Let me preface this by saying: I am not trying to find mistakes in the Taos blog’s operations. I cannot help it that I have an eye for these things.
Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that the Taos blog is not what it claims to be. This conclusion was made based on the available evidence. I still like the site. I still like the papers. Some of the conclusions are very exciting, and I would not dare to butt up against the scientific papers on the site. That would be like one guy who is not a scientist going up against a whole committee of expert scientists, and that would be very foolish.
With that said, I direct your attention to the image above. All I can really say is that something is not right. Consider this Exhibit #5,000.
This is not the first time I have noticed strange time-related inconsistencies on the Taos site, where a paper was posted with a wrong (future) date. I am not sure of the precise moment when this latest paper update was made, but that is not relevant to my point. I know approximately when it was made…no later than about 8:00PM Mountain Time on April 1st. Fundamentally, there must have been a 1-2 hour window where this date discrepancy is not innocently explainable within United States time zones alone. This paper update was posted when it was still April 1st throughout the entire United States, yet the update was manually dated “April 2nd”. I happened to catch this error within this narrow window of time where it cannot be innocently explained away. Stay with me here…
This paper update was not found on the Taos site early in the day. I first noticed it late in the evening of April 1st, around 9:00PM (and I am not Pacific or Mountain Time). This means that the paper update being dated “April 2nd” logically cannot be explainable with the author being inside of the United States. The author must have been located in a place where it was already April 2nd. It is the only reasonable explanation. That date was physically placed there because of the will of the author, not some internet automated bot. It is right there, manually entered into the PDF. Posted by a guy who is supposed to be living in Mountain Time, April 1st, 8:00PM. No person in that place and that time would have purposely dated that paper update as “April 2nd”, and this cannot be a syncing error. It is simply not possible to pull a viable rationalization out of your hat here. This implies exactly what it looks like it implies: the author was outside of the United States.
Why else would the paper have been dated April 2nd? He was rounding up? It was late at night so he felt like using the next day? Riiiiight. These are poor rationalizations and bad lies. To date something is to make reference to the current moment. If you are willing to believe otherwise, you are already hoodwinked. The only rational explanation is that the author of the paper was located in a place where it was already April 2nd. For all you “Occam’s Razor” proponents out there, this is a good case. It is the simplest and only rational explanation. The implications are huge!
If you want to question my logic on this, go right ahead. I won’t believe you.
It probably did not even cross the author’s mind that they might be “outing themselves” by dating this paper update April 2nd. This makes me feel like they might be far across the globe, somewhere like Australia or Hong Kong. They would have been working on the update for some time first, so this leads me to seeing Australia as the main candidate. For Europe, it would have been very early in the morning (or late at night, depending on your perspective). If they had been working on an update throughout the night, you would hope that the author in Europe (London? Bruges? Moscow?) would have paid closer attention to the date. We cannot be sure exactly where, but we can be sure that it could not have been in the United States.
Remember, this error would have stood out as an egregious error for a very narrow window of time. Probably about an hour. This is why the author would not have thought twice about it. They knew that it was late at night in the US, and by morning nobody would be the wiser. I just happened to catch it in that brief hour where it made absolutely no sense. After that hour, there would be no chance of anyone taking meaning from the April 2nd date. The error would have been lost to time.
Do not tell me this was innocent. Why should we keep making excuses? If you are new to the Taos site, I encourage you to start paying attention to these things. They are subtle, but they are there. If you have an eye for them, you can begin to read the papers from a whole new context. You will find this to be a very interesting new layer to monitor.
Another interesting thing to add: since I have written about such discrepancies before, I have noticed that future Taos papers will make extremely subtle comments to undermine my points. I will make a comment about the author not having enough money to live as an artist or never having worked a real job, and suddenly an upcoming paper is making an offhand reference to him being broke and having worked at a restaurant in college. It is a very sly, insidious effort to throw cold water on legitimate impossibilities in this character’s life story. At first, I chalked these mentions up to coincidence…but it has happened too many times for it to be coincidental.
Ultimately, I have decided that I have become the de-facto proofreader for the Taos blog writers. Hey, fellas! C’mon, don’t be so mad. This was a really sloppy one…and if I am noticing, other people are noticing. You can do better. Remember, I am a big fan…hope you have some good stuff coming! If you know what is going on with this corona thing, please let us know. We are just guessing based on the evidence, but I figure one of you might actually know what is going on.
P.S.: I predict that if this post is deflected against, it will be claimed that the papers are “dated around Bruges time” or something. That does not make any sense. “He” does not use WordPress. It is his own site. The updates take place when they are made. It is done manually, and the words entered in the PDF are placed there manually. Do not let them get away with the shoddy deflections to these things. See them for what they are.