BINGO! This sums it all up. People want to live in their fantasies and if the truth hurts they can't accept it. People will jump through all kinds of hoops to keep the myth of their favourite pilot alive. Even when the losses are right there they will reject it.
And about accident losses vs combat losses. I read Soviet reports, and the reports will state very clearly what the cause of the loss is. So if an aircraft's engine got damaged by an enemy fighter and later on many km or miles it ends up crashing, the report will say that. It will describe how the aircraft encountered enemy aircraft, got hit by the enemy, flew to another location and then crashed later on. This ensures we can always tell the difference between accidents and combat related losses.
By the way, the Soviet records and reports are E-X-C-E-L-L-E-N-T. The detail they provide is incredible and sometimes overwhelming. They tell us the amount of ammunition used, the serial number of the aircraft, the time of the loss, the location of the loss, the pilot of the aircraft, the type of mission being flown, the events that led to the loss and even things like the angle that the plane was attacked at.
Some pilots really did destroy loads of aircraft, and some others were a bit optimistic and the aircraft they damaged landed safely. A few pilots straight up lied, although this was rare and thankfully most claims were honest.