(0951) This is Wed 6. (1028)

 

Wiki has shown over and over, from cases we’ve listed at N.O. and UHC … that the editors at least show a left liberal bias in matters political … the establishment line, e.g. with False Memory Syndrome and NIST (after 911). So it’s ironic to say the least that they quite accurately define confirmation bias imho:

“Confirmation bias is the unconscious tendency to seek, interpret, and remember information that aligns with our preexisting beliefs. It causes people to overvalue supporting evidence while ignoring, dismissing, or forgetting contradictory facts. This cognitive shortcut distorts objective reasoning and reinforces personal prejudices.”

Very much so … there’s nothing new in it and we can go back to Sherlock Homes who noted it a few times to Watson in different language but it came to the same thing … hypothesising before “all the facts are in”. What are “all” the facts?

I also used to run an interview in Perry Mason (Purloined Parrot) where Sgt Holcombe was on the stand and Mason put it to him … what do you do, Sergeant, when you find anomalous facts which more or less do not agree with the general thrust of evidence?

“You ignore em,” shot back Holcombe.

And obviously, Mason was going to retort … how many have you ignored in this current investigation, Sergeant?

There’s a guy calling himself Muad’dib who sounds very much as if he’s exonerating the Moose Limbs for 7/7, whereas I feel Pat Condell was not wrong in his view. Now, there’s a video we have here (note I say “we”, not the dropper himself) under the post July 7th, 2005 and the intro reads:

“Continuing the theme of false flag terrorism we look at the 7/7 London tube station bombings from 2005. It is a very hard pill to swallow for some, but all of the evidence points to the fact that 7/7 was carried out by intelligence agencies. The supposed terrorists were most likely patsies, who were set up to take part in a mock terror drill organised by Peter Power.”

Yes, that’s fair imho … I mentioned Blair and Nethanyahu myself … where the Moose Limbs are stooges. Ditto with 911 and the owner of WTC7 was Larry Silverstein. That may well be true but it does not absolve them of the rapings, stabbings and abuse and I’ve been speaking with some of those girls one to one … same tale … they are very much guilty as charged.

Now I have two more things to add.

• In the middle of the video, it shows the “bombers” “going into the station”. All right, this Muad’dib is using language like “it’s clear”, “everyone says” and he’s using it to an Irish presenter who doesn’t even have his facts straight on Leeds, nor could he be expected to. He’s relying on Muad’dib for Truth. Who is this Muad’dib anyway? A Mussie? Look up Dune and one of the characters in it. Yep .. pseudonym.

• The other is the insertion of emotion and high feeling into an investigation or discussion the instant someone contradicts one of the pieces of evidence. Even Sherlock contradicted himself over and over when he discovered that something he’d taken on did not stand up in this case, when similar did. A persuader can leap to high dudgeon in such situations, which hardly helps dispassionate investigation.

There are those who begin with an a priori position (confirmation bias) that Mussies must be innocent coz Zionists are guilty … versus Laura Loomer who contends the reverse. Memri for example does that, whereas Al Jazeera does the opposite. The British left agree with Al Jazeera.

Minefield.