I've read that analysis before and it has some problems. For instance, he says he does not buy that the Aaron in the garage when Abe explains about the Weeble is an Aaron from the future. But he almost has to be.

His argument is that Aaron's handwriting is normal, so that Aaron has not experienced time travel. If you listen closely to the scene where Aaron talks about his degraded handwriting, he actually says that he can't write normally with ease. He can make the letters look right if he concentrates on them (which we see him doing later while they are writing down stocks at the library).

Secondly, there is a huge clue that the Aaron we see throughout the first part of the film (before Abe uses his failsafe) is a time traveler. Day Two, the day when Abe uses the box for the second time and Aaron allegedly uses it for the first time, Aaron's wife mentions some weird noises in the attic. Aaron says they're only baby birds. In reality, that is Aaron1, drugged and trapped up there by the time traveling Aaron3 who is sitting on the couch blaming birds.

There is also a lot of just general sloppiness on the page. He gets some broad strokes right but he really needs to pay closer attention to some other points.

> Which of course doesn't make any sense unless you allow for paradoxes that don't effect your "current version."

Yeah. One of the rules of time travel Abe writes down is something like "now is the only time that matters" and the narrator tells us something similar. Logical paradoxes are allowed, which is how there are permanent duplicates (two of Abe, at least three of Aaron) at the end of the film.

Stephen