Kate Spence has proved nothing. However, because she has said the same as Robert Bauval - but said it in Nature - she is hailed a hero by academia. And Dr Conspiracy wonders why the cry of 'Elitist' goes up. Ancient history is not life or death for me, it is an interest, nothing more. If I need legal advice I do indeed go to a legal expert because the law is absolute (ass that it is). The truth in law is black and white. The medical analogy is a little more of a grey area. If I get an abdominal pain I may see a medical doctor, or I may seek alternative advice, some of which is now becoming more and more accepted by the medical profession (whether these alternative theories have been peer-reviewed or not).
However, ancient history is (in my opinion) mostly conjecture and supposition. Artefacts/ ancient documents constituting the only evidence. Evidence from which anyone can extrapolate the 'truth' about what happened, whether scholar or down-trodden, little man journalist. I'm only interested in peoples theories - they can have proof, evidence, supposition or nothing at all. I'll still make my own mind up BECAUSE I have an open mind.
The point is, Robert Bauval did write his 'idea', as Dr.C calls it, in a 'proper' manner, on more than one occasion, followed by a mention in his best-selling popular press Orion Mystery. He was ignored by academia (though applauded by Joe Public). Kate Spence writes the same thing once- and Hey Presto, because her peers now decide they like the idea, it's the truth.
It certainly looks to me like someone didn't like the idea of an engineer cracking an egyptological mystery.
I'm not suggesting for a minute that the whole of academia is run by some shadowy cabal of elite puppet-masters 'protecting' the plebs from knowledge of earth-shattering truths, I just wish that theories, ideas if you like, can be read, contemplated and moved forward without them having to be assessed on their validity by a select few. Access to scholarly works is limited, access to popular press isn't. As I asked earlier - paper for the academics or book for the people - who are we to say which has more validity?
All the best,