Surely it's worth noting that the cases he offers as evidence are cases in which we expect eventual proof. The "AngelGate" as he describes it is illegal and if

Surely it's worth noting that the cases he offers as evidence are cases in which we expect eventual proof. The "AngelGate" as he describes it is illegal and if it were true would necessarily go on behind closed doors. Everyone involved would have a lot to lose from any proof getting out that they were involved or that it was even happening. In short, the previous cases made falsifiable predictions. Arrington had strong incentive to report accurately on them because if he was making them up he would eventually get caught. AngelGate does not share this property. If it isn't true, thanks especially to the vagueness of the story, what evidence would be likely to turn up? What if were true. What likely evidence then? It's not a question of whether to believe unverifiable claims. The question is "why pay attention to them at all?" Until one or more angels comes forth and admits the conspiracy (very unlikely, even if true) or Arrington comes forth and admits he made it up, the whole issue is just noise.