Charles Darwin – Same old, same old

 Sat 12:38 pm +01:00, 10 Feb 2024  1

posted by pete fairhurst 2

Darwin on the Beagle, wrong way round Cape Horn in winter? I remember as a kid being told that was a death wish in a sailing vessel. The essay is 21 pages and I’ve copied and pasted some snippets

“Why does it matter that Darwin came from these lines? Well, ask yourself why they are hiding it. The
answer is obvious: because they want you to think Darwin proceeded on merit, not on preference.
They don’t want you realizing he advanced on a series of byes and was promoted heavily from the
cradle to do exactly what he did. It was no accident or choice of Darwin himself. Although he wasn’t a
total fraud, in many ways he was just another frontman, chosen as the face of this particular project to keep your eyes off bigger names. And those names we have now just seen: Stanley, Howard, Paget, Stuart, Egerton. The same ones we always see. We are only missing Cohen.

We have all the usual signs of this. Although we now know these families were all Phoenicians,
children of El, we are told the Darwins were Unitarians. You will say, “What do you mean, we know
they were Phoenicians?” Well, they admit the Darwins were top Freemasons. Charles’ grandfather
Erasmus was one of the ranking Masons in the British Isles, being head of the Time Immemorial
Lodge, #2 in Scotland.

There is his coat of arms. Oh, what is that on top? Wiki tells us it is a demi-griffin, but there is no such
thing as a demi-griffin. That is a phoenix. He is holding in his claws a scallop. What does the scallop
signify in masonry? Exactly what you would think: secrecy. Same thing with the Latin: e conchis
omnia: everything out of conches, or shells. In other words, everything a big psyop. Many sources
have been planted, assuring us Erasmus was talking about the seashells seen on mountaintops—proof
of evolution. But that is just a cover story. He meant nothing of the sort. ”

and

“Robert Fitzroy was his flag lieutenant and he took over the captaincy of the Beagle three
months later from its first lieutenant. So Fitzroy apparently didn’t learn much on the first voyage, the
primary thing to learn being not to find yourself in Tierra del Fuego with winter coming on.
Fitzroy is a very strange one to find as Stokes’ 23-year-old flag lieutenant, a flag lieutenant being an
aide-de-camp, not a position like a first lieutenant. His name is the clue, since the Fitzroys are. . . you
guessed it. . . Stuarts. Fitzroy’s father was General Lord Charles Fitzroy, second son of the Duke of
Grafton and Anne Liddell. Remember, Joe Biden is a Liddell. The Dukes of Grafton are the
illegitimate ancestors of Charles II Stuart through his mistress Barbara Villiers. They also link us to
William of Orange, the Bennets, and the Pratts. So our captain of the Beagle turns out to be the 4ggrandson of the King of England. His mother was Lady Frances Stewart, daughter of Robert Stewart, 1st Marquess of Londonderry. Of course Stewart=Stuart.And you will love this! The Marquesses mother was a . . . Cowan. Cowan=Cohen, so my little joke above just panned out. We have now found Cohens in this mess. How did I know? Just playing the
odds”

and

“OK, I’ve made my point there. It was a long diversion, but I think you will agree it was worth it. And
it certainly wasn’t irrelevant, since the Darwins being Unitarian fits like a glove into everything we will
discover below. These things are always ignored in bios of Darwin, and you can see why. But they
shouldn’t be, because they explain so many things that are otherwise unexplainable.

Darwin was a terrible student and didn’t even finish highschool, dropping out in what we would call his
sophomore year. We are told Charles was sent by his father at age 16 to the University of Edinburgh
with his older brother, but that makes no sense. Then as now, a university should not have accepted a
drop-out 16-year-old with no degree and no special talents. Darwin apparently sat in on some pre-med
lectures, but we have no indication he was on a degree path. This is pretty much proved when he soon
quit, telling his father he didn’t want to be a doctor. He may have taken some biology classes in his
second year, but he soon dropped those as well, leaving Edinburgh at age 18 at going to Paris to hang
out with this friends. More than a year and a half later his father forced him to go to Cambridge for its
second term in January of 1828, where he had no doubt pulled more strings. The idea was that he
would get a Bachelor of Arts in preparation for a divinity degree. He did not qualify for the Tripos,
having been a terrible student up to then, so we are told he pursued an ordinary degree.

Wikipedia has a whole page on Darwin’s education, and it is discursive to the point of suspicion, telling
us as little about his education as possible and padding out the page by telling us what all those around
him were doing, like Coldstream and Grant. I have to admit I got no real impression from reading it
that Darwin was ever in school at all. Although supposed to be at Christ’s College, he didn’t live there,
which keeps us from looking for records of him. Convenient. He allegedly lodged over a tobacconist.
We learn nothing about his first year except that he took a three-month leave for a “reading-party” in
Barmouth (Wales) and that he collected bugs. You don’t need to be at Cambridge to do that. Darwin
allegedly started his second year on Halloween by staying in First Court at Christ’s College, but I
would now need to see some documentation of that.

As with his first year, we aren’t told any of the courses he took. Some say he took Henslow’s class on
botany, but they admit Darwin never mentioned Henslow in his correspondence of the time. All we get
is more stories about beetles and about fights among proctors. Same for this third year, where all we
are told is that he passed the one-day “Little Go” verbal exams in March of 1830.

But wait, those dates don’t add up, do they? According to what we were just told, he was at Cambridge
for two years and two months so far. Or what we would call less than five semesters. So how did he
qualify for his Little Go in March? I guess we are supposed to believe he transferred credits from
Edinburgh, but I find that highly unlikely. He loafed around Edinburgh for less than two years, leaving
mid-term, and then spent a year and a half on the Continent doing nothing in particular, so it is very
unlikely Cambridge allowed him to transfer anything. Remember, he was let in the University of
Edinburgh (if he was) on some sort of younger-brother bye at age 16, and from what we are told he
probably flunked out of most of those courses, or took incompletes. That wouldn’t transfer to
Cambridge, even supposing Cambridge allowed credit transfers back then. So I am calling BS on this
whole story.

Supporting that conclusion is his fourth year at Cambridge, about which we are told even less.
Wikipedia’s endless page of nothing skips forward right to his exams! Rather than tell us what Darwin
was doing from March to December, they tell us about William Paley’s “every man for himself” and
other utilitarian twaddle. Darwin sat his final exam in January 1831, but we have no idea what he
studied for three/four years. Plus, he was at Cambridge from January 1828 to January 1831, which IS
NOT FOUR YEARS. According to my math that is three years, so why does Wikipedia have a section
called “his fourth year”? Darwin allegedly placed 10th out of 178, but they then say he shone in
theology but scraped through on all other subjects. If he scraped through on all but one subject, how
did he graduate in the top ten? No continuity, as usual.

Of course this Bachelor’s degree was meaningless, since he didn’t go on for the divinity degree. His
interest was always botany and biology, so we don’t understand why they didn’t fake a science degree
for him.

But it gets worse. We are told that after graduation, Darwin hatched a plan to visit the Canaries. But
somehow that little dream blew up in a few months to accepting a five-year around the world trip on
the Beagle? For a 22-year-old recent ordinary graduate with no science background, no history of
achievement, and no record? His first geological expedition was in summer of 1831 mapping strata in Wales for one week. The first choice for the Beagle scientist/naturalist was Leonard Jenyns, nine years older than Darwin, and John Henslow’s top student at Cambridge. So why was Darwin Henslow’s second choice? It makes no sense. We are told Darwin was chosen not as a naturalist, but as a gentleman collector, which implies they wanted him to buy himself onboard to help finance the trip. But I am so suspicious by this point, I am not sure that is the answer either. Maybe they have already given us the clue: Darwin only went to Tenerife and the rest was only on paper. We have seen stranger things. “

and

“But here’s the clincher already. Prepare yourself. After spending more than a year on the Eastern coast
of South America sailing back and forth, they finally got down to the mouth of the Santa Cruz river in
April of 1834. That’s very far south, almost to the Falklands. You may think April was high spring,
but this is the southern hemisphere, so April is fall. Surely they weren’t planning on rounding the horn
in winter? The history goes vague here, and they only tell us the expedition reached Chiloe island at
the end of June. So yes, they would have rounded the Horn in May/June, which is late fall/early winter
in that area. Bitterly cold with very bad weather, not the time to be doing that regardless.
Beagle and Adventure now surveyed the Straits of Magellan before sailing north up the west
coast, reaching Chiloé Island in the wet and heavily wooded Chiloé Archipelago on 28 June
1834. They then spent the next six months surveying the coast and islands southwards.

