The Great Pyramid Hoax - New Evidence of Forgery in the Great Pyramid

a reply to: Hooke

Hooke,

Yes, there was indeed a document within Vyse's personal archive detailing a trip to Egypt dated (by watermark) to 1842. I can tell you that the handwriting does not look like that of Howard Vyse which means, of course, that it was written by someone as yet unknown. I have yet to determine who actually wrote it. (Of course, it could still have been dictated by Vyse. Remote, but still a possibility).

I have not yet studied this document as events have somewhat overtaken this aspect of my investigation. This is to say that the particular question of whether Vyse was in Egypt in 1842 or not is, as a result of findings in his personal diary of 1837, been rendered somewhat moot. This is to say that I no longer require the presence of Humphries Brewer to prove this forgery--Howard Vyse does it all by himself and in his own hand.

This material released today is not the end of the story. There is more, much more in Vyse's handwritten journal but this will be released in my forthcoming book. To put this into some kind of context--why should I be concerned about whether Humphries Brewer was in Egypt or not in 1842 when I have in front of me a page from Vyse's handwritten journal where he actually relates a clear instruction to his assistants to place hieroglyphic marks in these chambers. As I am sure you can now appreciate, there are bigger fish to fry here.

But when I do have a spare moment I shall indeed pursue this document (all 143 pages of it) to try and determine who wrote it and how it came to be in Vyse's personal archive.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Mr Mask

Mr Mask, while i appreciate your work to a degree, previous poster was somewhat correct;

clicking links without a glimpse of status bar info, that is pure internet noobery. No excuses.

And now that you say are using a mac, well... I'm inclined to say it's not your fault after all. Noobery, that is.

Please don't be offended.

a reply to: menneni

So is posting links to direct download files containing macros, which as pointed out, is also against the T&C.

perhaps this questioning is the keystone... which once wedged out will result in an avalanche of stones tumbling down...


I always had reservations with the 'measurements' of the great pyramid and how those 'measurements' were coinciding with the high-tech, 20th century scientific absolutes which could not be known in a bronze age technology world like ancient Egypt...
I say everything is Fudged... to make the 'Mountains' a mystery and seem to be Way-ahead-of-their-time

~ a colossal pile of sandstones, given alignments & 'coded' measurements to Astound the Intelligentsia
i.e. the mass of the pile-of-carved-stones is not some ratio of the Earth mass...etcetra
i.e. the shafts in the chambers were not meant for Star alignment, but only for sand movement
and all the hokey correlations attributed to these 2,500 yo mountains

originally posted by: menneni
a reply to: Mr Mask

Mr Mask, while i appreciate your work to a degree, previous poster was somewhat correct;

clicking links without a glimpse of status bar info, that is pure internet noobery. No excuses.

And now that you say are using a mac, well... I'm inclined to say it's not your fault after all. Noobery, that is.

Please don't be offended.

Noobery no. Trust in the OP to not slip in auto-downloads of his own work, as the T&Cs normally do not allow.

Like i said, I was fooled. I didn't know Scott here was going to slip downloads into people's hard drives without warning. Now I know his style and I can avoid his links.

No worries.

In the future I think it would be nice of him to warn people.

I'm not offended. I'm simply shocked that a link without to auto-downloaded personal work is allowed to go without warning on ATS (since such things have been removed in the past many many many times). Now I know.

MM

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: menneni

So is posting links to direct download files containing macros, which as pointed out, is also against the T&C.

Exactly...

If it was allowed on ATS, I would have checked to see if it was a download.

But since it has always been the T&C rules that such a thing is not allowed, I didn't check.

Bad practice of the OP. No worries. He can fix that in the future posts. If he doesn't, well then I will be very concerned.

MM

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Does this apply to this situation?

15j.) URL Links: You will not place a link on any of the Websites that initiates an automatic download or execution of a file of any sort.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Exactly why I didn't check. Exactly why I am not in the wrong with my dismay over my hard drive being violated.

I am not wrong in thinking this is bad practice.

The OP needs to fix this with a warning. I do notice he has not even replied to or made a comment on his mistake while he continues to reply to everyone else. Even tho the stars on my comment show that more people are upset about his download link than those starring the actual OP.

Please Scott...in the future do not do this.

MM

originally posted by: St Udio
perhaps this questioning is the keystone... which once wedged out will result in an avalanche of stones tumbling down...


