VINCENT BUGLIOSI VS. CYRIL WECHT (2007 RADIO DEBATE)(AUGMENTED WITH PHOTOS)
David Von Pein
5-part video series I assembled featuring the June 2007 radio debate
between Vincent Bugliosi and Dr. Cyril Wecht.
This video version of the Bugliosi/Wecht debate incorporates some
underlying still photographs relating to the topics being discussed
during the radio program:
PART 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MWUy2BN6j6Q
PART 2:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6UFDlf6H-_8
PART 3:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lyIhZWYRokU
PART 4:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=M-ZdEhSRqyA
PART 5:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qo1EIsyoc8U
aeffects
(to quote that ancient Lone Nut gas-bag Steve Keating) you're a
"hoot"
DVP-quote on
"This video version of the Bugliosi/Wecht debate incorporates some
underlying still photographs relating to the topics being discussed
during the radio program..."
quote off
in other words you "altered" the piece for the viewers pleasure, no
less?
ROTFLMFAO
David Von Pein
>>> "In other words, you "altered" the piece for the viewer's pleasure...?" <<<
Nope. Didn't "alter" a single word. The whole VB/Wecht program is
there (in five parts). I merely "enhanced" the audio with photos.
So, as per usual, Healy The Crackhead has decided to spout untrue
stupid shit here at acj. (Gee, that's a shocker, huh?)
Gil Jesus
Healy The Crackhead has decided to spout untrue
> stupid shit here at acj. (Gee, that's a shocker, huh?)
Speaking of which..........
What evidence do you have to prove that the man is a "crackhead" or
has committed any drug-related crimes, or are you just libelling him ?
aeffects
son, you need to move out of yours brother's bedroom. And yes, son....
you do need to knock off calling people crackhead, especially those
you THINK you know..
Now the topic at hand.... your "enhanced", ya poorly trained lone nut
fanatic, you -- Read they bytes: you ***altered*** the original
transmission source, by adding and/or removing material.... Ya dolt!
Oh, do you have your hands in Vinnie's bank account these day's? Does
Vin's publisher (and HBO of course) know you're a liability?
David Von Pein
>>> "Now the topic at hand.... your "enhanced", ya poorly trained lone nut fanatic, you -- Read they bytes [sic; more gibberish from the illiterate kook I see]: you ***altered*** the original transmission source, by adding and/or removing material.... Ya dolt!" <<<
Idiot.
>>> "Oh, do you have your hands in Vinnie's bank account these day's [sic; as usual]? Does Vin's publisher (and HBO of course) know you're a liability?" <<<
Does your mama know she gave birth to a certifiable nutjob?
David Von Pein
>>> "What evidence do you have to prove that the man [Healy; a man? LOL] is a "crackhead"...?" <<<
I think his belief that Abe Zapruder wasn't up on that pedestal at all
on Nov. 22, 1963, is probably all the evidence needed to arrive at a
reasonable "He Must Be High On Drugs" conclusion.
REPRISE:
>>> "What evidence do you have to prove that the man is a "crackhead" or has committed any drug-related crimes, or are you just libelling him?" <<<
It's called "sarcasm aimed at a kook", Gilbert.
Surely you know the asylum's rules by this time, don't you Mr. Kook?
aeffects
you know, you can't even come up with something original.... KOOK for
instance, do you credit Steve Keating with the term..... and do you
have your hands in Vin's bank account? Are you authorized to spend his
hard earned money?
Let see you can't be original, you libel anyoine who asuits your
gullible lone nut fancy... ya sound like a paid whack-job, Davey. I
suspect your on a mission with a expense account... seeing that the
Todd has left, AGAIN.... Old Tom Lowry has been exposed as noneother
than JGL -- you got your work cut out for ya sonny
You know what we need here Davey? A play-by-play announcer -- covering
each days events.... ROTFLMFAO
David Von Pein
Healy needs a net (to fall on him).
David Von Pein
Only conspiracy-happy kooks think that something "original" is
required to solve the JFK assassination. LNers don't need anything
"new" or "original" at all. Oswald and all the "old" evidence leading
straight to him suffices just fine, thanks.*
* = I know you weren't referring to the evidence in the case when your
fevered, drug-hazed mind told you to write "you can't even come up
with something original". You were referring to insults, of course.
But the above paragraph about the evidence is appropriate as well.
>>> "KOOK for instance, do you credit Steve Keating with the term..." <<<
No. Bud.
>>> "...and do you have your hands in Vin's bank account?" <<<
Just my measly $10,000/week "VB/CIA/WC Disinfo" salary. That's all.
>>> "Are you authorized to spend his hard earned money?" <<<
So, you feel that VB has "earned" any money he's made on his RH book,
eh? That's a surprising admission (coming as it does from a mega-idiot
like Davey "Zapruder Is A Figment" Healy).
That must have just been an innocent error on your part, when you said
"hard earned"....right, C-pipe?
aeffects
sheeeeet skin flute.... all that rumored money Vin doled out to the
ghost writers... was David Lifton wrong about that? What else has Vin
lied about? So many lies, so little time... HBO do you hear us? LMFAO!
Bud
Its called giving him the benefit of the doubt. It would be more
grievous to think someone would write such stupidity without being
under the influence of something.