'Andrew' is a name, just like 'Caroline Brooks', but 'Andrew' has posted all over the place that it knows that 'Caroline Brooks' is a person by several other names, although 'Andrew' left off one of them: 'Caroline Books'. (Before Caroline Brooks there was Caroline Books.)
Then it ('Andrew'), wonders why another person whose name has appeared on published articles in academic journals is not claiming to be the author of the title listed above, because it ('Andrew'), claims to know that this other person who writes on another web site, is one and the same person.
All very confusing 'Andrew', because you also state that you know that 'Caroline Brooks' is only claiming to be the Narrator of the work named above. Well that makes sense, if this work of 'Caroline Brooks' is merely the link to stories about three other people ('The Trio'), and the title above claims that it is the story of Alan Bednall (who is he?), then it seems that this is not a story about 'Caroline Brooks' but a narrative about three other people and Alan Bednall as well!
So in other words, the name 'Caroline Brooks' could vanish and be replaced by another name! Gosh! Besides which, didn't 'Caroline Brooks' post a totally different picture of 'herself' before the current picture appeared, and why has the current picture begun to disappear? (Caroline Brooks appears to be of the female gender.)
Now if 'Caroline Brooks' has also claimed to be from Texas, and if 'Caroline Brooks' has previously claimed to be related to a person named 'Tom Haler' (this information has also previously appeared Online), and a memorial attribution has been posted to that person at: https://tshasecurepay.com/land-rush/town/14926/Stevenson/ - what then?
Why is a non-existing person (according to 'Andrew'), posting a memorial to another non-existing person?
As 'Andrew' says: "It's all very confusing and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would welcome clarification."
I wonder why 'Andrew' spends so much time trying to solve this riddle and no time at all in demanding that the post on the GS site advertising a 'Caroline Bible', is not removed because it is a work of fraud. Oh, wait! That post has been removed, but the fraudster behind that post is still pushing it for sale at the end of a linked post.
Now 'Andrew', forget about the cause of your current bewilderment and ask yourself:
WHY DID RONAN O'RAHILLY LIE, AND WHY ARE HIS ADORING FANS STILL PROMOTING HIS LIES?
Now there is a question for you 'Andrew'!
"Posted by Andrew on June 9, 2021, 10:08 am, on the GS Board: In typical fashion, ------ has not published my post, purposely misinterpreted it, responded on his blog without answering the question, confused the issue, and closed with his usual nonsensical rant. No wonder everyone is ignoring him. I will do the same."
'Andrew-the-it' sent a message to the Caroline Brooks' Publishing Board, and not to the surname he mentioned. This Blog is not that person's Blog, but the Blog of 'Caroline Brooks' - which was the entire subject of the rant by 'Andrew' - whoever 'Andrew-the-it', is.
Clearly this Blog is not being ignored - according to the daily statistics reflecting access to this Blog. If it was, it would not continue.
'It' ('Andrew') and his pals are very worried.
They have gone from saying that a book would never appear, to reverting to personal attacks instead of addressing issues. They, including 'Andrew', ignore the issues that swirl around false reporting; theft of intellectual property, and the promotion of fraud to support a tin pot radio station tied to an old cod ship.
'Andrew' is clearly worried that what he always believed to be true, really is a pack of lies and deceit, which is still being promoted by willing stooges - who hope to make money from the gullible - in the process. GS knows by now that he has been promoting a fraud, so why doesn't he admit it by putting a stop to further acts of deception and dishonesty?
By the way, 'Andrew' is still referring to a GS thread that uses a previous working title for a book, while ignoring the fact that the actual title (as of now), is clearly shown above. Perhaps the eyesight of 'Andrew' is so poor, that 'Andrew' cannot read the words. If that is the case, then Specsavers will not be of much help, and 'Andrew' may require the services of an audible reading aid.