I don’t think anyone is; nor am I trying to change anyone’s belief. I originally commented because I disagreed with this statement of yours “If you believe Jon imagined the event, or “made it up” it is up to you to provide evidence for your “made up” hypothesis.”
If you or others choose to disbelieve the account, or the evidence presented, than, if this is a rational discussion, it is incumbent of the protagonist to show how the evidence is invalid - otherwise I cannot see any basis for a discussion.
Maybe this will clarify my point. It seems to me that if the conclusions drawn from the evidence have not been shown to be valid (and I don’t think they have been) I don’t see why it would be incumbent on anyone to show how they are invalid. I think there’s still plenty of room to discuss the matter though. I don’t see much point to discussing the events in themselves (as you outline in your 4 points here)–they seem self-explanatory.