What kind of illogical fallacy is this?

Is there a name for a fallacy where the opposition would pin the validity of your argument based on if you existed and witness that moment in question? In detail-- To me it feels like some kind of circular reasoning where they would say, you can't prove it because you weren't there. Then I would say, I wasn't there..but I have reasonable evidence to explain how things turned out. Then based on me accepting the fact that I wasn't there they think that their point is proven when they offered nothing to support why they believe what they think. I can easily just throw that attack back at them and say, how can YOU prove that what I said is untrue since YOU weren't there too? I didn't because that's going to be a never-ending loop. When I point to the sources where I got my information from they would move the goal post and claim that information can be fake. I do agree that this can be the case for issues regarding politics where the media and the politicians are known for misleading the mass*cough*breitbart*cough* but...why the hell would anyone want to make websites and mislead people about the origin of noodles? Yeah the subject was about the origin of noodles lol When I ask the person this they said, "how would I know..I don't care..I'm not a historian". I'm dumbfounded at this point and remained silent when the person was questioning my sources and gave no answers for why my sources should be questioned. I honestly did not know how to respond to this. I know its silly. lol I didn't want to insult them and attack them personally but instead try to reason with them. Thats why if I know what the fallacy is I might be able to defend against it. I already knew that the moment the person kept on avoiding to give any answers was when I know that they have no knowledge of what I'm talking about. But I had...hope that they would listen to reason if it was delivered in a non aggressive manner-hopefully they realize that deep down they're just bullshitting as we spoke.