Tag Archives: conspiracy theory

Louis Leo IV and James Tracy with Don Jeffries

Author and broadcaster Donald Jeffries talks with attorney Louis Leo IV and Professor James Tracy about the TracyvFAU federal lawsuit, presently on appeal. Tracy was fired by Florida Atlantic University in 2016 for his controversial public views and writings on topics including the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing events.

The interview was recorded and broadcast on Truth Frequency Radio February 15, 2019.

Listen to interview via MP3 on Google Drive

error0

James Tracy is Marvin Bush!

But Who Is Edward L. Chiarini Jr.?

In an October 2018 post on his WellAware1.com site and accompanying video published on YouTube Edward Chiarini AKA “DallasGoldbug” theorizes that James Tracy is really Marvin Bush, son of US President George H.W. Bush, and the younger brother of President George W. Bush and Florida Governor “Jeb” Bush. What is more, Tracy is in reality working for the Department of Homeland Security HSEEP program.

The evidence includes a photo taken by the Palm Beach Post during the December 2017 trial as we entered the Federal Courthouse in West Palm Beach. (The photo in fact appears as if it has been Photoshopped to enlarge the forehead and make us look about 30 pounds heavier than we actually are.)

Continue reading James Tracy is Marvin Bush!

error0

The Conspiracy Theorist: What Happened to James Tracy Could Happen to You – Promo 2

Independent Media Solidarity

Independent Media Solidarity presents the second preview of our new feature-length film, The Conspiracy Theorist: What Happened to James Tracy Could Happen to You. Nationally recognized school safety expert Wolfgang Halbig gives one of his best interviews for the project. This preview features great clips from that interview.

Tracy was a distinguished tenured faculty member in Florida Atlantic University’s School of Communications and Multimedia Studies, where he researched and taught courses in journalism history, communication theory, and the media’s coverage of conspiracy theories.

Continue reading The Conspiracy Theorist: What Happened to James Tracy Could Happen to You – Promo 2

error0

JFK, Mass Media, and the Origins of ‘Conspiracy Theory’

Prefatory Note on Censorship in Academe

This study was written in 2013-14 as part of my academic research as Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. I have had numerous papers addressing news coverage of historical events published in academic journals over the past two decades. However, this was the first attempt to offer a scholarly treatment of a research object related to a conspiracy–how the news media “framed” New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s JFK assassination inquiry.

When I presented the paper at the Association For Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Montreal Conference in 2014 the panel respondent congratulated me on what he deemed to be a very well-researched and written manuscript. He further remarked that it was at most a draft or two away from submission for editorial review at a scholarly journal. I was also confident the study would eventually achieve publication. 

The paper was subsequently rejected by five journals out-of-hand. The editors refused to even send the paper out for review, which never occurred to me before. Notably, each editor provided a different reason for not wanting to give it further consideration. What is more, three of the venues had published my work in previous years. The paper nevertheless offers a timely contribution to understanding the historical origins of the term “conspiracy theory” and its development from perhaps the most momentous event in 20th century American politics.

This helped me to further realize how despite celebrated notions of unbridled inquiry and academic freedom, certain subjects so historically central to the nation’s history in fact remain taboo among academics–those entrusted by society to research such matters–vis-á-vis their counterparts in professional journalism, with both camps still proceeding in tacit agreement to police the boundaries of permissible discourse and thought. -JFT


Introduction

“It appears that certain elements of the mass media have an active interest in preventing this case from ever coming to trial at all and find it necessary to employ against me every smear device in the book.” –Jim Garrison (Playboy 1967)

The news media’s failure to interrogate and question the “the lone assassin” theory by the 1964 Presidents Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, otherwise known as the Warren Commission, should be recognized as one of the greatest episodes of journalistic misconduct in US history. The mass media have played a pivotal role in the coverup of the Kennedy (JFK) assassination that they unabashedly practice to this day. New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s investigation of the November 22, 1963 event was the first substantial challenge to the official narrative. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) countered Garrison’s efforts by calling upon its media assets to directly attack, defame, even sabotage the inquiry.

