Maybe you woud like to comment on:
Sure, why not.
1. Russell's portrayal that he "just happened" to walk into Jonas Wendell's service in 1868-9.
What's to tell? He closed up shop and took a walk and "stumbled" upon them. In those early years, Advent Christians didn't own their own churches, they met in private homes, rented hall, etc.
2. Russell's statement that the SAs led him to "no truths" (technically correct).
I would probably agree, Russell was influenced by various groups. You know, it's very difficult to determine what was Adventist and what wasn't. In those, being ADventist simply meant you believd in the imminent return of Christ, so there were baptist adventist, congregational adventist, etc, William Miller lived and dioed a Baptist. But many of those in the various denominations were already debating such isues as trinity, hellfire, immortal soul, the kingdom, the Church, etc. Russell grew up in the middle of these heated debates and was no doubt influenced by some of these. The Bible study group he was a part of was no doubt made up of various believers.
3. Russell's failure in his later years to fully and truthfully explain his relationship with Stetson and Storrs.
In later years, he does say that he was "indebted to them." Of all the advent preachers, The two George's were no doubt the most influential in his life. Storrs through the pages of "The Bible Examiner" and Stetson via personal contact, they were practically neighbors.
4. A.H. Macmillian's obvious lack of understanding of the real historical situation despite his misconception that CTR had filled him in sufficiently to write regarding such, including CTR misleading AHM to the point that AHM thouht that CTR had published "OBJECT" in 1873.
There was no misleading here. Russell never claimed the booklet was written in 1873. I personally believe this was a ply by the Society to make Russell look like some sort of prophet, that he predicted the Lord's return in 1874. Truth is, all advertisements for the booklet are in and around the mid 1870s. A look at past Watchtower history reflect this view, where they claim Russell predicted the presence. However, when they were caught in this lie, their revised their index book to reflect the correct date 1877.
Additionally, was it not Storrs that baptized the whole Russell clan in 1874, which was coincidentally the year that the SAs were proclaiming to be "another" end-time? (CTR later denied that he had ever put any belief in 1873-4, and even tried to make it appear that his first concern with end-times was during his later association with Barbour. Just like CTR denied believing in 1878, but AHM let the cat out of the bag by publishing a statement by CTR that pretty much indicates that CTR was part of that failure also.)
We haven't been able to find who actually baptized them. I am under the opinion that it was Stetson, NOT Storrs.
Not sure where you driving at. With the "end-times." You're going to have to give me references. The book "Three Worlds" was authored by Barbour, NOT Russell, Russell only financed it. It had some predictions for 1878 and 1914. After the 1878 failed [it no doubt was accepted by Russell] Barbour rejected chronology and other areas, which caused the split, Russell forming the Zion's Watch Tower. Russell accepted both 1874 and 1878, as well as 1914. I wouldn't trust what AHM says. It has ben rumored that the final draft of his book didn't even resembled what he actually wrote. AHM was a company "yes" man, which is how he survived as a relic of the old days. Unlike VanAmburgh he fell out of graces with Rutherford early on, but swallowed his pride and went along with the program. he was repentant for what he did, but stayed as he was old.
