The Truth About Ruth - Part 2 - Merge

[Mustang Sally]

It cant be. The 11th baby (girl) was born 13 years after the 10th in Ruths family. In this family, the 11th is a toddler boy, and the 10th looks about 5.

Well, it "couldn't" be if it were literally and factually the same family that RR claims to come from. But if she is not actually who she says she is, and simply took some of the details of the [redacted] family in order to create a fictional backstory, she could have changed any details she wanted.

This is a difficult theory though, as it's basically impossible to falsify - unless someone can think of something that would confirm, for certain, that "Ruth" didn't use the [redacted] family as inspiration for a fictional tale of woe. I believe the only thing that would prove this beyond a reasonable doubt would be to know Ruth's actual identity, and we will likely never know that unless some internet detective is really good at sniffing people out, ala Eli Warrior Hoax.

All we have right now are certain suggestive similarities that we were led to through a commenter on "Ruth's" site, who could have been "Ruth" herself sprinkling breadcrumbs. I don't know if this will be possible to prove one way or another.

[Closed Womb]

It cant be. The 11th baby (girl) was born 13 years after the 10th in Ruths family. In this family, the 11th is a toddler boy, and the 10th looks about 5.

Is it suspected that this really IS R/M's family or that the scammer borrowed details from this family?

Eta: cross post with mustang sally

[Palimpsest]

I know the [redacted], and they're definitely not the RR family.

Can you comment on whether or not you think RR has stolen info from their blog/lives to enhance her RR persona's credibility?

[asinglevoice]

[redacted]

[Mustang Sally]

I think you need to remove the "http://" to break the link. I got it to load after a couple tries, and here is the image:

Can you comment on whether or not you think RR has stolen info from their blog/lives to enhance her RR persona's credibility?

Agreed- I would like to hear your take, Rachel333, on this possible theory.

[MissBitters]

I think the commenter was more than likely a sock. I also think this was a very clever move of Ruth's to point out that group of family pics on the TLC site. If people were having doubts & somehow picked out the [redacted] family pic the information on the family would be enough of a match to verify Ruth's story.

[happy atheist]

How can Rachel333 possibly say whether or not the [redacted] family was RR's inspiration?

[Mustang Sally]

How can Rachel333 possibly say whether or not the [redacted] family was RR's inspiration?

I just meant, if she knew the family, that I would be interested in her opinion. Obviously she can't verify whether a faker used their information, but if she knows the family then she will know details that match up or don't match up with "Ruth's" story that the rest of us may not have noticed.

General question for those who followed "Ruth's" blog more closely than I did - did she ever post any pictures either on her blog or on FJ?

[CallmeChaCha]

Someone correct me here, but I believe we can select on the sign-in screen if we want to remain invisible ("Hide my online status this session"), so if she chose that before signing in, it might not show that she's signed in. ??? I have a hard time believing she's not reading this. Surely someone has alerted her to it.

[Closed Womb]

Someone correct me here, but I believe we can select on the sign-in screen if we want to remain invisible ("Hide my online status this session"), so if she chose that before signing in, it might not show that she's signed in. ??? I have a hard time believing she's not reading this. Surely someone has alerted her to it.

I think she can remain invisible when she's on, but the visit(s) will still show up in the stats (click on anyone's name to see what I mean).

Mods, is this correct?

[Coconut Flan]

If Ruth is a scammer and is at all sophisticated in promulgating her scheme which it seems she is, then she undoubtedly has multiple socks on here. All she would have had to do is log onto them from various internet cafés or libraries periodically and could be doing the same in Illinois.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Yeah, that family picture wall is a pretty brilliant decoy. She's not dumb, whoever she is. It's just sad that this is what she's using her intelligence for. I can't muster up any anger at all for this person, just sadness.

[Closed Womb]

If Ruth is a scammer and is at all sophisticated in promulgating her scheme which it seems she is, then she undoubtedly has multiple socks on here. All she would have had to do is log onto them from various internet cafés or libraries periodically and could be doing the same in Illinois.

ITA. I wouldn't be surprised if she's involved in this conversation.

FWIW, in the last thread it was said that there's no evidence of a sock, but since it's just matching IPs (as far as I know) a sock is still likely (IMHO).

[Rachel333]

Hmm, okay, knowing them was probably an exaggeration, but I've interacted with one of their daughters enough over the past decade (well, almost) to have heard quite a bit about their family. They moved to Illinois from California a few years ago and they sometimes visit family in Little Rock. I think they met the Duggars during some kind of special where the Duggars took a road trip to meet another large family in California. They weren't the family, but were friends with the family.

I have no idea whether RR took stuff from their story or not. This is interesting to me, but I feel like right now it's probably just all coincidences. I imagine [redacted] are pretty common Biblical names among fundies. I also never got the impression that the family was particularly strict as ATI people go.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

ITA. I wouldn't be surprised if she's involved in this conversation.

FWIW, in the last thread it was said that there's no evidence of a sock, but since it's just matching IPs (as far as I know) a sock is still likely (IMHO).

Since she knew how to make her blog un-archivable on the Wayback Machine, I would totally not be surprised if she's tech savvy enough to have socks that can't be traced.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Someone correct me here, but I believe we can select on the sign-in screen if we want to remain invisible ("Hide my online status this session"), so if she chose that before signing in, it might not show that she's signed in. ??? I have a hard time believing she's not reading this. Surely someone has alerted her to it.

That wouldnt make her invisible to staff members. If she had been lurking, the admin would know, as nobody can hide from admins.

Its possible shes not aware of it yet, its only been a day and she might have other things to do, whatever those things may be.

Or she changes her IP address.

