When people refuse to look into such information, yet they have no qualms about telling those who do look into such things how wrong they are then they are clearly not coming to an honest conclusion based on all the evidence. They are arriving at their conclusions based on their preconceived notions and lack of overall knowledge about the topic.
Or they are coming to conclusions based on what they think is sufficient information to know whether it's valid or not? You don't have to, and can't possibly, know everything there is to know about any topic in order to come to informed conclusions about it. I don't have to study the astrological theories concerning the esoterics of how the precession of the equinoxes (yes, I had to look that up) supposedly affect horoscopes to know that astrology is likely bunk. They haven't shown any mechanism by which astrology works or any evidence of even a phenomenon to study, that's about all I really need to know.
If those telling me I am wrong have zero thoughts of their own about how the "elite" operate then how can they possibly conclude that my thoughts on the subject are 100% wrong?
Are they telling you there is no possibility that you are correct, or that you don't have nearly enough evidence to support your assertion? And I disagree with your 'zero thoughts' argument here, I could have no opinion on how the elite operate because I don't think there is enough evidence to determine that, and still say that your assertion is likely wrong, well, because I don't think there is enough evidence to determine that (or that directly supports your point). I don't have to provide a counterproposal explaining how the elite operate, I can just point out that there's not enough evidence to support what you're arguing for example.
Again, you are kind of poisoning the well, no one's standard is 100% proof, and you are ignoring the (likely) possibility that they legitimately disagree with you. It is possible that you are just incorrect on this, right? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, you don't lose any points for it (as matter of fact, on a personal level you gain them in that there's the opportunity to learn something new). I haven't read the thread and I haven't read your evidence so realize I'm just talking about your argumentation in a hypothetical sense above, I haven't read what you've had to say so have no opinion on whether you are correct or not. I just mainly wanted to point out the poisoning the well thing, and also I'll just note that you've put together a few decent sized posts here (and mine are usually long also) but most of it is kind of repeating how unreasonable the people who disagree with you are being and how biased they are. All of that space could alternatively better be taken up with your evidence and the statement of your arguments, and the addressing of people's counterpoints. Not saying any of this to be mean or debate you, just my opinion.