I think everybody agrees that truth and facts are not the same thing.
But IMHO, talking about “evidences” refers to facts, not to truth. So if there is confusion, it comes mainly from all this discussion about “evidences”. Which was not initiated by Possessed or me…
It’s still an argument of semantics. There can be evidence of truth that is also itself not fact. To say something is not evidence because it is not scientific fact speaks more to the credibility one finds for said evidence, not whether it is actually evidence.
You can have further evidence that supports an opposing view. You can also have evidence that conflicts with other evidence, and you have to decide how much weight to give to either. Conflicting evidences might both be true but only in part. But although one evidence does not have scientific fact to support it, or another evidence opposes it, that still doesn’t make it not evidence.