Which fallacy is this?

Person 1: Jan 6th was not an insurrection. 

Person 2: The expert body at the CDP with the Cline Center that was set up to determine what qualifies for coups and insurrections around the globe classified Jan 6th as an attempted dissident coup. They used the same exact standards and methodology they have been using since 1945 to identify other coups and insurrections around the globe.

Person 1: Much like the experts using references on how to stop the spread of Covid thanks to a doctor who made the 6 foot rule whom died in the 1800's. Experts? Talk to the Israelis lol

P1) 'Experts' determined that 1/6 was an attempted coup.

P2) 'Experts' also used references on how to stop Covid spread from a doctor who made the 6-foot rule, and died in the 1800s.

C) Therefore, the experts are wrong in claiming 1/6 was an attempted coup.

The first thing we should note is the ambiguity fallacy that is committed between P1) and P2). Person 1 uses the phrase 'experts' twice across the two premises, yet, it is kept vague. The intention is to tar all experts as being equally flawed, and therefore untrustworthy. Yet, the 'experts' at the CDP and Cline Centre are not the same as the 'experts' mentioned in P2).

Secondly, person 1 makes an unsupported claim in the second premise by stating that experts followed Covid protocol from a doctor who died in the 1800s. Furthermore, it is assumed that this automatically diminishes their expertise, somehow, an example of begging the question.

Overall, this is an example of the genetic fallacy since person 1 is rejecting the claim - "1/6 was an insurrection" - based on the origin of the source.

That’s a weird one. P1 claim is opinion but could develop into a definist fallacy. P2 is factual rebuttal. Strong argument P1 abandons claim sltogether and just starts making shit up. Ad hoc rescue, faulty generalization?