Nice ad hominem.
No! You see if you existed then we would have no record of you too, no bones no DNA etc or hugely unlikely. So we would not be able to say you definetly existed. However you don't understand this point, reports of Jesus orally go much further back than written documents, you see the problem used to be with western historians whereby they dismissed oral traditions and scripture too, but credible and contemporary historians take the whole picture, for example to dismiss scripture in jesus's case would be tantamount to learning the history about the Romans from the Persians and not accept any roman sources. It's not an academic approach to do so, is it! So the point is simple there are 1000s of oral reports added to scriptural support, concurrent reporting, the same person mentioned in other cultures of the time and later, mentioned in other scriptures etc. To dismiss all that just to support some conspiracy you have is ridiculous as saying jesus did not exist.
That's because you dont understand the nature of oral reporting and verifying it. For example if a 100 people said you existed and they saw you, met you etc, these 100 people report this to another 100 people, years later or hundred years later the same tradition and oral report is doing the rounds, for me to claim those are false, I would have to prove the first 100 conspired, followed by the generations, until it goes into to the realms of impossibility unless all those people conspired on huge massive international scale! Go ahead prove the conspiracy.
So many vague descriptions, not so vague if we can determine they refer to the same one person, if you believe they are false you have to prove them to be so and prove the conspiracy. There maybe discrepancies in the reports but that does not negate his existence, simply because there are so many reports that concur too. Overwhelming belief of many generations internationally in the existence of this man, even the talmud which is rabbinic commentary on the Torah refers to Jesus, written by rabbis during his time and later, clearly they knew this man existed, but because you dismiss religious documentation and like your scholars you are part timers and selective in what evidence you prefer to support your arguments that sources like the Talmud which curse and talk about him in a derogatory manner refer to his existence and claims, the Talmud was there before Jesus was still being added to during his lifetime and after. Why dismiss such a source, it's simply rabbinic commentary on the Torah and the book Jews take above the Torah in how to live like a Jew etc as well containg laws, dogma, parables, commentary, it also refers to Jesus. Is that not good enough proof too?