I always had reservations with the 'measurements' of the great pyramid and how those 'measurements' were coinciding with the high-tech, 20th century scientific absolutes which could not be known in a bronze age technology world like ancient Egypt...
I say everything is Fudged... to make the 'Mountains' a mystery and seem to be Way-ahead-of-their-time

~ a colossal pile of sandstones, given alignments & 'coded' measurements to Astound the Intelligentsia
i.e. the mass of the pile-of-carved-stones is not some ratio of the Earth mass...etcetra
i.e. the shafts in the chambers were not meant for Star alignment, but only for sand movement
and all the hokey correlations attributed to these 2,500 yo mountains

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Hi Black Marketeer,

BM: You assume too much from Vyse's handwritten and crudely drawn notes. Vyse, in 1837, was no expert in Hieroglyphs. He had a barely functional knowledge of them.

SC: You seem to be going down the debunked Sitchin argument. The case I present has NOTHING to do with Sitchin whatsoever. Period. Vyse knew enough to perpetrate a fraud.

BM: He also had a flawed reference book of hieroglyphs with him, the 1828 Materia Hieroglyphica by Wilkinson, which mistakenly depicted Khufu's cartouche as having a blank solar disk sans 3 hatched lines.

SC: Again, you are following the debunked Sitchin argument. Things have moved on quite a bit since then.

BM: When Vyse opened the chambers and discovered the cartouches, he did not see a "proper" (per Materia Hieroglyphica) blank solar disk in the cartouche, and that led to his confusion, evident in the journal entries. Why, he must have wondered, did this cartouche not have a blank disk, why does it show a hatched disk? He was expecting to find the cartouche with either the 'blank' solar disk (alternatively written as a disk with a dot in the center), instead he found something that contradicted Wilkinson's Materia Hieroglyphica, a disk with three lines.

SC: Then why does Vyse draw a Khufu cartouche with a BLANK disc TWICE in his diary? His first entry of such a cartouche is on 27th May, 1837 (the day he first opened the chamber). There is no deliberation here with other discs being drawn—just the one disc, a blank disc. The second blank Khufu disc is found in his entry on 16th June. Why didn’t Vyse, on the day he opened Campbell’s Chamber draw a disc with three hatched lines in his journal? Why repeat this three weeks later? This isn’t an assumption—it’s right there in his journal. Can you show me where Sitchin makes reference to Vyse’s handwritten journal and to these specific anomalous entries on these dates?

BM: Also not addresses in your treatise is the instances found in the chambers of Khufu's horus name written in hieroglyphics that was completely unknown by Vyse or anyone in 1837.

SC: The Birth and throne names are often written together. Vyse only needed to recognize the cartouche of Khufu. So, here’s an assumption: Vyse found a ‘cache’ of material that contained the Khufu name within the text. Although Vyse could not recognize anything other than the Khufu cartouche, it also contained the Horus name. Vyse simply copies the lot—he doesn’t have to understand any of it. It’s graffiti. If it says bad things about Khufu, doesn’t matter. Good things, doesn’t matter. What matters is that – even though he cannot read it - it obviously relates to Khufu. The question now is this: did Vyse know the Khufu cartouche? Well, he did. Go through the presentation/PDF again and you will find Vyse writes this in his journal on 16th June:

Cartouches in tomb to the W. [west] of first pyramid are different than Suphis [Khufu].” – Col. Howard Vyse, private journal.

SC: Vyse would have to know (or, at least, believe he knew) how the Khufu cartouche should look in order to observe any differences. What caused Vyse to wobble was his observation of the Khufu cartouche in this tomb to the west of the GP was that the Khufu discs here had hatched lines, contrary to his journal entry of 27th May which presents us with an unhatched disc in the Khufu cartouche.

[snip] SC: This is not about Sitchin’s flawed argument.

BM: If Vyse truly wanted to commit such a forgery, he would have stuck with the leading experts of the day, Wilkinson, and the Materia Hieroglyphica, he would have kept the spelling with a blank solar disk.

SC: Er, he did. That is why his diary shows the Khufu cartouche with a blank disc TWICE. It is only after he observed the Khufu cartouches with hatched discs in the Tomb of the Trades (to the west of the GP) that he suspects he (and Wilkinson) might not have the correct spelling. How can he confirm the spelling? Well, after observing this contradiction to Wilkinson he could have obtained for himself a copy of: 'I monumenti dell'Egitto e della Nubia' vol. 1, Rosellini, (1832) which shows the Khufu cartouche with hatched disc and would have confirmed for Vyse this spelling. (It wasn't fully understood in 1837 that both blank and hatched discs were valid spellings).

