> SC: You are the one implying Walter M. Allen fabricated this
> document. You made the claim and, as such, you are the one that
> has to substantiate your claim. So, present your evidence.
You are the one claiming that R. W. H. Howard Vyse fabricated the inscriptions in the pyramid of Khufu and that an indefinitely large number of other people connived in the act. You made the claim and, as such, you are the one that has to substantiate the your claim. So, present you evidence. I mean something other than the rubbish you’ve come up with so far.
You have a very poor grasp of the logic of the case. You are the one offering this account — this document — as evidence contra the mutually supportive testimony and judgements of a good many people. Such a document can not be arbitrarily placed beyond question itself. In making such use of it, you must establish its competency to support the evidential burden you’re placing on it. The burden of establishing its bona fides is very much on you.
The signs are not promising. There is no external corroboration of this document having existed before 1983. We do not have the original, but merely reproductions of a photocopy of one page: we can not establish its date forensically. (Shall I borrow your banal rhetoric of “hard science” here? Courts of law do not accept photocopies, for good reason.) It is highly unlikely that a pure oral tradition would deliver this kind of detail (several names, when the Danube bridge episode and the trip to Jerusalem yield none). The story as given contains elements which are incredible (Brewer joining Lepsius in Egypt in 1842 and having a punch-up with Vyse: have you got over this silly idea yet?).
Vyse’s manuscript, Hill’s facsimiles and the Vyse/Perring publication are undoubtedly of the period. There is reasonable doubt that Walter Allen’s story has any such connection. You’re the one putting these things in the balance, the Vyse material on one side, Allen’s on the other.
Questioning such a document is good methodology, something of which you have no grasp at all (your sole argumentative model being arbitrary advocacy).