Imagine the following argument:
Yes, there are plenty of coincidences and unexplained phenomena associated with this particular event that some might see as evidence of a conspiracy. But the same thing is true of controlled scientific experiments. Indeed, many natural phenomena are unexplained.
Can anyone tell me what kind of logical fallacy (or fallacies) is involved here?
One thing I notice is that coincidences and unexplained phenomena are casually lumped into one general category, when there can in fact be a vast difference in the magnitude and quality of evidence. This could be an example of comparing apples and oranges.
Also, experiments are a tool scientists use to find answers. If an experiment has an unexpected result, scientists don't just throw it out the window; they try to figure out any anomalies.
However, I'm not sure what to call such a fallacy.