To me it's not about closing doors on possibilities. Anything is possible. But if you are going to make a claim then it is up to you to prove it or at least provide some convincing evidence of its possibility. Otherwise there is no reason to believe your particular theory over one I randomly make up.
It's not "I'm right and your wrong". It's "you've made a claim now its up to you to provide some convincing evidence".
There are an infinite number of possible explanations and links between events. The theory of Occam's Razor would tell you that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If you are going to suggest another then you have to show me why it is more likely to be true. Too often conspiracy theories consist of nothing but a theory and absolutely no evidence or evidence that is circumstantial at best and even then only if you twist interpretation of the evidence in the most unlikely ways.
As far as considering people who have focused on an area and believing them, it depends on their history of accuracy.
I encounter this a lot. Yet it has an important keyword there USUALLY. That is not the same as always. ;)
I agree with this. Yet we must be open to what is presented rather than immediately defensive. Like I said Skepticism is good. Stubborness is not. ;)
It still requires evidence, yet there are those that can get fixated on their view and claim to be open... yet they will do whatever they can to ignore information that challenges a current belief. Is that really skepticism?
I am not claiming this is you by the way.
Yet that is still just a probability. It is a high probability like I said (assuming they've got a history of being accurate) yet that also does not mean they may not be wrong.
In addition, it is not always 100% right, and 100% wrong. People can also be partially right about some details and wrong about others.