Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think most people tend to draw their conclusions
> from evidence that DOES exist and, as such, can
> inform the debate as opposed to that which is
> non-existant and which can't inform the debate.

So do that. What you’re doing at present is drawing conclusions from the present absence of evidence.

> At least, that's how most sensible folks would
> operate. If you can find an old kingdom hieratic
> 'n' sign (that is NOT a date) anywhere outside the
> Vyse Chambers, I will gladly accept the argument.
> I have said that a number of times before. Just
> one sideways 'n' that is NOT a date and I'll
> accept the argument. I can't say fairer than
> that.

One example, he cries “forgery”, two examples, he’ll accept it? Bullshit.

And we note the ARBITRARY stipulation again. Now, don’t go looking at those dates:



—or comparing them with these:



Creighton will be cross if you do.

> BTW - in the Vyse Chambers we observe the value
> '20' written as 'uu' (presumably two upside-down
> 'n' - or, according to you, sideways). The
> orientation is immaterial to this particular
> question which is: why do we find at virtually the
> very same height of the GP in the small cavity
> chamber at the end of the Queens' Chamber southern
> shaft, the number '20' written using what is
> believed to be a completely different hieratic
> sign i.e. not 'nn'? And why isn't it written
> sideways?

And now you’re back to pushing this junk. Already covered:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1133868,1133984#msg-1133984

Are you sure of the 20 in Campbell’s Chamber? You shouldn’t be.

M.