"Confirmation by fellow witnesses does not constitute the kind of proof a skeptic requires but it is better than an unsubstantiated report."

We don't require proof. But if your fellow witnesses are unquestioning believers, or co-conspirators, not entirely sane or are just plain liars, the testimony is no better than an unsubstantiated report. And how would we know what they are? The report is one thing. It has to detailed and plausible. But that's only the second hurdle. The first hurdle is to persuade us that the fellow witnesses are worth listening to. It won't have escaped your attention that we are almost talking peer viewed science here. Without that scrutiny your story may be interesting at best but can't inform progress as to enlightening us about the phenomena in question