Sandy Hook: Professor James. F Tracy, justification of criticism

[Joe]

http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_4262.shtml

BOCA RATON, Fla. -- A Florida Atlantic University associate professor says the Sandy Hook school massacre may never have happened, arguing in online posts that it could have been an event staged by President Obama to impose gun control.

James Tracy, who has taught media studies at FAU for 10 years, including a course on conspiracies, says in his blog that media reporting of the incident relied exclusively on reports from law enforcement and leads him to question everything about the incident.

Tracy writes on his blog: "As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers, there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends."

On his blog, memoryholeblog.com, Tracy painstakingly cites news coverage, official press conferences and background information to paint a picture of a vast conspiracy to manufacture the massacre. He argues among other things that the Newtown medical examiner seen in a nationally broadcast press conference is an imposter.

In an interview for a Sun-Sentinel story, Tracy said "various sorts of ideas can arise" when concrete evidence such as photos of bodies aren't available to confirm what police tell the media.

Among those ideas are his assertion in his blog that "it is not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short order sparked a national debate" on gun control.

FAU Media Relations Director Lisa Metcalf says that Tracy's views do not reflect those of the university. Tracy's Wordpress blog is not on an official FAU web page.

Tracy has expressed similar conspiracy claims about the Kennedy assassination, the Okalahoma City bombing, the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre and 9/11.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_4262.shtml

Like I said, you can always find someone to go along with any theory. James Tracey is just some guy who believes in lots of conspiracy theories. He's really no different than the commenters on Facebook.

It's the facts that are important, not if you can find one professor out of a million who has a strange theory.

 

[Joe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKWgCRBR5qE

Can someone explain this. I doubt the shooting was staged, but I do think the media gets actors like this. Also was watching Anderson Cooper today and they were just bashing a prof who said that actors were hired to cry and stuff for this shooting. Feel bad for the prof now since he will probably lose his job and get tons of hate for no good reason.

I hope he does get fired.

 

[Mick West]

I only brought that acting part up because a prof in Florida got bashed on CNN and will probably lose his job because he mentioned actors crying for newtown shooting in his blog. First of all it's completely absurd and second of all not something the most watched news show should even be going against him because it probably is true. Even if he is wrong that just means it's not newsworthy and shouldn't even take up air time. If he is right, then yes, discuss it. Expose the liars.

If he's wrong (which he is) then it's possibly libel and slander, possibly even internet bullying. It's certainly outrageous and unusual behavior for a college professor. I'd prefer if he did not get the oxygen of publicity, but I think it's as newsworthy as 90% of the "news" out there.

 

[Mick West]

They're vehemently denying that any actors were hired. I understand the prof shouldn't have posted his theory about mourning parents being actors (without evidence), but the show CNN pulled off denying it raised suspicions in me. They essentially said for 20 minutes that it's unacceptable to ask questions.

I think it was more they were saying it's unacceptable to ask mindless, hurtful questions that you can figure out yourself.

Would you go up to someone in the street and loudly ask, "have you ever raped anyone, I think you maybe have, you look like the type", then when they get offended say "dude, I was JUST ASKING QUESTIONS, you're infringing on my first amendment!"?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Interesting about Tracy. I've been writing comments to his blog, but mine always go down the "memory hole". That's actually what he calls his blog.
Since Sandy Hook blew up in his face, he probably doesn't want his chemtrails hoax work looked at too closely. I actually tried to help him, but can now see who he really is. A gutless hypocrite. It really must suck to be him right now, not to give him an ounce of sympathy.

 

[Anonymous012]

Interesting about Tracy. I've been writing comments to his blog, but mine always go down the "memory hole". That's actually what he calls his blog.
Since Sandy Hook blew up in his face, he probably doesn't want his chemtrails hoax work looked at too closely. I actually tried to help him, but can now see who he really is. A gutless hypocrite. It really must suck to be him right now, not to give him an ounce of sympathy.

Well, from here, is the first time I heard of the guy, but lol, instead of going after him, they should be going after Wellaware1 (aka DallasGoldBug) for his delusional views on Sandy Hook.. It's interesting enough he has followers to begin with, [...]

As for the professor, I haven't looked at his blog throughly, and just read the article here: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress....ubts-official-version-of-sandy-hook-massacre/
However, is he any different from the others who go out there with the same questions that he has about the whole thing? He does teach a course called Culture of Conspiracy, so I don't see it as harmless or wrong to bring Sandy Hook into it; especially, when you see how the gun-related articles spun out of control since day one of the shooting. I forgot what article it was, but he didn't lose his job that people wanted him to do so.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

However, is he any different from the others who go out there with the same questions that he has about the whole thing? He does teach a course called Culture of Conspiracy, so I don't see it as harmless or wrong to bring Sandy Hook into it; especially, when you see how the gun-related articles spun out of control since day one of the shooting. I forgot what article it was, but he didn't lose his job that people wanted him to do so.

He is a leader who not only repeats bunk but originates it. To some extent he derives authority from his cv, while at the same time disclaims the institution he works for. Just by looking at his chemtrails writings, I can see he doesn't do due diligence commensurate with his credentials, and my personal experience shows him to be a scared hypocrite with an axe to grind who is unwilling to take responsibility for his statements or to be responsive to criticism of them.

