It's surprisingly difficult to look at an idea and figure out from first principles if its any good. Most of the scientists (and people really) rely on comparing it with what they have already seen and using their experiences from things they know to judge the new idea.

So, its really difficult to judge a revolutionary theory. Crackpot theories are easier to judge however. They often have very provable falsehoods.

"any idea, to be truly groundbreaking, can not be easily distinguished from noise / crackpot theories"

This is an interesting insight. Yeah, I think you are onto something here.

Groundbreaking ideas, as opposed to new technologies, tend not to have obvious real world applications/results for years. As such, they aren't easily distinguishable from random crackpottery.

We tend to validate ideas by their later applications, or, at the very least, a heap of corroborating evidence. Both takes a lot of time to aggregate.

It's practically a tautology, if the idea was easily distinguishable from 'random crackpottery' then it wouldn't be so groundbreaking, because it necessitates that the other party in a 30 to 60 minute meeting could confidently distinguish it.