I don’t care how many degrees and important connections you may have. I don’t care how long your Wikipedia page may be. I don’t care how many Presidents you may have served under. I don’t care who your father is or what you say he does for a living. I don’t care where you were when the bombs went off. I don’t care how many followers you have across internet platforms. And I don’t care how many times you have been interviewed by the media, alternative or long-established. Wrong is wrong and if I need to tell you the uncomfortable truth – that the narrative you espouse is false – I will, whether your name is Tom, Dick, Harry, Steve, Heather, Ring, Ding-a-ling or Madonna. And you may disagree with me all you like. That’s how it works in a democracy because, for awhile yet, we still live in one.
When I first started this blog, I made it known that Writing the Wrong for Jahar is not a forum, that I have a strict comment policy and only comments of support and agreement will be published. Aware of how narrow-minded that sounds, I was quick to explain why: I believe Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will one day discover my blog and read its posts. When he does, I don’t want him to see hateful comments that pierce his already-battered heart with more pain and sorrow. I don’t want him to read statements from people proclaiming the certainty of his guilt, the low state of his character or the hopelessness of his situation. Writing the Wrong for Jahar will always and forever be a soft place for him to land.
I write my blog, not to impress, but to educate and, yes, to influence. I sometimes include definitions of certain terms in the text. If readers don’t know what I’m talking about without going to google, what’s the point? I was once advised that my inclusion of definitions in a particular blog post could be insulting to certain readers, to which I did not offer a response. My silence on the issue was not agreement however, but a choice to pick my battles.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 1 Cor. 13:11
Though I no longer believe certain things regarding events related to the 2013 Boston Marathon, certain blog posts will remain on my site as a historical record of the time when I did believe them. When I am wrong, I am not afraid to say so. For a time, at the very beginning, I believed the now roundly debunked government narrative that Tamerlan was the mastermind and Dzhokhar his willing (so said the prosecution) or unwilling (so said the defense) accomplice. Both of these false narratives are government-driven for, as we now know, the defense was completely controlled. Both sides were fighting for the same thing: conviction. Neither side had any intention of letting the truth come out, or of letting Dzhokhar go free and that collusion is criminal.
Oh that we who have eyes to see and ears to hear had been on that jury in Boston! Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would be a free man today! But God’s timing is perfect; Dzhokhar’s freedom shall surely come.
I have recently been attacked by some rather severely misguided souls for what they say is my lack of support for those who are “trying to win some mercy for Dzhokhar.” This is my response: The innocent do not need mercy. The innocent do not need a government pardon. I am fighting to clear his name.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is innocent of the charges for which he now sits on death row. The government’s own evidence at his trial proves this. It is therefore quite natural and understandable that I feel nothing but dismay and disdain for those who, while claiming to care about Dzhokhar, say otherwise.
“When evening comes, you say ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.” Matthew 16: 2-3
Controlled opposition. Historical negationism. These terms describe psychological weapons currently in use by CIA operatives to a degree that would shock the populace if the full scope of their intention and occurrence were fully understood. Long before I ever heard these terms, I saw them in use. Long before I was able to put a name to the face of this behavior, so-to-speak, I knew what I was seeing was something wrong and false and I knew, on some deep chilled-to-the-bone level, that it was also purposeful and deliberate.
Even the most well-intentioned among the truther community get it wrong from time to time. But not all who are making their voices heard in the truther community are well-intentioned. For that reason, we must not be too quick to retweet everything containing the name Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. I think we’ve all done that a time or two and been burned for it, often at the stake, for Twitter can be merciless. We must read every article, every blog post to the end, for if deliberate errors and lies have been sown like bad seed in the soil, that is often where you will find them.
In baseball, when a ball bounces in front of an infielder in an unexpected way, it’s called a bad hop. For the rest of this post, I will discuss two recent examples when certain individuals took a bad hop while presenting their views and the possible, yea probable, reasons why this happened. First, a few definitions:
INTERNET SHILL: Someone who promotes something on line for pay without divulging they are associated with the entity they shill for. The purpose of a shill is to improve the social perception of the entity they shill for or to denigrate someone or something that is in conflict with the entity they serve.
INTERNET SOCKPUPPET: Wikipedia defines it as “an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.”
“The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization, to manipulate public opinion or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website.”
