Dave Perry refuses to correct errors

[Wim Dankbaar]

Or did I overlook any other interpretation? (if you look thru the smoke and mirrors of emotional issues)

Mr. Dankbaar:

Let me remind you of what you wrote on October 2, 2003:

"I have consulted with retired FBI agent Zack Shelton, and have come to the conclusion, also based on his advice, not to bother addressing you personally with reactions to your blatantly distortive "essay". It is so full of errors, misrepresentations, subjective allegations and omissions that I question your integrity and sincerity to engage in a constructive debate over our evidence."

I got your message loud and clear. Therefore:

"Since you have so graciously shown Martin Shackelford and the rest of us, that you are able to correct errors and update your articles accordingly, I thought I 'd give it a shot as well:"

I have little interest in showing "the rest of us" my ability to correct errors. Martin, who has never questioned my integrity, indicated I failed to include ALL information concerning the Murchison party. I responded by detailing events that made the scenario even more preposterous.

"My decision whether or not to inform you of more errors for correction, will depend on how you will handle this one."

I have little interest in your decision whether you write me concerning "more errors" be they real or imagined. I am certainly not going to set myself up for a long litany of charges and countercharges based upon how well you think I perform. After all you have determined that my reports are "so full of errors, misrepresentations, subjective allegations and omissions that [you] question [my] integrity and sincerity to engage in a constructive debate over our evidence."

For some reason seven months later you have decided, contrary to Zack Shelton’s advice and your own inferences, to contact me with new demands and stipulations!

I am not going to help you plug holes in your investigation. I’m sure all my "errors, misrepresentations, subjective allegations and omissions " will be thoroughly documented in your end product.

Dave Perry

----- Original Message -----

From: Wim Dankbaar

To: dperry2@flash.net

Cc: gmack@jfk.org

Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 10:14 AM

Subject: XP-100

Goodday Mr. Perry,

Since you have so graciously shown Martin Shackelford and the rest of us, that you are able to correct errors and update your articles accordingly, I thought I 'd give it a shot as well:

You write in your article "That Pesky XP-100":

"There is no mention of the XP-100. Why? Because, as mentioned earlier, the XP-100 was chambered to fire only the .221. Not important to you or me, but certainly important to the best shooters, or possibly professional assassins, in the world." Source: http://home.flash.net/~dperry2/final.html

May I suggest you read the following webpages:

http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/p221rf.html

Particularly:

"During it development stages, the XP-100 was first chambered for the .222 Remington cartridge, but Leek eventually decided it burned a bit more powder then was necessary in a 10-3/4 inch barrel. Consequently, the .222 case was shortened to 1.40 inches and the new cartridge became known as the .221 Fire Ball. Muzzle velocity with a 50 grain bullet was advertised as 2650 fps."

More information of interest here: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/fireball1.htm

My decision whether or not to inform you of more errors for correction, will depend on how you will handle this one.

Cordially,

Wim Dankbaar

PS: As agreed before, our correspondence can be made public.

cc to your friend Gary Mack