[Last Visible Dog]

If we accept your assertion that "evidence is in the eye of the beholder" and I don't see anything he's presented as evidence then you don't have any basis to establish that it is.

So what you are saying is "the evidence in the article that you don't accept is not evidence"? The world does not revolve around you (so to speak)

[tacticalogic]

So what you are saying is "the evidence in the article that you don't accept is not evidence"? The world does not revolve around you (so to speak)

Nor does it revolve around Mr. Wells. If "evidence is in the eye of the beholder", and I don't see any evidence then there is no evidence, whether you and Mr. Wells choose to believe that it exists or not.

When you declared that "evidence is in the eye of the beholder", you made it purely subjective. There is no longer any discernible "right" answer to whether there is evidence or not. I don't agree with this, but it appears to be the only definition of "evidence" you will accept, so there you have it.