I.m sorry, Dale, but I thought for a moment that you were beginning to be interested in records and where they might take you, rather than records just as they may support where you want to go. There is a world of difference. Ending up in a different place from what you expected is interesting. You should try it.
The Member of Parliament biographies which I use for a lot of my work on Geni quite typically, in the Tudor period, start with something like "There are at least three people called X.Y. known to have lived in [Z county] at this time. This member has been identified because....".
Perrott (or Parrott, or other variants) was not an uncommon family name. There is no reason to suppose that they were all related. If you look me up on Google I think that you will find about four pages of a Mark Dickinson who is an American astronomer before eventually getting to a fairly mad site which claims that I was in the British MI6. Google Dale C Rice and you will almost certainly get a lot of other people before you finally reach yourself. If you automatically assume that all internet results are equally plausible, then you are following the same "logic' as has led some idiots to equate John Perrott (b. 1572) with John Perrott the Quaker.
The internet (like all systems of recorded knowledge) allows mistakes to be repeated again and again, and people to assume that they must be right because they find them repeated from (apparently) different sources, when actually they come from one single source. "Rootsweb" I have found useful from time to time, when it gives serious detail (for example, property deeds. I find "Stirnet" much better, but you still find errors (or omissions) on that. Not even Wikipedia entries are entirely reliable; in fact, quite often not. Just apply an investigator's logic to every relationship. Trying to prove your father's understanding of your ancestry is not an investigator's logic.
No-one arriving in Virginia in 1623 could already be said to have "interests", i.e. pre-existing land-ownership. The number of settlers there at this time was so small that the number of ships which could have gone there for trade was minimal (or non-existent). The parallel then was with Norse Greenland, which had a visit from one ship from Norway each year. As the population of Virginia grew, so did trade (tobacco, at first). But the first ships, and in 1623, must have returned empty.
Mark