My issue is that on the (?second) day of the war, a group of Western reporters were presented with “evidence” of the planning that had gone into the attack, and I found the “evidence” to be laughably bad - the evidence itself, the supposed circumstances it was found under, the condition of the evidence - all were bad. And if you present such incredibly poor “evidence” at one point, I’m going to automatically be much more suspicious of any other “evidence” you present later.