have read them.
This week, I used the international inter-library loan system to obtain a photocopy of the front cover, title page and the first chapter. You can see them in the image below. (Please note: If you have trouble making out the words on the images, just click on the image and it will enlarge).
image

Images of The Original Google Book 1903 Taken by Mike Sutton in 2013

I’ve read chapter 1 and I have to say its quasi-philosophical, religious and literary ramblings are not quite to my taste. Experts of English literature might, however find it somewhat amusingly Joycean   . What does make the inter-library loan expense amazingly worthwhile is the author’s 110 year old explanation for why he refers to himself as a google. (Hildebrand 1903, p. 7):

“You will probably wonder why I style myself a “google.” Well, you know I had the effrontery to style myself a “hobo” in the “Conglomerate de Omniferia” That was a serious offense-one that it would hardly be safe to repeat. No, there is no class in creation with whom I may safely identify myself. But I need some convenient term whereby to refer to myself, and what more appropriate term could I get than “google”? That’s why I call myself a “google.”

OK, so we now know that the word google is at least 110 years old in 2013.
Next, I examine the official story of the origin of the word google prior to my Google facilitated 'discovery' of the Original Google
Unfortunately the free Mirriam-Webster Dictionary    is simply not up-to-snuff with knowing anything at all veracious about Google's curious origins:

“Origin of GOOGLE

Google, trademark for a search engine

First Known Use: 2001”

Brewer's (2012, p. 585) does a far better job of telling us about the origins of the word google:

‘A US company formed in 1998 that runs the Google internet search engine. Google resulted from a research project in 1996 by two postgraduate students from Stanford University. Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Such is its dominance over the other search engines that ‘to Google’ has become a generic verb meaning to search for something or someone on the internet. The story goes that Page and Brin thought they were naming their company after Googol, the vast number 1 followed by 100 zeroes, but got the spelling wrong. Similarly, the company's headquarters in California is called the Googleplex.’.

The company’s unofficial slogan is ‘Don’t be evil’; however, its detractors have expressed concerns regarding its policies on copyright, censorship and the privacy of personal information.’

Chambers (2012, p. 442), which, incidentally, is owned by the same publishing house as Brewer’s has this to say on the subject of the words googol and Google:

[googol ] ‘…the number 1 followed by 100 zeroes…1940 in Kasmer and Newman’s Mathematics and the Imagination, coined (possibly as a word from children’s vocabulary, perhaps with some influence of the comic strip character Barney Google) by the nine year old nephew of the American mathematician Edward Kasmer when the child was asked to name such a large number.’
For his own part in this story here is what Edward Kasner (1938, p. 13) has to say about what a googol is, what a googolplex is and where he got the words from:
"You may want to know where I got the name “googol.” I was walking in the woods with my nephew one day, and I asked the boy to think up any name for the number; any amusing name that entered his head. He suggested “googol.” At the same time, he gave me a name for a still larger number: “googolplex.” A googolplex is much larger than a googol, but it is still finite. Put down one, and then follow it with zeros until you get tired. No, that is a joke, because the googolplex is a specific number. A googolplex is one with so many zeros that the number of zeros is a googol: one with a googol of zeros. A googolplex is certainly bigger than a googol. Is it googol times a googol? No. A googol times a googol would be one with two hundred zeros. I want one with a googol of zeros. You would not have enough room to write them even if they went to the furthest star, putting down zeros all the way there and making a tour of all the nebulae. A googolplex is really an enormous thing.”
Next, let us see what the Google company itself has to say   , and you’ll notice that they make no mention of that alleged embarrassing spelling error mentioned by the mighty Chambers dictionary:

'Our history in depth

[In] 1997: ‘ Larry and Sergey decide that the BackRub search engine needs a new name. After some brainstorming, they go with Google—a play on the word “googol,” a mathematical term for the number represented by the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros. The use of the term reflects their mission to organize a seemingly infinite amount of information on the web.’
image

Barney Google invented in 1919 - celebrated by the US postal service in 1995
Presumably then we have to believe that the search engine wizards Larry Page and Sergey Brin and the whole of their team, and their PR copyrighters, friends and family oddly never saw a single Barney Google US postage stamp in 1995, which was just two years earlier (see timeline below).
Whatever the actual facts of the case about the Google search engine creator's explanation - and those of Stanford university eyewitness David Koller   , for why they named their superb product Google, of particular interest to etymologists should surely be that contrary to dysological    claptrap published on line (e.g. here   ) it has nothing to do with googly (a cricket term). Instead, it is etymologically related to Barney Google’s previously earliest known published namesake who is a monster that lives at the bottom of a garden pond in an illustrated 1913 children’s book. Speculatively, that fictional creation may possibly have influenced the naming of Barney Google in 1919. Chambers (2012) go on to speculate that Barney Google's name may have then influenced the naming of the number googol by maths wizards Kasner and Newman in 1940, via Kasner's nine year old nephew. Finally, that mathematical word googol is then - according to the story published online by the Google search engine company - meant to have influenced the 1997 naming of their search engine Google. Finally, thanks to an obscure book found by that search engine (reported for the first time in this articlette) we must now add Hildebrand's original 1903 google into the story.
Perhaps the simplest way to show the origins of Google is to use a clickable timeline of currently known provenance of the word, as I do below:

1. 1903 - A. F. Hildebrand pens and self publishes: A Voice from the Wilderness: Meditations of a google.   

2. 1913 - Vincent Cartwright Vickers - penname V.C.V - authors and has published: The Google Book,    which is an illustrated children's story book about a monster named the Google who shares Googleland with a number of exotic bird-like creatures.

