Problem is they never saw the plates - their ‘story’ relates to visions. Why have ‘visions’ Norm, if there were real plates in existence. Testimony also exists that Smith never even used the plates anyway, that the ‘translation’ came from his peep stone, with the ‘plates’ secured elsewhere. The “witnesses” didn't see the “plates” at the same time either. Simple fact is that these same impeccable ‘witnesses’ were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself.
Let us also not forget these same witnesses claimed other mormon splinter “prophets” were the true prophets as well as testifying to a greater revelation from them than smith.
Their testimony in the front of the bom is nothing different that the ‘testimonies’ commonly placed on the various snake oil cures of the same period.
The three witnesses said they saw the plates, saw the angel, and heard the voice of God commanding them to bear witness. People use the word ‘vision’ in relation to this experience to try and explain it away as being invalid.
Obviously something supernatural was taking place, something out of the ordinary. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Did Peter, James and John really see Elijah and Moses visit Jesus in the Mount of Transfiguration — or is that experience invalid because it was a ‘vision’.
As you read the testimonies of David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, they are as certain of the reality of what they experienced as were Peter, James and John.
An unanswered question that reverberates thru the generations