This many respsonses in and the point remains from the opening post: Scott Creighton's intended presentation in print is based on a knowingly discredited foundation. There is no need whatsoever to 'wait for the book to come to see what he might have for new evidence' ... because there simply isn't any. Creighton is seemingly bent on cashing in on conspiracy theories of Sitchin, Alford or whomever; an _intent_ to perpetuate bs.
It is fair game to call him out on it, as you have done. QED?