I know you have extreme difficulty in grasping such a simple concept, but in science we go about positively proving things. You cannot actually disprove something that has not itself actuially been proven. That is a logical fallacy. Do you not see this?
As such, it is incumbent upon Egyptology to prove that the markings in these chambers are genuine--they have to prove the positive case. That I can present evidence that blasts holes in the 'testimony' of Vyse & Co will do only that. (Yes Stower--we know you scream and scream "It's not true, it's not true--Creighton's evidence is rubbish" (or words to that effect). Your screaming like a big lassie's blouse about the evidence I present (of which you have seen only a small amount) is no substitute for actual hard evidence, is it? Mouthing off that my evidence is "rubbish" won't actually make it so. You really have to do better and the best way you can do that is to present the positive case i.e. present evidence that these markings are authentic.
Get to it--there's a good laddie.