BM: The fact that the cartouches caused such a consternation indicates their discovery led to a new paradigm in understanding hieroglyphics in the 19th century.

SC: Why would the hatched Khufu cartouche disc have caused such “consternation” in academic circles when it was known that Rosellini had published the hatched disc Khufu cartouche in 1832, five years before Vyse went to Egypt?

Regards,

SC

Auto download ...
Auto loss of trust ...
Auto loss of interest ...

Auto response .

Auto off .

originally posted by: Mr Mask
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Clicked link thinking it would bring me to an online source, ended up downloading your presentation. Had to delete it before reading it. I don't like files slipped to me without warning. Feel a little violated now. Sorry.

MM

Couldn't you have simply scanned the file and then opened it if all was OK?

a reply to: MysterX

T&C's put us at ease ...

That was very intrusive.

We should be able to expect a link to a source.

Not a hijack.

ETA: The pop up screen informing me that my xxx days trial had expired. Was a nice touch.

Needless to say - I did not pay to proceed !

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
Hi ATS,

For those who do not have Powerpoint to view this presentation, here is a PDF version (1.13Mb download).

The Great Pyramid Hoax

Regards,

SC

Scott

Thanks for posting the PDF, Very interesting information and your work is greatly appreciated. I for one am always open minded enough to consider new perspectives. I'm looking forward to a spirited discussion of the ON-TOPIC presentation rather than over the means of the first attempted delivery.

Indeed very interesting information and thanks a lot for bringing it out. When it comes to mainstream archeology, I always knew some parts we have been taught as real, is just bure bollocks. Keep up the good work Scott.

And to people here who are mostly derailing the thread with "preach of privacy" and "automated download" should go check their internet browser settings. If you have that tiny box checked with a sign that says "download files automatically without asking location", please do uncheck it, so you whoever has the "problem" can avoid throwing more accusations later on.



Nothing automated there as you can see when I clicked the link first time. So go and look up at your browser settings, all should have them. Turn it off so no boogies will attack your computer.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

Hooke,

Yes, there was indeed a document within Vyse's personal archive detailing a trip to Egypt dated (by watermark) to 1842. I can tell you that the handwriting does not look like that of Howard Vyse which means, of course, that it was written by someone as yet unknown. I have yet to determine who actually wrote it. (Of course, it could still have been dictated by Vyse. Remote, but still a possibility).

I have not yet studied this document as events have somewhat overtaken this aspect of my investigation. This is to say that the particular question of whether Vyse was in Egypt in 1842 or not is, as a result of findings in his personal diary of 1837, been rendered somewhat moot. This is to say that I no longer require the presence of Humphries Brewer to prove this forgery--Howard Vyse does it all by himself and in his own hand.

This material released today is not the end of the story. There is more, much more in Vyse's handwritten journal but this will be released in my forthcoming book. To put this into some kind of context--why should I be concerned about whether Humphries Brewer was in Egypt or not in 1842 when I have in front of me a page from Vyse's handwritten journal where he actually relates a clear instruction to his assistants to place hieroglyphic marks in these chambers. As I am sure you can now appreciate, there are bigger fish to fry here.

But when I do have a spare moment I shall indeed pursue this document (all 143 pages of it) to try and determine who wrote it and how it came to be in Vyse's personal archive.

Regards,

SC

Confirming my guess as to the document behind his plonking assertion.

So the paper was dated to 1842, by watermark. Wow, that means that the words on it describe events in 1842 — doesn’t it?

“I no longer require the presence of Humphries Brewer to prove this forgery . . .”

Translation: Creighton looked for the name “Humphries Brewer” (his main agenda in looking at the journal in the first place — see his piece in AR 106 and earlier in this thread) and couldn’t find it — and began to realise that as he’d been told all along, the story is iffy.

But of course we may trust his judgement now . . .

M.

Do those who cling to the forgery theory really believe Vyse left detailed notes on his forgery in his journal that he then turned over to the British Museum?

You choose to interpret his notes in a way that befits your pet theory.

Vyse was working from Wilkinson's knowledge of how the cartouche should appear, his notes reflect a discovery that ran contrary to what was then current knowledge of hieroglyphs.