(AP Photo/David Goldman)

From this episode the CIA developed one of its most potent psychological weapons against political dissent: the “conspiracy theory” label. Over its 50-year lifespan the label has time and again demonstrated its effectiveness in policing the public sphere by calling into question the credibility and even the sanity of journalists, academics, or any other public figure that dares question authorized myths for the masses.

Continue reading JFK, Mass Media, and the Origins of ‘Conspiracy Theory’

error0

Strange Allies in the Fight to End Free Speech

“Performance Artists” versus The First Amendment

By James F. Tracy

Inflammatory radio host Alex Jones is besieged with lawsuits brought by Sandy Hook parents who claim to be “defamed” by the content of his broadcasts. America’s loudest rant monger appears to be fulfilling a central role in a broader play that could seriously undermine the First Amendment.

Most recently Jones, who maintains via his counsel that the Newtown massacre itself was genuine, has agreed to defray the plaintiffs’ court costs for bringing suit in Texas should the judge find it frivolous. Concurrently media platforms including YouTube, Facebook and Spotify are now censoring “Infowars” for purported “hateful” content.

Jones’ ex-wife and conflict-of-interest show boater Kelly Jones is allying with parents of the children who are reported to have died in the 2012 school shooting by picketing an August 1st Texas court hearing with a sign reading, “Texans For Sandy Hook Justice,” NBC News reports.

Image Credit: Eric Gay/AP

Ms. Jones won a vicious child custody battle with the radio personality in July 2018. Jones asserts that she was present during the creation of InfoWars, “and I’m trying to make that right.”

These people not only lost their children in the most horrible way that you can imagine – I mean, unspeakable – but they’ve been harassed by his audience. They’ve had to move houses. They had people come up to them and say that their children didn’t even exist.

As this storyline goes, while the Sandy Hook parents lost their children in December 2012 Kelly Jones saved hers from America’s most prominent career “conspiracy theorist.”

A deeper dimension to this unfolding scenario is the fact that both Kelly Jones, Jones’ children, and the parent-plaintiffs squaring off against Alex in Texas are Jewish.

This aspect of the saga would not be worth noting at least in passing if not for the fact that certain Jewish-led “civil right groups,” including as the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center, have long-sought to topple the American ideal of free speech ensconced in the First Amendment.

These interests and the powerful forces they represent would much rather have the United States temper free speech rights by taking away the rights of those expressing “hate speech,” which in reality translates to any political speech the deep-pocketed sponsors of such groups deem undesirable.

One way to seriously cripple if not eliminate free speech is via a “Trojan horse” like Alex Jones. Despite the swaggering Texan’s professed expertise in conspiracy investigation Jones cannot seem to make heads nor tails of the Sandy Hook massacre.

But that’s not all. Jones has been caught censoring actual research addressing the event, and through this ham-fisted performance has set himself up to take the fall that will likewise bring down US free speech rights.

As we’ve recently stated,

the broadcaster has waffled so much on Sandy Hook that it’s difficult not to believe that he isn’t a pre-designated foil in a broader play to defeat what’s left of speech freedoms in the United States.

There is a well-known theory that 1980s comedian Bill Hicks faked his unusual death from pancreatic cancer at the age of 32 (pseudocide) and has ever since been playing the character Alex Jones since the mid-1990s. Although the idea seems far-fetched, the fact is that celebrities with substantial means have “faked their deaths” for many years to assume a new life and identity.

“Some people fake their death to avoid jail or get away with a crime” according to Psychology Today. “[O]thers want to escape debt, a stalker, or a burdensome relationship.”

