If you fully understand the disbelief, you'd understand why you, being the one advancing the claim, should provide the source(s) you are using for your Bayesian priors so that, assuming those information sources are of sufficient quality, we can also have the benefit of your knowledge. Until then, it is only rational that people reject your claim.
I'm not sure what all that sophistry is about seeing as this is easily available information that anyone can find out about with literally 2 seconds of googling. Anyway heres a report from the bbc https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2r2ejlvm1o .
