The resurrection is not witnessed.
Not by anyone.
So it’s not direct observation.
The gospels posit that other people describe the empty tomb.
Second hand information of an event not witnessed.
One could argue that the white figure(s) is a witness, making this a third hand account, but the mysterious person or peoples say that Christ is risen, not that he/they witnessed the resurrection.
On top of the lack of information in the resurrection stories, there are also the inaccuracies between the stories of who found the tomb, what happened there, and what happened after.
This story is clearly not admissible as evidence for the resurrection and I wonder why people aren’t confused when they read conflicting accounts.
Below are the accounts themselves (or most of them anyway) for comparison. If you’d like a challenge:
See if you can make a cohesive story out of them.
Or even come up with an explanation for the discrepancies which doesn’t call into question the reliability of the claim of resurrection itself.