So the next time you watch some incredulous event on "Eyewitness News @ 11" & you take in what multiple eyewitness journalists (& others) tell you, it doesn't necessarily have any basis in reality or rationality because "you believe because you accept the words of witnesses who saw" what they saw
Again, mind you, I am not saying the above has nothing to do with "faith." (Frankly it takes a lot of "faith" sometimes to stomach what Katie Couric or Dan Rather has said). But what I am saying is that in addition to faith, it at least wouldn't be "irrational" for me to take the word of eyewitness. It wouldn't inherently be "against rationality."
You are avoiding the point. The Resurrection is not something that be proven through rational means, despite the fact that there were witnesses to it. That was my point.
As to the credibility of the witnesses, all were decent upstanding men. Some had later disagreements with Joseph Smith, and even left the church, but none ever disavowed his testimony regarding the Book of Mormon.