Mr. Emeagwali answers his critics, well, sort of. The the renewed uproar  has gone viral over the fact that Mr. Philip Emeagwali who parades himself variously as “the Father of the Internet” and “one of the fathers of the Internet” has been profiting from lying and spreading falsehoods and exaggerations about his achievements.

Emeagwali’s latest crisis first erupted in the listserve USAA Africa Dialogue a gathering of African intellectuals and professionals managed by Professor Toyin Falola and quickly spilling into online forums, newspapers and Facebook.  In response to the uproar about Mr. Emeagwali’s blatant misrepresentations of his achievements, the self-styled “Father of the Internet” and “Donita Brown” aka Dale Brown Emeagwali, his wife, have hurriedly released poorly written rebuttals and conflicting counter-rebuttals seeking to distance themselves from the fraud that they have perpetrated and parlayed into a profitable enterprise in the 21 years since Philip won the Gordon Prize.

Just to clarify: These rebuttals have been signed by “Donita Brown” who neglects to state, in all her correspondence on this issue, that she is Emeagwali’s wife.  This house of lies will not stand.

The first rebuttal from Mrs. Emeagwali was on October 17, 2010 in response to Next Newspaper  columnist Jibrin Ibrahim’s , Fraud and the Emeagwali Narratives of the same date. Mrs. Emeagwali’s response was strangely bellicose and filled with disingenuous attempts at denying what her husband has documented in writing and on video. The rambling rant was filled with errors of fact and personal abuse directed at those who have protested Emeagwali’s serial lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations. 

Saharareporters’ October 18, 2010 expose of Mr. Emeagwali, titled How Philip Emeagwali Lied His Way to Fame (, a comprehensive deconstruction of Mr. Emeagwali’s deliberate falsehoods, has had the Emeagwalis exercised because it has sent a ripple through the Nigerian community at home and abroad and has gone viral on the Internet. This exposé has forced the Emeagwalis to come out yet again to issue a rebuttal. This is the greatest crisis the Emeagwalis have ever faced for it threatens to derail their source of livelihood. The stakes are high for the Emeagwalis; they have lived high on the hog from lying about Emeagwali’s accomplishments and qualifications. They have been forced to fight back and they are desperate. This time, the Emeagwalis are denying several things that Philip Emeagwali has said previously. The problem that the Emeagwalis have is that deniability is no longer an option; Philip Emeagwali has been very garrulous on the Internet and in print and his spoken words make it clear that the rebuttals are mere lies.

Emeagwali’s rebuttals do not add up.Let us examine the rebuttals and use Mr. Emeagwali’s words to counter them. This is all very simple: Mr. Philip Emeagwali should please stop profiting from falsehoods. Any reader who still doubts Mr. Emeagwali’s perfidy should please watch this video.

Ordinarily, there would be nothing else to say after that damning video of Emeagwali incriminating himself. But just in case Emeagwali does not retreat in shame in the name of the children he has lied to for over 20 years, let us examine his latest lies and falsehoods. Philip Emeagwali is now denying that he ever referred to himself as “Father of the Internet. In his rebuttal he states a new fib that there are several “Internets.” Well, here is a piece out of the remarks that Emeagwali made in Neutchatel Switzerland in April 2009: 

“People often ask me: ‘Why are you called one of the fathers of the Internet?’ My answer is this: "In 1989, I programmed 65,536 processors or two-to-power-16 subcomputers to compute and communicate as one seamless 16-dimensional hypercube-as-an-internet unit—receiving and sending emails to 65,536 addresses, each a string of 16 zeroes and ones long—to solve 24 million equations each restating Newton’s Second Law of Motion at a speed of 3.1 billion calculations per second.” In several interviews that can be found on YouTube, Emeagwali makes the following companion claim: “I performed a world record of 3.1 billion calculations per second.” Both claims are barefaced, unadulterated LIES. His 3.1 billion calculations per second was NOT a world record. It was the second fastest calculation even in the context of the 1989 Gordon Bell competition. As our previous report clearly showed, the Mobil/TMC team’s calculation was almost twice as fast as Philip Emeagwali’s and offered a higher speed-price ratio. The other claim about restating Newton’s Law of Motion is a criminal lie, undocumented and unsubstantiated in any scientific publication or in any piece of writing by Philip Emeagwali. This is clearly an effort on Emeagwali’s part to tie his Gordon Bell experiment to an important scientific law so as to make the experiment sound more important than it really was/is.

