Can you point to one specific case where I disabused "irrefutable facts"?
My experience is that people turn to labeling others when their "facts" are falling apart.I am not an apologist.I am PRO good solid genealogical research.It saddens me how frequently I am told Never, Ever, Ever to announce myself as a genealogist when I enter a vital records office, library, or other repository of records; that many who work in these places have come to view "genealogists" as having no interest in objectivity or good research methods, but as only wanting the staff of such repositories to produce documents to "prove" vainglorious family legends.For better or worse, I have spent enough time in these places, hearing other "researchers", to understand their position.
The "potential fathers" "recant" that you have repeated over and over and over . . . is woefully lacking in the necessary information for anybody to begin to determine whether any of the claims are sound.That you do not seem to realize this (it has come up elsewhere, and you provided no additional, substantive information) only reinforces the impression that you are not familiar with what constitutes proving genealogical connections.
Living in different counties does NOTHING to disprove a relation.People moved; particularly after the war.There are many, many, many cases in New England of families moving away from the coast, settling for a while, with one or more sons remaining while the rest of the family moved on.There are cases where a patriarch is listed as a founding/early settler in two or three towns, with the towns being not just in different counties but different states and in some cases different countries (Canada).From my little research on Tennessee and Mississippi families, it seems similar migrations were taking place down south.
How do you account for the DAR Administrator making this admission in writing: "I suspect as do many others at DAR that he was (a patriot)"?What is the puzzle?It is very clear.I and others have stated this same thing over and over and over.You are at the START of proving this patriot.There is a difference between "suspecting" and "proving".The facts "look" like they fit.But "looking" like they fit is not the same as "proving" a case.Anybody who has done a significant amount of good genealogical research has run into cases where all the pieces seem to be fitting together nicely only to have the case fall apart with further research.It happens all the time.Matching similar names that occur is similar places at the same time is NOT proof.