but, as j ellison has pointed out through his experienced and effective team-investigation of the 'forensic' techniques/handiwork of the painter, there are genuine problems for the official tale. obviously, creighton has uncovered some weighty issues to consider. that means questions, not 'case closed'.
we all know that the official timeline of AE history is built on accepting that what others have said to be true, is. kings lists, manetho, blah infinitum, so the 'official story' is just an academic 'consensus theory' anyway, much to the chagrin of people who have invested large amount of money and time into learning the 'facts' that others before them have come to, and then taught forward.
and yes, thanos, we definitely need to look at all of the markings in context, not just the 'khufu' cartouche.
vyse is already tainted as at least suspect of being 'amoral' in his intentions, even before the sitchin material (the rumors of which, admittedly, may have given sitchin the idea that vyse could be acceptably attacked in the first place). but truthfully, he had a lot to gain by getting away with painting 'history' into the GP.
as far as the allen account goes, the answer to why 'the family' didn't bring up the 'grandpa saw new paint in the GP' account earlier in the timeline- before sitchin- could be very simple. gpa knew that it would just be an 'i say/he says' stalemate, with grandpa easily called out for 'sour grapes' against the guy who found something important in the GP, and let it go.
fame =s 'right', dontcha know.
grandson allen brought it up in solidarity and relief when sitchin brought it up. 'finally', he thinks. 'cross-confirmation!'. allen (and 'the family') really had no horse in the race by this stage. i think it's credible enough. sitchin, whatever...
"Had dispute with Raven and Hill about painted marks in pyramid. Faint marks were repainted, some were new. Did not find Tomb."
this is a typical diary-style entry, with just enough info to jog the record-keepers memory. however, "marks were repainted, some were new" puts a paint brush in vyse' hand any way stower wants to spin it. not good.
unless you're going to try and say that 'new' really meant 'new kingdom' or something. but really, don't try to say that...
verdict: we'll never really know the truth unless somebody goes around the gatekeepers, steals some of the paint and gets it independently verified... er, wait... sorry, i meant to say that we'll never know the truth unless we can trust the person who does whatever dating work can be done. if and until then, there ARE questions about the vailidity of the antiquity of the GP paintings, and that is suspicion in and of itself. if there is suspicion, who are we to be suspicious of?
time to take the 'HOWARD VYSE FOR DIRECTOR OF ANTIQUITIES, 1835' penant off of your wall.
he, and the whole shebang, are forever tainted.