I actually don't think that a professor who teaches conspiracy theory has any business at all personally promoting them. How does he avoid a conflict of interest since it is very clear that he personally has a stake in his own theories? He should be teaching debunking of conspiracy theories, but instead he is promoting his own personal bunk filled ones on the side.

Here is the syllabus for the class on conspiracy (.doc file format):
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...04GoDA&usg=AFQjCNHnQeL48NI1rP8AOGOHN3SfTkOEOg

What I see here is not really a review as much as it is an indoctrination.

You can see what his students are saying:
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=643615&all=true

 

[Unregistered]

I hope he does get fired.

Exactly what I'm talking about.

This person wants the professor to lose his job, his livelihood, for questioning the mainstream media. His crime was not believing and not being quiet about his doubts, and according to the poster above he must suffer for this.
These 'plebes' are so effectively molded since birth to be steered and told what to think by the television, they HATE HATE HATE people who question MSM or the government.
They really believe we all should just trust the 'authorities' to decide what's best for us, let the 'authorities' decide for us what's true and what isn't.

I ask you who is more despicable and who is more worthy of respect? The one who questions his prescribed reality or the one who follows blindly and condemns those who refuse to swallow. I can answer that clearly.

 

[Joe]

Exactly what I'm talking about.

This person wants the professor to lose his job, his livelihood, for questioning the mainstream media. His crime was not believing and not being quiet about his doubts, and according to the poster above he must suffer for this.
These 'plebes' are so effectively molded since birth to be steered and told what to think by the television, they HATE HATE HATE people who question MSM or the government.
They really believe we all should just trust the 'authorities' to decide what's best for us, let the 'authorities' decide for us what's true and what isn't.

I ask you who is more despicable and who is more worthy of respect? The one who questions his prescribed reality or the one who follows blindly and condemns those who refuse to swallow. I can answer that clearly.

In his position unless he has evidendce he should not comment . The college he teaches at had to separate themselves from his comments . Maybe we dont need any more colleges if everything on You Tube is factual ? get reaL. Let them rest in peace .

 

[scombrid]

I ask you who is more despicable and who is more worthy of respect? The one who questions his prescribed reality or the one who follows blindly and condemns those who refuse to swallow

What about people who would lead those who question down false paths with unsubstantiated but authoritative sounding claims?
What about people whose unfounded accusations serve to marginalize legitimate oppostion to corrupt practices?

How should we feel about those people?

Do you think Alex Jones was a good advocate for gun rights in his appearance on Piers Morgan's show? I don't. I think he made 2nd Amendment advocates look crazy. That makes me angry since I advocate for gun rights.

If I had a professor that was behaving like Alex Jones I'd want him fired. He can go get a radio show or do youtube videos. He doesn't have any business using his position to spout unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

[Unregistered]

What about people who would lead those who question down false paths with unsubstantiated but authoritative sounding claims?
What about people whose unfounded accusations serve to marginalize legitimate oppostion to corrupt practices?

How should we feel about those people?

Do you think Alex Jones was a good advocate for gun rights in his appearance on Piers Morgan's show? I don't. I think he made 2nd Amendment advocates look crazy. That makes me angry since I advocate for gun rights.

If I had a professor that was behaving like Alex Jones I'd want him fired. He can go get a radio show or do youtube videos. He doesn't have any business using his position to spout unsubstantiated nonsense.

What you don't understand is Alex isn't there to debate getting disarmed over a cup of tea. There's plenty of pansies that will debate with Piers on his terms , while he railroads them into a position of saying 'we need our guns to resist tyrannical government' then he attacks them for being crazy. That simple. And unfortunately many of the guests will simply not admit the current government is corrupt and now more than ever the population needs their guns. Alex wouldn't even admit it.

Too many people have been conditioned to be proper and have this knee jerk reaction to shut down when they hear someone interrupting, being loud, not giving an inch as ALex did. But for those who actually listened to what he said, it's all bang on. You don't like how he says it but it's all true. Alex brings up a couple instances of governments using false flags to roll in their agenda on various occasions and piers acts like he's completely insane, that false flag never happens and it's crazy to even suggest it. He was just trying to railroad alex to make him look crazy. ANd the proper citizens simply shut down as soon as someone isn't quietly and calmly debating over tea.

Question when someone is robbing you do you debate with them calmly whether they have the right to do it or not? That's exactly what Piers and other gun control advocates are attempting to do to law abiding citizens, seize their weapons by force! You think it's natural and civilized to debate robbery, what you expect of Alex is unnatural and insane! What you fail to grasp which makes you so dangerous is a the simple fact that Criminals dont' abide by gun laws, regular law abiding citizens DO abide by the laws. Criminals want to disarm law abiding citizens, specifically criminal elements within the government.
It's happened before in history - germany and the philipines to name a couple. What makes you believe america is immune to this type of thing? Pull your head out of your backside sir, haven't you noticed all the sandy hoax parents are more concerned about gun control than anything else. Agenda much??

 

[PCWilliams]

If I had a professor that was behaving like Alex Jones I'd want him fired. He can go get a radio show or do youtube videos. He doesn't have any business using his position to spout unsubstantiated nonsense.

