`  == A Worldwide Conspiracy to Discredit Thomas? ==  Notice how Thomas supporters don't address any of the facts outlined above in ``The Myth of Michel Thomas,`` such as National Archives records proving Thomas was a civilian assistant to the Counter Intelligence Corps instead of a true agent, or Thomas' inconsistent claims of where he was born, or his sworn deposition that he accompanied the 157th Regiment into Dachau, a detailed boast his supporters are now doing back-flips to insist never happened. Nor do his defenders answer the questions posed by the writer of ``Another Point of View.``  Instead, Thomas apologists try to make me (L.A. Times writer Roy Rivenburg) the issue, presumably to divert attention from the fact that his tales have been challenged for decades  by the U.S. Justice Department's top Nazi hunter, an Oscar-winning documentary, Klaus Barbie's prosecutor, other journalists and Counter Intelligence Corps veterans as far back as the 1950s. Either there's a giant conspiracy to discredit Thomas or maybe  although he presumably did some commendable work during World War II  he exaggerated and fibbed about some of his record. As the old saying goes, where there's smoke, there's usually fire.   It's also worth noting that before the L.A. Times article was published, Mr. Thomas and his biographer threatened legal action against the newspaper, so we made sure every fact was triple-checked, and we gave Thomas every chance to back up his claims. He couldn't. Before publication, I sent a series of detailed e-mails to his biographer and publicist. Those e-mails and his biographer's replies to our questions have never been printed by Thomas' supporters. Why? Because they would show that Thomas misrepresented how the Times article was reported  and they would make clear that Thomas changed some of his wartime claims after our story came out, especially about Dachau and the Nazi Party ID cards. If those e-mails backed up Thomas' claims or proved the L.A. Times ignored evidence, you can be sure they'd be posted in full on his website and would have been introduced as evidence in his libel lawsuit. Instead, they prove just the opposite, which is why you'll never see them at michelthomas.org.`