Dave Perry and his disinformation.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

This is a clear example of how Dave Perry puts out disinformation. In trying to discredit Files and Wim, Dave perry said in one of his bogus articles that the Remington Fireball or XP100 was NOT chambered in .222 when it clearly WAS. See below. Dave Perry wrote in his article:"I wonder if John, at the time of his revelation, knew the exotic weapon he had selected didn't fire the .222. It was designed for the .221."Here's the link showing Dave Perry's article or essay.http://davesjfk.com/mosaic.htmlHere are just two different sources saying the OPPOSITE, and, surprise surprise, they're NOT from jfkmurdersolved. LOLWe have this source: " During it development stages, the XP-100 was first chambered for the .222 Remington cartridge..."from this page:http://www.reloadersnest.com/frontpage_ ... liberID=26Then there's this,"The decision was made by Remington to base their new cartridge on a shortened version of the .222, optimized for their new XP-100 gun. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.221_FireballIt took me all of a couple of minutes at the time to find sources showing that the Remington Fireball WAS chambered initially in .222. If Perry was for real, why would he get it wrong? It's because, in my opinion, he got the information wrong on purpose.

[kenmurray]

Pasquale, I'm glad you brought this up again in the light of the latest developments.

[Dealey Joe]

Pasquale and Ken, yes it is well documented that the XP100 was produced .222 in limited numbers as an experimental prototype.Something else, being a gun nut in the 60's and 70's I recall when the first anouncment was made about this firearm it was to be chambered for the .410 shotshell but a short barrel shotgun is illegal in most states so evidentally the idea was dropped and changed to the .222 and then put into production in the .221 FireballThe Fireball started in production in 1963 wth the serial # 1000

[Bob]

Dave PerryLarry "The Fable Guy" Dunkel (Gary Mack)Gerald PosnerVincent BugliosiThe Four MisleadeteersAll have their rea$on$ for di$tributing di$information regarding the JFK a$$a$$ination.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

kenmurray wrote:Pasquale, I'm glad you brought this up again in the light of the latest developments. Thanks, Ken. I aim to please. For the rest of you who haven't posted on this forum and are just reading this, please LOOK at what we're saying and writing about people like Dave Perry, Gary Mack, and Bugliosi. This is for real. We here at this forum have proved these people to be incompetent at the very least if not outright liars. I say that they are the latter.In any event, spread the word, because it is IMPORTANT.

[ChristophMessner]

After addressing some critical points to Dave Perry and Gary Mack, they just stopped communicating with me.

[kenmurray]

ChristophMessner wrote:After addressing some critical points to Dave Perry and Gary Mack, they just stopped communicating with me.Chris, in the long run you would be much better off communicating with some real researchers instead of those who want to suppress evidence and lie there ass off like Perry and the Fable Guy do.

[Bob]

ChristophMessner wrote:After addressing some critical points to Dave Perry and Gary Mack, they just stopped communicating with me.It must be getting hot in the disinformation kitchen Chris. You are a person that continues to search for truth via any means, which also includes talking to both sides about a particular debate...in this case the JFK assassination. I admire you for that. I know I tried that tactic a few years ago. But after the bullshit got knee deep after communicating with the likes of Mack, I had to draw a line in the sand. Sooner or later, guys like Mack and Perry have nothing more to say. I guess they have reached that point with you. Neither one of those two disinformation distributors would debate Jim DiEugenio on Black Op Radio. Why? If they are so strong in their beliefs...why not??? John McAdams at least had the balls to debate Jim D. McAdams had his clock cleaned in the debate, but I admire the fact that he at least attempted to argue. I also admire your efforts to view the world from a different perspective. No stone is unturned.

[ChristophMessner]

Bob, let's hope you don't admire me too much then! Bob, Ken, after all, watching all your great efforts of reliable steadfast information against the disinfo machine of the msm, I wonder and must shake my head even, why there is not more financial backing of your and other jfk truther enlightenment work in the rich country USA, so that somebody would let's say open a "How it really was"-museum in the DalTex building or get through a documentation of all the jfkmurdersolved content in the msm at the best TV watching time or finally achieve the JFK exhumation. It's so frustrating that there is so much talking and writing about the jfk-murder-case, but obviously no Amrican can dig out a photo of Jack Dougherty for example or check JFK's and Jackie's clothes for mercury. Chris

[Dealey Joe]

Chris, That would be a good question for Robert Groden and Jim Marrs.Why they did not do that years ago.someone did try it a couple years ago but they got thrown out of their building.What we need to do is to take over the School Book Depository.It takes young people with vision and a passion (Politician type}to accomplish a thing like that.and a lot of money and dedication.A big problem on a project like that researchers mainly want to talk about it, so it takes a differeny type to do it.I think we should get the government to open up a conspiracy floor in the museum and pay one of us 180,000 bucks a year to man it.Who ownes that building and who pays the bills for the museum.that is an example of being a nutter if takes all the arguement out of it. they don't have to set around on their computersdissagreeing on what REALLY happened.Hell i have not had one response to my asking for help at Dealey 11-23-10no one even can find a time to have a JFKMS Forum convention.Lancer seams to find the time and the funds to do it