You were the one who suggested using the logical fallacies.
I agreed with you. Use them, on everything. Not just on Rivero, but also on official stories.
I can only conclude, sadly, that you do not in principle believe in logic if you are unwilling to apply it across the board.
I often run across people who espouse some commitment to some principle, but then it turns out that they do not actually believe in the principle they espouse. I guess I'll have to chalk you up as just another one of these many people.
By the way, I didn't say I was a conspiracy theorist. I just advocated you use logic, like you said people should!
I dunno if the horse is dead and the conspiracy killed it and aerial pictures of two RYDER trucks prove it, but I'll answer without having read all of the responses (of others to others ) which followed your response # 88.
Wrong conclusion reached above on insufficient evidence. I never indicated that I trusted the gubmint. In fact, as you must recall, this was one of Rivero's taunts - if you disagreed with him, if you presented contrary evidence, you were labeled a 'government hugger'.
The Warren Report was inadequate to say the least and the Commission, it can be said, conspired to avoid disturbing, status quo threatening findings, as did Kenneth Starr in his report. What if there were hints of KGB involvement (in the JFK assassination)? We can't go there because it would put our dear elected leaders on the spot. Response of any kind to the mighty Soviet Union? Perish the thought! What if there were hints that Vince Foster was murdered by someone inside the WH or committed suicide on WH grounds? We can't go there because that would also threaten the stability of the Republic.
That's as far as this cat will go. Anything beyond that is I think pure fantasy considering the available evidence.
(KGB involvement in the JFK assassination is not much of the stretch; Kenneth Starr's diffidence has been amply demonstrated as well.)