Thank you for your input.Since I have been working on this surname genealogy for 60 years, I do know that we prove through paper, and I have done that as far as I can.
For the sake of discussion, let us call the person in question X.Person X was born in New Kent County VA.He was baptised at a very young age and has never been heard from again - except for a "fairtale" that a very old man wrote.This man wrote that X went to KY, but hide nor hair has been found of him there.His four brothers and sisters, also found in those records and baptised at a very young age, have not been found aqain, while a number other brothers and sisters not baptised at an early age have been found.
There was another person by tbe sane nane who was in NC (proved by paper), who moved to SC (proved by paper), who had a son name "Jerry" (proved by paper).This other person's birthdate is nowhere close to that of Person X.
Because of DNA testing, research on this surnane has further convoluted an already convoluted history.People who do not want to believe the results are saying that a descendant of X tested, when it was in fact a descendant of "Jerry" that tested.Quite simply put, these people will have to change their records, and that is not to their liking.
I will also say that I learned long ago that we family historians/genealogists DO have to make some assumptions, based on common sense and logic, and then go after the paper to prove.If not, we will forever be stuck in a mud hole.