> I don't really know if you read anything that I linked.
I read what you linked. Your links don't support your claims.
> I think a clear pattern of "twisting facts" emerges when you look at Rossmann's original claims, and then see how those claims are walked back or "clarified" by further statements.
You haven't given an example of that. In examples you did give you mischaracterized his original statements several times. You can still watch the original videos as you linked as evidence of that (and or read the transcripts, like the excerpt I provided above).
> 1. Rossmann claims that Apple is suing him, that his entire channel is going to be shut down, and that his business might disappear. Later, Rossmann clarifies that Apple just wanted him to take down, or edit out a single video that showed their IP.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Apple made a threat (i.e. lawsuit, take-down on his channel) and then "settled" for him just removing certain content they found objectionable.
It is great that Apple's legal threats didn't come to full fruition, but they existed. This just isn't a strong example of what you're claiming, there was nothing mislead about saying an actual legal threat with actual legal consequences was received relating to his work with "right to repair."
> Later, Rossman admits that they are not refurbished or scavenged, but are newly manufactured, but not authorized by Apple, even though they bear Apple's logo.
He said that in the original video about the incident you yourself linked. I provided the transcript above.