Personally I like the name Tricky Dicky. I think it fits.
There is of course the allusion to Nixon (Richard M. not Warwick) which is rather apt. Nixon is the statesman who went to China and began to thaw out the Cold War and lay the future foundations for world peace. He is also the petty crook who allowed his minions to break into Watergate and perform a variety of other criminal functions.
No one is completely bad or good, black or white. Martin Stower has been defending Howard Vyse's honour for years now - moreso than the man himself bothered to do in his lifetime - but no thinking person can doubt that he was as slippery as an eel and was indeed the type of person who - given the motive and the right circumstances (both of which he had) - *might*, just *might* have cheated.
It wouldn't matter that much, but for the fact that these little marks, discovered by this dubious man, are almost all we really have on which to hang the entire notion that Khufu built the Great Pyramid. That, unfortunately, is just one of the most awful, precarious, questionable and agonising fractures in our historical knowledge: are they frauds, done by a fraudster, or are they genuine, genuinely discovered by a man who we simply cannot trust? Sadly, that's the problem - right there in the middle of this momentous find stands Tricky Dicky.
Scott has done a good job of keeping the case wide open on Vyse, but for me at least it's still very inconclusive. Scott has put Vyse in the dock. Would I convict the man? No, not on the extant evidence. No. But I wouldn't buy a used car from him either.
I'm aware that this argument has gone on for years and will continue to do so... with a great deal of integrity on both sides I have to say. But the story is not over yet.
The real answer has to lie in true forensic testing of the marks themselves - especially in the context of the blasting methods used by Vyse and the residue it would have left. Whilst I understand that politically this is not likely to happen, it staggers me that anyone with a remotely inquiring or scientific mind would be against this... especially those who routinely demand "peer review". Test and test and test again, I say... it's the only way to truly bring this matter to a conclusion that a reasonable person would accept.
""It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair