This is damning. I accepted that he was unable to maintain a professional stance and have a scientific debate on clinical data, because I knew his background was limited to flow cytometry in viral immunology at the time he did his PhD, but just teaching flow cytometry since. I also knew that he was lying about the 70+ papers and about being commissioned by multiple universities, although he could hide behind that as nobody could prove it until they put in FOIs to those universities. What I didn't anticipate was trying to palm off other peoples' work as his own. Plagiarism. The lowest act of a pseudo-scientist.
So he's a failed academic with a loose relationship to the truth, and he's also a Covid/lockdown/vaccine fanatic with religious zeal.
Having left academia isn't an issue - many of the best analyses of Covid-related data come from keen data scientists and statisticians with no previous viral experience.
But being angry and delusional and fanatical about Covid (so much that he has no doubts at all) is a good reason for muting him on Twitter. Unfortunately he seems to be in with a wider Covid-fanatic crowd, including some of the nutters at Imperial.
This is great. I've been fascinated by GB for some time. I have previously wondered, 'Who can (sometimes) spend ALL day on Twitter whilst running a farm, running a cytometry business, raising several children and being involved in various projects?'. I wonder about his links to the UK government. I think I saw a TV clip where he seemed to be supporting govt. policy related to badger culling. It was almost as if he was a spokesperson. Is he a volunteer in the 77th Brigade? It would be interesting to see the twitter activity of the Mutton Crew mapped out somehow.
What kind of a moron would claim plagiarism over an unsourced image that is sourced.... by showing an unsourced image themselves? Or should I say "morons"? You leave out the links so people can't see that you are lying, right?
Thank you for your very interesting comment. I’m surprised I have to explain this. But using a screenshot from twitter is very different from posting a screenshot from a scientific study and claiming the data as yours. Either directly ie “MY previous data” or indirectly, though failure to cite the study it has been taken from. The image in question, is actually figure 3 in the study and comes with information and context and shouldn’t be taken in isolation.
The ‘source’ links you have supplied, shows Bottley made no correlation between his “MY previous data” tweet and the study. Therefore does not prove I am in anyway lying or being disingenuous. Quite the contrary, it reinforces what I have said.
However if your links, had shown there was tweet citing the study directly after the “MY previous data” tweet, with perhaps an explanation that he had misspoke in claiming it was his data. Then you still wouldn’t have the gotcha, you think you have. As I would have shown that he had a change of heart immediately after tweeting it was his data.
There is actually a good reason why I have redacted twitter tags & haven’t included directed links to the tweets I have used. Bottley has become quite the controversial character, so it was to avoid ‘trolls’ from both camps using this article as a direct route to twitter and targeted harassment . Of course as you have proven links can be found. But I left that up to the individual readers to do so, without my endorsement, consent or help. If they are that way inclined, I hope nobody is. I also hope that you placing the links in the comment, which as I have already explained further enforce what I have wrote, don’t cause any kind on pile on.
May I take this opportunity to thank you again for your feedback. But also to ask your permission to use your response in a future article where I will be exploring the language used by Dr Bottley’s supporters.
Jan 19, 2023·edited Jan 19, 2023Liked by Unseen Detective
I've had a chance to better look at the threads linked by 'Laughing At You.' The manner in which Twitter -- at my end, at least -- 'weaves' the conversation makes things difficult to follow. But I agree with you that Bottley does not -- either by design or unwittingly -- make the source of "his" figure obvious. There definitely is a failure of clear correlation, as you put it. That is to say, his manner of citing leaves me with the impression that he is indeed flirting with plagiarism.
"The ‘source’ links you have supplied, shows Bottley made no correlation between his “MY previous data” tweet and the study."
They show he posted a study then posted an image from it 20 minutes later.... in the same thread... to the same person. And a "detective" can't see a correlation? The same detective that still never even bothered to read the whole thread, much less scroll up a few comments?
Posted image. Said where it was from. Posted image again. Does that make it clearer?
He didnt misspeak. "My previous data" refers to the image/study he previously posted. Not that it was actually his. You are just blinded by bias and can't see this.
Being called a moron should be the least of your concerns when falsely accusing someone of plagiarism. You can use my words.... if you also show the words of your supporters posting this. Or replying to me here. Perhaps you would like me to post numerous examples with links so you can use them as well?
Thank you for your continuing interest. Regrettably you leave me with no choice but to share direct links. Which as I have already explained, I didn’t want to do, for good reason. They are just some of the occasions where Dr Bottley has shared the isolated image without citing the source or crediting the authors. On one occasion he does link to a study in the thread, but it isn’t the correct study. On another he is asked if he could cite the source, which he ignores.
Dr Bottley claims to working on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and virus projects. We know that flow cytometry is his field. When he shares an image without context relating to both, in isolation without citing source of an image, he is implying that it is his to share ie he has ownership. This is without the damning addition of “my previous data”
Now, I can assure you I did due my diligence, perhaps you should do yours. Maybe you can ‘explain this’:
This of course is just one image from one study which Dr Bottley misuses for his own gratification. There are others. I can assure you the complex research conducted in these studies was not done so that images could be taken and used to bamboozle.
Can I ask what you are implying by “least of my concerns”? I can assure you I have no concerns. If this is a backhanded threat of legal action. I hope you have Dr Bottley’s permission to make it. Remember if you are correct, then you not only have to prove it isn't plagiarism, but that I do not believe it is plagiarism, for clarity believe it is. If that is proven, then I redact a piece of my article and it will give me a topic for another piece “Plagiarism inside and outside of Academia. However if I am correct, then it will not go away so quickly.
You might want to be careful using words like "Bamboozle". When doing a search on the study source... PJ @gladbags4 shows up with the same complaint using that same source. People might misinterpret the coincidence, which would be a bad look for someone who calls themself "Unseen Detective".
But thanks for providing so many links where no attempt to claim ownership was made and an attempt to source it was made. Furthermore.... you seem to have 'missed', yet another example where the correct source for the image was given:
How many more direct refutations of your claim did your due diligence miss?
"Can I ask what you are implying by “least of my concerns”?
Maybe read more than just the first sentence in the paragraph to avoid confusion and hilarious 'defenses'. No legal threat, or any kind of threat. You lost all credibility on your first substack postings.... and you think biasedly boo hooing about being called a moron is not going to make you look even worse?
For The Record:
1. "He never cites the source" FALSE. Several examples given.
2. "He never gives.... any context." FALSE. You gave a link showing he did:
3. "He sometimes goes as far as to claim it is his own data" FALSE. You believed #1,2, failed to see he cited the source in that exchange and misunderstood what was said, and failed to provide context showing this. ZERO other examples given.
4. "Other times he claims ownership of the data by implication." INCORRECT. ZERO evidence of this give, Assumption based on 1,2,3.
5."Sharing anything from a study without citing the source, so to claim ownership, or to be as bold as to directly claim ownership, is plagiarism, and gross academic misconduct. Something a genuine expert with an excellent reputation would never be guilty of…" FALSE. See 1,2,3,4
Firstly let me apologise for not responding sooner. I have a very busy life outside of the internet. I realise this is a concept which you may not be familiar with.
But to address your comment, made on the 20th January and subsequently added to on 21st January. Which I presume was due to frustration that I didn’t respond in the timely fashion you had hoped for.
There are approximately 200k words in the English language and with 1.5 billion people who speak English in the world. I am surprised you think a common descriptive word such as ‘bamboozle’ (meaning: to trick or deceive someone, often by confusing them) is only used by one individual on the planet.
Did it not occur to you given my piece, is in part, about behaviour on twitter, I gathered some of my information from none other than twitter? Sometimes a word is used and there really isn’t a better replacement. Therefore often when addressing the same or similar issue the same words might crop up.
However, as relieved as I am to discover when you said “visible PJ” in a previous comment, you were referring to a twitter handle and were not fantasising over what Dr Bottley wears in bed. I think its a little desperate targeting an individual who it appears you have had little, to no, engagement with on twitter? It has a strange doxxing vibe to it. Which if what I am told is true, you have form for doing, and have been suspended from twitter from on several occasions under several fake aliases. Although this is obviously just hearsay.
Moving on.
Let me take the oportunity to thank you for taking the time to find a single ocassion when Dr Bottley, when pushed, did cite the correct study. I understand how time consuming that must have been for you. It's a shame your efforts didn’t bring up anything more fruitful. Such as debunking all the other times it went uncited. Or when another individual went as far as sharing the same image on a thread about t-cells (the study is in reference to b-cells) and sourced the image to Dr Bottley “specifically”. Dr Bottley, also on the thread, despite having the oportunity to correct this individual abstained from doing so.
“How many more direct refutations of your claim did your due diligence miss”. I think I can stick my neck out here and say none. Thanks to all your hard work
I’ll briefly go through the rest of your points.
1. Never cites the source. True. There is not a single example of when he posted the isolated image and included the citation of the study nor accreditied the authors with the image. By rights the image should never have been taken from the study to be used in isolation.
2. He never gives any context. True. Giving his OWN context is not the same as giving the true context as in the accompanying literature given by the authors in figure 3 which is where the image belongs.
3. He sometimes goes as far as to claim its his own data. True. “As MY previous data shows”.
4. Other times he claims ownership by implication. Correct. As I have shown with the a selection of un-cited tweets and his reluctance to correct others using it, citing him as the source.
5. Sharing anything from a study without citing the source, so to claim ownership, or to be as bold as to directly claim ownership, is plagiarism, and gross academic misconduct. Something a genuine expert with an excellent reputation would never be guilty of. True. Best explained by the copyright attached to the study in question;
I absolutely appreciate that you will not be satisfied with this response. I have no doubt you have more time on your hands that I do. But please be aware, it is unlikely I will respond to anymore of your nonsensical rants and misguided gotchas. If my reluctance to further engage with you makes you feel like a ‘winner’, then be my guest. I have always been happy to help lost causes.
You, too, are full of shit. Note that you link to a thread in which you cannot find this crucial part of the alleged plagiarizing tweet at hand: "If it does not "immunize, [“explain my previous data”]." Instead, in your reference, Botley prefaces the figure that IN THIS INSTANCE he sourced simply with: "Yes." So you aren't referencing the correct thread, are you. Is it possible, then, that he did pass this figure off unsourced in some other thread? It certainly looks that way.
Apparently you arent supposed to use bad words, it upsets the author. You can easily see it's all in the same thread in this link you claim to have had a better look it.
This comment you are replying to came before I did have a better look at the thread to which you linked. And I'll speak in whatever argot I'm comfortable with.
The figure to which I refer was indeed posted without any acknowledgement as to its source. If the exchange between Bottley and 'Numero 6' had ended there, what are the chances it would have been properly cited? It was only after being goaded by 'Numero 6' that The Great Mutton cited the source of "his" data.
"His ^previous data" is obviously referring to his previous image/study postings that went unanswered, its not taking credit for the work. The "Unseen Detective" (Visible PJ?), has made this clear by posting numerous examples of the image being used, where not a single one has an instance of ownership being claimed. There are also other instances where the image is used and linked... but the author for some reason omitted them.
Is your issue just lack of a source... ON TWITTER... and people's inability to spend 1 second right clicking the image and selecting image search? If so I agree. However my complaint was dealing with the claim of plagiarism. Do you really think the author has shown this?
And speaking of anyone's ability to right click on an image and Google search for the image, it isn't up to me to comb through the internet or a series of tweets to find the citation for it, something that should and could easily be properly and immediately provided. The failure is not mine or anyone else's, but that of the great and famous scholar and academic, Mr. G. Bottley.
It's twitter and 2023.... it's not anyone's responsibility to post a source because people are too lazy and ignorant to figure it out, unless asked. There is no "combing the internet", its the first result. Literally takes 1 second/2 clicks. You really never knew this? Maybe mutton just doesn't realize how inept people are. I do... and would recommend that he dot every "i" and cross every "t" to prevent people from humiliating themselves with these kinds of false accusations.
Not posting a source on twitter is not plagiarism and I see you had no response to the explanation of what "my previous data" meant. The only 'evidence' of plagiarism is just a misunderstanding of a single tweet... which you seem unwilling to address. Thank you for your input.
This is damning. I accepted that he was unable to maintain a professional stance and have a scientific debate on clinical data, because I knew his background was limited to flow cytometry in viral immunology at the time he did his PhD, but just teaching flow cytometry since. I also knew that he was lying about the 70+ papers and about being commissioned by multiple universities, although he could hide behind that as nobody could prove it until they put in FOIs to those universities. What I didn't anticipate was trying to palm off other peoples' work as his own. Plagiarism. The lowest act of a pseudo-scientist.
So he's a failed academic with a loose relationship to the truth, and he's also a Covid/lockdown/vaccine fanatic with religious zeal.
Having left academia isn't an issue - many of the best analyses of Covid-related data come from keen data scientists and statisticians with no previous viral experience.
But being angry and delusional and fanatical about Covid (so much that he has no doubts at all) is a good reason for muting him on Twitter. Unfortunately he seems to be in with a wider Covid-fanatic crowd, including some of the nutters at Imperial.
