We’ve already been over why you are not applying skepticism here and you aren’t being impartial. When it’s really broken down past the empty insistence on objectivity and universality, your argument amounts to “this didn’t feel true to me, so I’m going to spend post after post trying to rationalize disbelieving after the fact.” Skepticism is just doubt, that’s it, it is not a position of asserting alternative positions of your own without evidence, such as you did in saying the likelihood is a “A college kid making a mistake and coming up with a dumb lie”. It is not asserting garbage like “well-rehearsed press statement”, as if you know without evidence that he was coached and are starting from that premise.

You’re full of shit on this, is the nicest way I can put it right now. Having doubt alone would be fine, but you’re twisting the meaning of having doubt to serve your own alternative narrative and that’s BS.