What do you know about the people who's presentations you are ready to call evidence?
So if the evidence
doesn't fit your
view of what is possible then it must be a hoax
We are to assume there is a gargantuan conspiracy when hundreds of scientists and engineers continue to find, produce and publish positive evidence for over more than one hundred years?
I am confident, because of a healthy body of experience on what brain scientists from different fields, and the skeptics society, have to say about these types of phenomenon and how people come to believe in them, that there is no one scientist with a Ph.D in any cognitive brain sciences who claims any piece of evidence as being indicative of any such phenomenon as precognition.
It is my experience that no-one believes in that stuff after taking a deeper glance on how the brain works.
I do not think precognition is possible, but I am not certain lacking an absolute disproof.
However I am certain that all the evidence that has this far come forth is not indicative of any such thing, as it would be ridiculous to think there is a conspiracy hiding the "truth" from real scientists.
I don't think something must automatically be a hoax if I tend to disagree with it, but if it is something I have already heard debunked by serious scientists, and if it's backed up by texts written by a well known pseudo-scientist I have heard countless of times being accused of false claims by serious scientists, and who calls himself a parapsychologist, and who even has claimed to have a supernatural talent for spoon bending, and who is presenting evidence provided by his friend the scientologist... I tend to think it is a hoax.