This is great. I've been fascinated by GB for some time. I have previously wondered, 'Who can (sometimes) spend ALL day on Twitter whilst running a farm, running a cytometry business, raising several children and being involved in various projects?'. I wonder about his links to the UK government. I think I saw a TV clip where he seemed to be supporting govt. policy related to badger culling. It was almost as if he was a spokesperson. Is he a volunteer in the 77th Brigade? It would be interesting to see the twitter activity of the Mutton Crew mapped out somehow.
What kind of a moron would claim plagiarism over an unsourced image that is sourced.... by showing an unsourced image themselves? Or should I say "morons"? You leave out the links so people can't see that you are lying, right?
Here is the image being sourced...
https://twitter.com/InCytometry/status/1470729105268256769
you can scroll down and see Unseen Dum Dum Detectives unsourced tweet down thread:
https://twitter.com/InCytometry/status/1470734506063761411
Thank you for your very interesting comment. I’m surprised I have to explain this. But using a screenshot from twitter is very different from posting a screenshot from a scientific study and claiming the data as yours. Either directly ie “MY previous data” or indirectly, though failure to cite the study it has been taken from. The image in question, is actually figure 3 in the study and comes with information and context and shouldn’t be taken in isolation.
The ‘source’ links you have supplied, shows Bottley made no correlation between his “MY previous data” tweet and the study. Therefore does not prove I am in anyway lying or being disingenuous. Quite the contrary, it reinforces what I have said.
However if your links, had shown there was tweet citing the study directly after the “MY previous data” tweet, with perhaps an explanation that he had misspoke in claiming it was his data. Then you still wouldn’t have the gotcha, you think you have. As I would have shown that he had a change of heart immediately after tweeting it was his data.
There is actually a good reason why I have redacted twitter tags & haven’t included directed links to the tweets I have used. Bottley has become quite the controversial character, so it was to avoid ‘trolls’ from both camps using this article as a direct route to twitter and targeted harassment . Of course as you have proven links can be found. But I left that up to the individual readers to do so, without my endorsement, consent or help. If they are that way inclined, I hope nobody is. I also hope that you placing the links in the comment, which as I have already explained further enforce what I have wrote, don’t cause any kind on pile on.
May I take this opportunity to thank you again for your feedback. But also to ask your permission to use your response in a future article where I will be exploring the language used by Dr Bottley’s supporters.
I've had a chance to better look at the threads linked by 'Laughing At You.' The manner in which Twitter -- at my end, at least -- 'weaves' the conversation makes things difficult to follow. But I agree with you that Bottley does not -- either by design or unwittingly -- make the source of "his" figure obvious. There definitely is a failure of clear correlation, as you put it. That is to say, his manner of citing leaves me with the impression that he is indeed flirting with plagiarism.
You took a better look at this?
https://twitter.com/InCytometry/status/1470729105268256769
Try again... and look up a few tweets. Report back
"The ‘source’ links you have supplied, shows Bottley made no correlation between his “MY previous data” tweet and the study."
They show he posted a study then posted an image from it 20 minutes later.... in the same thread... to the same person. And a "detective" can't see a correlation? The same detective that still never even bothered to read the whole thread, much less scroll up a few comments?
https://twitter.com/InCytometry/status/1470727922138951684
Posted image. Said where it was from. Posted image again. Does that make it clearer?
He didnt misspeak. "My previous data" refers to the image/study he previously posted. Not that it was actually his. You are just blinded by bias and can't see this.
Being called a moron should be the least of your concerns when falsely accusing someone of plagiarism. You can use my words.... if you also show the words of your supporters posting this. Or replying to me here. Perhaps you would like me to post numerous examples with links so you can use them as well?
Thank you for your continuing interest. Regrettably you leave me with no choice but to share direct links. Which as I have already explained, I didn’t want to do, for good reason. They are just some of the occasions where Dr Bottley has shared the isolated image without citing the source or crediting the authors. On one occasion he does link to a study in the thread, but it isn’t the correct study. On another he is asked if he could cite the source, which he ignores.
