How can I put this without making fringe researchers feel like I’m dissing them, which I’m not. Okay: *Certain people* who like to work up alternate versions of history, Over arching Conspiracy versions, Illuminati, Antisemitic, alien-astronaut notions etc, are unable to proceed until they have made one handy, all-too-convenient determination: that history is censored; that someone’s rewriting it with a wink at their handlers.
But in reality…
While academic historians can have agendas, axes to grind, of course, most of them are fairly objective and, here’s the main point, do far, far more prep work than these fringe “historians”; they do far more work into documentation, spend far more time comparing documentation (and arguing about it with colleagues); they’re vetted by institutions that prize objectivity and learning. It’s not that they’re excluding information–it’s that they’re not excluding the hard stuff. They’re taking it *all* in. And they’re able to distinguish mythology, most of the time, from the factual–whereas fringe people will absorb most any input that shores up their treasured theory.
You can find the rare conpsiracy theorist with a degree in history–but if you really subject them to cross referencing with experts, who have the documentation under their hands, who have access to vast collegiate libraries of information, the illuminati/alien astronaut etc advocate turns out to be simply spottily educated.
And yes sometimes historic consensus is proven wrong on some detail–perhaps even on something important. But not that often. Especially not in the last century.