A Florida Atlantic University professor is under fire for implying the Adam Lanza shooting may never have occurred, or was orchestrated by the government to advance gun control measures.
"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," wrote FAU communications teacher James Tracy on his blog. "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."
Police say Adam Lanza killed 26 people last month at Sandy Hook grade school in Connecticut, but Tracy is doubting the official line. The communications instructor didn't voice these opinions in class, so he shouldn't be punished by the school. His skepticism is based on the conflicting details of the massacre, the lack of photographic evidence, and the bizarre behavior of several law enforcement officials.
Whether or not you agree with the FAU professor's opinions, he has the right to voice them. And, he is correct when he says the authorities haven't provided a very clear picture of what happened during the Lanza incident. This lack of credible information leads to fringe theories.
James Tracy might want to considering toning down his conspiracy talk, because it's embarrassing to FAU. But, he shouldn't be fired. College faculties are teeming with teachers who say all kinds of crazy things, and they don't lose their positions. And, with everyone on social media these days, it's impossible to police everything people say during their free time.
Photo: Wikipedia
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 50
A guy like that, while he should not be fired for exercising free speech rights, should be, instead, publicly censured [NOT censored], for the obvious implications of his inane comments.
If I were a student, enrolled there, or if I were a parent of a student enrolled there, I would avoid a course taught by Tracy--more than I would avoid target practice at an NRA rifle range.
Suspect the government where there is reason to suspect them: where there is clear motive for them to lie; where there is an obvious cost/benefit equation that can be established; where there are known facts that just don't jive with their narrative.
But to assume nefarious intent of the government in every instance on every matter is clinical paranoia.
If you think anyone in the White House came up with a plan to kill school children in Connecticut to advance a policy initiative then you are likely unhinged. If you think anyone in the White House rubbed their hands with glee at the news of the event seeing it as a perfect opportunity to force through legislation they could otherwise never hope to advance, then you are likely unhinged. If you think that all the people who would have had to be involved in carrying out such a deed, or faking it, would willingly go along and keep silent about it afterward, then you are likely unhinged.
And even better time to suspect the government, is when they blatantly lie, with no obvious reason to!
Just one e3xample is the reporting of either a bushmaster assualt rifle, an ar-15, an automatic weapon or something - that was clearly a shotgun.
Then the reporting of it being a lone person, yet 2 people were arrested alive and walking (reported on the local news and even some regtional news initially - now scrubbed).
Or claiming he shot hundreds of rounds, by himself when it would pretty much be impossible unless he is a speed shooting national champion. And somehow very little brass was found ...... did he fire hundreds rounds and pick up all the brass in a few minutes? Ever try to even FIND all the brass after shooting even 8 rounds? Good luck.
NOt saying the professor is right.
Not saying the government planned the event.
But something stinks.
My best guess?
The event happened - and the government changed the details after the fact so they could USE it to their benefit.
Is it not totally pathetic that when "their side" is not in power, the government is suddenly capable of any sort of ridiculous chicanery?
I have heard it from numerous sources of law enforcement.
I also saw pictures, and can guarantee you the weapons actually used were primarily 9MM hand guns. There was not one sinlgle automatic weapon - they are apready banned. I have been around guns my entire life.
Mr. Brett C.
Are you a psyhic that can tell my mindset without knowing me?
Who merntioned a "side in power" - did I once mention politics?
How dare you sir, to impose your deluded opinions upon me!
In a single sentence, you managed to insult me, pyschoanalye me, and demonstrate a horrifically arrogant attritude - I pray this is simply an online comment - it can NOT be your true nature - if it is, I pity you.
Mr Rory M,
I have heard it from numerous sources of law enforcement.
I also saw pictures, and can guarantee you the weapons actually used were primarily 9MM hand guns. There was not one sinlgle automatic weapon - they are apready banned. I have been around guns my entire life.
A lot of assumption in this.
What law enforcement sources? Official statements or off the cuff interviews. Clearly a lot of law enforcement sources have spoken in line with the official story. Again, do you believe the sources you are referring to without question and if so, why?
The fact that you saw pictures does not prove that you saw everything that was there or know for a fact what was used. You could just as easily have only part of the story. Being around guns all your life does not make you an authority on this event.
No I do not believe all sources on any topic - but I do believe what is said, that is also confirmed by my own eyes, expertise, experience, and knowledge. I have heard interviews with no less than 6 different law enforcement officers, from detectives, to Lt's, to State Patrol Superintendants. I listen to a very wide cadre of information. None of them are Beck, Jones, Huffington, MOther Jones, NYT, MSNBC, Fox, or CNN.
But you seem to accept 100% the sources YOU have read - why?
When people call all AR's automatic weapons - which they are not - auto's are illegal already, and incredibly hard to obtain IF they can be found at all - also calling a shot gun (usually an "evil looking" 12 gauge) an assualt rifle, causes the speaker to lose 100% of all credibility to anyone that knows the first thing about guns.
I have no idea of you have been around guns or not - yet you defend your position as being the full truth .. based on what? The talking heads you heard? Your experience?