Enter Alan Karp, a judge of the Gordon Bell prize

Mr. Emeagwali’s 1989 entry for the Gordon Bell prize is his only work in the field of supercomputing. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that he has done any work since then. So every claim he makes about being “one of the fathers of the Internet” is based on that work. But as we proved conclusively in our last report, the work’s applicatory utility had to do with the recovery of more oil from oilfields, not with any aspect of the Internet, which was already in existence. The following interview conducted by Nigerian literary scholar, Toyin Adepoju, with Alan Karp, one of the judges for the 1989 Gordon Bell Prize, puts the matter to rest:

Dear Alan Karp,
Good afternoon.
I hope this meets you well.
This email is an enquiry relating to Philip Emeagwali, one of the Winners of the Gordon Bell Prize of 1989 of which you were one of the judges. There has been significant confusion in various publications as to the scope of the achievements of Philip Emeagwali, particularly in terms of the character of his achievement that won him the Gordon Bell Prize, leading various people and bodies to seek clarification. As far as I know, your views as a scientist and a judge of that prize are yet to be sought on this subject. It would be most helpful if you could clarify the following issues dealing with the facts of this matter:

 1. The copy of a report on the prize described as written by you and the other judges (found on the Wikipedia article on Emeagwali and attached to this mail) described Emeagwali as using the Connection Machine or CM-2 in the work that won him the prize. It is claimed in other publications that he programmed this computer remotely. Do you know if this is correct?

 Not specifically, but remote use of supercomputers, while harder than it would be today, was not all that rare at that time.

 2. Are you aware if he played any role in the development of the CM-2 or of supercomputing generally?

 3. Are you aware of any effect his work with the CM-2 has made to the development of the Internet?

 4. Are you aware of any contributions made by Emeagwali's work to the oil and information technology industries?

No, although it wouldn’t surprise me if the algorithm he used in his Gordon Bell Prize work was adopted by the industry.

It would also be helpful if you could express an opinion on the following question which is less one of fact but of  judgment on the subject: It is puzzling that in spite of Emeagwali's achievement in winning the Gordon Bell Prize, there is hardly any  reference to his work  in scientific  or industry literature. Could you suggest any opinion as to why that is the case?
The Gordon Bell Prize rewards superior performance or price/performance.  Being cited by others in some area is a reflection of the importance to the field.  These two metrics are orthogonal, so it’s not surprising when a problem submitted for the Gordon Bell Prize is not considered important by application experts.

Emeagwali’s Gordon Bell Prize submission was quite impressive, especially in comparison to other submissions presenting work of teams of computer scientists and application specialists.  It would not have surprised me to see him continue his career in reservoir modeling, numerical methods, or computer architecture.  To the best of my knowledge, he never published work in any of these areas.  It’s hard to be cited without refereed publications.

Emeagwali’s work, and that of the actual winners of the price/performance category, the Mobil/TMC team, may have been adopted or adapted by the oil industry, although there is no evidence of this. We also have to bear in mind that, in a fast-paced world of scientific innovations, this experiment for modeling oil reservoirs more efficiently may have been quickly overtaken by even more efficient mechanisms in the few years following the 1989 competition. But even if the experiment was adopted by the oil industry, that was the extent of its impact. It had absolutely no relation to the Internet or the Connection Machine. Emeagwali and his fellow competitors actually used the Connection Machine for their experiments and accessed their processors, as he himself said in several interviews, “over the Internet”—an already existing and functioning Internet.
So who should really get the credit for all of Emeagwali’s “accomplishments”?

If the Gordon Bell project done by Emeagwali and the winning team, the Mobil/TMC team, had anything to do with the invention, development, or “reinvention” of the Internet, the credit would actually go to the Mobil/TMC team, the team with the fastest speed-to-price ratio. And if this were the case, it is highly unlikely that they would have surrendered the fame and attention that such work would garner for them to the competitor (Emeagwali) whose speed was second to theirs. Regardless, there is no evidence that Emeagwali or the Mobil Team made ANY contribution whatsoever to the development or even improvement of the Internet. Alan Karp, who is at the moment a high-level executive at Hewlett Packard, attests to this fact (see interview above).