3. 1919 - Billy DeBeck gives birth to the comic strip cartoon: Barney Google, which ran throughout the 1920’s and was bootlegged, at times pornographically, by Tijuana comics    throughout the 1930’s   

4. 1938 - Kasner and Newman coin the word Googol    – after gettng it from Kasner's nine year old nephew (Kasner 1938).    There is no veracious published evidence (to date at least) regarding where Kasner's nephew actually got the phrase from. Some publications (e.g. Chambers 2012) assert that he may have chosen the name because he was influenced by the Barney Google comic strip.

5. 1995 The US Postal Service celebrates Barney Google    with a postage stamp.

6. 1997 Page and Brin rename their BackRub search engine Google just two years after Barney Google postage stamps are in use in the USA. And yet the Google official story is that Google's founders chose the name Google with no reference to the earlier use of that word but as a deliberate rehash of Kasmer and Newman’s word googol.

Conclusions and the way forward
Several things interest me about this on-going story. Firstly, as an incurable romantic, I’d like to know a little more about the obscure Hildebrand. I think there is a marvelous opportunity here for a little detective work that should perhaps begin by looking for clues in his two books. The fact that he put his thoughts into self-published books suggests that he wanted to influence mankind beyond the grave. I suspect he could have had no idea that it would be the weird title of his book that would bring him to the attention of the world via a once unimaginable technology sharing the same name. But what particularly interests me is:
(1) Whether, due to 21 century knowledge flux (Sutton 2013), Google’s Library project will help us to trace its etymological roots further back than my 1903 Google facilitated ‘discovery’?
(2) Whether we could ever satisfactorily explain the choice of the word by Hildebrand – is it merely because he thought such a childish nonsense word had never before been coined?
(3) While it might be possible, can we ever know for sure – or is it plausible to suggest - that either Vincent Cartwright Vickers and/or Billy DeBeck read Hildebrand's Original Google of 1903?
(4) Whether anyone at Google. or any of Page and Brin's friends or relatives ever used the US Postal Service in 1995?
The Hildebrand Hypothesis
I would like to here propose the Hildebrand Hypothesis, which is that:
The unremarked author Hildebrand is remarkable as the Original Google 110 years after self-publishing his book because its subtitle acted causally upon the naming of Page and Brin's search engine.
To dis-confirm the hypothesis it will be necessary to establish that on the balance of reasonable probabilities that Hildebrand's Original Google did not influence anyone who influenced Page and Brin's choice of the word for their search engine.
The hypothesis would be confirmed by the discovery of new evidence that either Vickers, DeBeck, Kasner, Newman or Kasner's nephew or Page and Brin were directly influenced in the naming of their creations by Hildebrand's Original Google.
Finally, let's end on a little further fun
If not the gurgling of an infant from personal observation or perhaps Eugene Field's famous 19th century verse Googly-Goo   , what else might have influenced Hildebrand to call himself a google? How about the term goggle    or better still googleeyed?
image

Googleeyed. Is this the word that influenced Hildebrand the google originator?
Furthermore, that mathematical word googol amusingly appears to appear in print in 1894, in a book entitled: Some Remarks on the Kalyani inscriptions by Toʻ Cinʻ Khui, Bombay : Education Society's Steam Press,   
image

Googol but not as you know it 1894
image

Google from the 1913 children's story book by Vickers
Postscript 14th April 2013At the time of writing, Wikipedia currently has only traced the origin of the name Google back to the Barney Google cartoons of 1919. However, Since Wikipedia is currently unethically engaged in deliberately and systematically plagiarizing the unique results of my original myth-busting work published solely here on Best Thinking, and then deliberately refusing to cite me as the originator of this brand new information that is busting decades old pervasive myths and fallacies and poor research, we should expect Wikipedia to edit-out its current text and insert all the results, uniquely discovered by my research, published here in this article, and yet pretend that Wikipedia discovered this new information in order to seek to improve its dreadful reputation for disseminating unreliable information. You can see what they are up to here, and read my arguments for why this is a socially toxic practice. Boycott Wikipedia's toxic plagiarism !

How to cite this peer-to-peer research briefing article.

Sutton, M. (2013) Google Finds the Original Google. Criminology: The Blog of Mike Sutton. BestThinking.Com http://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=20333
References
Brewers (2012) Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (19th edition) . London. Chambers Harrap Publishers.
Chambers (2012) Dictionary of Etymology: The origins and development of over 30,000 English words. London. Chambers Harrap Publishers.
Kasner, E. (1938) New Names in Mathematics. Scrpta Mathematica. Volume 5.pp. 5-14.
AllAuthor's FavoritesThinker Recommended
Tony Wolk
December 18, 2013 at 5:09 pm
Professor of English, Portland State University
My uncle, Samuel V. Sanger, born 1899 in Pittsburgh, studied cartooning with Billy DeBeck, whether in person or via the correspondence course I don't know--probably the latter. A few years ago, forgetting the name of the artist behind "Barney Google" I unthinkingly googled "Google." What google immediately sent me to was Billy DeBeck. I thought, how weird that I had googled "google."
Reply  
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
December 20, 2013 at 3:19 am
Hi Tony
Many thanks - I do hope you have some of your Uncle's cartoons in your family archive.
One interesting thing about Google is that it is highly protective of its name - despite the fact that they never coined the word they would sue anyone for breach of trademark for publishing a book entitled, for example, How to Google - if that book was about their search engine.
Check out these cases: