I do wish you good luck with your endeavours here, but I do think it is a shame and waste of your time and efforts in trying to counter whatever claims it is that Scott has put forward in the Atlantis Rising article.
In response to your post, I would like to say that having "To fully understand what this is about, you will need to obtain a copy of Atlantis Rising Issue 106, which will cost you $2.95 for a PDF download:"
"If you have gained the impression from the hype that Creighton has made some game-changing discovery and are disappointed in what it turns out to be, please don’t ask me for your money back. I’m not recommending the article. I know it’s junk."
is quite a strange request for the readers of your topic, and quite a strange retort to your own request.
I am sure that you would have a better time in pointing out your own views of Vyse's works as being what they are, and stating that Scott's views are wrong, and that you both use the same basis to arrive your results. In my opinion, to think that disagreeing over journal entries is made due to 'interpretations' certainly means that you both have a point of view over what those interpretations are.
For me, just seeing some of the scans you have made, makes me ponder that Vyse is not happy with the glyphs on his page and has crossed them out. If he is stating that those are what he has seen in the chamber, then they should be highlighted rather than crossed out. Seems like a man attempting to change his mind about what he has seen...or what he will see.