For those who haven't figured it out, it's a trap.
If you provide the evidence, "well, that's not conclusive is it." The more evidence you produce the more they'll find wrong. "One of your links was to a twitter account of someone with a Russian sounding name so everything you presented is invalid." You will never achieve the standard required that they demand. It's sort of like when fundamentalists say "God exists because a banana is shaped that way" but your mountains of opposing evidence isn't good enough because they have a bad-faith standard of proof requirement.
For those who haven't figured it out, it's a trap.
If you provide the evidence, "well, that's not conclusive is it." The more evidence you produce the more they'll find wrong. "One of your links was to a twitter account of someone with a Russian sounding name so everything you presented is invalid." You will never achieve the standard required that they demand. It's sort of like when fundamentalists say "God exists because a banana is shaped that way" but your mountains of opposing evidence isn't good enough because they have a bad-faith standard of proof requirement.
The goal is to get you to waste your time.
"my source is that I made it the fuck up"