> All of the numbers in question are accompanied by
> either the nfr sign (F35) or was sign (S40). Both
> are vertical signs, yet presented as horizontal
> here. Have Scott discussed these signs elsewhere?
I noticed your request for links yesterday. I am not deliberately ignoring you! However for some unexplained reason I can't get the site search engine to produce any search results for Scott Creighton?
Best if you specifically ask M Stower for links. He seems to keep meticulous track of SC's musings.
I believe (seem to recall from links posted here) that SC started threads on several other forums as well.
However, you ought be familiar with this later thread where the issue was further discussed with some considerable sensible contribution from yourself , M Stower and R Avry Wilson in particular on the subject. I think Sc makes some comment about it within.
It seems to me that ordinal numbers in hieratic need not necessarily be only dates. As per Gardiner excerpt posted by Martin above. It seems given the nature of the complicated project of constructing RC's that block order would be a major consideration. However maybe in conjunction with nfr might be an approved "perfect" on such a date??? I am interested in your thoughts.
Sorry if I was any part of Sc's decision to ignore your very pertinent question. Likely too difficult to give an honest answer or guess???? (there is obvious difficulties for SC hypothesis whether he answered yes OR no!)
I try these days not to flame him rudely , but a bloke who is cowardly enough to defame a defenceless dead man and his colleagues , with rubbish he calls "evidence" including from fake people he calls "experts" and THEN to start a thread denigrating the mans very substantial crypt and grave site needs a good kick in the ar$e! Imho