To posts of note at Christian CADRE.
1) Layman links to an article arguing "The Gospels Were Chock Full of Eyewitness Accounts". He's excited. I can't help but note that hs excitement only makes sense if you conceed that the early church, along with apologists like Craig Blomberg, are wrong to insist that two of the gospels were actually written by eyewitnesses. The actual arguments also point to a sort of "friend of a friend" mentality working in the early church, which everyone familiar with urban legends recognizes as worthless.
2) BK argues that John must come from an eyewitness because of irrelevant details. Again, complete ignorance of how urban legends work. Pick up Jan Harold Bruvand's works on urban legends, you'll realize that legends get mangled in ways that leave them with useless, even nonsensical bits.
If recent apologists have improved on McDowell, they haven't improved much.