Well, in this specific situation, he certainly provided more evidence (conjecture or otherwise) than you did, hence my 'null hypothesis' statement.

Denouncing someone as a tinfoil conspiracy theorist is not an argument, nor is calling someone a liar off-hand for believing something you deem unbelievable.

This is the foundation of freedom of speech, something I would hope would be apparent working with an organization like Steemit, Inc. Otherwise, you end up with centralized arbiters of truth acting as judge, jury, and executioner for all things related to objective reporting of events.

In your instinctive reaction, you a) assert the individual is a liar, b) claim they told a lie, and c) assert that because he is a liar and has told a lie, he is unable to prove his statement. This is circular reasoning and allows for no discussion because YOU have placed yourself in the position of 'truth arbiter' without even attempting to prove your assertions. YOU have become judge, jury, and executioner of the Truth -- a title I would loathe to accept.