Talking about someone providing evidence for some later theory while leaving out that that person had a different interpretation that turned out to be incorrect is neither hiding nor omitting relevant information. Case in point, perception – mystics discovered that perception is entirely a mind construct several millennia ago, but e.g. Aristotle insisted that brain is a radiator and others speculated that mind is outside of body. When discussing neurobiology no one bothers to mention those facts. And why would they? It's not relevant to the current state of affairs, and everyone even remotely versed in the topic is familiar with what has already been falsified, i.e. what is irrelevant. (And for those unfamiliar with the topic, it only muddles the whole thing.)

In your article you mentioned tired light and that CMB does not exclusively support BB theory. Yet, you failed to mention that tired light turned out to be BS and that those hypotheses you defend, unlike BB theory, fall apart in other circumstances. Not to mention that there are some inaccuracies in your piece about BB and its CMB prediction – GIYF. In any case, it’s quite a double standard on your part.

So, what other “inconvenient information” are scientists hiding?