第二段咪話片段係edited ，forbes覺得要有full version unedited先知哂前文後理囉，呢個質疑我咪話左好合理
You know, there are a lot of steps between conceptual discussions and reality. Similarly, without seeing the whole original unedited continuous footage of the Project Veritas video, you can’t really tell whether there was any actual concrete discussion of Pfizer’s plans or whether everything was more of a theoretical discussion.
第三段佢想講 條片edit過，又無其他證據，一黎就話 “a Pfizer executive bragging about how his company conducts Frankenstein science, manipulating COVID viruses for profit, and does it in secret, possibly in violation of federal law”
Anyway篇文最後都話
So, in the end, this Project Veritas video really hasn’t proven or even provided strong evidence of anything. There’s a lot in the Project Veritas video that needs much further verification before you can make very strong statements about anything.
Secondly, thinking and talking about a possibility is not the same as saying that something is actually being done. You can think about and talk everything that you are going to do with Jason Mamoa, Emily Ratajkowski, or Triston and his soft, soft hair but the chances of meeting any of them through Tinder may be pretty darn low. They have to actually be on Tinder. They have to swipe right and so do you. You have to chit chat a little bit. You have to say things like, “Aside from being sexy, what do you do for a living” and “Do you like raisins? How do you feel about a date?”
Can you say for sure that this Project Veritas video is fake or staged and that “Jordon Trishton Walker” is actually a crisis actor and that Triston doesn’t really has the softest hair in the world? No, not 100% at this moment.
人地係話
Can you say for sure條片係fake 個員工係演員 ?no not 100% at this moment
1. 如果條友係假的唔駛講
2. 如果條友係真, 正常人都唔會想比人起底騷擾, 刪除個人網負好正常
所以無乜鬼唔鬼