Those familiar with his posts (here and elsewhere) will know on reading the synopsis what most of this is going to consist in.
We may note in particular the reference to “high-definition photos” and “recent chemical analysis”. That he took the photos himself we may discount and one wonders who may have been unwise enough to grant him permission to use theirs—while the “recent chemical analysis” is presumably the sorry episode of Görlitz and Erdmann and the Institut Fresenius, on which he’s been known to cite (as a reliable source) an antisemitic rant in an Arabic tabloid:
Now that Erdmann has taken to citing Creighton, perhaps these respected researchers have established closer contacts:
Some will find amusement in the following: “Analyzing Vyse’s private diary, he reveals Vyse’s forgery instructions to his two assistants, Raven and Hill, and what the anachronistic sign should have been.” From which we infer that he still hasn’t twigged what the supposed “instruction to Raven and Hill” really is, despite his having all of the relevant information and despite my heavy hints on the question. As for “the anachronistic sign”, this as noted passim (here and elsewhere) relies entirely on his self-appointed expertise on the palaeography of the 4th and 5th dynasties, a topic on which he is not at all shy in contradicting those who’ve actually studied it.
Finally we may wish to remember that, not so very long ago, he was inclined to drop the Humphries Brewer “eyewitness” claim (on which of necessity he relies almost entirely on Sitchin) like a hot stone. Well, of course, as we know, that didn’t last long and here we see that this principled denouncer of all things dishonest has chosen to persist in the game of passing off a supposed oral tradition recounted by a great-grandson as “the eye-witness testimony of Humphries Brewer”—assuring us at least that he will not very soon be making a late career change to the law.