Unsupported conclusions for B/M/D?

Hello,

I've been using the Barbour Collection to find B/M/D records from Connecticut.

I've just come to the realization that I've been drawing conclusions from it that it doesn't actually support.

For example, Dan Hill is listed in the Wallingford records as being born 14 January 1734 but is also listed in the Goshen records.

From other records I can show that it's probable that the Wallingford records are the original birth record, so I concluded that Wallingford was the birth location.  I now think that conclusion was wrong.

The Barbour records show the date of an event, names associated with the event (parents/child, husband/wife, clergyman) and where that event was recorded.  I don't think they really show the actual location of an event (from the Goshen duplication, if nothing else).

Would it be appropriate to conclude that Dan Hill was born 14 January 1734, probably in or near Wallingford, or should I find other information before making any conclusions (even probable) about the location.

I guess I'm now wondering how one draws conclusions from old records that may not have supporting information.

Regards,

Brian