It also doesn’t make sense to me because you would expect they didn’t just say “omg super conductivity!” on their first measurement and presumably measured more than once, verified connections, and generally assumed scrutiny would be high on any claim and (from what I’ve read of the history so far) the reason it’s from 1999 and published now is they didn’t believe it was real to begin with but believed it was a measurement mistake. This doesn’t mean others should be credulous and replication is crucial. But it seems to beggar reality to assume they made such an amateur mistake. I would assume outright fraud first.