Some people, in philosophy for example, are sceptical about things largely accepted as truths(such as morality, scientific truths, etc.). Is anyone aware of anyone, especially someone taken somewhat seriously, who has taken a similar sceptical stance toward historical events. If there is not a perfect record of an event, how do we know the history that is passed down to us was not fully fabricated?
My initial logical objection would be that there are sperate historical accounts, sometimes by the thousands, of certain events, which are constantly being unearthed. Fabricating all of this would likely be impossible.
But I feel like similar could be said about truths in math and science that people are sceptical about.
Anyway, are there any historical sceptics out there?
Also, I am not endorsing this position. I was thinking of it as a satirical conspiracy type video to make(like say the American government invented all records of Christianity and Jesus or something crazy), but then I started thinking more seriously about historical scepticism.
As far as a school of academic thought or extant theoretical framework for interpreting the past, I have never run up against anyone working with History or related fields who's primary position is that they are skeptical about certain knowledge or events from the past. The closest thing to what I think you are describing can probably found in fringe groups that have pseudo-archaeological views about the past: ancient aliens, nephilim, lost tribes of Isreal, etc. Primarily, this does not originate from a philosophical position that the past is unknowable, and more is more conspiratorial that there are forces interested in obscuring specific historical realities. Be very careful with the creation of satirical conspiracy videos, it's the wild west of out there these days. Anything can be twisted to become evidence. But obviously - have fun.
That having been said, I am familiar with a type of historical skepticism about all of the past that I think might fit your bill. I would recommend reading up on (and satirizing if you chose) the work of Michael Shanks and Christopher Tilley. I want to clarify that the two of them are accomplished, brilliant archaeologists and their work is rigorous and qualified, even if it is not universally agreed with. But, Shanks and Tilley put forth a kind of skepticism about authoritative knowledge of the past. They are dealing specifically with epistemology - how can we use evidence to know things about the past. Their answer (in the late 80s) was, simply, we probably can't. Their arguments are based on the bias of presentism (that the past can never be viewed objectively because it is always seen through the lens of the present) and scientific positivism (that you can't learn things about the past in a scientific manner). This kind of historical relativism is the closest school of thought that you are looking for that I can think of, considering it is so grounded in skeptical philosophy.
See -
Shanks, M. & C. Tilley
1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice, Routledge, London, UK