perhaps i spoke too soon, reading from Part I instead of Part III is much more coherent.

I opened the provided link, read a few paragraphs, scanned the rest of the post, and decided that the post does not contain a complete thought. In my opinion part III (the linked part) is substantially worse than parts I and II and the OP does a severe dis-service by linking the third part directly.

Additionally the math flagged my BS detector, which doesnt say the rest is wrong, but makes me even more wary since this is the only part i have enough facts about to make a complete decision on:

| The breakdown per minute at this pace equals 396 megabytes per minute 6.6 megabytes per second to pull this off non-stop for 10 months straight.

https://www.google.com/search?q=6.6TB/10%20months

https://www.google.com/search?q=6.6%20mb/s%20*%2010months

When their first blog post was 6 days ago and they smell strongly of disinformation, yes.

If they can't do simple math, yes. In their "debunking" they forgot that a day is not equal to an hour, and most of it is nonsensical.

No, but my brain broke trying to if there is a shred of logic in their posts.