STRAW MAN ARGUMENT: When two people are debating and one puts forth a straw man argument, what does this mean? In its simplest definition, straw man is the name of a logical fallacy, which means if you carefully dissect the argument or statement, it doesn’t make sense. Putting forth a straw man argument is a way of misrepresenting your opponent’s position. – “What is a Straw Man Argument?” by Mignon Fogarty on quickanddirtytips.com
CONTROLLED OPPOSITION: The Urban Dictionary describes it as “a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents. Nearly all governments in history have employed this technique to trick and subdue their adversaries. It was Vladimir Lenin who famously said, ‘The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.’ ”
Some thoughts and observations from thesleuthjournal.com: “I try to be very careful about what I read and certainly what I take on board in my mind and heart. I’ll look at just about anything, even mainstream drivel, to keep an eye on stuff and get the pulse of what’s going on, but not much.”
“I’m very careful. I know I get fooled sometimes like anyone, but I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong.”
“It’s never, or should I say rarely, totally clear cut as to who is who. Someone can be piping out a high percentage of true information, but then throw in some massive monkey wrench that few see coming.”
Now let’s look at a recent bad hop taken by blogger Heather Frizzell wherein she threw a massive monkey wrench in the wheel of truth with her most recent blog post “The Unusual Suspects, Part I: The Cell Phone Shuffle” on usvtsarnaev.org, her blog.
I daresay no one saw this coming.
“All you lawyers do is complicate situations that aren’t complicated.”
– Erin Brockovich
If there is one point, one word, one idea that sums up, proves and supports belief in the innocence of the Tsarnaev brothers it’s this: the backpacks, specifically, their color. It really is that simple and, apparently, that hard – for some people. On this point alone, the Tsarnaevs should never have been indicted; the backpacks they were photographed carrying were not black.
So, there I was, working my way through Heather’s latest blog post, thinking how great it was, as I usually do, fully intent on leaving her a positive comment when I read this:
“Evidence was already shown that Tamerlan was out on April 14th alone, buying two backpacks at a Target in Watertown, one of which was used in the bombing and the other that housed a third undetonated pressure cooker found at the shootout scene, also in Watertown.”
I’d barely recovered from the shock of a statement like that coming from a supposedly dedicated truther like I believed Heather to be, based on her past blog posts, when I came to the sentences that rocked me to my core:
“There are facts that I find to be irrevocable: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was at the Boston Marathon. He did not have a detonator, but he carried and placed a backpack that exploded.”
Wait. What? Shut the front door! Did someone hold a gun to her head and make her write those things? I certainly hope so.
Heather ends what started out as a great blog post with these incredible – and incredibly telling – statements:
“… I have gone over the facts again and again for years, and with the available evidence, at the moment I can’t come up with anything else…”
” … I can see him in the cacophony of Boylston Street, having put down his heavy backpack he’d been asked to carry because it had been digging into his shoulder. He watches the runners for a bit, wondering why his brother hasn’t returned yet. When the minutes start to drag on, he pulls out his new(ish) phone and gives Tamerlan a call to ask where he is.”
“I would like to believe Tamerlan warned him, told him to run if he wanted to live.”
“No, I’m not positive it happened this way. However, given the current evidence, I can say it’s just as likely, if not more so, as the narrative presented by the prosecutors.”
In other words, after all her research into this aspect and that, Heather concludes the defense was right. Heather still believes “it was him.” Heather also refuses to discuss the subject of the color of the backpacks in a straightforward way. Read the 20+ comments in the comment section of her most recent blog post and you will see this for yourself, unless she deletes or edits what is there. Suddenly, the girl who is all about the details and leaving no stone unturned can be seen playing word games to avoid acknowledging what disproves the narrative she has inexplicably chosen to support.
The prosecution submitted into evidence the widely circulated photos of Dzhokhar and his brother Tamerlan carrying backpacks at the marathon that do not match the color of the backpacks said to contain the bombs in the indictment. In addition, the prosecution submitted into evidence a photo of a shredded backpack, the color of which does match the color as stated in the indictment. This evidence photo was said to be of the backpack that contained the second bomb, the one Dzhokhar was accused of placing.
When Heather says “I have gone over the facts again and again…” she means all facts but one. For some reason, Heather refuses to examine and admit an easily proven fact: that the color of the backpacks carried by the Tsarnaevs that day, AS SHOWN BY THE GOVERNMENT’S OWN EVIDENCE PHOTOS, clearly do not match the backpacks the government said contained the bombs. The indictment states the backpacks were black. The government’s evidence photo of the shredded backpack said to contain the second bomb shows a shredded black backpack. The government’s evidence photo shows Dzhokhar carrying a light colored backpack that is clearly not full, not fat, and is hanging off just one shoulder.
