> Alan Alford responds to Martin
> Alan Alford
> Hi Martin,
> Sounds like I've got you worried!
> Thank you for confirming that all three names of
> Khufu - including the
> Horus Medjedu name - were inscribed together in an
> inscription in Sinai,
> and reproduced in 'Voyage de l'Arabie Petree' -
> published in 1832 - 5
> years BEFORE Vyse made his discovery.
> I mentioned this only because it backs up the
> point which I previously
> made - that Vyse could have copied ALL of the
> inscriptions from a location
> outside the Great Pyramid to the Construction
> Chambers inside the Pyramid.
> The Sinai inscriptions are relevant only as an
> example of how the names
> were often written together.
> Your contention that no-one could read the Horus
> names in 1837 is
> irrelevant. It is my contention that Vyse copied
> what he saw, probably
> from the nearby quarries or the tombs of Khufu's
> kinsfolk, and I would
> suggest that he found the Horus-name written
> <without> the serekh.
> Anyway, your note about Wilkinson is a little
> incomplete. Not only did he
> observe that the serekhs 'relate to the kings' but
> he included Khufu's
> serekh directly alongside the cartouche name for
> Khufu. He labelled them
> "1a/1b the name of Shufu or Suphis". This was in
> his 1837 book, published
> in the months BEFORE Vyse's 'discovery'.
> As you well know, Wilkinson HAD made the
> connection in 1837 between the
> readings Khufu/Shufu and Suphis/Cheops. And it had
> long been suspected
> that Cheops was the king who had built the Great
> Pyramid - as related by
> So, IF Vyse saw Wilkinson's book - which you must
> admit as a probability
> (or even a 'possibility' will suffice) - he could
> hardly have failed to
> make the necessary connections from Cheops to the
> cartouches for
> Shufu/Khufu AND to the serekh-name (which we now
> know to read 'Hor
> As for the Khnum-kuefui cartouche name, Wilkinson
> also reproduced this in
> his 1837 book, directly alongside the names of
> Shufu, labelling it
> '2.Numba-Khufu or Chembres'. So IF Vyse had seen
> this book, which I will
> presume he did, he would have been intrigued by
> the 'Khufu' connection
> between this name 'Numba-Khufu' and
> Now we know that Vyse spent months at Giza and had
> his men copying
> inscriptions there. And we know from Birch and
> Wilkinson that these
> cartouche names and the serekh had already been
> found at Giza (for
> example, Wilkinson's plate of the names is
> captioned 'From the Tombs near
> the Pyramids'). So it does not take a huge leap of
> faith to suppose that
> Vyse had first-hand experience of ALL these
> So, all we need is for Vyse to have found all
> three names together - in a
> quarry or a tomb - to make the logical connection
> that they were all
> related to the same king, Cheops, who was already
> supposed to have been
> the owner of the Pyramid.
> So, did Vyse forge the king's names? Let's just
> remind ourselves of a few
> salient facts:
> 1. There were no proper archaeological controls or
> verification procedures
> in operation to authenticate the marks that were
> found when the
> Construction Chambers were opened by Vyse.
> 2. By 1837, all chambers inside the Great Pyramid
> had been thoroughly
> explored and no other inscriptions had been found.
> Only the 'air shafts'
> remained unexplored, and they were almost
> completely inaccessible. So
> there was little likelihood of a fraud ever being
> subsequently exposed by
> new, contrary evidence.
> 3. Vyse, by his own admission, was running out of
> time and money and was
> desperate to make a discovery.
> 4. The red ochre paint which was used in the
> ancient inscriptions was
> still readily available in 1837.
> So did he do it? Did Vyse commit the forgery? On
> the evidence of what's in
> the Great Pyramid alone, we may never know for
> certain. But there are
> several things, Martin, which should make you feel
> uncomfortable with your
> oh-so-confident assertion that the names are
> (i) No graffiti marks were found in the lowest
> chamber - the only one NOT
> opened by Vyse.
> (ii) Arguably, the term 'craftsman' found in the
> crew names does not
> belong in the context of a work gang engaged in
> lifting heavy stones, but
> rather to craftsmanship as in making statues,
> furniture or other
> artifacts, as might be found in temples or tombs.
> This seems to support my
> hypothesis that the marks were copied from one
> location to another, but
> I'd love to hear what you think.
> (iii) The graffiti includes a lot of very strange
> stuff which you do know
> about, Martin, but which you don't like to talk
> about. Please allow me to
> remind you:
> * In Nelson's Chamber, northern side of western
> wall, the cartouche which
> should follow 'the Craftsmens 'Crew' symbols is
> almost entirely missing.
> * In Arbuthnot's Chamber, northern side of western
> wall, there is a
> genuinely malformed cartouche, which has nothing
> to do with Khufu. How
> * In Arbuthnot's Chamber, southern side of western
> wall, there is a
> confusing jumble of hieroglyphs, seemingly a crew
> name based on Horus
> Medjedu which appears to have been partly
> obliterated and then repainted.
> * In Arbuthnot's Chamber, northern wall, there are
> no less than SIX
> attempts to produce the Khnum-kuefui cartouche,
> only ONE of which has been
> properly completed. Mighty strange.
> * In Arbuthnot's Chamber, southern wall, there are
> 2 fragmentary attempts
> at the Horus Medjeru name, plus sundry other marks
> of uncertain character.
> How peculiar.
> Even if we leave to one side the whole battery of
> evidence that the Great
> Pyramid dates centuries earlier than Khufu, the
> above facts must at the
> very least cast considerable doubt on the
> authenticity of the
> All I can hope to do with this evidence is to
> demonstrate that the
> orthodox argument for the authenticity of the
> inscriptions is by no means
> a watertight case. Considerable doubt exists and
> should be acknowledged.
> I would add that few people realise just to what
> extent the orthodox case
> hangs on these Vyse inscriptions. I believe that I
> have demonstrated this
> point amply in my book 'The Phoenix Solution'.
> As you can see Martin, your abuse and threats
> don't worry me in the
> slightest. The facts speak for themselves.
> As for Hancock's statement, Martin, don't make me
> laugh! You have no
> evidence, just hearsay, and some very vague
> hearsay at that. I suggest you
> try and get some good photos because you're really
> going to need them. I
> tell you what - if you manage to get you and me,
> both, a double written
> invitation from Hawass to go up into the
> Construction Chambers, equipped
> with proper lighting, I'll pay for your return
> flight to Egypt. How about
> that for an 'honest attempt to discover the
> T Bird
Discerning readers will already know that Bird is a piece of work.
Those in any doubt might like to look up his crass comments on the Paris attacks of November last year and then decide for themselves whether or not his babbling conspiracism is really all that harmless.
Here he quotes the late Alan F. Alford, without mentioning that he’s no longer around to speak for himself, without mentioning that the words in question are from a Usenet post of 29 September 1998, going on eighteen (18) years ago, without any indication that I replied to the post and without (as is customary) linking to the material, so that readers may quickly discover how the discussion really went.
I rectify the lack. To Alford’s post:
To my reply direct:
Dredging up this old stuff may tell those that need it how little Bird has learnt in the interim, but for the rest of us (and especially those who were actively involved) it’s dragging the discussion back to a stage which should have been superceded.
I was saddened to hear of Alan’s death in 2011 (in Nepal, in circumstances which have not been fully explained). A memento mori and a reminder that some things are more important. I find this necroposting of his words, as if all of this were still current, in bad taste, to say the least.