There are two irrefutable obstacles to these New Age or Ancient Alien or Atlantis theories of a much older Great Pyramid, #1 is the 1985 and 1994 carbon dating of the pyramid and #2 are the cartouches bearing Khufu's name in chambers sealed from the time of it's construction. While there is a wealth of other indicators of the GP's 4th dynasty origins, those stray into the anecdotal or circumstantial realm that requires knowledgeable sciences like archeology to recognize.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Hi Black Marketeer,

BM: You assume too much from Vyse's handwritten and crudely drawn notes. Vyse, in 1837, was no expert in Hieroglyphs. He had a barely functional knowledge of them.

SC: You seem to be going down the debunked Sitchin argument. The case I present has NOTHING to do with Sitchin whatsoever. Period. Vyse knew enough to perpetrate a fraud.

BM: He also had a flawed reference book of hieroglyphs with him, the 1828 Materia Hieroglyphica by Wilkinson, which mistakenly depicted Khufu's cartouche as having a blank solar disk sans 3 hatched lines.

SC: Again, you are following the debunked Sitchin argument. Things have moved on quite a bit since then.

BM: When Vyse opened the chambers and discovered the cartouches, he did not see a "proper" (per Materia Hieroglyphica) blank solar disk in the cartouche, and that led to his confusion, evident in the journal entries. Why, he must have wondered, did this cartouche not have a blank disk, why does it show a hatched disk? He was expecting to find the cartouche with either the 'blank' solar disk (alternatively written as a disk with a dot in the center), instead he found something that contradicted Wilkinson's Materia Hieroglyphica, a disk with three lines.

SC: Then why does Vyse draw a Khufu cartouche with a BLANK disc TWICE in his diary? His first entry of such a cartouche is on 27th May, 1837 (the day he first opened the chamber). There is no deliberation here with other discs being drawn—just the one disc, a blank disc. The second blank Khufu disc is found in his entry on 16th June. Why didn’t Vyse, on the day he opened Campbell’s Chamber draw a disc with three hatched lines in his journal? Why repeat this three weeks later? This isn’t an assumption—it’s right there in his journal. Can you show me where Sitchin makes reference to Vyse’s handwritten journal and to these specific anomalous entries on these dates?

BM: Also not addresses in your treatise is the instances found in the chambers of Khufu's horus name written in hieroglyphics that was completely unknown by Vyse or anyone in 1837.

SC: The Birth and throne names are often written together. Vyse only needed to recognize the cartouche of Khufu. So, here’s an assumption: Vyse found a ‘cache’ of material that contained the Khufu name within the text. Although Vyse could not recognize anything other than the Khufu cartouche, it also contained the Horus name. Vyse simply copies the lot—he doesn’t have to understand any of it. It’s graffiti. If it says bad things about Khufu, doesn’t matter. Good things, doesn’t matter. What matters is that – even though he cannot read it - it obviously relates to Khufu. The question now is this: did Vyse know the Khufu cartouche? Well, he did. Go through the presentation/PDF again and you will find Vyse writes this in his journal on 16th June:

Cartouches in tomb to the W. [west] of first pyramid are different than Suphis [Khufu].” – Col. Howard Vyse, private journal.

SC: Vyse would have to know (or, at least, believe he knew) how the Khufu cartouche should look in order to observe any differences. What caused Vyse to wobble was his observation of the Khufu cartouche in this tomb to the west of the GP was that the Khufu discs here had hatched lines, contrary to his journal entry of 27th May which presents us with an unhatched disc in the Khufu cartouche.

[snip] SC: This is not about Sitchin’s flawed argument.

BM: If Vyse truly wanted to commit such a forgery, he would have stuck with the leading experts of the day, Wilkinson, and the Materia Hieroglyphica, he would have kept the spelling with a blank solar disk.

SC: Er, he did. That is why his diary shows the Khufu cartouche with a blank disc TWICE. It is only after he observed the Khufu cartouches with hatched discs in the Tomb of the Trades (to the west of the GP) that he suspects he (and Wilkinson) might not have the correct spelling. How can he confirm the spelling? Well, after observing this contradiction to Wilkinson he could have obtained for himself a copy of: 'I monumenti dell'Egitto e della Nubia' vol. 1, Rosellini, (1832) which shows the Khufu cartouche with hatched disc and would have confirmed for Vyse this spelling. (It wasn't fully understood in 1837 that both blank and hatched discs were valid spellings).

BM: The fact that the cartouches caused such a consternation indicates their discovery led to a new paradigm in understanding hieroglyphics in the 19th century.

