And re.: "Eye-witnesses". I got fooled by this semantics game too. In my early days of md'ing (chasing legends in Mexico). At first, the legends seemed iron-clad true. After all, they involved "eye-witnesses" who saw some treasure being dug ("tips of icebergs" psychology that is prominent in each legend). But once you track down and interview/grill that "eye-witness", well .... it turns out they didn't actually see the dig or coins happen. But they know the guy who DID see it. So you track down THAT person, and interview HIM. And ... you guessed it. He too didn't actually see the dig and the coins. But he got it on good authority from so & so.
And so forth back to permanent regression. But in each telling, it is always told in first person singular . By persons who sincerely believe (hence "not lying") that eye-witnesses are involved.
And even if we grant the true definition of "eye-witness", shall we begin a conversation on how things, that people saw when they were young, got interpreted ? eg.: UFO's, bigfoot, supposed treasures being seen, etc.... ?