There is no evidence of him that exists and we have. It's possible that it will be found one day but given how much people have looked I have my doubts.

For starters, the claim that he existed is rather unextraordinary. That he was the messiah might be extraordinary, but just that a dude with that name who did some of the same things isn’t too remarkable.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread even the reduced claim doesn't match the data we have on early Christianity.

Compounded with the fact that he was (if he existed) poor, and therefore it’s not expected that he’d leave much evidence, we need hardly anything to say the man existed.

That really isn't my problem. You can't tell me to accept no evidence because it is to hard to find any.

Since there seems to be a consensus by experts

Not interested in consensus.

you need to either present a reason to be skeptical of those experts or present evidence contradicting their claim.

Sure! The person who was most close to the events didn't seem to know anything about the events. The stories we have contradict each other and show clear borrowings. They also show the type of borrowings we would expect. For example the idea that God has a former human buddy working with him in heaven was a heresy that the Pharisees were trying to kill (book of Enoch). Go reread Paul and see how he describes Jesus going to heaven and now working with God.

I’m not able to filter through everything Josephus and Tacitus wrote, interpret it in the intended context, and judge it’s validity. Thus I need to trust other people’s findings.

Neither men were alive when the supposed events happened and every book we have of them comes through Christian scribes. Even those scholars you are referencing mostly reject the big passage of Josphius.

If you could show that these experts are unreliable (perhaps they’re religiously motivated, though I think secular historians agree

Nope, no desire. I am not a mind reader. Nor do I think it is appropriate to attack someone for disagreeing with me. I attack ideas not people.

then we could start from scratch and the burden of proof would be on people claiming the man existed.

Nope. The burden of proof does not follow by majority rule it follows on the person making the claim. If it did every atheist would have to give up now because the majority of the experts on God(s) in human history have been believers and it would be on us to disprove God.