Again, fans have worked out many contradictions in testimony on the grounds that they are only apparent contradictions (e.g., Mitchell was wrong or mocking in that moment). And this is fine, but the upshot denies Timo's position that there is no reason to reject Mitchell's "James R. Kirk" on the grounds that it is more unreal (in this case he is allegedly merely confused or mocking) than claims of "James T. Kirk" in the series.
Dude, seriously, do you need to discuss this philosophical point in more than one thread? Why this need for consistency across explanations of apparent contradiction in Star Trek ... or in Trek Tech threads discussing them? We're having fun here. If you're not, I feel badly for you, but you might want to think about why that is.