In my job as an air traffic controller we had to abide by a standard of conduct (PDF) which reads (in part) "Employees are … expected to conduct themselves off-duty in a manner which will not adversely reflect on the agency's ability to discharge its mission, cause embarrassment to the agency by the employee's activity or behave in a manner that will cause the public and/or managers to question their reliability, judgment and trustworthiness in carrying out their responsibilities as employees of the Federal Government.

"Those employees in direct contact with the public bear a heavy responsibility as their conduct and professionalism significantly impacts the image of the Federal service and the FAA."

As a federal employee, i understood i represented my employer 24/7. I can be terminated for what i say and do off the job. Many employers maintain similar standards.

There is a reason this professor doesn't blog anonymously - because he wouldn't get the time of day for his opinions if nobody knew he was a professor at a university. He leans on his title and status at the university to give his opinions the weight they wouldn't otherwise command.

With his public actions tied to the university he must be careful how his words and actions reflect on his employer. Also, he puts his employer in an awkward position: if the university doesn't fire him, they (the employer) can be viewed as supporting his opinions. You don't want to put your employer in such a position. It comes back to how your actions and words adversely impact your employer.

In my opinion he could (and should) be terminated for his public words and actions.

 

[Unregistered]

In my opinion he could (and should) be terminated for his public words and actions.

SO you believe it's correct to fire someone for having an opinion that goes against the mainstream media, even though the official reports are riddled with holes, inconsistencies and outright mistakes. I mean the story was changing constantly and many details were hardly investigated even to this day. Have you seen even ONE body? Have you seen ANY footage of a shooter ? OR... did you believe everything CBS told you? YES YOU DID.
But all that aside you believe the 'employer' in this case , an institution for reason and logic, should not question the MSM story. That by Default MSM is telling the 100% truth. Therefore anyone who questions it is making the employer look bad and should be fired. Your logic fails at it's root because an institution for logic and reason should definitely question what this current government and it's media lackeys are doing ESPECIALLY with the gun control agenda being rolled out literally hours after this event. Even the phony parents seemed more concerned about banning AK's then their own dead children!! You can't recognize political agenda's as they unfold in front of your face it's a testament to who blind and naive you are.

Ya know maybe if the MSM didn't have a proven track record for lying to the public for decades maybe we could grant them the title of the saints of truth rather than lying scumbags. But sadly their consistent record for lying and manipulating the public (*cough* war on terror* cough* war on drugs* weapons of mass destruction* we threw obamas body in a lake* Muslims are the root of all evil*cough, etc etc) sadly they can't even qualify for the title of 'half honest'. Yet you gullible people seem to forget everything that happened yesterday and assume CNN and CBS is telling you the truth all of a sudden, they suddenly developed honesty overnight it's a miracle. Once again you are told what to think and once again you attack anyone who questions them, it's revolting.

 

[Unregistered]

...As a federal employee, i understood i represented my employer 24/7. I can be terminated for what i say and do off the job. Many employers maintain similar standards...

In my opinion he could (and should) be terminated for his public words and actions.

And you'd like to strip this man of his livelihood while you enjoy your government job. I hear you government employees are not too popular these days so it's fitting that you would be quick to throw him to the wolves for questioning the MSM while the government coddles you with tax payer money. You sir cannot be objective simply because of what you are, even if you could see the steamy bullshit surrounding sandy hook you couldn't openly say anything, but you're entirely free and encouraged to support the mainstream version because that supports Obama's gun confiscation agenda.

 

[Unregistered]

In my opinion he could (and should) be terminated for his public words and actions.

Can your position even be considered valid? No it can't because as you admit in your own post, you're a government employee and cannot speak against your political masters without repercussions.
You cannot, by nature of what you are look objectively at sandy hook, and even if you did see the glaring anomalies surrounding the event you'd need to keep quiet. SO any posts you make concerning this event can be dismissed as biased, bought and sold. You cannot express truth even if you know it.

ANd from what I've seen of you so far you're quick to condemn those who dare to question so I wouldn't expect a shred of open mindedness from you. We have a word for it , it's called shill.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

In my opinion he could (and should) be terminated for his public words and actions.

I agree, but not just for this, his chemtrails articles and behavior as reported by his students show me that James F. Tracy is dishonest and uncaring about what he says and does both at work and in public statements.

He was hired as a professor to teach COMMUNICATIONS.

He is not proficient at providing accurate communications, how can he teach it?

BTW, James F. Tracy has moved on to pushing yet another high school shooting CT:
http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/01/16/taft-union-high-school-drill-becomes-real-life/#more-1764

 

[PCWilliams]

SO you believe it's correct to fire someone for having an opinion that goes against the mainstream media, even though the official reports are riddled with holes, inconsistencies and outright mistakes. I mean the story was changing constantly and many details were hardly investigated even to this day. Have you seen even ONE body? Have you seen ANY footage of a shooter ? OR... did you believe everything CBS told you? YES YOU DID.

