Another I found while playing with search:

R Avry Wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Scott Creighton Wrote:
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Hi Robin,
> > >
> > > (Creighton:) A fair enough question. Even more so considering
> > > Birch . . .
> >
> > (Martin:) Excuse me? He asks about Gardiner and you start
> > blathering about Birch?
> >
> > Relevance?
>
> It's just another toothless cog in his forgery
> theory. He is trying to say that Birch (or
> whomever, not sure if Vyse is quoting Birch)
> knew the convention of numerals and
> produced it faithfully in the copy. According to
> Creighton, this would mean whoever drew the
> symbols on the ceiling did not know
> the conventions, ergo 'forgery'. A very weak
> argument.



So it’s all the way back to Sitchin’s game of making Birch say what Birch did not say, done this time via Creighton’s favoured procedure of making Birch’s transcription into something it’s not, as noted here and here and nevertheless carried forward barefacedly into print in SCO and HOAX.

Birch states explicitly in his footnote that the material in this case is transcription:

https://archive.org/stream/operationscarrie02howa#page/6/mode/2up/search/transcription

As for the numerals, Creighton sees no limit in what Birch said, as he “knows” what Birch thought.

M.