With winter quickly coming on, these guys idly surveyed the freezing Straits of Magellan, in no hurry
to get on. And in mid-winter, they surveyed the coast and islands SOUTH of Chiloe. Not north of
Chiloe, but south. Talk about bad planning. They had also left England in the middle of winter, so
they were all about testing themselves. They had planned to leave in September, but were delayed until
after Christmas. Brilliant.

So not only did these guys round the Horn in May, they did it backwards east-to-west in a 90ft brigsloop with two masts. In high heels, I guess. Darwin himself commented on how small the ship was
when he first saw it, calling it “very small” and cramped. The ship was supposed to carry 120 sailors,
but Darwin’s voyage only had 74 onboard, we are told.”

and

“They admit that it was Fitzroy who personally gave Darwin his copy of Lyell’s Principles of Geology.
Very strange, as I think you see. Would you expect the Captain to be schooling the science officer on
science? I thought Darwin had been tapped as the expert. No. Darwin wasn’t tapped for anything,
since he probably never went past the Canaries. This whole thing was a sham, and I have already
proved that, since there is no way the Beagle went around the Horn in May of 1834, captained by this
26-year-old nephew of the Duke of Grafton.

That’s right. Darwin was 22 and Fitzroy the captain was 26. Rounding the Horn in winter. The things
they expect us to believe. This is for the same people who think icebergs are found at the same latitude
as Boston.

Also worth noting is that Fitzroy was captain at age 23 of the Beagle on its first voyage, after replacing
Stokes. A 23-year-old captain with no commanding experience, rounding the Horn in a 90-foot brig”

and

“Here’s another ridiculous claim. When Darwin was hired for the voyage, he signed on for two years.
The voyage allegedly took almost five. Do you really think they took off with no plans and no
schedule? Two years, five, what’s the difference right, when you are on a rocking boat everyday
throwing up overboard (as they admit Darwin did—seasick for five straight years). Never been on a
ship before but he decides to start out with a five-year trip around the world at age 22! No women, no
alcohol, terrible grub, but noblemen love that. He had always been a slacker up until age 22, but as
soon as he got onboard this rich kid pulled it all together, because we all know that is just how rich kids
are. Plus, we find that the 1st expedition of the Beagle had taken five years, so why would they tell Darwin
the second would take two?

This is also a clue: we are told Darwin sent back immediately via Admiralty Packet Service (Navy
Mail) not only all specimens but all notes and journals. These went directly to his professor John
Henslow at Cambridge, the one who had set up the trip. Hmmm. So would we know the difference if
Henslow and Darwin faked the whole thing, Henslow writing most of it from Cambridge? Probably
not. Though now I think we do know, after collating all this other evidence.

A similar clue: Fitzroy and others on the ship also made collections, but they were required to give
them to the Admiralty, which sent them on to the British Museum. In other words, everything found
was property of the Navy. But not with Darwin, who had demanded all his collections remain private.
OK, but why would the Navy bow to that demand? Why should they? It was their ship and their crew.
So how was Darwin the only “private” passenger on it? To me this is more sign of the fake.

Here’s a clever coincidence, one worthy only of fiction. The other ship surveying the same region was
the HMS Samarang, and do you want to guess who her captain was? Captain Paget. Another second
cousin of Darwin. Samarang was an East India Company vessel.

Here we get another clue in the story. The ship’s surgeon was Robert McCormick, another naturalist
planning to send a collection back to England. But he soon got crossways with Fitzroy and was sent
back to England on the HMS Tyne. But in those same weeks they tell us Darwin also got crossways
with Fitzroy, arguing about slavery, the captain refusing to speak to him further. So possibly he made
it past the Canaries and was sent back from Rio de Janeiro. His first crate allegedly was sent back in
July, after seven months at sea, so it is possible that is real.

We can sure he didn’t go any further than that, because the next story is off the map. In Buenos Aires
Fitzroy was asked to help quell a mutiny of black troops at the garrison. He went ashore with 50 armed
men, supposedly including Darwin! Darwin, fully armed with two pistols and a cutlass. No way that
happened. Supposing something like that did happen, the captain would never let his “ship’s
philosopher”, who had probably never fired a pistol, join a military expedition. He would certainly be
left on the ship.”

Far, far, more here: http://mileswmathis.com/darwin.pdf