PDQ said there were two points:

Truth is what it is regardless of the source

and

you are unlikely to find facts by "waiting"; try "looking"

And I say, "two points":

The source is one of the legitimate things that one looks to in order to decide what "the truth" is. Is the source in an actual position to truly know "the truth"? Does the source have a vested interest in the question? Does the source have a prejudged position? If the source is indeed in a position to know the facts, it should be easy for him/her to back up the assertion.

and

If someone asserts a fact (here, the "millions"), and wants it accepted, the burden of proof is on the asserter of that "fact". It is quite legitimate for Wesley (and the rest of us) to "wait" for that proof to be put forward by the asserter, or for the proof to emerge independently from elsewhere. But there is no burden on a person who doubts or is at least unconvinced of an asserted fact to do the fact-sponsor's investigation for him.

Dave Oesterreich