The party in question is a Christian and wouldn’t lie about the poisoning. Otoh, the frogmen didn’t exist and Fuddy is dead.
The obvious conclusion is that, in pursuit of an erroneous theory, the poster discovered facts that are considered dangerous. I.e.: a lot of stones were overturned in the course of this investigation. At least one of those stones represents a threat to someone.
Iow, it’s possible to reject the Fuddy-is-alive theory while acknowledging that someone connected with that crash decidedly has something to hide. Agree?
That seems plausible, but does not excuse the obvious
glaring errors and the fabrication of supposed evidence
to fit a pre-supposed conclusion.
And general nuttery.