“’If you want to disappear and do it right,’” writes author Elizabeth Greenwood,

“the planning is not for the faint of heart, or the careless.” She proves this throughout her book. The question for those who want to reinvent themselves is whether they can ever completely leave their lives behind. Many think they can do it for a period of time, but expect to pick it back up at some point. To really be successful at pseudocide, though, it seems one must be able to walk away—and stay away—from everything. This includes family, medical records, bank accounts, social media, cars, and your reputation as an honest person.

Even Vice News calls pseudocide “a timeworn tradition” among the laity. Is this also the case with the victims of mass casualty events … and perhaps the successful radio persona whose attorney admits is “a performance artist playing a character”? If by chance Alex Jones is Hicks’ invention he could not have pulled this stunt off for two decades without certain lettered agencies’ complicity. And for this he is indebted to them.

If one is going to file a civil claim that someone’s speech is actionable then it is tremendously helpful to have a “friendly” defendant. Just ask German-born  journalist Richard Gutjahr, who is closely allied with the Sandy Hook parents bringing suit against Alex Jones in Texas. Gutjahr says he was encouraged by “Sandy Hook parent” Lenny Pozner and supports the lawsuit against Jones. Gutjahr is of the litigious sort, of which more below.

As some may recall, Richard Gutjahr is so anxious for a scoop that he was present to document both the July 14, 2016 “Nice truck attack” and  the July 22, 2016 “Munich shooting.”

Richard Gutjahr “accidentally” deleted the photos and tweets about Munich.

Gutjahr’s wife, Israeli-born Einat Wilf, is an outspoken Harvard and Cambridge-educated foreign policy advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Wilf’s additional credentials include serving as a lieutenant in the Israeli Defense Forces’ intelligence division and fulfilling a partial term in the Knesset.

Thus it is perhaps ironic that both Gutjahr and Pozner have wives capable of potentially operating under intelligence cover and likely even diplomatic immunity if necessary. We have been apprised, for example, by parties with considerable investigative capacity that it is close to impossible to ascertain the actual background of one “Veronique De La Rosa.”

Along these lines, more than a few individuals have preferred the compelling and plausible notion that Jones is in fact an imposter, and thus a double agent of sorts.

Thin-skinned writer Richard Gutjahr borrows an image from television program “Better Call Saul” Image Credit: YouTube

In the 2017 presentation below Gutjahr’ (at 13:19) discusses his would-be persecution at the hands of “hoaxers”and a strategy of waging legal battles in order to stifle anyone who might question the “on-air talent” in dubious public events.

Lenny [Pozner] and I, we talked many, many times online, and he told me about the so-called “truthers,” the so called “hoaxers.” People who get a kick out of it, to have that power over other people. And who actually also get paid for their ‘work’ by YouTube.

Now Lenny told me, “Look, Richard, you can either continue whining, or you start to get back on your feet and start fighting [sic]. It’s gonna be hard, it’s gonna be long, it’s gonna be painful, but you can actually do something against them. And so I did. [Applause.]

Not on-only I took one lawyer, I took two lawyers [sic], and from that day on they took care of Facebook and of Google. We keep on, like, telling them, “This is wrong, this is wrong. We have this court order, this court order. So we’re really a pain in the neck. And you know what? It feels really good to have somebody speaking up for you-finally.

Despite the fact that Gutjahr is “lawyered up,” he can’t seem to prevail in court. Earlier this year the ubiquitous journalist suffered a stinging defeat after suing independent German investigative journalist Gerhard Wisnewski in the district court of Cologne. The reason? Wisnewski pondered whether Guthahr’s presence at both the Nice truck attack and Munich shooting was coincidental, or may have involved some type of foreknowledge.

Gutjahr’s extravagant complaint suggested that Wisnewski’s reporting on possible prior knowledge involved omission, thus defaming Gutjahr’s by generating suspicion that his motives were for professional advancement. As the defendant explains,

In the eyes of Gutjahr and his lawyer, [I] suspected him of a crime under § 138 penal code (Strafgesetzbuch; “non-disclosure of planned crime”). “A far-fetched assertion. This was never the subject of my reporting, It was all about the abstract possibility of prior knowledge, so only about a cognitive process and the question of how the reporter could have been in two alleged terror locations or in the immediate vicinity within a week.”

