Dave Perry

[William Kelly]

Wim and JRC want to talk about Dave Perry so I started this thread to accomidate them.

Isn't it funny that the only response I got to this, came from Dave Perry, Gary Mack's friend? I wonder why Mr. Watkins wouldn't give me the courtesy of such an answer:

QUOTEWim,

I see you are attempting to get the Dallas District Attorney involved in exhuming Kennedy's body. Your probably not aware that, since Kennedy is buried in Arlington National Cemetery, the Dallas DA has no input. Here are the rules and regulations concerning disinterment at Arlington National:

Excerpted from Department of Veterans Affairs § 1.621 (page 81)

All living immediate family members of the decedent, to include the person who initiated the interment (whether or not he or she is a member of the immediate family), give their written consent, or when a court order or State instrumentality of competent jurisdiction directs the disinterment. Immediate family members are defined as surviving spouse. if not remarried, all adult children of the decedent, appointed guardian(s) of minor children, the appointed guardian of the surviving unremarried spouse or of the adult child(ren) of the decedent. When the person who initiated the interment is the remarried spouse, his or her written consent will not be required. In the absence of a surviving unremarried spouse and children, the decedent's parents will be considered im-mediate family members.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 210©; 1004)

All requests for authority to disinter remains will be submitted on VA Form 40-4970, Request for Disinterment, and will include the following Information: (1) A full statement of reasons for the proposed disinterment. (2) Notarized statements by all eligible living Immediate family members of the decedent, to include the person who initiated the Interment (whether or not he or she is a member of the immediate family), that they consent to the proposed disinterment. (3) A notarized statement, by the person requesting the disinterment that those who supplied affidavits comprise all the living immediate family members of the deceased.

(Authority 38 U.S.C. 1004)

© In lieu of the documents required in paragraph B of this section, an order of a court of competent jurisdiction will be considered. The Department of Veterans Affairs or officials of the cemetery should not be made a party to the court action since this Is a matter among the family members Involved.

(d) [Reserved]

(e) Any disinterment that may be authorized under this section must be accomplished without expense to the Government.

(The reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in paragraph B have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 0MB control number 2900-0365)

(43 FR 26571. June 21. 1978. as amended at 47 FR 50860. Nov. 10. 1982; 49 FR 34483, Aug. 31, 1984; 54 FR 6521. Feb. 13. 1989)

After Joe West died, Bob Vernon approached me in October of 1993 about getting this done. As you are now doing Joe and Bob were attempting to go through Dallas County when a little bit of research showed that even if by some aberration in the law it was the right jurisdiction the Arlington National regulations apply to all. Currently, I doubt you will be able to get Caroline Kennedy's consent and because of that no "court of competent jurisdiction" will order the exhumation for you. Additionally, if you were somehow able to overcome those hurdles, could you afford the expense of disinterment required under requirement (e)?

Dave Perry

p.s. this information has been on my web site since April 24, 2003

[William Kelly]

http://davesjfk.com/bio.html

http://davesjfk.com/

http://davesjfk.com/rashomon.html

Dave Perry is said to have begun his research into the conspiracy theories around the Lincoln assassination, a conspiracy for which six people were hung.

While I tend to agree with his assessments of some assassination related stories - Ricky/Roscoe White, James Files, Chauncey Holt, Judyth Baker, et al., I don't buy the motive he applies to all these complicated deceptions - publicity and greed.

In addition, Roscoe White did serve in the USMC with LHO and was with DPD on 11/22/63, and his wife did know/work for Jack Ruby, facts that have yet to be debunked. And the whole story is too complex for someone like Ricky and his mother to have contrived, especially the ONI letters.

My biggest beef with Dave Perry is in regards to the fabricated DPD report on an altercation between Oswald and Ruby at Bledsoe's house, which Perry accuratly shows is not real, yet he just passes such criminal fabrication as a prank and practical joke.

http://davesjfk.com/document.html

http://davesjfk.com/bledsoe.html

Perry says these guys fabricated the official police report to embarras Mark Lane, the same excuse that the KGB Archivist Mitrokin says was the reason the KGB fabricated the "Dear Mr. Hunt" note.

I say those who fabricate records related to a homicide should be prosecuted. \

In addition, a medical examiner or a grand jury can order a forensic autopsy of the remains of the victim of any suspicious death, without permission of the victim's family.

I look forward to Mr. Perry joining the discussion.

Bill Kelly

Edited November 10, 2008 by William Kelly

[Wim Dankbaar]

While I tend to agree with his assessments of some assassination related stories - Ricky/Roscoe White, James Files, Chauncey Holt, Judyth Baker, et al., I don't buy the motive he applies to all these complicated deceptions - publicity and greed.

Let me first note that you label James Files, Chauncey Holt, Judyth Baker as "complicated deceptions" . That's allright, everyone is entitled to an opinion. My opinion is that such statements do not bring a solution any closer, but they do however beg answers to the following questions:

What exactly is your main reasoning regarding each of these individuals for concluding that they are "deceptions"?

What is complicated about them?

What is/was their motive, if not publicity and greed?

Why is it that the broad public values these "deceptions" as the truth, once exposed to it? In other words, why are you right and is the average person wrong?

Wim

Edited November 10, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[William Kelly]

While I tend to agree with his assessments of some assassination related stories - Ricky/Roscoe White, James Files, Chauncey Holt, Judyth Baker, et al., I don't buy the motive he applies to all these complicated deceptions - publicity and greed.

Let me first note that you label James Files, Chauncey Holt, Judyth Baker as "complicated deceptions" . That's allright, everyone is entitled to an opinion. My opinion is that such statements do not bring a solution any closer, but they do however beg answers to the following questions:

What exactly is your main reasoning regarding each of these individuals for concluding that they are "deceptions"?

What is complicated about them?

What is/was their motive, if not publicity and greed?

Why is it that the broad public values these "deceptions" as the truth, once exposed to it? In other words, why are you right and is the average person wrong?

Wim

I thought you wanted to talk about Dave Perry?

I'm not going to rehash the story of any of those people. I don't know what their motives are.

Nor do I know that I am right and anybody else is wrong, - the average person has no opinion on any of this.

You brought up Dave Perry, now let's discuss his work.

BK

[Wim Dankbaar]

I brought up Dave Perry in reaction to his reaction to my letter to the Dallas DA. Not to discuss his work, although I don't object to doing that.

The average person who visits my website, reads the book, or views any of my DVD's, has an opinion. The overall mean of those opinions is represented for example in the reviews of these items (which you can in part find on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble)

I know Dave Perry's deviating opinion well enough, and he can be proven wrong on all his counts, for example on those in his "Top Ten reasons why the James Files story needs help". However, I do not recall any of your counts other than a superficial and unsupported assessment that I am not spreading any truth with the stories of these people, or rather that I am being deceived by them? If you can't or won't elaborate on the arrival of such opinion, I suggest it's better not to express it.

Wim

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Why do you have to pollute this forum with the likes of Dave Perry?

While I tend to agree with his assessments of some assassination related stories - Ricky/Roscoe White, James Files, Chauncey Holt, Judyth Baker, et al., I don't buy the motive he applies to all these complicated deceptions - publicity and greed.

So you agree that Dave Perry has performed a signal service to JFK research by helping to expose several major hoaxes.

My biggest beef with Dave Perry is in regards to the fabricated DPD report on an altercation between Oswald and Ruby at Bledsoe's house, which Perry accuratly shows is not real,

Why not say “Bravo Dave Perry, you have exposed another hoax?”

yet he just passes such criminal fabrication as a prank and practical joke.

I say those who fabricate records related to a homicide should be prosecuted. \

Now you are well aware that Dave Perry is NOT a law enforcement officer, and if you have a beef with the way the law is being enforced, please do not try to use that to denigrate the work of a respected researcher by insinuating that he is somehow responsible for the failures of Law Enforcement.

I look forward to Mr. Perry joining the discussion.

Bill Kelly

Before you can expect anyone to consider this a SINCERE invitation, you might want to first APOLOGIZE PUBLICLY to Dave Perry for the gratuitous smears you have tried to perpetrate upon his good name.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Dave Perry is a twit that doesn't deserve a debate on his "work".

Jim Marrs told me that Perrry runs Gary Mack, while I thought it was the other way around. Maybe that's a more interesting debate?

Wim

PS: By the way, Dave Perry won't enter this discussion. That's not his job and he knows he is going to end up with egg on his face!

[William Kelly]

Why do you have to pollute this forum with the likes of Dave Perry?

While I tend to agree with his assessments of some assassination related stories - Ricky/Roscoe White, James Files, Chauncey Holt, Judyth Baker, et al., I don't buy the motive he applies to all these complicated deceptions - publicity and greed.

So you agree that Dave Perry has performed a signal service to JFK research by helping to expose several major hoaxes.

My biggest beef with Dave Perry is in regards to the fabricated DPD report on an altercation between Oswald and Ruby at Bledsoe's house, which Perry accuratly shows is not real,

Why not say "Bravo Dave Perry, you have exposed another hoax?"

yet he just passes such criminal fabrication as a prank and practical joke.

I say those who fabricate records related to a homicide should be prosecuted. \

Now you are well aware that Dave Perry is NOT a law enforcement officer, and if you have a beef with the way the law is being enforced, please do not try to use that to denigrate the work of a respected researcher by insinuating that he is somehow responsible for the failures of Law Enforcement.

I look forward to Mr. Perry joining the discussion.

Bill Kelly

Before you can expect anyone to consider this a SINCERE invitation, you might want to first APOLOGIZE PUBLICLY to Dave Perry for the gratuitous smears you have tried to perpetrate upon his good name.

