Sorry, DeathStrobe, but I don't 'instantly dismiss(...) everyone's theories.' There are a lot of things that I get right; there are a lot of ideas that other people have that prove close to the mark. I actually explain my theories pretty closely, and refer to events (though not to the 'document/page' level) to let people review the information and make their own decisions. There are plenty of people who disagree with me, and that's just fine, because 85% right means 15% wrong, and until books come out, I can't ever know which 15%. Take CFD - I was way off base on how it spread, i.e. that there was a physical element; as a writer and player, I would have found it far, far more frightening for it to be significantly, even exclusively, Matrix-based instead of requiring actual physical infection.
Also, if you don't kick the tires and slam the doors (as it were), you don't know if a logical construction - the technical term being 'argument' - is either sound or capable of standing up to a thorough critique - again, the technical term for which is 'attack'. Do I attack other people's arguments? Yes. And if they're sound arguments, they'll withstand the attack, and I'll learn something. It ain't like I haven't ever been wrong before, and I admit when I am.
But I don't dismiss other peoples' theories. To paraphrase Jim Carrey's Riddler's statement to Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face, "If I did, I wouldn't learn nothin'."