Hugh Aynesworth had over thirty plus years of reporting which included hundreds, if not thousands, of articles (and several books). We are literally talking about tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of words. Thousands of interviews. It's a lot of work including not only the JFK assassination but the Waco siege, Ted Bundy and other horrible stories.
To my knowledge there hasn't been a single allegation of any unethical or improper reporting on his part. No one has claimed that he or she was misquoted, no stories were retracted, no allegations of inaccurate stories (although I'm sure over that time he got some facts wrong).
This is a serious, professional journalist. Not a hack.
Yet we're supposed to consider his "hearsay" as not being any more credible than anyone else's "hearsay"?