I also hadn't heard about this for what it's worth.

It's one of the reasons people were thinking this might not be a fraud.

Nobel prizes are capped to 3 people, and the speculation is that the rogue person published early to try and ensure they were one of the people that received it. No reason for infighting like that if you know it's a hoax.

I even wondered about that, is ever a thing?

Like saying "SORRY, FIRST" to the nobel committee?

> No reason for infighting like that if you know it's a hoax.

There was plenty of bitter infighting over credit during the 1989 cold fusion fiasco.

Knowing it's not a hoax does not mean it is true.

As always, only reproduction attempts matter.

I never said it was true. Just that it's some evidence against it being a fraud.

Notably, the missing author from the second paper is the rogue employee who published the first paper. The order of the first two authors is the same for both papers.

earlier in the week, someone posted that the person who posted the paper early is someone who wanted to fund the project, but the researchers didn't want to include him. So he took as much data as he could collect and posted it publicly with the addition of his name. He is not a researcher or scientist for the team.