Yea, I'm sorry Dave Perry won't join the forum so we can disucss the merits of withholding the names of those who fabricated the DPD police report in order to smear Mark Lane. Fabricating evidence in a homicide is a crime, not a hoax.

If not a law enforcement officer, he certainly talks like one and has a lot to say about who can order an autopsy.

He didn't help expose the hoaxes because they're not holloween pranks and hoaxes, as he portends them to be, they're deliberate and comlicated schemes that both Perry and I have discarded, but he treats like fiction when in fact they are perpetuated for a more sinster reason.

And I didn't bring up the name Dave Perry, Wim did, nor have I draggd it through the mud, as you and Wim seem to be doing that just fine.

BK

[J. Raymond Carroll]

And I didn't bring up the name Dave Perry, Wim did, nor have I draggd it through the mud, as you and Wim seem to be doing that just fine.

BK

Now Mr. Kelly you are just talking through your hat.

I will leave you in the company of Wim, who has been doing that for many years.

Edited November 10, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Wim Dankbaar]

Raymond,

Why don't you give us one (or a few) claims of Perry you like, so we can address them?

Wim

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Raymond,

Why don't you give us one (or a few) claims of Perry you like, so we can address them?

Wim

I disagree with Dave's methodology in dealing ith the murder of JD Tippit, which would take much too long to go into here, but in general I find his approach and reasoning to be admirable. Thus I have no quarrel with his writing about Roscoe White, Judith, or James Files, if that is what you are asking.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Raymond,

Just give me some specific claims of Perry that you appreciate regarding Files, Judyth or Holt.

I cannot do anything with what you said. That's just like saying: In general I have no quarrels with the way O.J. Simpson was acquitted.

Please give me some beef to eat.

Wim

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Raymond,

I cannot do anything with what you said. That's just like saying: In general I have no quarrels with the way O.J. Simpson was acquitted.

Wim

Bad analogy, Wim, but if you want OJ, it IS like saying I have no quarrels with the way OJ was convicted in his recent trial in Nevada.

J

ust give me some specific claims of Perry that you appreciate regarding Files, Judyth or Holt.

Dave Perry quite rightly points out that neither Files nor Judith is a credible person, and I know of very, very few researchers who still doubt that Dave is right.

I do not agree with Dave that the La Fontaine's solved the three tramp mysteries,( or any other mysteries) but I have not investigated the tramps enough to have a firm opinion about Chauncey Holt. If Dave is correct that the ONLY corroboration for Holt's story comes from James Files, then I would run a mile in a New York Minute -- in the opposite direction.

A word to the wise, Wim: Dave Perry is no more infallible than I am, but when he speaks people pay attention, as I discovered recently in the thread entitled Detective Paul Bentley. Thanks to Dave Perry's timely intervention, the New York Times published a correction acknowledging a significant error in it's recent reporting on the JFK assassination.

[Pat Speer]

Raymond,

I cannot do anything with what you said. That's just like saying: In general I have no quarrels with the way O.J. Simpson was acquitted.

Wim

Bad analogy, Wim, but if you want OJ, it IS like saying I have no quarrels with the way OJ was convicted in his recent trial in Nevada.

J

ust give me some specific claims of Perry that you appreciate regarding Files, Judyth or Holt.

Dave Perry quite rightly points out that neither Files nor Judith is a credible person, and I know of very, very few researchers who still doubt that Dave is right.

I do not agree with Dave that the La Fontaine's solved the three tramp mysteries,( or any other mysteries) but I have not investigated the tramps enough to have a firm opinion about Chauncey Holt. If Dave is correct that the ONLY corroboration for Holt's story comes from James Files, then I would run a mile in a New York Minute -- in the opposite direction.

A word to the wise, Wim: Dave Perry is no more infallible than I am, but when he speaks people pay attention, as I discovered recently in the thread entitled Detective Paul Bentley. Thanks to Dave Perry's timely intervention, the New York Times published a correction acknowledging a significant error in it's recent reporting on the JFK assassination.

Ray, please tell us more about this. I'm not aware of the Times publishing a correction about anything to do with the assassination. They just report weird stories making people think there was a conspiracy, and then quote experts saying there was no conspiracy, and then sum things up by saying something like--"Well, we'll never know anything beyond that Oliver Stone is a xxxx."

The lack of curiosity and insight by the mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, has been most perplexing. If Perry (and Mack for that matter) have reached the level of acceptance whereby the Times will actually listen to a logical argument from them that could be a good thing.

Mack, while defending the official story 90% of the time, remains a conspiracy theorist. I think Perry leans to no conspiracy, but is uncommitted. Their influence, over time, could do a lot to offset the agenda-driven ravings of Posner and Bugliosi.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray, please tell us more about this. I'm not aware of the Times publishing a correction about anything to do with the assassination.

The story is told in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13175