A verdict favoring Gutjahr in Cologne was thrown out on appeal, with the higher court reminding the plaintiff that he must “accept critical illumination of his activities by his peers.” In Wisnewski’s view, “the case developed toward a judicial disaster for Gutjahr.”

While their approaches differ, Gutjahr’s case and the defamation actions of the numerous Sandy Hook parents share the same target, namely the free speech that prompts the public to question the sometimes unlikely narratives of government and its corporate media allies. If a verdict against America’s biggest carnival barker can be secured, everything beyond the pale of government and corporate news pronouncements becomes fair game.

Who benefits? Is it those who have something to hide? Who would rather cry, “Hate speech!” and thereby attack the messenger instead of having a fair debate where such speech, if it is truly without foundation, might be confronted and dismantled once and for all?

In the case of Sandy Hook especially the petitioners employ an entirely different method, imploring the general public to viscerally identify with their persecution and suffering–with, as Kelly Jones puts it, those who “lost their children in the most horrible way,” and who must thereafter be “harassed by [Alex Jones’] audience.”

This dramatic plea combined with Jones’ over-the-top “performance art” distracts everyday spectators from considering the events in question and, moreover, the “hoaxers” and “conspiracy theorists” who’ve raised the very questions that most salaried journalists have either long abandoned or must consciously dismiss for fear of losing their own livelihoods.

One thing is certain: Richard Gutjahr might have ultimately won his court case, if only the defendant was as eager to forfeit his free speech rights as Alex Jones appears to be.

error0

Alex Jones’ Actual Malice

How a Talk Show Host Can Help Defeat the First Amendment

By James F. Tracy

Beginning in April the parents of children said to have perished in the December 2012 Sandy Hook School massacre have filed defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones (e.g. here, here and here) and others claiming the radio talk show host defamed them by repeatedly stating to his audience that the incident was staged. The plaintiffs are requesting an unspecified monetary sum from the defendant, claiming he caused them to be harassed and threatened by parties who share Jones belief that the event was a hoax.

In the event these actions are tried they will in all probability not function as a venue where the veracity of the Sandy Hook event itself can be verified or disproven. Nor will the plaintiffs likely have to provide much if any evidence of harassment or pain and suffering.

The parents’ attorneys assert in one suit that “overwhelming–and indisputable–evidence exists showing what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.” This claim is unanimously (though erroneously) supported by Connecticut State authorities and national news media, and has been accepted as settled fact by a federal judge in Lucyv.Richards.

Alex Jones faces new defamation lawsuit, hires attorney

An open question remains whether the suing parties would need to suppress any countervailing evidence. This is largely because over five years after the Sandy Hook massacre event Jones still routinely exhibits uncertainty on whether or not the shooting was real. It is with this suggestion of “actual malice” that he is setting himself up for an untenable position before a jury.

Sullivanv.NewYorkTimes defined actual malice as a primary requisite for a plaintiff to prevail in bringing a defamation suit. In that famous episode the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an advertisement with factual inaccuracies produced by 1960s civil rights advocates and carried in the Times had not been published with actual malice. The court ruled that under the given circumstances the newspaper’s staff did not run the ad either 1) knowing it was false, or 2) with reckless disregard for the truth.

In the cases at hand Jones’ would-be confusion about Sandy Hook began just hours after the alleged shooting itself, when Jones, perhaps anticipating the mixed orientation of his audience toward the incident, expressed confusion over exactly what took place in Newtown. At the same time, and without any real evidence, he used anonymous callers’ observations to label the event a probable “false flag.” This ambiguity would continue for more than five years.

