Yeah - no 'nn' (20) and no 'n | n' (21). Instead we have 'n | n |' (22) and 'n ||" (12) - none of which Perring presents.
Is it likely that Rowe missed Perring's 20 and 21 and that these are perhaps on other blocks? But why then would Perring miss Rowe's '12' and '22'?
Or is the simple answer that Rowe saw these signs differently than Perring did? Could it perhaps be that Perring's 'nn' (20)is actually Rowe's 'n || (12)? Could it also be that Perring's 'n | n' (21) is actually Rowe's 'n | n |' (22), with Rowe perhaps seeing something Perring missed?
Assuming Rowe's observations are correct and 'nn' (20) is actually 'n ||' (12) and that 'n | n' (21) is actually 'n | n |' (22) then the positions of the '12' & '22' renders Mollier's* hypothesis completely untenable (if it wasn't already). Block '23' is now numbered '12' (rather than '20') and block '21' is now numbered '22' (instead of '21').
So--you have just ONE clear number - '4' - that, based on a totally arbitrary counting direction, happens to correlate with the block sequence. ONE NUMBER!!! And you also now have a whole lot of problems here with Rowe's observations.
It's incredible to me to think here that Bauval took years of hectoring for having just THREE stars that correlated very well with the Orion constellation and here is Mollier* with just ONE solitary clear number and even then, its correlation is entirely dependent on an arbitrary sequence count direction.
This theory is utterly risible but I guess you have to have something to grasp onto. But who am I to get in the way of a man and his delusion?
Now--put that cigar out.
*EDIT to add: Should read 'Monnier'.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17-Jun-18 11:46 by Scott Creighton.