Dr Bottley claims to working on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and virus projects. We know that flow cytometry is his field. When he shares an image without context relating to both, in isolation without citing source of an image, he is implying that it is his to share ie he has ownership. This is without the damning addition of “my previous data”
Now, I can assure you I did due my diligence, perhaps you should do yours. Maybe you can ‘explain this’:
https://twitter.com/InCytometry/status/1602319090651385856?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/InCytometry/status/1470673813734150144?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/InCytometry/status/1605212722358099968?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/InCytometry/status/1569637708674252801?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/InCytometry/status/1491416465828114436?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/InCytometry/status/1594741085347405825?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1548684553144963074?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1595776043620638721?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1471530938131746816?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1485238189451268099?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1478401176995573765?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1509835950679281664?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1543566617606557697?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1527241186506952704?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1570000553010159616?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1583445796405489664?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1586730948082778115?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1571138094090571778?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1534237084667486209?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1602987483188297728?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1544968518738878465?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1611801627501158400?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
Here he posts his go to image
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1600500929098383361?s=20&t=nirmkPmLKsCjuNOUaauZpg
Cites in the thread a different study
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1600502392059039747?s=20&t=nirmkPmLKsCjuNOUaauZpg
Then posts the image yet again.
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1600505096265240579?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
For reference the study in which the image belongs to: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.740708/full
This of course is just one image from one study which Dr Bottley misuses for his own gratification. There are others. I can assure you the complex research conducted in these studies was not done so that images could be taken and used to bamboozle.
Can I ask what you are implying by “least of my concerns”? I can assure you I have no concerns. If this is a backhanded threat of legal action. I hope you have Dr Bottley’s permission to make it. Remember if you are correct, then you not only have to prove it isn't plagiarism, but that I do not believe it is plagiarism, for clarity believe it is. If that is proven, then I redact a piece of my article and it will give me a topic for another piece “Plagiarism inside and outside of Academia. However if I am correct, then it will not go away so quickly.
You might want to be careful using words like "Bamboozle". When doing a search on the study source... PJ @gladbags4 shows up with the same complaint using that same source. People might misinterpret the coincidence, which would be a bad look for someone who calls themself "Unseen Detective".
https://twitter.com/gladbags4/status/1577360759285219328
But thanks for providing so many links where no attempt to claim ownership was made and an attempt to source it was made. Furthermore.... you seem to have 'missed', yet another example where the correct source for the image was given:
https://twitter.com/SwaledaleMutton/status/1469706160609636354
How many more direct refutations of your claim did your due diligence miss?
"Can I ask what you are implying by “least of my concerns”?
Maybe read more than just the first sentence in the paragraph to avoid confusion and hilarious 'defenses'. No legal threat, or any kind of threat. You lost all credibility on your first substack postings.... and you think biasedly boo hooing about being called a moron is not going to make you look even worse?
For The Record:
1. "He never cites the source" FALSE. Several examples given.
2. "He never gives.... any context." FALSE. You gave a link showing he did:
https://twitter.com/InCytometry/status/1491416465828114436?s=20&t=FSMiOu4AiRD1v3Qrp4-PzQ
3. "He sometimes goes as far as to claim it is his own data" FALSE. You believed #1,2, failed to see he cited the source in that exchange and misunderstood what was said, and failed to provide context showing this. ZERO other examples given.
4. "Other times he claims ownership of the data by implication." INCORRECT. ZERO evidence of this give, Assumption based on 1,2,3.
5."Sharing anything from a study without citing the source, so to claim ownership, or to be as bold as to directly claim ownership, is plagiarism, and gross academic misconduct. Something a genuine expert with an excellent reputation would never be guilty of…" FALSE. See 1,2,3,4
Firstly let me apologise for not responding sooner. I have a very busy life outside of the internet. I realise this is a concept which you may not be familiar with.
But to address your comment, made on the 20th January and subsequently added to on 21st January. Which I presume was due to frustration that I didn’t respond in the timely fashion you had hoped for.
There are approximately 200k words in the English language and with 1.5 billion people who speak English in the world. I am surprised you think a common descriptive word such as ‘bamboozle’ (meaning: to trick or deceive someone, often by confusing them) is only used by one individual on the planet.
Did it not occur to you given my piece, is in part, about behaviour on twitter, I gathered some of my information from none other than twitter? Sometimes a word is used and there really isn’t a better replacement. Therefore often when addressing the same or similar issue the same words might crop up.
However, as relieved as I am to discover when you said “visible PJ” in a previous comment, you were referring to a twitter handle and were not fantasising over what Dr Bottley wears in bed. I think its a little desperate targeting an individual who it appears you have had little, to no, engagement with on twitter? It has a strange doxxing vibe to it. Which if what I am told is true, you have form for doing, and have been suspended from twitter from on several occasions under several fake aliases. Although this is obviously just hearsay.
Moving on.
