In response to your assessment of the situation:
I see in this thread that Baumgartner's achievement was immediately being refuted, followed by a round of serious anomaly hunting to fit the theory that the jump was faked.
The jump is most likely faked because some numbers told us it is not likely for someone to climb that high in space (about 30 km) without a lot of problems.
Anomaly hunting should be a prerequisite for anything released having to do with the space program, given it has taken decades for us to uncover all the lies in the space program. To walk blindly into a minefield after people have already been blown up there is foolhardy at best.
Would it not make more sense to look at all the evidence objectively and arrive at a conclusion at the end?
Looking at the evidence is precisely what searching for anomalies is. Searching for, or finding, anomalies is completely in tune with attempting objectivity. Objectivity, by the way, is arguably impossible. So no - it doesn't make sense to look with objectivity - only suggest it is a goal.
Since no "conclusion" should be reached until there is an "end" and since no "end" should be reached in knowledge, there will probably be no conclusions and no ends. There will only be opinions, probably.
Let us have the opinion that the space program is
worth doubting. Let us use these hoaxes as a tool to discover what is or is not possible.