I believe a person could (and should) be fired if they bring disrepute to the image of their employer in a public way. Most large employers maintain such a condition of employment. If you want to be Miss America you shouldn't be in porno flicks, if you work for Kentucky Fried Chicken you probably shouldn't go public and denounce the colonel while endorsing another fried chicken brand, if you want to be a cop you probably shouldn't be arrested for dealing crack cocaine, if you want to work for Coke you probably shouldn't drive a Pepsi truck as a second job. You get the point. In the case of this professor, it's not about how his opinion squares with mainstream anything, it has to do with how his opinion reflects upon his employer. If this guy wants to talk his talk he should do it anonymously. If he chooses talk his talk using his job title he is subject to the rules of his employer. If he doesn't wish to be bound by the rules of his employer he should quit. See how much attention he gets when he can no longer borrow the clout of major university.

 

[PCWilliams]

And you'd like to strip this man of his livelihood while you enjoy your government job. I hear you government employees are not too popular these days so it's fitting that you would be quick to throw him to the wolves for questioning the MSM while the government coddles you with tax payer money. You sir cannot be objective simply because of what you are, even if you could see the steamy bullshit surrounding sandy hook you couldn't openly say anything, but you're entirely free and encouraged to support the mainstream version because that supports Obama's gun confiscation agenda.

None of this has anything to do with questioning the MSM or my employment with the government. For my complete answer, see here.

As a side note and food for thought, I had a top secret security clearance. You wouldn't believe the stuff i know. The truth is definitely stranger than fiction.

 

[PCWilliams]

Can your position even be considered valid? No it can't because as you admit in your own post, you're a government employee and cannot speak against your political masters without repercussions.
You cannot, by nature of what you are look objectively at sandy hook, and even if you did see the glaring anomalies surrounding the event you'd need to keep quiet. SO any posts you make concerning this event can be dismissed as biased, bought and sold. You cannot express truth even if you know it.

ANd from what I've seen of you so far you're quick to condemn those who dare to question so I wouldn't expect a shred of open mindedness from you. We have a word for it , it's called shill.

"Open minded" is always thrown out as a virtuous red herring, as if not agreeing with an opposing opinion makes a person closed minded. This is a false choice. It's not a choice between being open minded or closed minded - it's a choice between having an open mind and an educated mind.

Why don't people intentionally drive their cars into telephone poles? Because they have a closed mind or because they have knowledge which precludes being "open" to the idea of driving into a telephone pole? To be open minded to driving into telephone poles, drivers would have to forget or ignore their life experiences and knowledge.

This discussion should focus on knowledge (evidence). Maybe this is why most conspiracists demand an open mind from their skeptics - because they don't have persuasive evidence to sway educated minds.

 

[ForeignLookingIn]

I believe a person could (and should) be fired if they bring disrepute to the image of their employer in a public way. Most large employers maintain such a condition of employment. If you want to be Miss America you shouldn't be in porno flicks, if you work for Kentucky Fried Chicken you probably shouldn't go public and denounce the colonel while endorsing another fried chicken brand, if you want to be a cop you probably shouldn't be arrested for dealing crack cocaine, if you want to work for Coke you probably shouldn't drive a Pepsi truck as a second job. You get the point. In the case of this professor, it's not about how his opinion squares with mainstream anything, it has to do with how his opinion reflects upon his employer. If this guy wants to talk his talk he should do it anonymously. If he chooses talk his talk using his job title he is subject to the rules of his employer. If he doesn't wish to be bound by the rules of his employer he should quit. See how much attention he gets when he can no longer borrow the clout of major university.

Is this censorship? He's not talking against his boss, he's not promoting another university, he's expresing his opinion on a public issue. In the "Land of the Free" you cannot do that? The USA is becoming more and more a Third World Country (where censorship is the rule). Are some of you afraid that an Academic (a person whose opinion weights), speaks his mind just because he thinks different than some of you? There is a saying: "you have the right to be stupid", maybe the professor is one of them, but we cannot deny that there are hundreds of Congress people who are stupid, but they don't get fired.

 

[Mick West]

Is this censorship? He's not talking against his boss, he's not promoting another university, he's expresing his opinion on a public issue. In the "Land of the Free" you cannot do that? The USA is becoming more and more a Third World Country (where censorship is the rule). Are some of you afraid that an Academic (a person whose opinion weights), speaks his mind just because he thinks different than some of you? There is a saying: "you have the right to be stupid", maybe the professor is one of them, but we cannot deny that there are hundreds of Congress people who are stupid, but they don't get fired.

It's quite common for a condition of employment to not make statements that put your employer in a bad light. That's not censorship, it's a condition of employment, which you agree to. He's free to say whatever he likes, but if he's agreed not to, then that's breach of contract.

A less offensive example would be revealing trade secrets. One could theoretically argue that free speech rights means you should be able to tell out your employer's secrets to the world without recrimination. But obviously you would not expect that. The disparaging restriction is similar. It is though one that is on the edge of the law, and legally quite difficult to use as a cause fire someone for. See:

http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/21/can-you-fire-someone-for-disparaging-your-company-on-facebook/

Bringing disrepute to the image of an employer is something even less clear in law. But if it's part of an employment agreement, or a code of conduct, then it does not seem unreasonable.