Its very possible that she does log on under different accounts from different places, or she might have a laptop and a phone and have different IP addresses and accounts on both. Also the scammer that I dealt with on a forum I run had an IP address that changed every time she used it, so it was harder to match her sock puppets as being her.

Its also possible to use a proxy, or use a computer or wifi available to the public to log on under the sock.

[Mustang Sally]

One complicating factor: "Ruth" did say several times that she changed some of the details of her story (did she even specifically say she may have swapped genders or ages or names for her family members?) for privacy reasons. Putting that out there, and then leaving a faint trail to the [redacted] family, could have been another bid on her part for authenticity.

If she claims to be be from a family whose minor details she changed to protect privacy, then leads us in the direction of a possible family that matches her story in several ways but differs on the details (like the gender and ages of the youngest children), a lot of people might think that the discrepancies are not a scam, but her attempt at "privacy." It would actually lend legitimacy in their eyes, rather than raise suspicions.

I'm sure that's how she would explain it, anyway, if caught out. "Yes, you got me, that's my family, but I changed some details. I'm not a scammer." But the only way to verify the truth would be to get her to prove her identity, and because of the supposed "legal name change," that's yet another layer of plausible deniability. "Oh, my ID no longer says [redacted] because I changed my name for a fresh start." Or "I use my middle name as my first name," etc.

But we know the [redacted] family has a Ruth who is a doula, who by all appearances is still a part of the family, so the chances of that being our "Ruth" are slim to none.

I don't know. This is all speculation. I'm rambling. Perhaps the [redacted] family is NOT her inspiration at all, and like Rachel333 says, it's all just a coincidence owing to certain inevitable similarities from being part of the same subculture.

[happy atheist]

I think she can remain invisible when she's on, but the visit(s) will still show up in the stats (click on anyone's name to see what I mean).

Mods, is this correct?

It is correct. When you log in as Hidden, your username doesn't appear at the bottom of the screen in the Who's Online block that is visible to everyone. Mods and Admins can see the names of users who are logged in as Hidden, including other Mods and Admins. They are italic, so we know they're hidden. Being hidden has no effect on your Last Active date that's visible to everyone in your user profile. If you log in, it gets updated whether you are hidden or not.

[nokidsmom]

The similiarities between RR's story on her family and this one are intriguing but agree with Mustang Sally that she could change any details she wanted. In fact, it would be smart of her to do so in order to keep people from trying to figure out who/where/what her "family" is. If it matched up exactly, there would be the risk of some blog reader going "aha, it's them!" and bring that up. And RR certainly wouldn't to risk want her "family" being contacted or somehow find out about her and her blog, raising all kinds of complications. Just a thought.

ETA: Not saying this family is the basis for her family story, just that if she wanted to "copy" anything, changing details would be a way to keep her cover.

[happy atheist]

In other news:

I am not calling Rachel333 a liar, but I find it interesting that in a thread dedicated to uncovering the lies and scams of a stranger on the internet, people are so quick to believe a statement made by another stranger on the internet.

In practically the same breath that you are saying RR probably has a sock or two who are on this thread at THIS VERY MOMENT, a person just has to say, "I know that family, and it's not them," and everyone says, "Ok!"

If you (in the general case) are really interested in getting to the bottom of this, you need to use all of your critical thinking skills. Don't be so quick to take things at face value. That's how RR got as far as she did.

And again, I am not calling Rachel333 a liar. I'm saying I don't know her.

[Daenerys]

I feel bad for the [redacted] family. I mean they might be fundies but they haven't done anything to merit getting caught up in the scams of this crazy family. Imagine if Ruth's followers went after them, believing [redacted] was the crazy abuser that is the Darth Daddy character!

[Mustang Sally]

In other news:

I am not calling Rachel333 a liar, but I find it interesting that in a thread dedicated to uncovering the lies and scams of a stranger on the internet, people are so quick to believe a statement made by another stranger on the internet.

In practically the same breath that you are saying RR probably has a sock or two who are on this thread at THIS VERY MOMENT, a person just has to say, "I know that family, and it's not them," and everyone says, "Ok!"

If you (in the general case) are really interested in getting to the bottom of this, you need to use all of your critical thinking skills. Don't be so quick to take things at face value. That's how RR got as far as she did.

And again, I am not calling Rachel333 a liar. I'm saying I don't know her.

I agree with you, but then again I don't think anyone is taking what Rachel333 (or anyone) says as ultimate truth or authority on the matter. Personally, I was just interested in what she had to say.

[Palimpsest]

Sorry Rachael333, thanks for answering but I shouldn't have asked. There is no way you or anyone else can comment on where RR's inspiration came from.

I think this is another red herring planted by RR. Here's the thing though, three possibilities (although there are many more):

1. RR is the off-spring of an ATI family and parts/most of her story are true. This doesn't mean that the discrepancies we are noticing are not real, and that some of her story is changed to protect her family and anonymity.

2. RR is the off-spring of an ATI family. Parts of her story are true. Parts are very untrue, manipulative, and scam-artist-like. Perhaps she started out with the truth, got addicted to the attention and the money came in very handy. She was tempted to embroider her story to keep $$ and attention coming in and overstepped. Touches of Munchausen by Internet.

3. RR is full-blown Munchausen by Internet or a professional scammer. Her story is fabricated from beginning to end. She has done this before and will do it again.

I am teetering between 2 and 3. I'd prefer to think 2.

I don't think her actual identity matters, nor will we ever find out.

[VaSportsMom]

Subbing to new thread so I can find it.

[Rachel333]

Totally fair not to just take what I say at face value. I do think the utter lack of interesting information I had to share might help my case, though. :lol: