1) Believing (or not) in the facts surrounding Gettysburg, the Kennedy assassination, Watergate or the Titanic don't dictate what happens to me when I die. However, I will state that we have corroborating evidence that ALL these events DID happen OUTSIDE the eyewitness accounts.

And that's my point. Setting the eternal significance of Watergate aside, we have general corroborating evidence of the context (ie, Gettysburg happaned, the 20th Maine did charge,etc), but we still have inconsistencies within the events themselves. We can reasonably conclude, based on the documents alone, that a battle took place, a ship sank, and a president was killed, regardless of the inconsistencies. IE, you are treating the Bible as a special class of document with higher scrutiny.

2)Eyewitness accounts are never sufficient alone to determine fact. We use this basic premise in our legal system.

Right, but we're not talking about the legal process but how historic documents are evaluated and whether or not there is a higher scrutiny on the Bible than other documents.

I am suggesting however that there is precedent for eyewitnesses to make mistakes, bring bias to their statements, lie, or embellish. Other corroborating evidence often brings clarity.

Sure, so why would you/author of the piece expect the Gospels (which aren't eyewitness accounts) to be free of that? Again, the can say that he's not an in errant it's and allows for time-of-day discrepancies, but the first inconsistency he notes is... HTe time of day.

3) The gospels don't agree who the eyewitnesses were. How did the original gospel authors know who to ask/believe regarding the events? None of the gospels authors could have been eyewitnesses. Scholars are in agreement on this.

Again, why is this significant?