Given that Emeagwali continues to misrepresent the worth of the Gordon Bell Prize and to falsely claim that winning it entitles him to being one of the fathers of the Internet, one wonders why the Mobil/TMC team, which won in the peak performance category, previous and subsequent winners of the different categories of the Gordon Bell Prize, and even winners of computing’s most prestigious prize, the Turing prize, have not claimed to be one of the uncles or nephews of the Internet, let alone one of its fathers.

The only probable aspect of Emeagwali’s claim is that, using the already existing Internet, he might have programmed a supercomputer from a remote location. This was an impressive feat at the time according to Alan Karp. However this was not a rare feat, as others like the Mobil/TMC team and other competitors in the 1989 Gordon Bell Prize competition also performed the same feat. There are encouraging signs that Emeagwali is beginning to feel the heat of the outrage fanned by his fabrications. In a recent speech at the Nigerian Embassy in Paris, Emeagwali made the following statement:
“It all began as a dialogue between a supercomputer programmer and his 65,000 sub-computers, which he reprogrammed as an Internet.”

This is obviously the latest reincarnation or reformulation of his already discredited claim of being a father and one of the fathers of the Internet. It is meant to confuse the uninformed.

The rest of his lies may be read online on his site at:
Is Philip Emeagwali a Father of the Internet? NOT!

Again, please watch this video of “Dr.” “Professor” Philip Emeagwali putting to shame all his supporters who insist that he indeed is not the fraud that he definitely is:

This is a very important video: It exposes Emeagwali for the fraud that he is. Here are a few points from the overwhelming tissue of lies ensuing from his mouth:

1. Please see Emeagwali nodding approvingly when undeserved accolades were showered on him without any mitigating corrections by him. He is constantly referred to as “Dr.” and “Professor.” He makes absolutely no attempt to correct his interviewer. The female interviewer read out his biography (most likely supplied by Emeagwali himself), including a "PhD in Civil Engineering" and he didn't correct her. Again, it is highly unlikely that he did not provide the written profile that she read from.

2. There is Emeagwali's constant reference to the "Gordon Bell Prize" as the Nobel Prize of Computation, and his alleged programming of his Connection Machine, which is actually a machine already in existence that he claims consists of "65,536 processors to perform the world’s fastest computation (i.e. 3.1 billion calculations per second in 1988)." As shown earlier, it was not the world’s fastest computation, even in 1989! He also makes the same false claims on this link: ).

3. With his own mouth, he references the processors that he used for his 1989 experiment: "which I accessed over the Internet," meaning that he accessed the processors over an already existing Internet. He relied on an already existing Internet for his experiment. The circular logic of relying on an existing Internet (and its associated protocols) to pioneer the Internet defies reason.

4. Twice, in the two interviews, he makes the false claim that the Gordon Bell Prize "is regarded as the Nobel Prize of Computing" and refers to it as “the most prestigious award in the computing field, actually called computing's Nobel Prize." The questions are: Regarded by whom? Called by whom? Regarded by Emeagwali. Called by Emeagwali. Only in Emeagwali’s bizarre, delusional world. It bears restating: The Gordon Bell prize is not the most prestigious award in the field of computing. The Turing Prize, which carries a cash award of $100,000, is. Even in the narrow field of super computing, the Gordon Bell category (Price/Performance) that he won is not the most prestigious. That's why the actual winner, the Mobil/TMC team, vacated it for the more prestigious "Peak Performance” category, since the ACM rule forbade awarding more than one prize per entry.

5. In the video, Emeagwali claims that he has been working on supercomputing since the 1970s. This is a big lie since he would have been a mere teenager then and would have been in high school (which he claims he did not even attend, having, according to him, self-studied for his GED) and certainly would not even have had access to the resources necessary to do research in the field at that age and stage of his life. The research that culminated in the Internet started in earnest at CERN (and was later adopted and developed by the US military) in the 1970s and Emeagwali was not involved in it. He would have been, by his own biography, less than 20 years of age, and trying to get into college. There is absolutely no evidence that Emeagwali carried out any experiments in supercomputing in the 1970s (when he was a mere teenager). His supercomputing experiment occurred in 1987/1988. Emeagwali’s numerous lies are catching up with him, and the chronology of his doctored personal, professional, and academic biography is falling apart.

Are you there yet? Still think Philip Emeagwali is the great black hope of computing?

