Jonathan Crabtree: a dangerous fraud

Abstract: J. Crabtree is a fraud who knows neither math nor history, and would not be allowed to teach either subject to Australian school kids. I have called him a church mole, since he is a White man talking of “Bhartiya math” as a con trick to gain entry into Indian education. His object is to sow all kinds of confusion, while slyly defending key interests of false church history related to math. One such aspect of false church history is “Euclid” for EVIDENCE of whose existence I have offered large prizes. Crabtree does not have ANY evidence. Therefore, to save this church lie he pretends to “review” my Euclid book, 10 years after it was published! In typical church manner, he starts with a gross misrepresentation of my position, to launch an ad hominem attack (on my person) by telling some brazen lies which lies are proved false by the very subtitle of the book.

Declaration of personal interest. Crabtree  first wrote to PM Modi saying I should be given the Bharat Ratna, India’s highest award. When I didn’t rise to that bait, he now has many nasty things to say about me, as part of a filthy “review” of my book Euclid and Jesus.

Note. This blog is about Jonathon J. Crabtree an Australian based in Melbourne (NOT to be confused with Jonathon Crabtree an American based in Maryland).

Crabtree describes himself variously as a “private researcher”  and as a “K-8 math researcher” and “historian”, etc.

His educational qualifications? He attended B.Com in Economics at the University of Melbourne from 1980 to 1983. It is not clear whether he actually graduated even in that, since he says that he had an accident on his way to the University in 1983. His word that he is even a graduate is suspect: we need to see the (irrelevant) degree, since as shown below, he is a brazen liar.

In his ORCID entry, he has not indicated any employment record, since 1983 until now, which is a good 39 years of blank space. What was he doing that he is so ashamed to admit? Was he a priest? Certainly, he had NO academic employment ever, and certainly nothing to do with math or history, even as a school teacher.

But he says in his ORCID entry,”1983 to present | Elementary Mathematics Historian (Research) Employment” His “employment” apparently was directly with (the Christian) God: for he says (see above link) “I made it a promise to God that if I could walk again, that I would fix mathematics.  So that was 1983 and so since 1983 until now 37 years, I’ve been working on my personal goal of keeping my promise to God to fix mathematics.”

What was the outcome of working since 1983? His research? First article on “math” is in 2015, a good 32 years after his claimed his employment with his God began! What a fraud! If he did not cheat his God, by twiddling his thumbs for 32 years, he is cheating us by telling the above story to add 32 years of fake “experience”!

So, after 32 years, did he come up with something profound? No: only an alleged new reason why two negatives make a positive. This is in a magazine Vinculum published by the Mathematics Association of Victoria, which encourages first time writers: “Experienced and novice writers are encouraged to submit articles. Editors are able to support you in developing your ideas for an article, especially useful for first time writers.” Apart from another such article in the same magazine, he has some conference papers. That is the basis of his alleged “expertise” in math and history. In fact, like all frauds and cheats he claims to have some miraculous powers (like those of the silly Crusading “holy grail”) by calling himself “the Indiana Jones of math”.

The problem with this fraud: A White man saying “Bharatiya math” is an easy con-trick to get him entry with gullible Indians who do not check facts and believe he may be trying to do some good. He does not know any math, of course, but does not know any Sanskrit either.  What “Bharatiya math” will he do? He drops a few names, Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and so on, but seems thoroughly confused about negative numbers.

That confusion about negative numbers is natural for Westerners who from the 12th c. Fibonacci to the 19th c. de Morgan were confused about negative numbers (de Morgan called then evil) for over 700 years. Negative numbers are created when a larger number is subtracted from a smaller number, but they all (including de Morgan) explicitly disallowed it. Augustus de Morgan was an influential math professor at University College London, this chap Crabtree is a BCom (fail?) boasting of fraud miraculous powers by calling himself Indiana Jones. He seems confused over such issues as negative numbers. Allowing him access to the minds of our children would be as foolish and criminal an offence as allowing the church access to the minds of our children through colonial education.

To come to the “review” of my book. If he had an iota of scholarship, he would have first provided EVIDENCE as my Euclid prize demands. But he has no evidence. Since, he further has no qualifications, it is a waste of time to rebut all he says: I will just point out one thing. In my article church origins of (axiomatic) math see footnotes 14 (Cambridge), 15 (Oxford), 16 (Harvard), 17 (Cape Town). These footnotes point out how top Western scholars from the above institutions follow a stock pattern long used by the church: namely, start by abusing the person using a brazen lie. This “barking methodology” can be used by anyone (even a dog) without needing any knowledge of the subject! Though Crabtree is not a “scholar”, remotely comparable to the above, by any stretch of imagination, he follows exactly the same pattern.

But on Indian tradition, a debate is for truth; hence misrepresentation of the opponent’s position or a brazen lie results in immediate loss of debate.

That is exactly what Crabtree does: tells a brazen lie instead of giving the evidence for “Euclid” which he is incapable of supplying. He says “C. K. Raju…has put his hatred of Christianity at the core of his mythical tale”.

Let us see why this is a brazen lie.

Because the very subtitle of the book is “How and why the church changed mathematics and Christianity across two religious  wars”. Note the TWO separate terms “church” and “Christianity”. Clearly, this shows I make a distinction between the church (a political entity) and the religion Christianity which the church claims to represent, but which it changed (to enhance the personal political power of priests). What? Reviewing a book without reading even its subtitle?