Let me take the oportunity to thank you for taking the time to find a single ocassion when Dr Bottley, when pushed, did cite the correct study. I understand how time consuming that must have been for you. It's a shame your efforts didn’t bring up anything more fruitful. Such as debunking all the other times it went uncited. Or when another individual went as far as sharing the same image on a thread about t-cells (the study is in reference to b-cells) and sourced the image to Dr Bottley “specifically”. Dr Bottley, also on the thread, despite having the oportunity to correct this individual abstained from doing so.
“How many more direct refutations of your claim did your due diligence miss”. I think I can stick my neck out here and say none. Thanks to all your hard work
I’ll briefly go through the rest of your points.
1. Never cites the source. True. There is not a single example of when he posted the isolated image and included the citation of the study nor accreditied the authors with the image. By rights the image should never have been taken from the study to be used in isolation.
2. He never gives any context. True. Giving his OWN context is not the same as giving the true context as in the accompanying literature given by the authors in figure 3 which is where the image belongs.
3. He sometimes goes as far as to claim its his own data. True. “As MY previous data shows”.
4. Other times he claims ownership by implication. Correct. As I have shown with the a selection of un-cited tweets and his reluctance to correct others using it, citing him as the source.
5. Sharing anything from a study without citing the source, so to claim ownership, or to be as bold as to directly claim ownership, is plagiarism, and gross academic misconduct. Something a genuine expert with an excellent reputation would never be guilty of. True. Best explained by the copyright attached to the study in question;
Copyright © 2021 Ciabattini, Pastore, Fiorino, Polvere, Lucchesi, Pettini, Auddino, Rancan, Durante, Miscia, Rossetti, Fabbiani, Montagnani and Medaglini. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
I absolutely appreciate that you will not be satisfied with this response. I have no doubt you have more time on your hands that I do. But please be aware, it is unlikely I will respond to anymore of your nonsensical rants and misguided gotchas. If my reluctance to further engage with you makes you feel like a ‘winner’, then be my guest. I have always been happy to help lost causes.
You, too, are full of shit. Note that you link to a thread in which you cannot find this crucial part of the alleged plagiarizing tweet at hand: "If it does not "immunize, [“explain my previous data”]." Instead, in your reference, Botley prefaces the figure that IN THIS INSTANCE he sourced simply with: "Yes." So you aren't referencing the correct thread, are you. Is it possible, then, that he did pass this figure off unsourced in some other thread? It certainly looks that way.
Apparently you arent supposed to use bad words, it upsets the author. You can easily see it's all in the same thread in this link you claim to have had a better look it.
https://twitter.com/InCytometry/status/1470734506063761411
This comment you are replying to came before I did have a better look at the thread to which you linked. And I'll speak in whatever argot I'm comfortable with.
The figure to which I refer was indeed posted without any acknowledgement as to its source. If the exchange between Bottley and 'Numero 6' had ended there, what are the chances it would have been properly cited? It was only after being goaded by 'Numero 6' that The Great Mutton cited the source of "his" data.
"His ^previous data" is obviously referring to his previous image/study postings that went unanswered, its not taking credit for the work. The "Unseen Detective" (Visible PJ?), has made this clear by posting numerous examples of the image being used, where not a single one has an instance of ownership being claimed. There are also other instances where the image is used and linked... but the author for some reason omitted them.
Is your issue just lack of a source... ON TWITTER... and people's inability to spend 1 second right clicking the image and selecting image search? If so I agree. However my complaint was dealing with the claim of plagiarism. Do you really think the author has shown this?
"Do you really think the author has shown this?"
Yes.
And speaking of anyone's ability to right click on an image and Google search for the image, it isn't up to me to comb through the internet or a series of tweets to find the citation for it, something that should and could easily be properly and immediately provided. The failure is not mine or anyone else's, but that of the great and famous scholar and academic, Mr. G. Bottley.
It's twitter and 2023.... it's not anyone's responsibility to post a source because people are too lazy and ignorant to figure it out, unless asked. There is no "combing the internet", its the first result. Literally takes 1 second/2 clicks. You really never knew this? Maybe mutton just doesn't realize how inept people are. I do... and would recommend that he dot every "i" and cross every "t" to prevent people from humiliating themselves with these kinds of false accusations.
Not posting a source on twitter is not plagiarism and I see you had no response to the explanation of what "my previous data" meant. The only 'evidence' of plagiarism is just a misunderstanding of a single tweet... which you seem unwilling to address. Thank you for your input.