Assdumptions based on a collection of facts from various sources, re-inforced by experience, is much better than assumptions based on what you hear.
What is your basis?
It does not take an expert on this event, to know the difference between a shotgun, a rfle, a pistol, and an automatic weapon.
When the local authorities, at the scene, show pictures, AT the scene of the weapons confiscated - it is not difficult to discern the type of weapon.
1. question the satetment, ask for source,
2. question the source,
3. question the logic oif the statement, implying naivete,or lack of intelligence.
4. call the oponenet stupid and un-educated.
Now I am just waiting on that last shoe to drop............
PERFECT Alinsky tho - I was trained in it in the late 60's myself, when involved in SDS.
Now why wouldn't this be an "incorrectly" reported fact?"
The parents of the deceased children and the loved ones of the deceased educators are first in line for that. Next come the survivors who were in that school, the other children and educators, and their families. Next come the rest of the professionals involved in the school and with the families, those who have to react to the tragedy. Next come the first responders and their families who have to deal with what they encountered on that day. Next come the people of Sandy Hook/Newtown who have all lost friends or the children of friends. Way down that list comes the general public.
And that is where everybody on this page is grouped, in the general public. Your right to know is not that important in the grand scheme of things.
Rubberneckers come last.
Not to mention the news video of "Emily's dad" as he gave an media interview about the "daughter" he had just lost? How in God's name can a father laugh and smile immediately after having his little girl murdered?
I don't know what happened that day but what I strongly suspect is that it's NOT what or how the media and government describes it......
I thought the man came across as hurting deeply but being very brave for his remaining family and his community who were hurting so greatly.
I have no idea how I would react in his shoes, cannot begin to imagine it, and I hope to God I never do. Those above who seem to think they do are jumping to insupportable conclusions.
Personally, I do not as a Christian believe at all that they are not with us on this earth any longer, but, in fact, I believe that if they have gone to God and are with Him, and God is with us, that they are with us in spirit more now than ever before. It is only the body that has departed. So not everyone mourns in front of the public. Perhaps you'd think I were an imposter too, then.
As I also said, those cameras that had him smiling before he went up for his speech he was well aware were on him. Had he felt as if he needed to make a statement about his personal feelings to the public, he isn't an idiot so he would have made sure he didn't smile or chuckle.
The other thing I didn't answer to that you mentioned is how you said he scrunched up his face to produce tears. I meant to say that I saw that face "scrunching" as just the opposite, to help to hold back the tears as he was about to begin.
We have been told the name of the shooter, the weaponry he carried, the sequence of events, the time of day, the number of victims, the circumstances of many of the deaths.
Yes, there was confusion in the early hours as events unfolded and people responded to the tragedy and reacted to what they encountered. The media flew into the sleepy town of Newtown and descended like the locusts they are, seeking information and looking to be first to report it. Not surprisingly, they got some bogus details and blurted them out on the airwaves. Especially in this day of the 24 news cycle and the prevalence of social media, small mistakes in reportage get magnified by cycling through so many layers of the curious.
People who have undergone the trauma of witnessing such events or their aftermath are not prepared for a sea of microphones, the glare of TV lights and the whirr of cameras. They may misspeak or repeat information they misheard or simply got wrong.
The wrong name of the shooter, which was close being his brother, is hardly surprising. The conflicting information about his mother and her connection to the school was hardly evidence of deliberate deception. The confusion about additional shooters and a hunt for an accomplice is hardly surprsing given the number of rounds fired in the incident, many witnesses may have thought there was more gun fire than one perpetrator alone could manage, especially if they were unfamiliar with his arsenal and its capabilities.
Take a deep breath, calm down, and ask yourself exactly what information you think is missing. We don't really know a lot more about the Colorado theatre shooting, despite there being a lot more time passed since its occurrence and the fact that the shooter is still alive and facing trial (and there for the public has a direct interest in the outcome). The Sandy Hook shooter is dead and so there will be no trial and nothing to follow up on in that regard. All investigations are FYI only.
You are setting the bar far too low for determining what is "a fact".
At least that it was originally reported that his brother was the suspect was later given a reason. It was later reported that the confusion was caused because Adam was carrying his brother's ID. We still don't even know that's even a fact, but it was reported as such, and if that's true, at least it's feasible that something like that could possibly have happened. I still haven't heard anyone explain why they thought there was a second gunman. They just made that go away as if they never said anything at all.
See her 1:08 PM comment.
If she wanted to make it a generic comment, she could have positioned it in a space not directly adjacent to my own.....much less put in a disclaimer or assemble words, in such a way that she would not have made it easy to draw that sort of fallacious inference that she has so erroneously drawn.
The fact is that I condemn any sort of conspiratorial implication on any issue, Left or Right--unless there are sufficient factors, facts, incidents, and circumstances that state otherwise.
I defy Marilyn M. to pick an example of an irresponsible Leftist correlate where many reasonable and thoughtful Liberal leaning contributors--on Gather or otherwise--would not be civil libertarians on the issue.
