Learn English – Using present participle and past tense of an acronym

The difference at its root is related to a distinction between active voice (corresponding to the present participle) versus passive voice (corresponding to the past participle).

In your example sentence, it can be said that "local times originate from X" (active voice) whereas "local times are perpetuated by Y" (passive voice). Note that latter can be written in active voice as "Y perpetuates local times". And the former can't be sensibly written in passive voice (originate, in the sense used here, is intransitive and agent-less).

The wikipedia article on paticiples explains this difference like so:

Participles may correspond to the active voice (active participles), where the modified noun is taken to represent the agent of the action denoted by the verb; or to the passive voice (passive participles), where the modified noun represents the patient (undergoer) of that action. Participles in particular languages are also often associated with certain verbal aspects or tenses. The two types of participle in English are traditionally called the present participle (forms such as writing, singing and raising; these same forms also serve as gerunds and verbal nouns), and the past participle (forms such as written, sung and raised; regular participles such as the last, as well as some irregular ones, have the same form as the finite past tense).

Also look under the "English" section of that article for some further explanation as well as a list of where each kind of participle can be used.

Hopefully it's clear now that you can't use "originated" in your sentence because it's not the case that "[some agent] originates local times". And you can't say "perpetuating" because it's not the case that "local times perpetuate [some patient]" (in addition, with these constructions, the prepositional phrases "from X" and "by Y" become nonsensical).

I sympathize with the heartfelt cry, "Does the English language not specify which tense that we must use when sentences are constructed like this?" The answer is sort of. "The English language" is really the speakers of the English language, and they don't always agree with each other, and they're not always consistent, especially in informal communication like the spoken dialog that you're reporting.

The first case you cite is, I think, the result of reported speech (or in this case, thinking.) If Mr. Bruce were reporting his thoughts directly, he would have told the narrator: I thought, "I will tell you when I see you." But Mr. Bruce tells the narrator a report of this thinking: I though I'd [I would] tell you when I saw you." This is called "backshifting the tense" for a past report ("thought"), and it takes "will" to "would," and "see" to "saw."

The second case has almost the same structure, but with a slight syntactic ambiguity about the reported thought. Is it of

    "I will tell you."

or is it of

    "I will tell you before you get to the office."

In the latter case, "get" should be backshifted to got. In the former, the temporal clause is not part of the report, and the verb "get" is in the present, which is used for near-future events.

Of course, that future sense clashes with the past "I thought," but getting the tenses technically correct would require something like, "Before you get to work, I will have thought that I had told you," and no one would say that.

There also is some sense of obligation in the sentence, not only that the speaker would warn the narrator but that he should. In which case, the sentence "I thought I should tell you before you get to work" is fine with the present tense indicating an ongoing situation.

Remember that it's dialog, and people don't always speak "correctly." Perhaps the author deliberately tried to mimic everyday speech, or perhaps he got it "wrong" in the first place.