No.(!!)
I am assuming youm mean "admit it into evidence," not "regfard it as irrefutable proof."
I have been saying you should not reject eyewitness testimony out of hand. I did say, "Using evidence, follow the possible chains of necessary and sufficient causes and effects, and see where they lead."
Eyewitness testimony from several parties whose testimony agrees, especially from people with no benefit to be gained from their claim, is ordinary evidence. To reject it out of hand is bias. If you see that, then we have no disagreement.
“I have been saying you should not reject eyewitness testimony out of hand.”
I’m not rejecting, or accepting it. I have no way to know whether their testimony reflects reality or not, because there is no corroborating evidence. Absent that evidence, their testimony means nothing to me, so I am going assume that the normal observed rules of physics and reality were actually in force, and nobody walked on the ceiling. You go ahead and form whatever opinion you want, I really couldn’t care less. Capiche?