Simon. I agree with you if there is a lot of the same stories it can be compelling evidence. But there is a difference between compelling circumstantial evidence and compelling objective evidence.
In medicine, Pulmonologists treat people who come in and say that they have asthma because they feel like they can't catch their breath like their buddy, who has asthma can't. So that patient, may honestly feel that he has asthma because of the way he feels and the way he has heard his friend talk about his asthma. But the doctor won't just take the patient's word for it, and say "Well you feel you have asthma so you have asthma." No the doctor looks at the patient's subjective symptoms but also looks to measure objective symptoms, so he runs diagnostic tests to prove what the patient feels is in fact asthma or is not. If the tests come back that the patient doesn't have asthma, guess what the patient would not be diagnosed with asthma. Does the diagnosis negate the way that the patient feels in his daily activity? No, the patient still feels the same way, even though the objective tests prove that he doesn't have asthma. So what is my point. There is a difference between subjective feelings and objective facts. We all have subjective feelings that no one can take away from us, but objective things have to be proven by actual facts and data.
Feelings have a number of factors that will adjust how an event will affect a person. And two people who go through the same event doesn't always see it in the same way or the same light. It is the acceptance that we don't view matters in the same way is what is key.