Still not satisfied that this man is a fraud? It gets worse. Please go to his website. It reeks of troubling hints of megalomania, not to mention delusions of grandeur. To see evidence of Philip Emeagwali basking in all the false claims he is now retreating from, please see

Emeagwali has poems he has posted on his website eulogizing him as a “Doctor.” Please see Emeagwali Had an Idea by Wina Marche, It starts with the line. “Dr. Emeagwali had an idea.” And goes on to say this: “He won the Gordon Bell Prize, known as the Nobel of computing. A milestone.” It is posted prominently along with other “poems” singing Emeagwali’s praises on his website. He is obviously very proud of it and all the false claims in it. Why else would he put it up?
In the “Chronology of Emeagwali’s Life” that he put together on his website he repeats the same falsehoods as achievements.
1987  Programs 65,536 electronic brains, called processors to perform the world’s fastest calculation.

1989  Wins the Gordon Bell Prize alone, the equivalent in the supercomputer industry of the Nobel Prize.

2000 Bill Clinton extols Emeagwali as “one of the great minds of the Information Age.”

2004  New African magazine poll ranks Emeagwali as history’s greatest scientist of African descent.   

Come with us on Philip Emeagwali’s journey of lies

On his outrageous website, Mr. Emeagwali proudly displays this Toyota ad in honor of Black history month that features several outright falsehoods. It features a grinning Emeagwali in the rear-view mirror of a Toyota car surrounded by nonsensical equations with this pack of lies: “Black History is a lot closer than you think. In 1975, Dr. Philip Emeagwali theorized the HyperBall International Network of computers. Today, we call it the Internet. His mathematical equations gave rise to the age of information, which has helped us all move forward.”

1975? In 1975, Emeagwali was nowhere near a computer.

Yet he perpetrates this falsehood proudly.  Every word other than “Emeagwali” and “Toyota” is literally a lie. He endorses all these falsehoods, actually adorns them with pictures of himself in various poses under the pompous title: “Orations and Poems for Emeagwali by Bill Clinton and a dozen spoken word artists.” There are poems and orations delivered by many people who have been duped by the elaborate con industry that is Emeagwali. The poems fuel his megalomania with titles of grandeur like “King God Emeagwali”, “Ikenga”; he is compared to Mandela, Mozart, Achebe, Einstein and Shakespeare. One writer has several pieces exulting Emeagwali’s prowess and reminds us ad nauseam that Emeagwali has a doctorate in scientific computing. He is eulogized as “a Father of the Internet” by Margaret Aghadiuno in a poem E Pluribus Unum: A Father of the Internet. These pieces proudly displayed by Emeagwali on his website have helped to legitimize his deceit.

In the wake of these new discussions on Emeagwali’s intellectual fraud, he has taken to issuing vague, evasive “clarifications” through his wife, “Donita Brown” (real names: Dale Donita Brown Emeagwali). These “clarifications” are designed to hide and confuse the truth rather than offer clarifications. There are two such “clarifications” in circulation. One was made in response to Jibrin Ibrahim’s column in Next. Another was issued in response to our previous Investigative Essay. These two responses restate and reformulate the familiar old lies to make them less scandalous and to dupe the uninformed. They also make new, fraudulent claims. Let us examine some claims in them. We’ll start with “Donita Brown”’s “clarification” in the comment section of Next.

In the 234Next response, “Donita Brown” makes several new, ridiculously delusional claims that deepen her husband’s fraud, but a few of them stand out in relation to his earlier claims. For instance she states: “He [Emeagwali] said it took him 41 reinventions [not patents] to fix that 330-year-old error. He claimed 41 inventions, not patents just as you can publish 41 articles, without copyrights.” What does she mean by saying that Emeagwali claimed 41 reinventions (her own word) and not inventions? What does "reinvention" mean? Does it mean that he reinvented what was already invented? If so then why should anyone pay attention to him or his silly “reinvention”? If something is already invented, why should “reinventing” it—whatever that means—be accorded any serious attention?

