That is a reasonably civilized and polite reply (by your standards) well done!
>> That sounds very exciting - and of course you
> will lose ALL credibility on here if you now don't
> deliver the goods.
Almost certainly I will not be the first to 'break' the news anyway. But be assured it will be impossible to supress it here for much longer.
> Once - and only once - you've given full
> disclosure of your "new information", we can have
> a full and frank discussion. That way, no one can
> accuse you of dirty tricks.
But Lonely you don't ever engage in full and frank discussion about posts containing information. I gather you are going to attempt it in future? Good on you... lets see you "deliver"!
Do you think that with over a decade of , conjuring up his conjectures, that Scott Creighton somehow was unaware of the limited state of knowledge of hieroglyphics in 1837, and therefore extreme limitations on Vyse & team?
Even if just one rendering of the kings name in RC's is real and genuine, (JUST ONE any one of the 19, let alone all of them!!!!), doesn't that shatter the BS! claims about the corroborative (and not the only basis) of dating the Great Pyramid as claimed on the back cover of his HOAX.
…"and removing the only physical evidence that dates the Great Pyranid's construction to the reign oi Khufu, Creighton's study strikes dawn one of the most fundamental assertions oi orthodox Egyptologists and reopens long-standing questions about the Great Pyramid’s true age, who really built it, and why. "
Have you travelled the 17 km yet, dragged him out from under his bed ,taken the selfie with your idol, and asked him to tell you his excuse for such rubbish, or fess up with the truth , YET?
What have you to say or add to such "discussion"????
> I look forward to it.
You might end up hiding under your bed?! But resist that urge, and be here to display some genuine honesty.