You seem to have no trouble trusting people who agree with you even if they provide lying resumes, so I don't know why you wouldn't trust someone who commits to pursue the truth at all costs. Oh wait, I do know a likely reason. Are you actually interested in evidence that the radio show is fiction starring a paid actor, or would you continue to quote it even if it were proven fictional without doubt? Truth, fren.

They expressed interest. Just being considerate.

What do you propose for standards of objective proof other than "Joe says so"? Should I start raking you over the coals for the time you thought "sacrificing a kid" (chevre or goat in the source) meant human sacrifice, and doubled down on it? Or should we just agree that the truth is out there and we can infer the most reasonable explanation from the data?

I said I debunked it, and I proved that I debunked it, which was done by inference to the best explanation. I didn't say I had the smoking gun (though a criminal conviction for doing the same thing another time is usually pretty strong evidence).