I can see believing in political cover-ups or conspiracies as long as there's good evidence for it, because politics isn't about truth, it's about image and perceptions.
Most political debates (using the term very generally, so not limited to elections and so forth) argue under the assumption that their images and perceptions are truth. No one argues a political perspective or worldview under anything other than that position - not if they want to be taken seriously.
However, believing things that involve/require the entire scientific community being part of it is just not credible...at all. The majority of scientists do what they do because they have a desire to seek the truth and to increase the knowledge base of humanity. The peer review process for scientists is quite a bit more rigorous than for anyone else.
1. This "scientific community" you speak of sounds strikingly familiar to "The Christian community", "The Jewish Community", "The Muslim Community", or any other community where one or some group of people assume leadership or authority over some subject. It is the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad populum and also of assumed authority.
It also narrowly defines science by assumption. Anyone who employs the scientific method is practicing science. To state that everyone is of the same mind on something is a very large assumption - as well as being a logical fallacy for determining truth.
2. It is likewise an assumption to place every researcher (even those who use the scientific method) as a genuine seeker of truth *under any circumstances*. Conflict of interest often arises when the subject of study is also a
subject of funding by the public to continue the study, either in direct taxes or donations or grants.
For example - the American Cancer Society is a front group for large corporations, including quite a few pharmaceutical companies. The organization makes it's money from public appeals and donations, but also misdirects the public into teaching what their other backers favor (chemotherapy, radiation, surgery) and dismisses or obfuscates any challenges to them - especially if they cannot be patented and profited from.
Why would this be different for an organization like NASA? They are the biggest tax black hole in US history, raking in billions every single year for their "discoveries".
