I think you confuse information with evidence.
If you have relevant evidence please lay it out in a coherent manner in support of a clearly defined proposition. Surely its in your interest to present your case in the most clear and unambiguous way possible, why let the uninitiated wade through years and megabytes worth of information with uncertain results?
Let me point back to what I said, "Other people just state that this is their definition and when asked for any research ... Well, historically, the discussion gets turned to personalities, word definition, and them asking for spoon fed research
So, I pointed directly to Morihei Ueshiba, the very founder of Aikido, on video, using aiki against attacker's and stated that what he is doing on video is not even remotely close to a receiver evading tackles. Two videos used to provide support for "aiki". One is an American football receiver running the ball, deliberately evading people. The other is Morihei Ueshiba, founder of Aikido, actually running towards attackers and using "soft power" to spontaneously create techniques.
Regarding "evidence"... You said:
To be constructive I respectfully offer that an internet forum is not a good format to stage supporting evidence, state a position and argue it from the evidence. At this day and age it should cost about 0.0$ to establish a small web site to host all that, and it seems that there is enough cognitive firepower to create the content. There will be less ambiguities and passive aggressive "I did my research, now you do yours".
Aikiweb then can be used to openly discuss the evidence and the arguments.
I stated there is a ton of info here on Aikiweb. Failing that, there is a whole lot more on Aikido Journal and the back issues that are now on DVD in PDF format. Then you have Ellis Amdur's books. Topping all that off is Chis Li's translation blogs.
Let's go back to what you stated, "Surely its in your interest to present your case in the most clear and unambiguous way possible, why let the uninitiated wade through years and megabytes worth of information with uncertain results?"
This isn't directed at you but at the readers:
People love Cliff Notes. It saves them from doing the hard work and they can slip by with an edited, abridged version of things. Well, the Aikido World has done that for 40 + years and what has it given us? No Ueshiba's, No Shioda's, No Tomiki's, No Shirata's, No Mochizuki's, etc. Isn't it time to stop using the heavily edited version of aikido and start looking at what Morihei Ueshiba was *really*
doing? If you're (plural you, not singling anyone out) just some hobbyist in aikido, sure, no need to bother. But, if you're just a hobbyist, then why are you trying to tell other people, who aren't hobbyists, what aikido is or isn't?
Back to the sujbect at hand:
Chris stated he was a professional aikido teacher. That places him in another area completely. Where did he get his definition of "aiki"? Why is it so completely different than Morihei Ueshiba's defintion of aiki?