Just a quick "FYI":
For something to be viewed as historical it must be verified by multiple attestations.
Which should mean multiple independent sources.
Anecdotal "history" is just that and nothing more.
Opinions and "stories" must be verified before one views them as historical.
And even then when some evidence is accepted as historical that does NOT make it correct, it just means that it has been collaborated with another independent source.
An example would be:
Source A) states that TSN was part of the Red Boat society but this source is of the TSN lineage and as such has a vested interest in claiming such.
Source B) confirms this and source B) is independent and has no vested interest ( a police document that shows the names of those that belong to the RD soceity for example).
What you now have is one bias source and one independent source that verifies it.
BUT all that does is identify A person named TSN that is mentioned as a member of the RB society, it does NOT collaborate any other part of the story.
Psalms 144:1
Praise be my Lord my Rock,
He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !