Very good points, and I agree with your reasons for using footnotes, though I am also a believer in explanatory ones which enhance the text without clogging it with detail that would, perhaps, derail the narrative.
What I have a problem with is the apparent belief in the inherent dishonesty of a writer/author/historian when an error or errors is/are found, and that the writer/author/historian is not given the benefit of the doubt that perhaps the writer/author/historian just made a mistake (there's also a prevailing attitude at times in some places that telling someone he is wrong or inaccurate is the same thing as calling them a liar-it isn't the same thing at all).
There seems to be an obsession at times, quite akin to a shark feeding frenzy, in having to prove that the writer/author/historian has to be dishonest and deliberately attempting to perpetrate a fraud. Making errors is not dishonest, it is simply an error (I'm not speaking of anyone in particular, just writers/authors/historians in general, nor am I criticizing you, just a trend that is quite apparent on the forums when certain writers/authors/historians are mentioned). Not admitting errors when found is also quite human, though not very admirable. However, the 'fraud' police are getting to be quite old, and some of the accusations that come from them is somewhat fantastic at times.
I do think that most of the folks that spend some time in the study of an historic period generally know when they find a whopper or when a writer/author/historian has erred, has grossly erred, or is telling a tall tale. I really don't see the point to going to the great lengths to 'investigate' a perceived 'fraud.' The folks that read and study a lot really don't need to be 'enlightened' in such matters as the oft-referred to Hamilton-Williams situation. It was almost a no-brainer that he was at least in error many times over. There's too much accusation, both accurate and inaccurate, as well as threats, etc., going on with free use of pejorative terms that are quite hateful, hurtful, and without asking the person in question what his or her purpose was or why the perceived error occurred. I guess it's too hard to find them and ask them.
Since you have brought up Scott Bowden, perhaps you or anyone else who has a question on his works should just look up his email on the internet as I did and ask him yourself. It's easy enough, and he is a very nice fellow and gentleman who is quite intelligent, articulate, and easy to talk to. I found him so and quite enjoyed the conversation.