*1) Faradays law of induction cannot be explained by electron theory Source: physics Textbook 
2) Maxwells electromatetic theory is in direct violation of electron theory. Most notably from his theory displacement current is still taught as mainstream science. Source physics Textbook 
3) In chemisty the number of electrons leaving a mass is determined by the voltage Source: chemistry textbook 
4) In induction physics, the current is determined by the number of coils in the winding source: physics textbooks 
5) In circiut theory the current is determined by the load Source: also physics textbook 
6) these three things are all different 
7) In the power industry, there is also something called "current draw" which is a current not determined by the load but the power supply Source: Con Edison training manual 
8) All of these things with the exception of 7 are excepted theories of science that contflict with the electron. Number 4 and 5 conflict with number 3 which is part of the definition of the electron. 
Known people in the scientific community who said that they did not hold electrons to be true without proof(or admitted there existance to be different than that of mainstream science)

1) Albert Einstien said that their existance was different 
2) Max Planck said that he would not hold it to be true without proof 
3) Faraday was totally against the idea before it ever came out 
4) Tesla in his patents refers to electricity as a pressure rather than a substance 
5) Heaviside said that electrons were compressed ether 
6) JJ Thomson the so called discover of the electron said that he did not agree with the electron theory that was interpreted from his experiment. 
Anyone else that a circuits textbook fails to mentions. Actually I find that most circuits textbooks don't even talk at all about any scientist. What I demand:

1) A scientific presentation of electron theory that uses the scientific method 
2) A list of people in the scientific community who actually accepted this (and hold electrons to be a fact and more than a theory), and on what basis of the scientific method did they accept it.