Objective evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ?

[Mudhammam]

It's not even a matter of believers versus non, as most non-believers acquainted with the data find many supporting evidences for Jesus' historical existence. You can dismiss them but then you do have the burden of citing why, or you risk being ignored altogether.

Because you haven't actually presented any objective evidence yet.  All you've presented are unsupported claims.  Just because lots of people believe these unsupported claims doesn't stop them from being unsupported claims and thus unimpressive to skeptics.  Try harder.

See, considering the present situation of the data we possess for any ancient figure, and the qualifications and methods of those who examine what is historically reliable or not, your rejection of the consensus for what instead is apparently nothing less than an elaborate conspiracy which often involves otherwise mundane and quirky claims about the central figure's background and life, contained in numerous primary sources written within a context of 20-80 years after the alleged person's death, an event that the entire movement is basically founded upon, the burden isn't on me to do your research and cite why alternative possibilities are less probable, that is if we are working with the evidence. And the fact that you are making a positive claim, that there was a conspiracy of people who talked as if a man had recently dwelt among them, and died, for which they had to actually stretch their religious prophecies to fit a narrative they desperately wanted to believe in, you're not being skeptical at all, nor is it merely an obligation of mine to justify the claims made thus far.