WonderWho Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Creighton's derisive/condescending treatment of
> Robert Bauval is still in evidence on this board.
> Agree or disagree with the OCT, none can deny that
> Bauval put forth his theory and defended it in the
> face of withering criticism from the likes of
> astronomers like Tony Fairall and Ed Krupp as well
> as mainstream Egyptologists/historians (e.g.,
> Garret Fagan). For a period, the entire Hall of
> Maat website was devoted to mocking Robert Bauval
> on a 24x7 basis. I don't even want to mention the
> treatment Bauval received on the the now defunct
> Blease board.
>
> Nothing against Martin Stower, but Creighton would
> pay to get 1/100th of the attention that Bauval
> received for the OCT. That mainstream astronomers
> and Egyptologists yawn at Creighton's books speaks
> volumes for both his conclusions and methodology.
>
> And it was Bauval who blazed the trail for the
> likes of Creighton, Scranton, Collins, et al.

A long time since I last saw Ian Alex Blease mentioned. If the same one (and it seems to be), he is mainly concerned with photography now.

I’ve had my criticisms of Bauval, but on consideration, I find him better than most in the genre. I considered Creighton’s attack on him entirely malicious and unfair.

I really don’t get this “poor little Scott” line we’re getting now.

M.