Michael Tracey. Hypocrisy Doesn't Begin to Describe this Arrogant A$$

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tricia, Oct 4, 2004.

  1. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    I don't know if Tracey is just arrogant or so out of touch with reality he can't see the huge hypocrisy in his latest column for the RMN.

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3224301,00.html

    Tracey: Truth takes back seat to distortions
    And media too often aids in the process as CBS' Rathergate incident shows


    October 2, 2004

    In his famous 1944 book, An American Dilemma, Gunnar Myrdal wrote of the ways in which Americans of all colors and creeds were under the spell of what he called "the great national suggestion" constituted by the "American Creed." That creed, he wrote, consisted of the essential dignity of the individual human being, the fundamental equality of all men, certain inalienable rights to freedom, justice and fair opportunity.

    That was then. Today the American creed is perhaps closer to a need for the certainties of prejudice, to believe a comforting lie if that comports with mood, not reason.


    *SNIP*

    I am stunned. Not too stunned to act however. It's midnight here. More to come by Monday afternoon.

    Tricia
     
  2. Show Me

    Show Me FFJ Senior Member

    Michael Tracey is a sick joke at best!

    Talk about 'Rathergate'....why not Traceygate?

    Isn't that what Tracey did to Gigax? Convict him without any evidence whatsoever....oh yeah and Tracey is trying to make money off an innocent man with his farce of a documentary.
     
  3. DocG

    DocG Banned

    ". . . we live in an age where the distorted is favored over the true, where there is a premium in not knowing, where irrational moods swamp the desire to understand and where the public-as-citizen has been all but replaced by the public-as-consumer, producing a public mind fashioned by the forces of a marketplace of competing falsehoods."

    Hah! Tracey does manage to speak some sense in this piece, especially when writing about the absurdities of the slow "swift boat" veterans. But the above passage is an all too perfect description of his own efforts to use the media for purposes of distortion, wishful thinking and the dissemination of patent falsehoods. The guy has a nerve, that's for sure.
     
  4. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Not only is Tracey a hypocrite, his words show he has an indepth understanding of how the media can influence the public and how injurious the influence of perpetrating a public lie, which makes his actions in perpetrating the Ramsey/Smit lies all the more despicable.
     
  5. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    I don't think I understand what he's saying. I guess that article is supposed to make sense. Maybe if I lived at a higer altitude ...
     
  6. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Mr. Tracy suffers from a psychological condition which I call THE MIRROR SYNDROME. - More on this later.
     
  7. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Do tell EasyWriter. I think the name explains it but I look forward to reading more.
     
  8. Show Me

    Show Me FFJ Senior Member

    I can't wait to read it EW!
     
  9. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    It won't be all that much. Tricia (and others) have already exposed the Tracy fraud. I will just be adding my two cents worth to the exposure.
     
  10. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    What a Punk!

    If Tracey finds conditions so unbearable here in the good old USA, why doesn't he go the hell back to Liverpool, England?
     
  11. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    We need an expert

    We need BobC to comment on this latest Tracey communication.

    Somehow I know BobC will be able to put this sideshow in the right, and of course very serious, light. :jumpie:
     
  12. Driver

    Driver FFJ Senior Member

    Oh wad some power the Giftie gie us,
    To see oursels as others see us!
    Robert Burns
     
  13. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    I'd love to feel insulted--but unfortunately I can't fathom that second insightful paragraph. What kind of "intellectual" gibberish is that about creeds? It sounds vaguely condescending, but I really can't be sure.

    Has he even read "An American Dilemma?"
     
  14. Show Me

    Show Me FFJ Senior Member

    Well I'm waiting boys....come on Bob and Easywriter!
     
  15. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Sounds kinky to me, Show Me.
     
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    I'll pat anyone on the back who quotes Robert Burns, Driver. :)

    I think I'll send Michael Tracey an e-mail and remind him the public increasingly does not trust him after his latest documentary released in the U.K. about JonBenBenét.
     
  17. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    ILLUSIONS, DELUSIONS AND ASSORTED ABERRATIONS

    Tracey’s documentaries are typical of the RST propaganda in that
    they are not governed in any measure by the factual evidence in
    the case. Tracy’s most recent crock is so fallacious in direct
    lies and distortions, it is not even worthy of comment. I
    initially had no intention of dealing with it at all; especially
    so since Tricia and others have already exposed the fraud.
    However, Tracy’s recent self-aggrandizing article in the RMN
    painting a false portrait of himself motivates me to call
    attention to some of his illusions and self delusion. This is
    done via an email to him with same posted below as an open
    letter.

    October 5, 2004

    Re: ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, Oct. 2, 2004

    “TRACEY: TRUTH TAKES BACK SEAT TO DISTORTIONSâ€

    Dear Mr. Tracy,

    Were it that the column in focus was a person’s first experience
    with your work, said person might we be led to believe that you
    are a conscientious individual much concerned about truth in the
    media and would be most careful to not contribute to distortions
    and deceptions.

