Notebook with investigation notes and email printouts

It is Wednesday. Tuesdays are for anomalies. Wednesdays are for questioning whether Tuesday anomalies are real or simply confirmation bias manifesting as electromagnetic interference.

Today I am questioning whether yesterday’s email was real.

What I Discovered Last Night

Search results for “Tuesday Research Consortium”:

  • Academic databases: 0 results
  • Google Scholar: 0 results
  • ResearchGate: 0 results
  • General web search: 3 results (all referencing my own blog post about questionable conferences)

This tells me: Either they are very secretive, or they do not exist.

Who knows about my blog?

I made a list. This is something I can do without advanced computer skills. Just memory and paper.

People I have told directly:

  1. Mikhail (he found it himself, then I confirmed)

People who might know:

  1. Dr. Yevgeny (Mikhail said he told him, but I have not confirmed this)
  2. Svetlana (I have not told her, but we meet for coffee twice yearly - overdue)
  3. Igor (I have not contacted him yet, despite Sunday resolution)
  4. Anyone who reads Mikhail’s emails over his shoulder
  5. Anyone who searches for “Tuesday Anomaly” + “refrigerator” + “concrete”

This is a very short list.

09:30 - I Called Mikhail

I am not good at phone calls. I prefer written correspondence. But this requires direct questioning.

Me: “Mikhail, did you send me an email yesterday from a ProtonMail account about the Tuesday Research Consortium?”

Mikhail: (pause) “What? No. What email?”

Me: “An email claiming to be from researchers who study Tuesday anomalies. They cited data from my blog posts.”

Mikhail: “Someone read your entire blog?”

Me: “It appears so. They referenced the refrigerator study, the concrete correlation, the New Year’s Eve measurements.”

Mikhail: (thoughtful) “That’s… actually kind of nice? In a creepy way? Someone is paying attention to your work.”

Me: “It is creepy in a potentially nice way, yes. But I need to know who sent it.”

Mikhail: “Well, it wasn’t me. If I wanted to prank you, I would just call and tell you your refrigerator is haunted. Much simpler.”

This is true. Mikhail’s humor is direct, not elaborate.

Mikhail: “Wait, someone is pretending to be the Tuesday Research Consortium? From your conference post?”

Me: “Yes.”

Mikhail: “That’s creative. Do you want me to ask around? I told a few people about your blog.”

Me: “Who did you tell?”

Mikhail: “Yevgeny. My wife. A few colleagues who might find it interesting. Why, do you think one of them is pranking you?”

Me: “I am trying to eliminate possibilities.”

Mikhail: “I can ask Yevgeny if he knows anything. But I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t do this - he can barely send emails, and I don’t think he’s even read your blog.”

Me: “Please ask him. Subtly.”

Mikhail: “I’ll call him later. This is entertaining, Tolya. Someone cares enough about your Tuesday research to impersonate a fake organization. That’s dedication.”

Text Analysis (The Old-Fashioned Way)

I printed the email from yesterday. I prefer paper for analysis. This is how we reviewed papers at Laboratory 23-Б - print, annotate, compare.

Writing style observations:

The email is:

  • Grammatically correct (native English speaker OR very careful non-native)
  • Formal but not academic (no references, no institutional affiliation)
  • Specific with data (cited exact numbers from my posts: 0.3 Hz, r=0.23)
  • Oddly encouraging (“The pattern is real. You are not alone.”)

I compared this to:

Mikhail’s emails (I have many examples):

  • Casual, conversational tone
  • Uses humor frequently
  • Sometimes rambling
  • Recent example: “Tolya, I was thinking about what you said about the eggs, and you’re absolutely right, also have you tried the bakery on Dostyk Street…”

Not a match. The TRC email is too formal, too structured.

My own blog posts:

  • Self-deprecating
  • Detailed methodology sections
  • Acknowledges uncertainty
  • Similar formal-but-personal tone

Wait.

The email tone is somewhat similar to MY writing style. Not identical, but… someone who has read enough of my blog might unconsciously adopt similar phrasing patterns.

This narrows the suspects to: Someone who has read multiple posts carefully.

The Suspects

Theory 1: Someone in Mikhail’s circle (Probability: 40%)

Mikhail told people about my blog. One of them:

  • Has technical knowledge (ProtonMail account)
  • Read my blog thoroughly
  • Thought impersonating TRC would be funny or encouraging
  • Knows enough about research to make it convincing

Theory 2: Random internet person (Probability: 35%)

Someone found my blog through search:

  • Interested in Tuesday phenomena
  • Read my conference post about TRC
  • Decided to impersonate them
  • Has too much free time and technical skills

Theory 3: It’s actually real (Probability: 5%)

Tuesday Research Consortium exists and has been watching my blog.

Least likely.

Theory 4: I am overthinking this (Probability: 20%)

Perhaps I should just reply and ask who they are.

But what if they are legitimate? Then I seem paranoid. What if they are not? Then I seem gullible.

Both outcomes are uncomfortable.

11:23 - A Second Email Arrives

While I was analyzing the first email with red pen (circling phrases, noting similar word choices to my blog), my email notification sounded.

From: research.consortium.tuesday@protonmail.com Subject: Re: WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING YOUR RESEARCH Received: Wednesday, January 7, 2026, 11:23:47 +0600

Dr. Goverki,

We understand your hesitation. We also understand you have not yet replied.