By the way, and for the record, this is the first time we are seeing this modified claim, which is obviously designed to help Emeagwali escape culpability, now that it is conclusively proven (see our last investigation) that the man has no patents for any inventions, technologies, or protocols. The previous claim, repeated in many of Emeagwali’s self-written biographies and during interviews with him, has been about 41 INVENTIONS, patented inventions. In fact in the Jamaica interview video analyzed in this report, Emeagwali was asked about his claim about 41 PATENTED INVENTIONS and he gave a silly, false answer about inventors not willing to discuss their inventions because the USPTO may deny them a patent as a result. Arrant nonsense! It is another lie told to the uninformed. As one commenter on our story noted perspicaciously, it would be disingenuous for the USPTO to discourage inventors from discussing their work, since the very act of filing for a patent is precisely to make your claims publicly available, to disclose the details of your purported invention so that they can be evaluated and subjected to scrutiny.  Emeagwali obviously does not even know the process of filling a patent and the rationale for filing one because he has never done so, hence his false, ignorant statement to his interviewer.

In the same mendacious "clarification," “Donita Brown” says that her husband never claimed to have PATENTED inventions (which is a clear lie) and that patents are not necessary for claims of inventions. If that were true, which it is not, would it not raise the discrediting question of why any sane person -- scientist or not -- would invent 41 things/technologies that he claims have revolutionized the world of information, mathematics, physics, and computing butnot seek to patent and protect them as his intellectual property? At least we appear to be making progress, since “Donita Brown” essentially admits here that her husband has no patents for any technologies or inventions. It is a spectacular climb down.  Emeagwali has moved his fraud from the realm of “inventions” and patents to the nebulous, almost meaningless semantic deception of “reinventions,” “reprogramming” and the purported uselessness of patents!

  “Donita Brown” goes on to state the following:

“He [Emeagwali] discovered that for 330 years Force is NOT equal to mass times acceleration for all that flows underneath the Earth. The Gordon Bell prize committee agreed with him on the latter. The communication follows the computation which follows the maths which follows the physics. If the foundation of the maths, computation and communication is wrong, then the maths, computation and communication had to be reinvented. The Gordon Bell Prize Committee agreed he did.”

This is another grandiose claim lacking any documentation or independent corroboration. Where is this claim documented? In what publication? Did this claim appear in articles, books, or conference papers—universally acceptable platforms for documenting and placing one’s work before peers? Did the Gordon Brown Prize committee say this during the award ceremony, or at any point after that? Since Emeagwali has no single publication and has never documented his claims in a form that will be peer-reviewed, are we to simply take his claims on face value? If science operated that way, humanity would not have made any appreciable scientific and technological advances.

The records are there for all to see. No more lies.
The record of the 1989 Gordon Bell Prize is online and does not make a single reference to any of the false claims made by ‘Donita Brown” above. Again, Emeagwali’s Gordon Bell Prize entry was in the narrow field of applied supercomputing to oil recovery. As Alan Karp, one of the judges, clearly stated, it had no other scientific significance. The claim that the judges of the Gordon Bell Prize agreed with the delusional, non-existent claims above is scandalous and rises almost to the level of criminality. It claims that the Gordon Bell Prize judges were accessories to a fraud, which is not true but is nonetheless disturbing as an indication of the level to which Emeagwali will stoop to sustain his fraud

Much of the rest of the “clarification” from “Donita Brown” is the usual citation of commendations given to Emeagwali by unsuspecting organizations, but here too, Emeagwali, using his wife’s alias, actually incriminates himself. For instance a click of this link ( that “Donita Brown” supplied regarding a commendation that Emeagwali got at Michigan State University shows Emeagwali referred to as “Dr. Emeagwali”! In “clarifying” and evasively defending himself against the proven allegations of fraud, he repeats and links to the same fraudulent claims that have been conclusively debunked!! It is clear that his aim is to do his best to confuse the issues, avoid responding directly to the proven allegations, and use so-called commendations from duped organizations as a firewall against the demands for him to come clean.

Also, at the end of a rambling, irrelevant set of claims, ‘Donita Brown” says the following: “Why do you think – 21 years later - scientists continue to pay him a speaker’s fee equivalent to a professor’s yearly salary?” This, again, is a barefaced lie. We know from the revelation of Dr. Ola Kassim (cited in our last essay) and from the speaker bureaus that Emeagwali uses to advertise himself as a speaker that he charges a standard fee of $10,000 as honorarium for his speaking engagements. Since there is no evidence that he gets corporate invitations, we can ignore the fee of $60,000 that he quotes for “corporate organizations.” If that is the case, Mr. Emeagwali’s claim that he is paid a speaking fee that is “equivalent to a professor’s yearly salary” is clearly false, as no professor’s yearly salary is $10,000. Even professors in community colleges do considerably better than that.

