Perry Mason, advocate, had just finished pointing out an anomaly in Sergeant Holcombe’s evidence in a murder trial and now asked, ‘Does that seem logical to you?’Sergeant Holcombe hesitated a moment, then said, ‘Well, that’s one of those little things. That doesn’t cut so much ice. Lots of times you’ll find little things which are more or less inconsistent with the general interpretation of evidence.'‘I see,’ Mason said. ‘And when you encounter such little things, what do you do, Sergeant?’‘You just ignore ’em,’ said Holcombe.‘And how many such things have you ignored, Sergeant, in reaching your [current] conclusion?’
The other day I sent you information that bribery [100$] was being used to encourage young people to take the clotshot. I asked, "What next?"Well here it is; private firms are now offering bribes:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9847923/Uber-Deliveroo-offer-young-adults-cheap-food-exchange-Covid-vaccine.html
Judging from the poor response to the offer of free food alongside a ‘jab’ by a vaccine clinic at an East London festival this weekend, this form of “coaxing” isn’t working very well. “Vegan burgers, mac ’n cheese and Chinese dumplings were enough to tempt [one unvaccinated festival-goer], but others who are unvaccinated were not taking the bait,” the Sun reports. The BBC News report is worth reading in full.
I absorb the vapour and return it as a flood. [W.E. Gladstone, on public speaking, in Lord Riddell, Some Things That Matter, 1927 [ed.] ]
Hence the mention of confirmation bias is one we use, another of ours is "plausible deniablity", thus the opposition will try to appear learned by using such things in their own charges, usually inappropriately and out of context.
We are beset by very dangerous people if they are aware of all these techniques, not forgetting Alinsky and Benjamin, because they organise and anticipate in the most cynical and cruel way possible.
It gives the real enemy, not the hangers-on as such, pleasure to do the common man down. Some common men, such as pundits of experience, are aware but it takes a long, drawn out post on each and every faux charge, such that readers often lose interest well before the end.
Also factored in.
KP 11: Do not dismiss out of hand anything written in a breathless manner, in garish colours and with much CAPITALISATION because there one is dealing with amateurs and amateurs often have a ring of honesty to them, in their very inability to string it all together.
Also, the very fact that Daily Expose may be jumping onboard to make money from clicks does not necessarily negate all they say if there is corroboration elsewhere. It's more likely that they saw something in a medical journal, for example, written up by a trustworthy source, they just co-opt that.
Therefore, I still left the references to the Sun, Wail, BBC in there [above] as there may well be snippets of truth accidentally left in the article which can be of use.
Then:
KP 12: Truth is both exhaustive and exhausting to find, not least because of the techniques of the enemy to prevent it coming out, plus sheer ignorance among many who jump onboard with agendas and they can very much physically prevent you from getting the word out.
Then:
KP 13: Coming back to Sgt. Holcombe, one must look at all of it, the totality of evidence, not just that which suits us and if there is an inconvenient truth in there, it must fit the hypothesis, otherwise the hypothesis must be discarded and started again. [Holmes and Poirot.] It is human nature not to wish to do this. It's not easy.
And:
KP 14: As part of KP13, the trial of the killers [plural] of Meredith Kercher in Italy illustrated that the prosecution was relying on the totality of evidence, from testimony to forensics to phone calls to character to anomalies - the lot of it - to establish their case. The defence was relying on a few key points of their own, but the bulk of the defence involved the technique of casting doubt point by point, simply by casting doubt, verbally. Their theory was that it was only necessary to cast doubt on one point to negate the whole.
And:
KP 15: The Mandy Rice-Davies point: "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?" She did not say the words precisely that way at the time but that was the import and she did not dispute the overall import. That is a very important point - one must look at the "likelihood", the modus operandi, the motive, the means, key indicators and then the rest of the evidence follows point by point.
And:
KP 16: It depends which court evaluates it. There is a situation in the US right now where the audits have shown multiple instances of breaches. To use the Kercher trial defence's argument, the instant even one county is shown as less than honest, does that negate the whole election across the country, at least to the point of re-running it? Or does it mean that those states where it was shown to happen are re-run? Or those counties?
And:
That's what's coming up this week. but it comes down, finally, to political will. That's been stated many times on this blog:
KP 17: Ultimately, whatever was shown to be so legally, often by opposed legalities, the only thing which really counts is:
# Who has the numbers;
# Which side is going to play the harder ball.
# Which side God is truly on, and only He knows that.
And I need to include these before closing:
KP 18: Most of the Key Points above could be co-opted by the opposition, the enemy and a case made against us too. I know this from my debating society days. You give us a case and tell us affirmative or negative and we build the case. One such case was three men arguing that "women are better" and three gals arguing that men are. Guess who won? We did of course, as we tried much harder. What did it in fact prove?
Lastly, I hope:
KP 19: Debate is framed wrongly and there is malice behind that. If you have an agenda which includes much in the way of Great Lies, then the last thing you want is a brainstorming session with free comment, where, let's say, there's an enormous ampitheatre full of all sorts of people, with workers below at the Big Table, creating new cards for each new point, placing them somewhere on that table, and ALL points are placed there, later to be evaluated.
That's not how debate is conducted in today's decision making [and I'd say, just quietly, that it has ever been so]. From JFK forward, just as a starting point, the moment there is some incident, some atrocity, an Agenda 21 or whatever, the miscreants among us must immediately establish adversarial camps and then it comes down to debating ability, rhetoric, dirty tricks, suppression etc., just as in our courts of law.
There is no genuine "hearing" going on - it is just adversarial camps making points against one another, there is no spirit of "fact finding" actually involved.
At N.O., we are on the adversarial side which is not part of the hegemony of the age, is not Woke, is not Global, is not on the side of the big guns, the money. We are on the side of the suppressed viewpoint.
And the reason is to be able to add to that Big Table the evidence which the miscreants would have us not present, and thus provide a proper collection of points from where readers can make up their own minds. The writer of the quoted comment made his point, I made mine.
The reader can now go to other sites and from all of that, make a more informed evaluation of what is true and what is not.
Tbh, as I'm sure you suspect, this is your basic shill/77th drive by disinfo and concern trolling. KP19 is bang on, and very much the whole point of Q (whatever you think of him/them). Think for yourself and especially understand persuasion. As you say it's always 'cui'. Fake according to whom? 'Trusted' according to whom? There's a very tired feeling to these comments on freethinking sites now, as though they know the show is almost over.
ReplyDelete"Which side God is truly on, and only He knows that."
ReplyDeleteI assure you that I am not nitpicking Mr H, in that it ought to be:
Which side is truly on the side of God?