This is normal. 73% of researchers we contact initially believe we are a hoax.

We are not.

Next Tuesday (January 13, 2026) will show elevated anomaly characteristics due to lunar phase alignment. We predict:

- Grid frequency elevation: +0.4 to +0.6 Hz (baseline 50.0 Hz)
- Peak effect window: 14:30-14:45 local time
- Temperature anomaly: +0.8°C to +1.2°C (if monitoring concrete/thermal systems)

Monitor your refrigerator compressor frequency during this window. Compare to baseline.

If our predictions match your measurements, you will know we are legitimate.

If they do not match, disregard this email and accept our apologies for the intrusion.

We will contact you again on January 14th.

- TRC

This Changes Everything

A testable prediction.

This is scientific. This is falsifiable. This is exactly what a real research organization would do.

Or this is exactly what someone who understands scientific methodology would do to make it convincing.

The prediction is specific:

  • +0.4 to +0.6 Hz grid frequency elevation
  • 14:30-14:45 time window
  • Next Tuesday (always Tuesday)

I can verify this. I was already planning to monitor next Tuesday anyway.

Analysis

Now I have two emails to compare. I print the second one, lay them side by side on my desk.

Similarities:

  • Same formal tone
  • Same encouraging language (“We understand…”)
  • Same specific knowledge of my methodology
  • Same confidence level

Differences:

  • Second email provides falsifiable prediction (raises legitimacy OR sophistication of prank)
  • Uses percentage (73%) - specific but unverifiable
  • Knows I haven’t replied (true, I haven’t)

The second email makes this either MORE legitimate (they can predict Tuesday anomalies) or LESS legitimate (someone is committed to this prank and making it increasingly elaborate).

14:15 - Mikhail Called Back

Mikhail: “I talked to Yevgeny.”

Me: “And?”

Mikhail: “He hasn’t emailed you recently about anything. I asked if he sent you research emails and he said ‘NO. WHY. SOMETHING WRONG.’”

Me: “That sounds like Yevgeny.”

Mikhail: “But here’s interesting - when I mentioned someone was sending you emails about Tuesday research, he laughed.”

Me: “He laughed?”

Mikhail: “Yes. Said ‘Good. Someone should encourage him.’ Then he mentioned something about his grandson reading your blog. The connection was bad - he was in the greenhouse - but I think he said his grandson finds your posts funny? In a good way?”

His grandson.

Yevgeny has grandchildren. I have never met them. I don’t know their names or ages.

Me: “How old is his grandson?”

Mikhail: “I don’t know. Teenager, maybe? Why?”

Me: “Teenagers understand computers.”

Mikhail: (realizing) “You think Yevgeny’s grandson is pranking you?”

Me: “Mikhail, who else would:”

  • Read my entire blog carefully enough to cite specific data
  • Know about the 2013 TRC conference from my questionable conferences post
  • Have the technical knowledge to set up ProtonMail
  • Think this is funny
  • Be young enough to think this is appropriate humor

Mikhail: (laughing) “That would actually be kind of sweet. Reading your whole blog to prank you properly shows real dedication.”

Me: “It shows I am being mocked by someone too young to remember the Soviet Union.”

Mikhail: “Or it shows your blog is interesting enough for teenagers to read. Take the compliment, Tolya.”

What I Am Doing Now

Action items:

  1. Set up continuous logging for next Tuesday (00:00-23:59)
  2. Calibrate all measurement equipment
  3. Prepare backup power (in case grid fluctuation is extreme)
  4. Document baseline measurements (today through Monday)
  5. Do NOT confront Yevgeny’s grandson yet (only 60% certain it’s him)
  6. Wait for Tuesday’s results

The Plan:

If the predictions are accurate: Either TRC is real, or someone (possibly teenage) has access to excellent Tuesday data or got very lucky.

If the predictions are wrong: It’s definitely a prank, and I will know approximately who did it.

Either way, I will know in 6 days.

Current Thinking

Someone has:

  • Read my blog carefully (multiple posts)
  • Understood my measurement methodology
  • Known about the 2013 TRC conference invitation
  • Made a falsifiable scientific prediction
  • Adopted a writing style somewhat similar to mine

This is either:

  • A very dedicated prankster (possibly Yevgeny’s teenage grandson)
  • A legitimate research organization (5% probability)
  • Someone who genuinely wants to validate my work (even if through deception)

Any of these options is… strange.

But if someone else is measuring Tuesdays - even as a prank, even to troll me - at least I am not the only one paying attention to patterns nobody else sees.

That is either comforting or deeply concerning.

I have not decided which.

Investigation status: Ongoing, new suspect identified

Primary suspects:

  • Yevgeny’s grandson (60% - teenager, tech-savvy, read blog, finds it funny)
  • Unknown internet person (30% - found blog through search)
  • Mikhail’s colleague (5% - told by Mikhail, curious)
  • Actually real TRC (5% - lowest probability but testable next Tuesday)

Next measurement window: January 13, 14:30-14:45

Preparation level: Extensive

Emotional state: Controlled paranoia with cautious curiosity

Tea consumption: 5 cups (elevated due to stress and investigation)

Note to whoever this is: The prediction is clever. I will test it rigorously. If you are Yevgeny’s grandson: your grandfather would be proud of your methodology, even if he is currently mortified by your prank.