 

[ForeignLookingIn]

It's quite common for a condition of employment to not make statements that put your employer in a bad light. That's not censorship, it's a condition of employment, which you agree to. He's free to say whatever he likes, but if he's agreed not to, then that's breach of contract.

A less offensive example would be revealing trade secrets. One could theoretically argue that free speech rights means you should be able to tell out your employer's secrets to the world without recrimination. But obviously you would not expect that. The disparaging restriction is similar. It is though one that is on the edge of the law, and legally quite difficult to use as a cause fire someone for. See:

http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/21/can-you-fire-someone-for-disparaging-your-company-on-facebook/

Bringing disrepute to the image of an employer is something even less clear in law. But if it's part of an employment agreement, or a code of conduct, then it does not seem unreasonable.

None of the examples you give applies to this professor.

"Statements that put your employer in a bad light"... that's too broad. Is it in his contract that he cannot express a different opinion to ANY public statements made by the police, Congress, President, etc? If that is what America has come down to I'm speachless, not by censorship, but by surprise. Maybe if he would have cursed God instead the University would've give him a medal. That is surely a "good light" for the university.

So anything the employers consider that is putting them in "bad light" is enough to fire anyone. That's censorship disguised as "bad light" or "proper conduct". What if he says he smokes cigars, or likes beer, or that he has moral principles that differ from that of his employer? You're fired!, because those have become NO-NOs in the american society of today. To me it's censorship, they can fire him because he THINKS different. Maybe the professor is after all shinning a "good light" with his opinion. Too bad universities despise a good debate nowadays.

 

[Mick West]

None of the examples you give applies to this professor.

"Statements that put your employer in a bad light"... that's too broad. Is it in his contract that he cannot express a different opinion to ANY public statements made by the police, Congress, President, etc? If that is what America has come down to I'm speachless, not by censorship, but by surprise. Maybe if he would have cursed God instead the University would've give him a medal. That is surely a "good light" for the university.

So anything the employers consider that is putting them in "bad light" is enough to fire anyone. That's censorship disguised as "bad light" or "proper conduct". What if he says he smokes cigars, or likes beer, or that he has moral principles that differ from that of his employer? You're fired!, because those have become NO-NOs in the american society of today. To me it's censorship, they can fire him because he THINKS different. Maybe the professor is after all shinning a "good light" with his opinion. Too bad universities despise a good debate nowadays.

It's not what the employer considers that important, it's how the statements would be received. it would have to stand up in court, so would have to be something that a reasonable person wold agree reflects badly on the employer.

It's all a bit of a moot point though as he has not been fired. He claims he's being investigated though.

http://upressonline.com/2013/01/fau...james-tracy-leaving-him-unsure-of-job-status/

It not like this is the only stupid or hurtful things he's said though.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

As a professor of communications, James F. Tracy has written (at least) two fallacious articles besides his recent ones about Sandy Hook. He wrote in support of a hoax called chemtrails. He also screened a fallacious movie at the University and does so with many more conspiracy theory movies while his students are paying for the class.

The problem I see is that Florida Atlantic University has an extensive Geosciences Department with many PhD scientists who could easily correct the misinformation Tracy put out on his website. He must have totally overlooked COMMUNICATING with these people. What sort of communications did he reference in his articles for chemtrails? A movie made by a conspiracy theory filmmaker named Michael J. Murphy, and Clifford Carnicom, a chemtrails hoax promoter.

If he had chosen to seek out factual information to confirm what Murphy or Carnicom had told him, he would have never written an article supporting chemtrails.

Are we starting to see a pattern developing here?
Yes, it is a pattern of a man who has gone so far over the edge in immersion into conspiracy culture that he disregards due diligence and chooses to communicate with conspiracy theorists rather than seek out factual information, even when he works daily with highly qualified people who are easily accessible.

This is the pattern of behavior which should lead his employers to find that James F. Tracy is no longer deserving of tenure or even employment at FAU. He has changed or perhaps never was what he was hired to be, a communicator with expertise in media and journalism.

Nevermind the Sandy Hook Fiasco he seems perfectly willing to lose his job over, on the subject of "chemtrails", I can easily see that the man has lost whatever perspective he had, and is lost in a whirlpool of conspiracy he likely will never return from. Better to give him the boot.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

It's not what the employer considers that important, it's how the statements would be received. it would have to stand up in court, so would have to be something that a reasonable person wold agree reflects badly on the employer.

It's all a bit of a moot point though as he has not been fired. He claims he's being investigated though.

http://upressonline.com/2013/01/fau...james-tracy-leaving-him-unsure-of-job-status/

It not like this is the only stupid or hurtful things he's said though.

Here is a recent example of how Tracy's work has affected a woman, made her into a hater,

Tomi Glover
January 19, 2013 at 5:27 am
My horse coughs for no reason, I havent been able to have my garden prduce food like I used to , all the flowers I plant die before they finish blooming and I never get seeds anymore. 4 out of 10 shrub oat are dead in the local mountains. Bees and hummingbirds are gone. I cry everyday when I see the huge white X lines in the sky. I call the local airforce base and demand to know why they arent protecting our skys, I call them traitors everyone of them, why do we even have an airforce if anyone can do anything anyway. They just talk to me like Im stupid and last time even ask me if Id like to come visit the new visiting center, Edwards airforce base, yeah, that was the answer I got when I ask a pilot who was dropping poison and where the planes are coming from. It took me two yours to stop shaking and crying after talking to him. I used to have so much respect for our airforce, now I hate them all, not one of them doesnt know whats going on, and every one of them are traitors to the United States of America. They have turned there backs on us and I feel as if my heart will break from the saddness of that. The poisioning of every living breathing creature on earth and earth herself, our beautiful blue planet
http://memoryholeblog.com/2012/12/1...he-worst-crime-in-human-history/#comment-4494

 

[ForeignLookingIn]

It's not what the employer considers that important, it's how the statements would be received. it would have to stand up in court, so would have to be something that a reasonable person wold agree reflects badly on the employer.

It's all a bit of a moot point though as he has not been fired. He claims he's being investigated though.

http://upressonline.com/2013/01/fau...james-tracy-leaving-him-unsure-of-job-status/

It not like this is the only stupid or hurtful things he's said though.

Received by whom? Who is the final judge as to how was it received? A poll? A newspaper editorial (we know the outcome already)?

What would he be accused of that it would have to stand in court?

Professor "Tracy believes FAU is feeling pressure from its donors, unsure about giving money to a university in the news for a conspiratorial professor." There you have it: M-O-N-E-Y. The donors are the ones feeling bad about what the professor said, not the University.

The professor said "While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place — at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described."

It's undeniable there are questions that came up after the massacre. Asking them is to be stupid? Are we not told that the most stupid question is the one we don't ask? I go back as far as 1963 (and earlier), it is clear now that on Nov 22 1963 forces in the government of the United States carried out a coup d'etat and removed JFK from the White House, killing him in the process. After that and after Watergate a great number of the american people lost faith in their government, and rightfully so. So don't be surprised that when things like these happen people start asking questions. I've read that Rahm Emanuel (who worked in the Obama administration) once said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste", which makes a lot of people ask if someone in the government could have created the crisis in the first place. Don't forget that crisis is the livelyhood of politicians. With all this info and the way government people think is that you see many americans asking questions. We have a saying where I live, "el quemado con leche, hasta el queso sopla"... "He who is burnt by milk, even the cheese he blows", and they do so because there is a standing record: JFK & RFK deaths, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater & Vince Foster's suicide, Weapons of Mass Destruction... not to mention what the USA government has done in other countries of the world.

Thanks for putting up with me and sorry for having stray away from the main topic.

 

[Mick West]

Received by whom? Who is the final judge as to how was it received? A poll? A newspaper editorial (we know the outcome already)?

What would he be accused of that it would have to stand in court?

A judge or jury, yes. Ultimately it would have to stand up in court. I don't know what precisely what he would be accused of, but he would not be the one of trial, it would only go to court if he sued for unfair dismissal. Then the university would have to demonstrate cause, which would probably be something like breaching his employment agreement.

Frankly, given his broad and uncritical embrace of every conspiracy theory out there, he's lucky to have such a job.

 

[Mick West]

I pretty much concur with Anderson Cooper's assessment of Tracy

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2013/01/12/cooper-podcast-friday-site.cnn?iref=allsearch

 

[Unregistered]

If he's wrong (which he is) then it's possibly libel and slander, possibly even internet bullying. It's certainly outrageous and unusual behavior for a college professor. I'd prefer if he did not get the oxygen of publicity, but I think it's as newsworthy as 90% of the "news" out there.

Then you obviously have never been around too many college professors....

 

[Mick West]

Then you obviously have never been around too many college professors....

Not recently. But there are hundreds of thousands of professors. It's very rare for them to make the news like this.

 

[Belfrey]

I agree, but not just for this, his chemtrails articles and behavior as reported by his students show me that James F. Tracy is dishonest and uncaring about what he says and does both at work and in public statements.

He was hired as a professor to teach COMMUNICATIONS.

He is not proficient at providing accurate communications, how can he teach it?

BTW, James F. Tracy has moved on to pushing yet another high school shooting CT:
http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/01/16/taft-union-high-school-drill-becomes-real-life/#more-1764

To me, this is the key point, and the reason I think it's reasonable to call for him to be fired. He is a journalism professor, and he is engaging in an increasingly common form of journalism with his blog - and he's doing an extraordinarily bad job of it. He's engaging in intellectually lazy, irresponsible journalism. Such a person should not be in a position to teach future journalists. Because of his position, his blog posts have much more influence than they deserve.

If he were a professor of botany, with a private blog where he expounds on conspiracy theories, then I'd probably agree that his private beliefs and activities had no bearing on his professional work (unless they somehow involved scientifically false views regarding plants).

 

[Mick West]

There's a problem in journalism of "false balance", where the reporter attempts to give "both sides" of the story, and ends up essentially greatly giving weight to the fringe side far beyond the weight it deserves. A good example would be chemtrails, where the reporter gives equal time to conspiracy theorists and meteorologists. This gives a false impression that the subject is somewhat 50/50, up for debate, where scientists are not really sure. But the real picture is that 99.99% of scientists understand the chemtrail theory is bunk, and there's just this tiny number of people with this weird theory, that runs contrary to science and history.