SC: Why would the hatched Khufu cartouche disc have caused such “consternation” in academic circles when it was known that Rosellini had published the hatched disc Khufu cartouche in 1832, five years before Vyse went to Egypt?

Regards,

SC

“That is why his diary shows the Khufu cartouche with a blank disc TWICE.”

No, it doesn’t. You’ve had this explained and shown to you already:

www.grahamhancock.com...

Once might be a mistake. Twice looks very like a flat-out lie.

“So, here’s an assumption: Vyse found a ‘cache’ of material that contained the Khufu name within the text.”

An assumption you fail yet again to credit to its source, “the late, great Alan Alford”. You know, the Alan Alford you pretended to care so much about when it served as a pretext for taking a dig at me:

www.grahamhancock.com...

Yeah, sure, Creighton, Vyse found through sheer dumb luck a whole set of just the right kind of inscriptions (crew names, not tourist graffiti), in some unspecfied (and entirely unevidenced) architectural context, in just the right arrangement to conform with later discoveries as to the conventions for such marks — and with no idea of what they said, took the crazy risk of copying them en bloc into the pyramid — and through sheer dumb luck it paid off.

Through sheer dumb luck, Vyse threw a coin and it landed on its edge and stood there 36 times in a row.

All of this “assumed” without evidence, not even from the now discarded “eyewitness”, Humphries Brewer, whose bona fides you were pushing with equal vehemence not much more than five minutes ago.

“The case I present has NOTHING to do with Sitchin whatsoever.”

Ever the ingrate. See the remarks re Alford above.

Your “case”, Creighton, is entirely in the Sitchin manner.

M.

The hieroglyphs in the relieving chambers are spelled correctly. At least we can agree on that? The royal cartouches and the horus names of Khufu are correct, hieratic and hieroglyphic, whether that was known in 1837 or not is immaterial. The misspellings (or typos) only occur in Wilkinson's "Materia Hieroglyphica," and in Vyse's notes, those 'mispellings' in Vyse's notes likely due to Vyse relying on Wilkinson as a reference source. I'll hazard a guess here that Vyse's illustration of the cartouche with hatched solar disk was his copying the cartouche(s) he found in the chambers to his notes. The copies in his notes of the blank solar disk were likely copied from Wilkinson. From appearances, he was comparing them. What he found versus what the leading authority believed they should read. I can't imagine Vyse hauling a copy of Materia Hieroglyphica up into the chamber either, a tight confined space reached by a narrow ladder, and having to rely on a torch for lighting. I would think Vyse took notes he copied from this book with him, to try and interpret the inscriptions, in addition to drawing them to his notes for comparison to his reference book.

Never mind that these painted cartouches and inscriptions are on block faces that run behind one another, evidence they were applied before being placed into the pyramid. These are also worker graffiti, they didn't delineate them with precision and care as the artisans painting a royal tomb would have. Probably why they were writing in Hieratic in the first place instead of the more formal Hieroglyphs. Their purpose in all likelihood was to direct where the stone was going or to be placed.

What Vyse encountered - the Hieratic text, unknown at the time in this usage, the Horus name for Khufu, also unknown at this time, has been bourne out by later researchers as correct. You are trying to convince us that he forged these, with knowledge he couldn't possibly have had in 1837.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Hi BM,

BM: Do those who cling to the forgery theory really believe Vyse left detailed notes on his forgery in his journal that he then turned over to the British Museum?

SC: I see from this that you have not properly viewed the presentation or PDF. There you will find that the Vyse archive is not in fact in the British Museum. In fact, it is one of the few things Vyse did not give to the British Museum. It remained in his personal archive and some time after his death ended up at the Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies.

BM: You choose to interpret his notes in a way that befits your pet theory.

SC: And you are at liberty to do likewise. That is what discussion is all about. Interpreting evidence is allowed.

BM: Vyse was working from Wilkinson's knowledge of how the cartouche should appear…

SC: Were you there in 1837? Did Vyse tell you that?

BM: …his notes reflect a discovery that ran contrary to what was then current knowledge of hieroglyphs.

SC: His notes reflect nothing of the sort. His notes tell us quite clearly that he saw a cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber with a plain disc as this is what he drew in his journal and which he writes alongside this very cartouche the words: “in Campbell’s Chamber”. But I agree with you on one thing—Vyse probably thought the spelling should be with the blank disc and that is why he initially painted it into the chamber with such a disc only to realize 3 weeks later (after seeing Perring’s drawings) that the disc required the hatched lines. (No one, least of all Vyse, knew in 1837 that the plain disc spelling was just as valid as the hatched disc spelling).

