@izzythepush,
Yours is a circular argument. There are factual, verifiable similarities between all the historical hyper-doubting debates, including:
1) shunned and scorned by academia.
2) supported only by amateurs with a very strong, polemic bias.
3) often argued from a position of ignorance ("we cannot know") even when historians are quite categorical about a certain core consensus.
4) excessive trust in and reliance on crappy fringe web sites with many many holes in them, without caring to check sources.
5) more generally, ANY source, even the crappiest one, is okay when it goes in their own direction, but no source that goes against it is ever credible enough.
6) changing the goalpost constantly: once you nail one foolish claim of theirs, they move to another, and another. You can never nail them to a precise thesis (see point 3 above: instilling doubt is enough.
7) when you manage to find one with a precise rival hypothesis (an explain action of how the hoax of Jesus or the holocaust was pulled out by some writers / conspirators, their theory is generally ridiculous, and in any case easily discarded by real specialists.
8) these rival theories and arguments against sources have all been debunked decades ago in academia, but keep being peddled nevertheless by doubters, with the occasional, new but equally ridiculous argument surfacing once in a blue moon.
