Explain how scientific it is to allow an Unas example as the make-or-break test.

Let's say the result supports Scott.

Does that unequivocally confirm his theory? Make it fact?

I've seen enough ambiguity in the writing style to conclude the line of reasoning that employs it does nothing in support.

Sans 45-year-old video testament, archaeology waxes the proclivity of relative solutions. QED.

In this case, what is more likely?