I agree-direct first hand physical evidence is my requirement. IMO he hasn't provided that. On the other hand it has niether been unequivicably proven that he's a fraud. Some will make an ASSUMPTION of that based on the lack of available evidence- that is thier shortcoming, not to mention a double standard. science is predicated on the belief that a theory must be proven or disproven, but they quite often take the lack of evidence as disproof, which goes against scientific premise.