This is supposed to be analogous to the gospel "witnesses", with the same technology, right?<quoted text>
Why don't you think I could write an accurate historical account of the JFK assassination? What makes you so sure I couldn't?
This should be interesting.
So, to begin, you weren't born yet, so "eyewitness" is out.
You have no written record.
You have nothing left but interviews with witnesses and participants. But wait! Most, if not all, of whom are now dead. So, your witness list is very short. You can interview friends and colleagues. Now we're at second-hand.
I'll really be interested to see how you sort this out. Second shooter on the grassy knoll, or not? What's up with the mystery bullet on the gurney? Was the Mafia involved? Castro? LBJ?
And we're just scratching the surface.
Actually, with all the rumors and conspiracy theories swirling around the JFK assassination, the subject is far murkier now than it was in 1963. The fact is, you could not write an authoritative account 50 years later. The best you could do is recap the various theories and scuttlebutt, and scribble out your opinion as to which works for you.
Kinda like the "gospels". Right?