How about one involving a dog - isn't that what we need?

I've had a few ADCs involving animals, one of which was included in Kim Sheridan's very successful book Animals and the Afterlife. This is a different one, but it's my favorite. Dusty was a golden retriever we adopted at an event in the Walmart parking lot. His previous owners had given him up because he was supposedly incorrigible and destructive. Actually, they were the problem. Dusty was the best dog ever. When they saw us walking this gentle sweetie, they actually stopped and asked to have him back. I told them to go to hell in considerably more colorful language than that. Alas, after several years he developed cancer and died.

When my wife was undergoing cancer treatments, I sometimes read in a recliner in the living room and often fell asleep there. On this particular night, that's what happened - or at least "sorta kinda" happened. I was in what's called the hypnagogic state, which is the trance-like liminal state between wakefulness and sleep. It seemed as though I was dreaming, but my circumstances were exactly as they really were - in the recliner with the light on next to me. This was perhaps a month or less after Dusty's death.

I heard the familiar click of Dusty's paws on the hardwood floor behind me. "Lie down, Dusty," I said. Lie down, Dusty? Wait a minute - Dusty is dead.

I looked up and he was standing about five feet away, grinning in the goofy way only a big dog can grin. What was odd was that he looked like some sort of hologram, kind of shimmering like the projection was having difficulty holding itself together. Now fully awake - or so it seemed - I said "Dusty, it's really you!" He continued grinning as he faded away like the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland.

And that was that. I took it to mean he was saying thanks and good-bye for now. If this all sounds weird and unlikely, you need to read Animals and the Afterlife. Some of the contributors are nuts. Wait a minute, you rode your dead horse around the corral??? (Actually, in some encounters with dead relatives, including ones I've heard personally from people I know well, the deceased seems as solid and real as in life, at least for a short time.)

Herein is your problem. You put all your faith in fallible witnesses and reject what the Z-film tells you unmistakably. The Z-film is more reliable than 20 witnesses because it has perfect recall.

We don't have to look to other events to find more than 20 witnesses getting something wrong. More than 20 witnesses said all the shots came from the GK. More than 20 witnesses said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. They can't both be right. So there's your example of more than 20 witnesses getting a pertinent fact wrong.

First of all, determining direction of a sound is not a simple observable fact, especially in Dealey Plaza. Second, the apparent direction depended on the location of the listener. Third, many of the witnesses said they couldn't tell but still offered a a guess. Finally, this is not an example where there were zero who observed it correctly.

We can argue about whether JFK and JBC are exhibiting a reflex or cognitive response. What is unmistakable is that they are both reacting at precisely the same time and in the same manner by suddenly flipping their arms upward just 3 frames after we see JBC's jacket bulge outward. You want to write these events off as if they are coincidences. Another glaring example of how bad you are at weighing evidence.

I have explained ad nauseum why those actions are consistent with JFK reacting to the effects of his neck wound that began around z193 and JBC beginning his reaction to hearing it, just as witnesses described it. The reactions are occurring at the same time because the overlap but they do not begin at the same time. JFK began his reaction before z225. It is not a random coincidence. Their actions are their responses to the first shot.

You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the zfilm is an idiot. That's an issue for you to deal with, not me.

Let’s see. On the left side of the scale we put 20 witnesses (there are at least four more including Zapruder, Clint Hill, Bobby Hargis, and Linda Willis) with different vantage points all saying JFK reacted to the first shot. On the right side we put Glen Bennett (his second statement, not his notes) and
your feelings about what you think you are seeing in the zfilm. Hmm. Which way would the scale tilt?
Drawing conclusions from 20 witnesses all saying the same thing is not blind faith.  Blind faith is your belief that your interpretation of the silent zfilm is more likely correct than 20 independent recollections.  Can you point to a single event in history where 20 independent reports of a simple observable fact got it wrong and zero reported it correctly?

By the way, if you think that an independent witness cannot corroborate another witness, you are wrong. You should also review your high school lessons on probability and statistics.

Herein is your problem. You put all your faith in fallible witnesses and reject what the Z-film tells you unmistakably. The Z-film is more reliable than 20 witnesses because it has perfect recall.

We don't have to look to other events to find more than 20 witnesses getting something wrong. More than 20 witnesses said all the shots came from the GK. More than 20 witnesses said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. They can't both be right. So there's your example of more than 20 witnesses getting a pertinent fact wrong.

Poll shows uneducated non-Democrats to be more prone to conspiracy thinking? Gotta be rigged, eh?

Polls don't tell us who killed JFK. The WC did that 62 years ago. Some people still refuse to accept it. That's their problem.