In the months and years thereafter substantial evidence emerged suggesting the “massacre” was probably a FEMA drill overseen by the Obama administration and presented as an actual attack to lay the groundwork for strengthening gun control legislation. Some of this data was compiled in the book edited by Professor Jim Fetzer, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.

Instead of inviting Fetzer on to his radio program following the book’s publication and subsequent censorship by Amazon.com in late 2015, Jones ran in the other direction, actually deleting a story by Infowars writer Adan Salazar from his website and thus in effect joining forces with Amazon to suppress that title’s revelations.

Jones conflicted stance toward Sandy Hook is now even mirrored in his attorney Marc Randazza’s public remarks. “We are going to be mounting a strong First Amendment defense and look forward to this being resolved in a civil and collegial manner,” Jones’ counsel Randazza explained to the New York Times, where he continues to note “that Mr. Jones has ‘a great deal of compassion for these parents.'”

Such a statement suggests how the Sandy Hook official narrative as  defined by the media (and in the minds of any potential jury member) is shared by the defendant himself and his own legal team.

University of Texas law professor David Anderson contends that Jones’ repeated waffling on Sandy Hook makes him especially vulnerable.

What I understand is that he’ll say these things at one point, and then later on, he’ll say, “Of course I know that wasn’t true.” If he says things, and then says he knows it wasn’t true, he’s in trouble. If he consistently says, “I never claimed that to be true,” then he’s probably on more solid ground.

Because Jones’ confusing array of broadcast utterances on Sandy Hook are all a matter of public record it will not be difficult for the “prosecution” to demonstrate Jones’ confusion amounts to a “reckless disregard for truth.”

Further, since Jones’ public persona precedes him and given the fact that jurors are often impressionable and will surely not be avid “Infowarriors,” plaintiffs’ counsel will likely find it easy to depict Jones as a devious and malicious actor. Unfortunately, these are all a jury needs to be fed to affirm the parents’ claims.

Jones’ uncertainty on the Sandy Hook massacre is especially unusual for a figure who is the self-proclaimed “founding father of the 9/11 truth movement,” and who for over two decades been the country’s most prominent “conspiracy theorist.”

Moreover, Jones strongly-voiced political opinions in many areas is what his fans find most appealing. In light of this the broadcaster has waffled so much on Sandy Hook that it’s difficult not to believe that he isn’t a pre-designated foil in a broader play to defeat what’s left of speech freedoms in the United States. It’s at least for certain that Jones is not any truth movement’s most desirable ally.

error0

An Open Letter to Yale University Physics Department Chair Paul L. Tipton

By Winfield J. Abbe
(June 16, 2018)

Paul L. Tipton
Professor of Physics, Chair of Physics Department
Yale University
SPL 34 / EVN 206 / WL 235
New Haven, Connecticut
paul.tipton (at) yale.edu

Dear Professor Tipton:

You are obviously an intelligent scholar and productive physicist. Many others in the physics department at Yale University at New Haven, Connecticut are also highly qualified.

Obviously your first responsibility is to teach the subject of physics to students and to do research in unsolved problems of physics. Are these your only responsibilities? As tenured faculty members, do you have academic freedom and lifetime job protection to speak out on vital issues of public concern or don’t you?

Suppose, for example, the State of Connecticut and Federal Government sought to stage a fake shooting in your physics department. In other words suppose representatives of both governments came to you and requested and expected your cooperation and participation in a fake, staged attack, falsely represented as a real attack to the duped public. Would you, as department head, agree to such a scenario and participate in a scam to falsely represent this to the public, or would you demonstrate personal guts and courage to oppose this massive con on the public?

