 |
|
|
|
Ian, As I recall, it was you who said that I could have the opportunity to tear your work to shreds after it was published. It seems like you may be putting words in my mouth here. No, I have not read 'Giza The Truth' (sic). I did skip through it in the shop and checked out those passages which were relevant to my theories. But to be brutally honest I found the whole book so superficial in its treatment of my theories that it would not have been productive to respond. Besides, I just couldn't bring myself to buy a book with such an arrogant title! I could try to engage in a rational and honest discussion with you about 'The Phoenix Solution' and the research behind that book. However, I believe that to do so would be most unproductive for us both. I say this partly from my experience in private discussions with you, where it became clear to me that you are one most arrogant and obnoxious individual (although at least in the end you did apologise for being so rude). I also say it from having observed your public discussion with others such as Chris Dunn, where it became clear to me that you were not interested in pursuing the truth, but more interested in confrontation and gaining publicity for yourself and your book. (The aggressive tone of this counter-challenge of yours says it all.) In summary, I do not wish to join in with your silly, time-wasting confrontational games (other than having to write this one-off response). I have far better things to do with my time, such as completing my latest book on Atlantis which demonstrates the link between Plato, Greek religion and the 'exploded planet cults' of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. I never mentioned the 'conspiracy' word. Rather, I feel it is possible that Vyse committed a fraud, motivated by the desire for fame and money (and possibly bankrolled by those who wanted the secrets of the Pyramid to be kept secret), whilst Hancock and West said what they said for reasons which I and thousands of others are simply unable to fathom. I do not maintain that the 'Vyse forgery theory' is any more than a possibility, and it is equally a possibility that your own theory (the orthodox theory) is correct. Another possibility worth investigating, which I mentioned to you before, is that the 4th dynasty king Khufu adopted the name of a pre-dynastic builder of the Pyramid - the original Khufu. This theory, which accords well with my 'adopted pyramids hypothesis', would allow for the authenticity of the inscriptions. One way or another, I am still inclined to think that the Pyramid is pre-dynastic but renovated at least once in dynastic times. But I think that he who pretends to have definite answers to any of these questions is a fool. Perhaps one day, if you were to give my adopted pyramids hypothesis the full and serious attention it deserves, I might honour you with a response. In the meantime, however, I would appreciate it if you do not bother me with your silly publicity-seeking stunts. Regards,
Alan Alford |