Putting the insults to one side...
SScientific rigour is about having doubt. Looking for weaknesses in your methodology. Identifying and logging all the assumptions or adjustments you have made and being open with yourself about whether they distort and over-inflate the significance of your results. It's about scrutinizing new evidence not just to see how well it fits your theory but whether your confirmation bias could be making it fit your theory. It's about being your own skeptic and genuinely seeking to find alternative explanations and reasons why you may be wrong. This is one of the big divides between pseudoscience and science; pseudolinguistics and linguistics; and the kind of theories Graham Hancock indulges in versus real archaeology.
I have not seen any such doubt in the entire fifty page history of this thread, and from how you have reacted when others play the skeptic role and challenge your methodology and assertions, I struggle to imagine you ever posed the same questions to yourself in the earlier days before you went public.
(That doesn't make you any better or worse than most other solvers, but they are not going around claiming their approach is scientific, and that we are scientifically/mathematically illiterate for not accepting your theory.)
SScientific rigour is about having doubt. Looking for weaknesses in your methodology. Identifying and logging all the assumptions or adjustments you have made and being open with yourself about whether they distort and over-inflate the significance of your results. It's about scrutinizing new evidence not just to see how well it fits your theory but whether your confirmation bias could be making it fit your theory. It's about being your own skeptic and genuinely seeking to find alternative explanations and reasons why you may be wrong. This is one of the big divides between pseudoscience and science; pseudolinguistics and linguistics; and the kind of theories Graham Hancock indulges in versus real archaeology.
I have not seen any such doubt in the entire fifty page history of this thread, and from how you have reacted when others play the skeptic role and challenge your methodology and assertions, I struggle to imagine you ever posed the same questions to yourself in the earlier days before you went public.
(That doesn't make you any better or worse than most other solvers, but they are not going around claiming their approach is scientific, and that we are scientifically/mathematically illiterate for not accepting your theory.)