[Snip] This discussion has NOTHING whatsoever to do with ancient aliens/Atlantis or anything else.

Regards,

SC

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Hi BM,

BM: The hieroglyphs in the relieving chambers are spelled correctly. At least we can agree on that?

SC: They were spelled correctly also when Vyse first drew them with a blank disc (confirmed by his own drawing of said cartouche). Vyse just didn’t know then that a blank disc was just as valid as the hatched disc. He overegged the pudding by subsequently adding the three lines to the blank disc he had placed in the chamber earlier.

BM: The royal cartouches and the horus names of Khufu are correct, hieratic and hieroglyphic, whether that was known in 1837 or not is immaterial. The misspellings (or typos) only occur in Wilkinson's "Materia Hieroglyphica," and in Vyse's notes, those 'mispellings' in Vyse's notes likely due to Vyse relying on Wilkinson as a reference source.

SC: Vyse may well have relied on Wilkinson but no one can be certain. It would certainly explain why he initially drew the Khufu cartouche in the chamber with just a blank disc. What IS certain is that Vyse had a source of information that told him that the Khufu disc was spelled with a blank disc which is why he drew it TWICE this way in his diary and why he initially had it painted this way in the chamber (only to go back weeks later and add in the lines).

BM: I'll hazard a guess here that Vyse's illustration of the cartouche with hatched solar disk was his copying the cartouche(s) he found in the chambers to his notes. The copies in his notes of the blank solar disk were likely copied from Wilkinson. From appearances, he was comparing them. What he found versus what the leading authority believed they should read. I can't imagine Vyse hauling a copy of Materia Hieroglyphica up into the chamber either, a tight confined space reached by a narrow ladder, and having to rely on a torch for lighting. I would think Vyse took notes he copied from this book with him, to try and interpret the inscriptions, in addition to drawing them to his notes for comparison to his reference book.

SC: No. Vyse’s two drawings in his journal with the blank disc ALSO have the two dots under the snake glyph which are apparent only in the chamber and Vyse’s notes and NOT in Wilkinson (or any of Wilkinson’s contemporaries). Furthermore, Vyse writes alongside the entry of 16th June with the blank disc the words: “in Campbell’s Chamber”. It could not be clearer that he drew what was in front of him in Cmapbell’s Chamber.

BM: Never mind that these painted cartouches and inscriptions are on block faces that run behind one another, evidence they were applied before being placed into the pyramid.

SC: A couple of things here. The marks that go between the immovable blocks are merely mason’s marks, there are no registers of hieroglyphs here. Just randomly spaced mason’s marks—no hieroglyphs and most certainly no cartouches. I confirmed this with Graham Hancock who has actually been in there looking at the marks between these blocks.

Even if there was a cartouche in one of these tight gaps (and there isn’t) it is still entirely possible (with a little lateral thinking) for a forger to have placed them there a create a great illusion that they must be genuine. It’s easily done.

The final thing to say here is that I believe some of the red ochre markings in these chambers are likely to be genuine for the very reason that Humphries Brewer who, according to the account left by his great-grandfather, Walter M. Allen, witnessed the forgery taking place:

”Feint marks were repainted, some were new.” – Humphries Brewer (from the account of Walter M. Allen)

SC: The question now is which marks are genuine and which are fake?

[snip] No one disputes the AE workers placed graffiti on stones. The question is whether this is AE graffiti or a 19th century forgery.

BM: What Vyse encountered - the Hieratic text, unknown at the time in this usage, the Horus name for Khufu, also unknown at this time, has been bourne out by later researchers as correct. You are trying to convince us that he forged these, with knowledge he couldn't possibly have had in 1837.

SC: As I stated already—the birth and throne names are often found together. If Vyse found an inscription (a secret source) with the Khufu name (which he could identify) then he simply copies it and whatever else is beside or round about it. He doesn’t need to understand what is written there—he knows whatever it says is related in some way to the thing he CAN recognize i.e. the Khufu cartouche. Vyse could very easily have copied the Horus name from this secret source into the chamber without having the first clue about what he was copying. The only thing that mattered is that whatever it was he was copying (which he couldn’t read) was related in some way to Khufu, probably the only thing he could read.

Regards,

SC