Try the search facility of this board.
You might also try introductory epistemology. Your lack of understanding of what you invoke rhetorically is painfully apparent.
The inscriptions are there. They are, prima facie, ancient Egyptian inscriptions. Those with professional competence in ancient Egyptian palaeography agree. The inscriptions contain things which were not understood in 1837, but came to be understood later (sometimes decades later). Instead of being shown up as anomalous by later discoveries (compare Piltdown Man), they fit in perfectly with later discoveries.
On this basis, I take the simple view — the Occamist view — that they are what they appear to be, ancient Egyptian inscriptions.
You’re the one pushing a weird, convoluted, woo-woo conspiracy theory of their origin.
You’re the one making (in a phrase) the extraordinary claim.
Which leaves the burden of proof very much on you, so you can stop your weaselling attempts to shirk it.
Post Edited (19-Jul-14 22:19)