When you leave your office every day, do you close your eyes and ears to events happening around you? Do you fear speaking up on vital issues of public concern lest you lose some government funding or favors for being labeled a “conspiracy theorist” or face the risks of losing your job due to unfair publicity for speaking out as Professor James Tracy, Ph.D. did at Florida Atlantic University when he simply questioned the official media presentations of the Sandy Hook School Shootings December 14, 2012 in the state of Connecticut? He was subsequently fired from his job for simply expressing an opinion about some very questionable events at the Sandy Hook School Shooting. In fact, are not you and every good physicist in your department all conspiracy theorists of the highest order with a large badge “conspiracy theorist” on your chest every day whether explicitly or implicitly because isn’t this what all physicists do 24/7 in order to reach conclusions to complex problems in physics?

Is not “Conspiracy Theorist” a badge of honor for all physicists? In fact shouldn’t “Conspiracy Theorist” be a badge of honor for all good citizens? Have you ever given a lecture to any group students or otherwise on the true meaning of “Conspiracy Theorist”. Every time you claim you discovered a so called “quark” or made the claim “quarks really exist in nature” are not you in fact being a “conspiracy theorist”?

Surely Professor Tipton, the many intelligent physics professors at Yale University have not closed their eyes and minds to the many media and possibly internet media reports on the events of the alleged Sandy Hook School Shooting December 14, 2012 have they? I would bet if I could have recorded all conversations in and around your department since that day I would find many discussing this event. And since that event some very intelligent investigators have provided a mountain of evidence and facts indicating it was a fake, staged event, not a real one.

This is, at bottom, a problem in basic physics isn’t it professor Tipton? What better folks to investigate it than physicists especially the very good professors and students a Yale University right inside the small State of Connecticut? Have you ever asked any of your students to look into it? Why not? What better project to learn some real physics such as, for example, the event could not have happened if the school had been closed could it professor Tipton?

A distinguished professor, who didn’t major in physics, but philosophy instead, and even graduated from another Ivy League school Princeton University in 1962, and has a distinguished career studying artificial intelligence and many other problems, retired chaired professor Jim Fetzer, Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota, has even written a book on the subject along with a number of other highly qualified authors with Ph.D. degrees.

The book was for sale for about a month on Amazon but Jeff Bezos, a summa cum laude graduate from Princeton University in Electrical Engineering in 1986, banned the book although he still sells much garbage like books on the flat earth for example. Isn’t this amazing Professor Tipton a summa cum laude graduate in electrical engineering banning a book challenging the official claims about the Sandy Hook School Shooting while not banning books claiming the earth is flat? Personally I abhor all book burnings and censorship!

Professor Tipton, the silence of you and your highly qualified physics colleagues is “DEAFENING” to put it mildly. Are all the members of the physics department at Yale University little more than gutless selfish cowards who deliberately close their eyes and ears and other senses to the fake shooting hoax at Sandy Hook School on December 14, 2012 to promote the gun control agenda in patent violation of the 2nd Amendment to our precious Constitution? I don’t like to be fooled and lied to by government professor Tipton. Do you like to be lied to by government? How about the rest of the “conspiracy theorists” on the physics faculty? Perhaps Yale University is not really a top institution of higher learning after all. Or perhaps conflicts of interest are getting in the way of the TRUTH!

Winfield J. Abbe, A.B., Physics, UC Berkeley, 1961, M.S. Physics, California State University at Los Angeles, under Professor Earl Jacobs, Ph.D., 1962; Ph.D., Physics, UC Riverside under Professor Peter Kaus, Ph.D., 1966, Institute of Science and Technology Fellow, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, under Professor Marc Ross, Ph.D. 1966-1967, Faculty Member with lifetime tenure, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 1966-1978 voluntarily resigned due mainly to lying and cheating by two deans and three department heads to the tenured faculty for over 5 years.
Born at Cleveland, Ohio, 1939, raised at Sierra Madre, California, 1943-1966, graduated Pasadena High School, Pasadena, California, 1956, Pasadena City College A.A., 1958.

Copy to Yale President Salovey c/o
Chief of Staff
April McGrath
Chief of Staff
105 Wall Street
joy.mcgrath (at) yale.edu

Copies to Professors James Tracy, Ph.D and James Fetzer, Ph.D.

error0