Tracey does not even raise his personal journalism to the level of false balance.

His blog posts, which are written in a workmanlike fashion, with a veneer of professionalism, references and all, are just unthinking repetitions of long-debunked conspiracy theories. Chemtrails, Morgellons, Birthers, 9/11. All sprinkled with a pseudo-journalistic, and pseudo-intellectual justification of "just asking questions", or given the insanely inaccurate monolithic label of "truth".

http://memoryholeblog.com/2012/04/09/inversion-truth-to-power/

Again, the penalty for speaking truth to power is considerable, and those questioning Obama’s origins, despite having sufficient reason to warrant suspicion and demand documents such as records confirming the president’s background and fitness for rule, are derogated by mainstream and progressive-left news media alike as “birthers”, and with this label routinely dismissed out-of-hand.

Content from External Source

And it's a shame, because his basic point, that we should not trust everything we read in the media, is a solid point. There IS spin, both corporate and government. America IS largely insular and self-obsessed in its world view. Skepticism is important, a necessary part of a healthy society. But one needs to balance skepticism, and one needs to do it with perspective, and knowledge, and science.

Tracey has developed an unhealthy skepticism. He rejects the "mainstream media", regardless of what they say, and seeming accepts the alternative media, and alternative scientists, no matter what they say. An healthy distrust of government has led to an unquestioning trust of anyone and anything that is anti-government. One should not accept everything Alex Jones says as truth just because Alex Jones disagrees with Anderson Cooper. One should not accept everything Clifford Carnicom says as good science just because Clifford Carnicom disagrees with the CDC.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Tracy is now saying he was simply too tired to get his chance for 15 minutes of fame on Mainstream news to explain his 'questions' in front of Anderson Cooper.
Well, he also says that his wife told him not to.....

The way I see it, he ran away because he knew full well what he has been doing for a long time is wrong, and he didn't want to face the whole country over what he has been doing. He's a gutless man who won't even face me in an email or allow my comments on his blog, no matter how polite.

But he has since recovered enough to spend an hour with Alex Jones' man. I think he just might be interviewing for a new job.

​

 

[Jay Reynolds]

From:
http://www.fau.edu/bot/files/Revised BOT Policies and Procedures_06_19_2012.pdf

Section 1.2
Florida Atlantic University values an academic environment that facilitates intellectual growth through open and honest expression. The University is committed to excellence at all levels of the educational and creative experience, to success for all students and to development of the capacity to make reasoned and discriminating judgments with respect for differences and diversity in ideas. The University is dedicated to lifelong learning, which encourages the continual use of the mind. The University plays a vital role in the life of the surrounding community, in society and as an engine for economic development. More specifically, the University commits to:
• Prepare students to fulfill a productive destiny in the workplace and in society;
• Promote academic freedom and an atmosphere of free and open inquiry;
• Recognize and reward superior performance, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship in all facets of University activity;
• Support all those who rely on the University, such as parents, employers of students and graduates, and community partners;
• Account for the sound use and careful stewardship of the resources provided to the University;
• Provide equal access, equal rights and equal justice, and encourage mutual regard for the rights and liberties of all persons;
• Respect all persons and display civility in all interactions;
• Provide a secure environment for the pursuit of learning;
• Foster community service and social responsibility;
• Promote honesty in all spheres, social and moral development, and ethical standards in all areas of human activity;
• Assure clear and open communication and sharing of information

Section 1.3
PRINCIPLES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM
The Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees supports the principle of academic freedom and is committed to the search for new knowledge and to the effective dissemination of that which came before it. In furtherance of this commitment, the BOT will defend the right of faculty and students to pursue their academic goals free from constraints that hinder lawful intellectual inquiry and discourse, and will protect the freedom of faculty to teach and of students to learn from ideas that might be unpopular or not in the mainstream of accepted thought. In turn, faculty and students must exercise this freedom in a responsible manner so that honesty and integrity in their inquiries and discourse are maintained.

In turn, faculty and students must exercise this freedom in a responsible manner so that honesty and integrity in their inquiries and discourse are maintained.

Honesty refers to a facet of moral character and connotes positive and virtuous attributes such as integrity, truthfulness and straightforwardness along with the absence of lying, cheating or theft.

Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that integrity regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.

Are Tracy's actions within the bounds of academic freedom as set out by the FAU Board of Trustees?

 

[Uncommon Sense]

I'm perplexed that this person (who failed to provide his credentials) has such a comprehensive understanding of human reaction to tragedy that he/she is certain "that's not what happens (laughing) when youre in grief." I seem to remember in college studying in abnormal psychology how certain cultures respond to laughter in the face of fear/sadness, which my wife recalled recently when we observed an Asian father smiling when he found his son who had wondered around lost crying. I was initally irate, as other observing the situation, until my wife reminded me of this study. While I could not find that particular study, this recent article in a psychology journal indicates that some have abnormal (often paradoxical to social norms) as a defense mechanism to preserve some control in tragic situations, as noted by Holocaust survivors in this article (to read article go to http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/humor-sapiens/201209/when-do-tragedies-become-funny) These type of arbitrary, unsupported presumptions are often a fundamental feature of these conspiracy theories, which studies have also found to be a way for some to rationalize actions difficult for their minds to process, and consequently often results in the conspiracy theorists' (CT) inability (in addition to other studies that have also found mental illness as a central component of CTs) to accept contrary objective evidence/explanations despite compelling evidence that debunks the theory to others able to be more objective.

