I don't disagree with your points, but my problem is not specifically about Dobson (or any individual history) but about a perceived attitude of every claim, every remembrance, every statement is true and valid because there is not objective reality and nuances, subtleties and details are not needed.
Of course that's not true as well. The problem is that it can be very difficult at times to evaluate many claims after the fact because of the mixing of a variety of issues, not the least of which is the faulty nature of memory, confirmation bias, and any number of other things.
We can't sit back and say "nothing is resolvable" because of these issues. However, we also can't become like some of the rabid "I drank the koolaid" folk that simply can't see past their own (often very limited) range of experience and knowledge. Forgive the phrasing, but the "truth" is somewhere in between. And it is often fuzzy, open to discussion, and usually the most interesting truths are also most vexing and difficult to pin down.
Sure, some thing are just flat out false. Some are "conveniently remembered in a self-aggrandizing way". Some are seen through thick goggles. And a few, hopefully, are seen clearly. Standing on any extreme side, however, is usually off the mark...