Michael,
while I can see your point to a certain extent, I still feel that some things cannot be just left alone. When someone comes out and writes articles for the general public to read, then they are going to come under scrutiny. When someone says things that are untrue they should be challenged on them. Otherwise their story stands and is repeated and eventually so clouds the true events and history that it makes it nigh unto impossible for future students to get an accurate picture of things.
One of the criteria for evaluating someone's writings etc. is credibility. When one has been shown to believe things like say, that his wife was a re-incarnated goddess from Egypt and that she needed to be worshiped by having over 2000 men have sex with her, I tend to doubt that person's grip on reality. When he makes claims about people that he trained with that are found nowhere else, and that he provides no evidence for aside from his own recollections, that further strains his credibility.
Who else has made claims, for instance, that James Mitose's sister, Fusae Oshita was a Kenpo Great Grandmaster? Where is the evidence for that? Or his other sister too? the only place one finds this stuff is in Will Tracy's articles. Does he provide documentation to prove these assertions? NOPE. But again, when I read that he thought that his wife was a re-incarnated sex goddess, it doesn't reall ysurprise me that he thought that Fusae Oshita was a Kenpo Great Grandmaster Either. It does not, however, make me likely to believe either one.
Danjo,
You've made some good points and I can appreciate that. It makes sense to look at what he has written and posted for the world to see. It also makes sense to dispute what he has written if you have a good reason to believe he is wrong. That is part of what free press and whatnot is all about. You can write what you want, but others are also free to debate you and dispute your writings.
I just didn't want to see this thread turn into a roast, and foster some kind of arguments between the Tracy and Epak camps here on MT, or something. I think good discussion, debate, and even argument are possible without it degenerating into nonsense. Reasonable adults certainly ought to be able to do that.
As far as establishing credibility of a witness, this is done all the time in courtroom trials. When a witness is brought forward to testify, the other side points out every misstep that witness ever took in the past, as a way to cast doubt upon their integrity. This certainly works in the courtroom. When you have a witness testifying against a drug dealer, but that witness himself has a history of being a drug dealer, it makes you question what he might possibly have to gain by testifying against another drug dealer. Perhaps the police have cut an immunity deal with him in exchange for his testimony, and for that immunity, he might be willing to tell any lie the police want him to tell, so they can catch the bigger fish. On the other hand, he might be telling the truth. Just because he also was a drug dealer doesn't automatically mean he testimony against another drug dealer is nothing but lies and deception.
I sort of see it in the same light with Mr. Tracy. He had an incident, a number of years ago, involving his newage religion and what amounted to a prostitution scam with his wife. OK, shame on him. This does cast doubt upon his integrity, perhaps it makes some people wonder about his mental stability, but as far as I know (which isn't very far in this case) his mental stability wasn't ever brought into question in the case. And it had nothing to do with his kenpo. So I personally don't like to use that incident to automatically label him a nutcase and dismiss everything he writes. I'd rather debunk or accept his writing on its own merit, rather than based on his private legal problems. Everyone will have their own opinion on this, I understand. But that's my position.
Incidentally, with regard to your comment about the need to challenge a false story so that that story doesn't become established as the truth, and misleads the next generations. This is exactly what Mr. Tracy claims to be doing. He claims that Mr. Parker has mislead the public, and he is trying to set the record straight. Again, I'm not trying to champion his cause, nor am I suggesting that I believe his story. It's just an interesting perspective to see him using the same arguments that others are using to debunk him.
What I wish would happen is that the few others who are still around who were among Mr. Parker's earliest students, would weigh in on this. Since this is all Will's writing, I wish Al Tracy and Jim Tracy would give their input on this. Maybe they can't for family reasons, just don't want to get into a fight with their brother or something, if they disagree, I don't know. I wish Chuck Sullivan would give his side of the story, regarding the early days as well. Any of the other guys from the 1950s, guys who were there even before people like Doc. I understand Doc was very close to Mr. Parker, but he wasn't there in the earliest days, and he didn't witness firsthand what happened. He only knows by second hand from what Mr. Parker may have told him. And as has been pointed out, Mr. Parker is no longer here to weigh in on the matters.
Anyway, I appreciate the reasonable responses.