I have to say I think Mick's points are spot on! I have suggested for some time that yellow journalist like Alex Jones, as well as professionals like Tracy, that either totally disregard the tools respectable researchers use to measure validity or plaster straw man arguments with insane amounts of sensationalist adjectives/adverbs to play on peoples emotions, knowing few will take the needed time to due diligence required to debunk this type of nonsense. They slam politicians, but use many of the same attics, as in the case of Tracy, who clearly questioned the validity of this event on his site, only to later backpedal when he caught flack by suggesting he was simply raising questions, not to mention while calling out other media to be confronted, he was unwilling to be held to the same public examination.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The biggest concern I have with CT like Tracy and Alex Jones is that, while they obviously are not the source of our (society’s) problems, their overreactive nature, disregard for objective analysis and unwillingness to recalibrate their position in the face of conflicting evidence damages the reputation for other critical thinkers who have a genuine interested in using objective logic to define, assess and resolve serious issues in society! In a way, they further impede a solution by distracting the masses much in the same way the hysterical woman overreacting causes more panic! The sad fact is that too much time is wasted listening/following these distractors.

With regard to his employment status, again Mick is accurate. There are countless laws and ethical agreements many companies require as a condition of employment. This is a risk anyone in a position of influence "should" realize, given that the public has a propensity to revere professors (and in general educators), which in turn places greater accountability in how their behavior is perceived by the public (and how that perception may negatively impact the reputation/financial stability of the organization). But despite these hypotheticals, the FACT is the decision is (and should be) exclusively FAU's. Too often you see the public grab their pitchforks ready to burn in effigy people like Tracy, or demand accountability for what we perceive as poor judgement, yet how many of them would accept similar treatment in the same circumstances? It is this type of reactionary, parochial and prejudice public behavior that landed credibility to Edward Bernays' encouragement in the use of public relations (which was know as propaganda prior to WWII) that eventually formed the central tenets of "Manufactured Consent," which I suggest is one of the main tools/justifications used to support/affirm the current corporate, [/FONT]oligarchical control[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] decision to use manufacturing consent, our desire-driven economy and sensationalistic news media, which many find themselves struggling to accept today![/FONT]

 

[hommedespere@gmail.com]

Like I said, you can always find someone to go along with any theory. James Tracey is just some guy who believes in lots of conspiracy theories. He's really no different than the commenters on Facebook.

It's the facts that are important, not if you can find one professor out of a million who has a strange theory.

Exactly, Mick .... and I am niot best pleased to revisit after your total lack of facts on chemtrails
only to read you dare to come up with "It's the facts that are important"

I agree with you completely.... but your problem is like any shill who's paid
$quillion$ to type an effing-phony phaked website, you wouldn't know
an honest fact if you tripped over it as you fall on your phat phace

 

[Mick West]

Exactly, Mick .... and I am niot best pleased to revisit after your total lack of facts on chemtrails
only to read you dare to come up with "It's the facts that are important"

I agree with you completely.... but your problem is like any shill who's paid
$quillion$ to type an effing-phony phaked website, you wouldn't know
an honest fact if you tripped over it as you fall on your phat phace

If you could point out some of the errors on ContrailScience.com then I'd be happy to correct them.

I'm not paid anything for either site. This is just a a hobby, and I'm very much in favor of openness and the truth.

 

[Pete Tar]

James Tracy is now promoting the idea that Boston was a government op, bringing up the same arguments being disseminated in the conspiracy sphere. Also gives credence to the fake/prosthetic actors idea.

In his blog, Tracy states he believes there is evidence that contradicts what is being reported about the bombings. He even dissects the force and direction of the explosions, questioning the amount of damage they could have caused.

"What exactly took place on April 15 at the Boston Marathon is unclear, yet what is now evident is a stark divergence between the narrative description of excessive carnage meted out as a result of the explosive devices and at least a portion of the video and photographic documentation of the bombing itself," Tracy wrote.
...Tracy goes on to discuss the possibility of witnesses being "play actors" and how the event resembles a "mass-casualty drill" with victims using prosthetic legs to portray carnage.

"Photographic evidence of the event suggests the possibility of play actors getting into position after the detonation of what may in fact have been a smoke bomb or similarly benign explosive," Tracy said in his blog.
He also adds, "the event closely resembles a mass-casualty drill, which for training purposes are designed to be as lifelike as possible."

Content from External Source

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...ning-if-boston-bombs-were-staged1366815539594

The mother agrees (although it is unclear whether she is directly referencing him or just the general speculation).
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2013/04/boston_bombers_mother_agrees_w.php

 

[Mick West]

He also adds, "the event closely resembles a mass-casualty drill, which for training purposes are designed to be as lifelike as possible."

Content from External Source

That's a bit like saying that a real apple closely resembles a wax apple, from a distance.