The backpacks carried by the Tsarnaevs at the marathon, according to the government’s own evidence at trial, could not have contained the bombs. Sorry Heather. Two plus two does not equal five.
When I and multiple others challenged Heather’s unsupported conclusions, citing the actual evidence from the trial that disproved her statements she was more than willing to provide wordy responses chock full of legal-sounding phrases on any topic save the one we were all attempting to extract an explanation from her on: the subject of the backpacks. When her repeated attempts to mollify us with non-answers and skillfull misdirection onto other topics failed, she dug her heels in and patronized us with repeated insistence that if WE could show HER scientific evidence to support our arguments, she would be more than happy to “take a look at it.”
Oh the arrogance to suggest that photos that have already passed the test and been accepted into evidence at trial are now suddenly not good enough for her to admit her conclusions are incorrect… It was truly shocking – until I learned about controlled opposition and how it operates. Suddenly, in that light, it all made sense. Suddenly, I could see how a person (Heather) could openly defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev while living in Boston and safely blog using her full name and photo without experiencing the troll attacks, virtual or real-world, that the rest of us have had to endure, though we live far away from the bias of the Boston Strong.
If you read the comment section of the aforementioned blog post by Heather, a few words regarding “Ring” (@ringnibelung88 on Twitter):
Though I was not the first and far from the last to voice my disagreement with Heather’s conclusions, I was, however, my usual direct self. I did not mix my comments of disagreement with compliments and I did not venture into other topics. Not wanting to muddy the waters, I left no room for straw man arguments, as a few other commenters did. Perhaps this is why Ring chose to attack me and only me.
Knowing how nasty this Ring person can be from a prior confrontation back in June on Twitter, I took the high road with my response, restricting it to addressing her incorrect assertions concerning the backpack. Later in the same comment section, she pops up again to chastise, as a group, “anyone still kvetching about the backpacks.”
This, in my opinion, is a sockpuppet account created to praise and support Heather Frizzell, possibly even created by Heather Frizzell.
The account had 4 followers. When I checked just now, that number had dropped to 3. Two of the accounts following Ring are porn sites and one of the porn sites has now unfollowed her. As a rule, I don’t usually follow new accounts that weren’t around to follow the trial on Twitter. This account appears to have published its first-ever tweet in January of 2017. The first time this account tweeted about Dzhokhar was to attack me on Twitter in June of 2017 for my views on sharia law, views I was expressing to Heather at the time.
I understand what I am saying today may make me unpopular with some, but we must understand the world in which we live. This is a war and political correctness has no place in it if we are going to see Dzhokhar exonerated and set free.
HISTORICAL NEGATIONISM: Also called denialism. It is an illegitimate distortion of the historical record. Often imprecisely referred to as historical revisionism, but that term also denotes a legitimate academic pursuit of re-interpretation of the historical record and questioning the accepted views.
In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism may use techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting forged documents as genuine, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents (or photographs), attributing conclusions to books and sources that actually report the opposite… i.e. what I call lying.
The usual purpose of historical negationism is to achieve a national, political aim. Because historians are seen as people who single-mindedly pursue truth, negationists try to capitalize on their professional credibility. Disregarding the fact that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (1 Corinthians 5:6), they present their mixture of truth and lies as genuine scholarship, hoping it will be accepted by the uneducated and unaware. Quite often – it is, and that is not only unfortunate, for some like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – it is also tragic.
I had originally planned to devote the remainder of this blog post to exposing the historical negationist activities of Dr. Steve Pieczenik. As I was researching and laying out my presentation, I realized this subject is too complicated and important to rush through. There will therefore be a second installment to this post.
Part of my goal to help free innocent Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is to write and speak out in such a way that readers, who just may become his future jurors, are educated regarding the tactics used to deceive them in the courtroom and deny the defendant justice. For them, a thorough understanding of historical negationism would be invaluable. Prosecuting attorneys resort to this very tactic in their quest for a “win” at all costs and Dzhokhar’s future jurors need to understand what they are hearing and seeing in real time.
Part 2 will expose this slick behavior in operation. Steve Pieczenik is good at it and when that is the case, it is truly terrifying. Stay tuned. I promise I will be no more concerned with “political correctness” than I have been in Part I.
I don’t care what they’re going to say
Let the storm rage on
The cold never bothered me anyway
“Let It Go” from the movie “Frozen”