1. Note that I'm not demanding for smoking gun proof like an internal email saying "fire this guy because they spoke to the protesters". I thought that was obvious in my previous comment, because I was asking for "google's side of the story" (ie. a public statement from them), not some sort of internal memo proving their guilt. In other words I'm just looking for any sort of additional information to corroborate the claim that "every uninvolved worker who spoke to them was also terminated", and to clarify what "uninvolved" in that context meant (does that only mean they weren't involved in the protest, but made a ruckus on company communication channels? or did they only DM the protesters involved?). Right now the only thing we have supporting that claim was a comment from the protest organizer. There isn't even anything from the people who were actually fired. In terms of quality of evidence demanded I think there's a wide gulf between the evidence presented so far and "impossible burden of proof" that you're implying.

2. If it's a he-said-she-said type of situation as you admit, maybe you shouldn't confidently claim that others are incorrect? At best, you can say that others dispute google's statement.