Finally, in the same Next “clarification” “Donita Brown” claims that her husband’s claims were “thoroughly fact-checked by President Clinton’s speech writers before the former president mentioned him in his Abuja speech as “one of the great minds of the information age.” But as one perceptive commenter on the Next comment page, Olakunle, remarked in response: “In the same Clinton speech you say was thoroughly fact-checked, Clinton stated that Dr Azikiwe was greatly influenced by Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. At the time Zik wrote his first book, Liberia in World Politics, Dr King would have still been in his diapers at best. In a journalistic context, that would be like saying that Gbolahan Ogunsanwo influenced Peter Enahoro. How come the [thorough] White House fact-checkers missed this transparent blooper?” So much for thorough fact checking!

It is important to deconstruct these “small” lies that accompany the big ones because they point to Emeagwali’s pathological facility with the art of deception. They also show that Emeagwali employs the small lies in the details to reinforce the big, consequential ones, hoping that no one would pay attention to the details of his claims and that if folks believe the small deceitful details, they’ll take the big lies seriously.

Like her Next “clarification” “Donita Brown’s response to our investigative essay contains many new “escape attempts” disguised as curious and confusing modifications and reformulations of the same debunked claims.
“Donita Brown” now says that Emeagwali did not claim to have invented the Internet but that he "theorized" the Internet as a “hyperball.” Setting aside the fact that even if this were true, it would not remotely entitle him to the title of one of the fathers of the Internet (theorizing something that already exists does not make you one of its fathers), let us examine the claim of “theorization”. Where is this supposedly revolutionary theory documented? Was this theory ever published or placed before a panel of peers to review, evaluate, and authenticate? If not, why not? Emeagwali cannot bypass universally accepted protocols of scientific knowledge production and documentation and still want his false claims to be taken seriously. There is no shortcut to genuine scientific fame. He may have shared his “theory” with his household but that doesn’t authenticate it.

No more lies, Mr. Philip Emeagwali.

Below is a point-by-point refutation of the new claims in Donita Brown’s response to our previous investigation:

1. As everyone knows, even if the uncorroborated theoretical claim above were true that's a far cry from inventing the Internet. Also, the normal mechanism for documenting a scientific theory--if he truly theorized anything--is to publish a paper or present one at a conference for the scientific/computing community, so that they can evaluate the claim and publish it in their proceedings if it is found worthy. Emeagwali did not do that. So where did he do the theorizing, in his living room?

2. Emeagwali now says through his wife that he merely "reprogrammed AN INTERNET," not “the Internet,” Does that not suggest that what he did was to merely "reprogram" an already existing Internet? How is that remarkable? Again, as stated earlier, and as Alan Karp stated, many people were doing the same thing even in 1989.

3. More importantly, if Emeagwali’s work had to do with "AN INTERNET" as he now absurdly says, does that not at best make him a father of "AN INTERNET" and not "a father of THE Internet" (or even "one of the fathers of the Internet”) which CNN called him and which he continues to advertise about himself? He has now admitted to not being "a father" or one of the fathers of "the Internet." So why does he continue even in his latest response to claim that title even if it was CNN that called him that? Why does he not reject it and say that he is "a father of AN INTERNET"? How ridiculous would that even sound? Why advertise the so-called "2007 Resolution recognizing "A Father of the Internet," City of East Lansing a.k.a. "Home of Michigan State University"?

4. Lastly, and more devastating, what Emeagwali is now suggesting in his latest post is the absurd possibility that we have several INTERNETS, not just "the Internet," which we all know and use. Emeagwali distinguishes his "AN INTERNET" from "THE INTERNET." But the question for him is: is his "Internet"--the one he claimed to have reprogrammed--- different from "the Internet" that we all know and love? How does this work? Who invented that Internet, which he then 'reprogrammed?' If he's talking about the basic idea of the Internet being a web of computers communicating with one another, then let him tell us if he is the first person to theorize or actualize that or how using a concept and objects (computers) that already existed to make calculations amounts to being "a father" or "one of the fathers" of the Internet.

Emeagwali should stop peddling his lies. In the age of the Internet, there is no hiding place. Emeagwali has led a lie for too long and in the interest of history and future generations of children he must be stopped. Whatever you do, please watch this video: Emeagwali exposes his own lies with his own mouth. Will the real Philip Emeagwali stand up?

You may also like

Read Next

Trending Now