    Being very familiar with some of your work, I am not so easily
    led or mislead. I read the above captioned column with mixed
    emotions: Utter contempt for maximum dishonesty and hypocrisy, or
    empty pity for a human being so far out of touch with reality.
    The secondary purpose of this letter is to try to find out which
    emotional response is appropriate. The primary purpose is to
    continue pointing out the lies and distortions that have plagued
    the Ramsey case from the outset.

    “The Rathergate incident speaks to this. Dan Rather had to admit
    that he couldn't verify documents that 60 Minutes II had
    broadcast, in a stupid rush to publish,....†(From the column)

    In June, 2004, your latest JonBenet Ramsey documentary
    originally entitled "Who Killed the Pageant Queen?" aired in
    Great Britain.

    Are you claiming that unlike Rather, you verified the information
    in the document and are confident it is the truth; therefore,
    present yourself, i.e, your character, as the opposite of Dan
    Rather?

    The psychology, as evidenced in the column, is hardly new.
    Several decades ago, I labeled it “THE MIRROR SYNDROME.†What is
    THE MIRROR SYNDROME?

    It is a philosophical, epistemological, psychological condition
    in which the person takes unwanted and denied truths about self
    and projects them outwards onto another person or persons. Since
    the mind by natural law makes identifications by differential
    reference, that is, by contrast, this aids in self delusion by
    pretense of a fundamental difference between self and the target
    person.

    It’s a mind game with self for protection of ego and preservation
    of preferred self image. It happens by denying similarities that
    do exist and imagining difference that don’t exist.

    The documents that Dan Rather used were alleged to be evidence of
    claims against Bush. Since they were false, they were not
    evidence. The fundamental is the dispensing of false information
    expressed and\or implied to be fact, therefore, misleading the
    audience in regard to the reality of the situation.

    It makes no difference if the false information is written or
    spoken, the issue is the dispensing of false information claimed
    to be truth, when in truth, there is no factual support. In this
    regard using the fundamental as reference, your recent
    documentary on the Ramsey case is identical to Rather’s action in
    that they both claim fallacy to be fact and mislead the reading
    and\or viewing public.

    I won’t go deeply into this documentary since Tricia ( and
    others) have already exposed it as a colossal fraud. FFJ
    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=249

    Still, I will look at a few things with some observations and
    questions to illustrate the point made above.

    “The media are there to provide the information that incubates
    the knowledge that births a rational world. This is today largely
    nonsense since we live in an age where the distorted is favored
    over the true, ....†(From article)

    Excellent description of your crockumentary. What is conspicuous
    by it’s absence is any mention of the actual evidence and no
    attempt to incorporate said evidence into your theory in a non
    contradictory manner. Are you really blind to the absurdity of
    formulating a theory with presumption to identify the killer of
    JonBenet without so much as a mention of the actual evidence?
    Obviously, actual evidence is avoided to prevent disruption of a
    fabrication suited to a preconceived notion without factual base.

    “No amount of evidence will change this emotional commitment to a
    lie.†(Ibid)

    For you and many others, apparently this is true. Indeed, your
    crockumentary indicates no understanding of evidence, hence,
    actual evidence does not get in your way in establishing and
    presenting your ridiculous theory.

    “PRIME SUSPECT

    Narrator:
    Tonight, new evidence about the murder of a six year old beauty
    queen and about the prime suspect, who might have killed her.â€
    (From the crock.)

    The narrator starts out claiming “new evidence about the murder.â€
    Absent is any evidence, or even claimed evidence, of murder as
    opposed to some other option as cause of death. Blandly and
    blinding the claim of murder, as in deliberate homicidal action,
    is simply asserted as fact without a trace of factual support.
    Personally, I know of no evidence of deliberate murder new or
    old. So, the crock starts out on a false premise which pretty
    much foretells the rest of the show as wild speculation and
    cascading fallacies.

    By what evidence do you presume to rule out violent confrontation
    and death by accident followed by staging? Ans. None; didn’t even
    try, just assumed. The myth of murder is pivotal to all the
    absurd intruder theories which claim to exonerate John and Patsy
    Ramsey. The problem is, there is not a grain of truth in any of
    them, including your latest crock. Truth + truth = truth. Fallacy
    + fallacy = fallacy. Truth + fallacy = fallacy; meaning, crock
    sum = zero.

    John San Augustin:
    We’ve gained more information in the last year than probably the
    prior four or five years. It’s now a whole new era of the
    JonBenét case. We now have evidence that will tell you who the
    killer is. (Ibid)

    Have evidence of killer? If so, why wasn’t it mentioned in the
    crock instead of endless nonsensical speculation light years
    removed from the facts of the case? Let’s look a bit more at what
    is alleged to be evidence and conclusions from evidence.

