You have said, "I freely admit that you have a strong case but not strong enough on which to build precisely accurate lineages and in no sense of the word strong enough to set aside sworn affidavit testimony by people who had a personal ongoing relationship with the people about whom they testified.You consistantly forget that the deponents are testifying about people they personally knew."
By your own statements this is not true. Ferdinand Eastling deposed to have known his grandfather. Still it is apparent from a comparison between Fannie and her brother Ferd , via your presentation of their respective "depositions," that what his and his sister's 'knowledge' of their ancestor's war experience, is based upon the statements on that which their mother made to them in this regard.
[Doug and I have readily acknowledged that you have a DAR-qualified ancestor--just not the one your are, or they were, fixated upon.]
(It is increasingly obvious to me that their mother is the source of your very errant attempted genealogy. Or I should say, that she is the source from which Fannie & company misunderstood their correct ancestry--this is not an allegation, nor condemnation; rather, still another example of family memories and traditions gone wrong.)
We do not blame them for making certain mistakes in their depositions, therefore, but rather correct their misapprehensions in the light of modern research.