I honestly can't conceive of anything simpler than a Ponzi scheme.
So therefore, we are limited by your myopia?
Yes, exactly. When a person makes a claim and doesn't support it , the claim is invalid unless we already have some support for it. Since we have no support for it already, the claim is in fact limited by our myopia.
I'm arguing against this claim:
What I'm saying is that the amount of effort he'd have to put in to be running a ponzi like this would be insane. Ever for the short period he's been running BS&T, it'd be too much for most to be running a ponzi.
And my point is that I know of no way it could be true. The person making the claim can, of course, explain some way it can be true. But until then, it's implausible because we know of no way it could be true. It implicitly assumes there is a simple way that requires less effort, but doesn't explain any such way.
"I know of a secret way that I won't tell you" doesn't cut it. It's possible, perhaps even likely, that this secret way is also implausible. You can keep your ideas secret, but then you can't present their existence as evidence to bolster your arguments.