In fact, Crabtree is actually a far more brazen LIAR than reviewing a book without reading its subtitle. Why? On 24th July 2022, I organized a public debate on removing the term “Pythagorean theorem” from school texts. Since that term is the entry point for false church history, Crabtree expressed a desire to join, and I allowed him, and he joined. The points of my presentation, and the video of the meeting recording his presence are both online, and easily checked.

Quick method: go to my presentation and click on the link “Clarifications” under contents, and scroll down. This is what I said on the record regarding the notion of soul (relevant to Plato’s geometry):

“Plato’s notion of soul ALSO similar to pre-Nicene Christian notion of soul (Origen)

I have nothing against Christianity either.
When I say “axiomatic proof a church invention”.
I refer to post-Nicene CHURCH: a political entity

Difference between church and Christianity

Difference between Christianity and church
similar to difference between Hinduism and Hindutva.
Opposition to political entity church NOT against (original) religion Christianity.”

In other words, pre-Nicene Christianity (and its notion of soul) was very similar to Hinduism, hence I cannot possibly hate it. This has been my stated stand for over twenty years and is found not only in the above link to Origen’s De Principis, but also in my book Eleven Pictures of Time, etc.

Note that all this was said right before him and is on video (he was the first to join and stayed on till my presentation was complete). Hence, it is clear that Jonathan Crabtree is a compulsive liar, lying to defend the utterly abominable crimes of genocide and slavery instigated by the church whose mole he is. It is one thing that he does not know even elementary math, and has no historical evidence for “Euclid”;  it is another that he lacks basic moral character and lies and misrepresent my position in this brazen manner.

As to the CONFUSION he spreads: let us go back to the points of my presentation, and the video of the Pythagorean meeting. I clearly stated

“The most imp. aspect of the debate is about the term “Theorem”

  • (3) whether there was ANY axiomatic proof of the “Pythagorean” proposition (by Greeks or others) before Hilbert 1899.
  • If not the term “theorem” must go!
  • (Theorem has an axiomatic proof: class IX, NCERT text, p. 305)
  • The philosophy part (”theorem”) more important.
  • Trick: FALSE history + BAD philosophy

    • Term “Pythagorean theorem” combines FALSE history (”Pythagoras”)
    • with a BAD philosophy of math (”theorem”).
  • Most people fooled: just keep attacking the history part.”
  • This point also made in earlier videos and articles: which clearly speak of “Manava CALCULATION”. This point AGAIN repeated during Pythagorean meeting where Crabtree was present. (To check: open presentation, and search for “Manava”.)

    So what does this fellow Crabtree do? He immediately suggests it should be called Baudhayana THEOREM. He has even started an online petition on that, (Of course, there too has a number of unacceptable caveats which he stated elsewhere, but we won’t go into that.)

    Clearly Crabtree aims to fool Indians: by using the term Baudhayana he pretends he is on the side of Indians; by slyly preserving the term “theorem” he retains the axiomatic proof of vital importance to church theology, but little understood by most people. That is exactly what a mole does: fools people that he is on their side, while slyly working against their interests.

    Of course, there are n number of other rotten statements this poorly-educated person makes. For example, as a racist and believer in the Bible defence of slavery, and Biblical “curse of Ham” against Blacks, he can’t contemplate the possibility that Hypatia of Alexandria in the African continent was black. (Why I say that is explained in detail in an earlier blog post.) Again, per his ORCID record, he has an “article” on “A new model of multiplication via Euclid”. Needless to say, there was no “Euclid” (mere Crusading myth) and NO model of multiplication among Greeks and Romans beyond repeated addition on a primitive abacus. Hence, Europeans abandoned primitive Roman arithmetic and chose Indian arithmetic (”Arabic numerals”).  But this blog post is not meant to educate a B.Com (fail?) person masquerading as math researcher and a historian.

    We should not allow this fraud Crabtree within a mile of our children. He is poorly educated, a brazen liar, and a defender of fake church history. Remember all those church priests who are routinely caught molesting children? The point is: even when they don’t rape the bodies, they rape the mind! That is what colonial education, which was church education, was all about. What we have now is only a slightly modified version of the same dirty trick all over again, allowing for the church loss of power, and the gain in power by India. If we again fall for this silly trick we deserve it.

    PS. As an amusing sidelight, according to WorldCat: “Vinculum, latin for “Bond”, is a journal of the Holy Rosary Major Seminary, Graduate School of Theology, that aims to provide a forum wherein priests, seminarians and lay contributors can discuss and express their views on fundamental issues related to theology and on matters directly affecting the Church and the Society.” Even if this WorldCat entry is an error, and there is no historical connection between the Philippines theological society and the Australian mathematical one, it is an amusing Freudian slip!

    PPS. At Jaipur I met someone to whom Crabtree LIED that he had shown ME his commerce degree. He NEVER. But If he has even a BCom degree,  why not put it online to settle the serious doubt about his qualifications? ObviouslY, BCom NOT enough to teach math to kids: in Indian schools that typically requires BSc+BEd. Because he lack BSc he is confused about probability etc, Also confused about negative numbers like so many  Westerners from Fibonacci to de Morgan. A danger to Indian kids because people fall for a White talking Bharartiya, and don’t check basic qualifications or experience of this uneducated “educator” with 0 experience of teaching.

    PPSS. Also he is not anti-colonial but only anti-British since British exported their convicts to Australia, and used to look down their nose at the Australians. Of course, colonial education=church education and he is solidly pro-church and pro-Western authority,

    Leave a Reply