    Narrator:
    Forensic evidence shows she had been hit on the head but only
    after being immobilised by a stun gun, tortured and garrotted.
    (Ibid)

    Mr. Tracy, you would not let the narrator makes this statement
    unless you had proof would you? Surely, you wouldn’t be like Dan
    Rather and just make it up for media purposes. So, please trot
    out this evidence of “immobilised by a stun gun, tortured and
    garrotted.â€

    By stun gun, do you mean the one that left a blue line on the
    skin according to Smit? Where does the torture bit come in? Once
    more, just the claim as if claim itself was self-proving. By
    garrotted, do you mean a cord clumsily tied around the neck with
    a useless and unused handle attached?

    Lou Smit:
    So, it’s ludicrous even to think that the head blow came first.
    The head blow came last. Almost at the time of death. (Ibid)

    The word, ludicrous, and Mr. Smit go quite well together.
    “Seeing†an inept, totally flawed “garrote scene†as
    “sophisticated†and “complex†by a “professional†is about as
    ludicrous as one can get.

    Oh well, if he can see a blue line from a stun gun, I guess there
    is literally no limit to what Mr. Smit can “see.†If you mentally
    operate from a premise of actual evidence, logical progression
    take an exact opposite route than Smit’s fantasies upon which you
    build similar fabrications.

    The evidence is a “garrote scene†so fatally flawed in every
    respect that said evidence says it was prompted by desperation
    and motivation to make it look like death by strangulation. Would
    you care to try to refute my evaluation of the “garrote sceneâ€
    diametrically opposed to Smit’s aberrations? In other words, it
    was a staged crime scene. Can you tell me why and how an intruder
    would be motivated to take such actions?

    There was no motivation for the staging with a face value of
    death by strangulation except to try to hide the head trauma as
    primary. What difference would this make to an intruder, whether
    long gone or apprehended? The only person or persons who stood to
    gain by trying to sell the idea of death by strangulation are one
    or more who feared the truth about the skull fracture, the actual
    cause of death, or near death. I trust it does not go unnoticed
    that the body and all known material evidence is inextricably
    connected to the Ramsey household.

    The “ransom note†was written on a pad with a pen belonging to
    the Ramseys. This has not been denied. Mr. Tracy, don’t you call
    this evidence? If not, why not? If so, why no mention of it in
    your crock with attempt to connect it to one of your “suspects?â€

    How about the body found in the house, the “garrote scene†and
    the cord around the paint brush handle belonging to Patsy? Don’t
    you consider all this evidence? Why no mention in your crock with
    explanation of the quality of the “garrote scene†with connection
    to one of your “suspects.â€

    The long and short of it, Mr. Tracy, is that while you, Gray and
    others pay lip service to the idea of evidence, you carefully
    evade all actual evidence and evade any attempt to explain said
    evidence. I am no Dan Rather fan, but your attempt to enhance
    your self image by contrast serves only to highlight the
    similarities in self-indictment.

    David Williams:
    They would either treat it with indifference, or they would
    attempt to discredit it. Early on, the Boulder Police Dept made
    their minds up about the Ramseys and that was that.(Ibid)

    Narrator:
    From the very beginning, the Boulder Police had DNA evidence now
    believed to be the killers but what forever reason, failed to
    test it.....It was the most important evidence in the case and
    the Boulder Police had missed it for three years.(Ibid)

    I find it rather ironic that much blame is put on the BPD for
    allegedly not following evidence that would allegedly exonerate
    the Ramseys when the truth if they had they followed the
    evidence, they would never have looked outside the Ramsey
    household. While you and others claim the contrary, they looked
    outside to the tune of much misery and millions of dollars spent
    with nothing to show for it. In conjunction, you give the media
    low marks for alleged persecution of the Ramseys when in fact, it
    is precisely the catering of the media to Ramsey demands of no
    probing questions that has and does aid and abet the farce. Your
    crock is present example in focus.

    Simplified: There WAS no intruder. There WAS no evidence of an
    intruder. There IS no evidence of an intruder. There WILL NEVER
    BE any evidence of an intruder.

    If you wish to challenge my statement and arguments, by all means
    have a go at it.

    RANSOM NOTE ANALYSIS
    http://www.acandyrose.com/04212000delmaranalysis1.htm

    GARROTE ANALYSIS I
    http://www.acandyrose.com/05262001delmaranalysis2.htm

    GARROTE ANALYSIS II
    http://www.acandyrose.com/05262001delmaranalysis3.htm

    DELMAR'S LETTER TO KEENAN
    http://www.acandyrose.com/05202003keenanletter.htm

    SUSPECT BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
    http://www.acandyrose.com/06102001delmaranalysis4.htm

    EasyWriter's: Fox News = Ramseys Lose: The Lawsuit In Perspective
    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5420
    (Linked from www.acandyrose.com)

    Be advised, this letter will be posted on the FFJ forum. So will
    any response.

    Delmar England
     
  18. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Once again, you have shown fullness of thought, logic, and skill in demolishing Tracey's column and his crock, Easywriter.

    Bravo.
     
  19. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    The mirror syndome - projection - yeah, I get it Easywriter. He is talking about self when he says “No amount of evidence will change this emotional commitment to a lie.”
     
  20. Thor

    Thor Active Member

    Great job Delmar! I hope Tracey responds or, at the very least, look at your links.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice