A revealing Reddit exchange has created a new credibility problem for Paul Mulholland—and it comes directly from Mulholland himself.

Beneath a lengthy, conspiracy-heavy Reddit post concerning allegations connected to a New Jersey adult-entertainment website, an account identifying itself as Mulholland stepped in to correct the record and distance his reporting from the original poster.

The post has been attributed to Alexander Elijah Barber, although its complete authorship and the full history of the account should be independently confirmed. What is visible in the screenshot is Mulholland stating that he knows the original poster and rejecting the intelligence-related theories being attached to his work.

Mulholland wrote that there was no evidence the studio owner had worked in government intelligence. He said the original poster was not employed in intelligence, was not a journalist or law-enforcement officer, possessed no insider information about investigations, and was “LARPing.”

He also claimed that the poster had a “bad habit” of associating unsupported theories with Mulholland’s work in order to give himself credibility.

Yet in the same statement, Mulholland acknowledged that he believed the man was “trying to help.”

That combination raises a question worthy of the King of Contradictions:

If this man’s public theories were a form of LARPing, how much of the research he previously supplied was also part of the performance?

“He Was Trying to Help”—Until He Wasn’t

Mulholland’s wording suggests that the original poster was not simply an unknown stranger who happened to discover one of his articles.

Mulholland says he knows who the person is. He describes him as someone who was trying to help. He also says the man repeatedly connected his own theories to Mulholland’s work.

That sounds like someone operating within Mulholland’s wider research and advocacy environment, whether as a formal partner, an informal researcher, a regular correspondent, a source, an ally, or an enthusiastic promoter.

The screenshot alone does not establish the exact terms of their relationship. It does not prove that Barber—or whoever operated the Reddit account—was formally employed as Mulholland’s research partner.

But if the individual had absolutely no involvement in Mulholland’s research, Mulholland should be able to say that plainly.

Instead, readers are given a stranger formulation: the man was “trying to help,” but was also apparently prone to attaching unsupported theories to Mulholland’s work.

He was close enough to the reporting to borrow its credibility—but suddenly distant enough that Mulholland could declare that the resulting theories had nothing to do with him.

How Much of the Medium Article Came From Him?

Mulholland’s Reddit comment links directly to his Medium article concerning allegations involving a New Jersey adult-entertainment website.

That makes the origin of the article’s research a legitimate subject of scrutiny.

How much information did Mulholland receive from the person he is now publicly disavowing?

Did the man provide names, screenshots, timelines, archived webpages, social-media posts, allegations, supposed witness accounts, or theories about the people involved?

Did he introduce Mulholland to sources?

Did he help organize the narrative eventually published on Medium?

Did he point Mulholland toward information that was later repeated as evidence?

And how much of that material was independently verified before publication?

Perhaps the answer is none.

Perhaps Mulholland independently verified every significant claim and accepted no research whatsoever from the person he now calls a LARPer.

But without a transparent account of the research process, readers have no way to know.

That uncertainty is now Mulholland’s problem because he has publicly attacked the judgment and credibility of someone who appears to have operated close enough to his work to require a formal disavowal.

Was the Research Real—or Was That LARPing Too?

Mulholland’s use of the word “LARPing” is especially damaging to the credibility of any research relationship between the two men.

Mulholland is not merely saying the original poster made one small factual error. He is accusing him of portraying himself as something he was not, claiming access he did not possess, and using unsupported theories to appear credible.

That describes a fundamental problem of judgment.

If the person exaggerated intelligence connections, what else did he exaggerate?

If he represented speculation as insider knowledge, did he use the same method when presenting research leads to Mulholland?

If he repeatedly connected unsupported theories to Mulholland’s work, how carefully did Mulholland separate the man’s verified information from his imaginative conclusions?

Which contributions were supported by original records?

Which depended on anonymous online claims?

Which were independently corroborated?

And which may simply have been another layer of the same LARP?

Throwing a Former Associate Under the Bus

Mulholland was right to reject theories he believed were unsupported. Correcting misinformation is what a responsible journalist should do.

But the manner of the correction raises a separate concern.

Mulholland does not simply correct the intelligence claim. He publicly strips the original poster of credibility, emphasizes that the man is not a journalist or law-enforcement officer, denies that he possesses insider information, and dismisses his behaviour as LARPing.

That may be accurate.

But if Mulholland already knew the man had a history of attaching unsupported theories to his work, why was the association not addressed earlier?

When did Mulholland first recognize the problem?

Did he continue accepting information from the man after becoming concerned about his reliability?

Did he benefit while the man promoted the allegations, defended Mulholland’s work, and helped attract public attention?

Was the associate considered helpful while he supported the narrative, only to become an embarrassing LARPer once his theories went too far?

That is why critics may view the comment as Mulholland throwing a former research associate or ally under the bus after the man became a threat to Mulholland’s credibility.

The Research Trail Cannot Be Disavowed

Publicly rejecting a person does not erase that person’s earlier contributions.

If information from the disavowed associate entered Mulholland’s article, then the information must be reviewed independently of Mulholland’s current opinion of the source.

Every relevant claim should be traced back to its origin.

Every document should be authenticated.

Every witness claim should be corroborated.

Every supposed connection should be separated from interpretation and speculation.

Most importantly, Mulholland should disclose whether any information supplied by the person he now calls a LARPer appeared in his published reporting.

If the answer is no, he can state that clearly.

If the answer is yes, he should identify the material and explain how it was verified independently.

Without that disclosure, the public is left with an unresolved credibility gap.

The King of Contradictions Returns

This episode is further evidence of why Paul Mulholland has earned the title King of Contradictions.

He presents himself as a researcher, yet someone in his research orbit apparently promoted sweeping unsupported theories under the shelter of his work.

He claims the authority of journalism, yet readers are offered no transparent accounting of where his information originated.

He scrutinizes the associations of other people, yet provides little explanation of his own relationship with the man he publicly disavowed.

He says the person was trying to help, then describes him as a credibility-seeking LARPer once the association becomes embarrassing.

He separates himself from the unsupported theories but does not explain whether any of the same person’s earlier research helped shape the reporting he continues to promote.

That is the contradiction.

Mulholland wants readers to trust his conclusions while withholding the information they would need to evaluate the reliability of the research pipeline behind them.

Readers May Never Know Without Disclosure

At present, there is no public evidence in the screenshot proving that the original poster formally served as Mulholland’s research partner or that his material appeared in the Medium article.

But that is precisely why Mulholland should clarify the relationship.

Was the man a source?

Was he a researcher?

Was he an informal collaborator?

Did he supply any information used in publication?

Was that information independently verified?

Has Mulholland reviewed his earlier work now that he has publicly questioned the man’s judgment and truthfulness?

Until those questions are answered, readers cannot determine how much of the published investigation was based on reliable evidence—and how much may have originated with someone Mulholland now describes as playing a role.

Paul Mulholland says the man was trying to help. The public deserves to know how much of that help entered his journalism before the helper became someone Mulholland needed to disavow.