If they aren't, then I would gladly denounce their bias--even if they were to be my political brethren.
Moment, please:
"He who leap to reckless conclusion wind up in sewage of ignorance."
I really like this quote, as ignorance abounds in leaps on this site!
Either this is a very sad story about a mentally ill young man who shot people, and the gov in CN. wanted to turn it into something else; or it was actaully orchestrated by more than one person, and someone is covering for them. There was more misinformation reported than usual with this one.
I do not think that people willing to engage in a cover up of nefarious plots to kill a score of little children can be found on any street corner.
It doesn't matter whether you're reporting about Fascist putsches, Communist coups, or violent madmen, or whatever.....
It's the nature of the 24/7 media-proliferation and media-competition Beast.....
There was a time when a substantial amount of doubt, confusion, misinformation or facts that don't fit the official story would be required for a conspiracy theory to take hold in the public imagination. Think of the Kennedy assassination. A very public figure like the president of the USA is killed in broad daylight and the act is caught on film by several individuals as well as the media. A government commission investigates the incident and issues a report that, 50 years later, many don't accept. But in the beginning the Warren Commission report was not immediately questioned. All of the questions regarding angle of bullets' trajectory, the speed of the shots, the "magic" bullet etc. took years to emerge.
Now we are hearing about a conspiracy concerning the Newtown shooting based on what? On confused media reports in the early hours after the event? On general suspicion of government and its motives? On the media's haste to be the first to report the details, resulting (not surprisingly) in erroneous details being reported?
Think about it for a minute. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proofs.
School shootings, sadly, are a part of life in our modern world, especially in the USA which has a far higher rate of incidence than the rest of the world. As shocking and tragic as these events are, they really are not surprising at all. To believe that a disturbed individual got a hold of effective weapons and went on a rampage is not hard to believe at all.
But to believe that the government arranged to kill 20 children and 6 educators to manipulate public opinion requires a high degree of suspension of disbelief. Who would do the shooting? A police officer, FBI/CIA/NSA/Secret Service agent, a soldier? Who? Who would give the order to conduct this shooting? As much as people revile government, which to a degree is deserved, they also tend to respect the military and law enforcement personnel. So who amongst those professional users of weapons would take such an order and execute it and not blow the whistle on the whole operation later? Who would give the order? How many layers of functionaries are between the shooter and the decider (which I suspect most of those commenting above would believe is Obama himself)?
What about the townsfolk of Sandy Hook/Newtown? Did they all pretend that 20 children had been shot? Are they putting on a show? For whose sake? To fool the American people and manipulate them, but for whose benefit? Would an entire town uphold such a deception for political reasons? Could they? And since Newtown was the centre of a gun club it is hard to imagine that many of their residents would be on board with such an attempt to manipulate the public into supporting gun control legislation.
To believe in this conspiracy theory one has to accept either that the government was able to engineer the assassination of a whole herd of little children and a handful of their caregiving educators without anyone in the chain of command suffering a bout of conscience and spilling the beans, or you have to accept that there was no actual shooting and no children died but an entire town participated in a massive fraud and no one who knew those kids and their families or lived in the neighbourhood of that school objects to this. Kafka, Huxley and Orwell would have a hard time swallowing either scenario.
Or, you could believe that the media focused intensely on the event, which actually occurred, because it was shocking, because a line had been crossed with the loss of so many very little children, because people are more emotional around Christmas time and more empathetic, because enough is enough.
Why did the media issue confusing, erroneous reports? Because a day like that, when an unannounced event like that occurs, is chaotic by nature. Because news agencies are competitive, private outfits trying to beat each other to the punch and get the scoop. Because people make mistakes and repeat wrong information.
And perhaps getting the final details of the story out to the general public is of less importance than dealing with the loss faced by those families, than the need to get the rest of the kids from Sandy Hook back in school and supported in their grief and fear, than the need to help Newtown adjust to their tragic notoriety.
At Sandy Hook, dozens of teachers survived; over 100 kids survived; the first responders included dozens upon dozens of police, fire fighters, and paramedics followed almost immediately by concerned parents, reporters, camera operators and the like. Considering all those eyeballs, it is difficult to believe that not one of them has stood up and said: wait a minute… it didn’t happen like that.
The only other answer is somehow; THEY WERE ALL IN ON IT! That would have required some level of coordination to make sure they all had their story straight. It’s not that I think that the anti-gun crowd is above this kind of thing; I just think they are too smart to try a conspiratorial attack like this that has such a high likelihood of exposure.
Unfortunately, this kind of thing plays right into the hands of the anti-gun lobby. It makes those of us who defend the Second Amendment; and who will not give up my weapons, look a bit looney.
Professionally, the competition for funding & status is flatly insane.
From the board's point of view, they depend on reputation for funding, enrollment, etc. Any hint of impropriety, & especially anything that gives the appearance the university isn't in control of its staff is grounds for immediate dismissal. There's a little more wiggle room if you have tenure, but that's very hard to achieve.
There's no way this professor didn't know all of this when he chose to speak out. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not likely to change, either.