I’m not asking you to distort anything. I’m asking you to tell me where in your sources it supports you when you said this:
admitted to using chemtrails to disperse biological weapons
Because what I read is another, much less dangerous bacteria was spread to study how spreading happened. And we can tell, too, because tons of people didn’t die, and weapons are for killing people. Make sense? Or you can just admit that you’ve been subtly twisting the truth to suit your ends.
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
it doesn’t matter what kind of misdirection you try, I’m not going to help you.
you either misunderstood the source, which seems very likely, or you didn’t read the actual source, which seems even more likely.
you should read the church committee report, it’s a fascinating several hundreds of pages.
Carrolade@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Kinda hard to call it misdirection when I’m directly quoting you from a different comment you made and asking you to either support it or admit you were twisting words around. Seems like a pretty straight direction to me, no? I mean, if you really read it, it’d be pretty easy to say where in it you got that from.
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
kind of easy to call it a misdirection when you’re taking my words out of the provided context and pretending they mean something they don’t.
pretty easy to call it a misdirection when you’re avoiding the thrust of the post to try to nitpick irrelevant details.
keep swinging.
Carrolade@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
In what way can context change the meaning of “releasing weapons” into something else?
I already told you several times, you take certain true things, mix them with lies, and then spin it together into your overall message. Then you do ninja edits when these are pointed out. Did you forget?