At some point years ago, I started referring to papers like his as examples of “The Twine-Ball Fallacy”. Meaning that if you wrap a core idea in enough layers, you can have it mean anything you want. (I used to refer to this as “Occam’s Twine-ball” because it was the opposite of “Occam’s Razor”, but it is simpler to explain without reference to that other idea.) The basic logic error is that many highly probable things chained together result in an actual cumulative probability that is low, while the writer thinks it means the cumulative probability is extraordinarily high. (0.9^10 = ~0.35, not ~0.9999999999) This fallacy is amazingly common in pseudo-scientists’ writings. Surprisingly, I don’t seem to find this concept described in the wiki list of fallacies.
The upshot of this is that any paper beyond a certain number of pages is most likely garbage. (The exact number of pages depends on the field and specialty, of course.)