The crux of this entire debate is not as to whether or not one accepts credence from presentations or papers etc. - again the fact remains that here is a theory of S & W's which cannot be disproven - no matter how much frantic latter day scrabbling around there is by sceptics for other explanations such as salt exfoliation etc; in order to preserve the Status Quo. In fact, S & W's thesis is more easily acceptable than any other, in view of the very obvious geological evidence they point to. After all, as the saying goes - "all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."
Think of Eyptology as being standard police detective work, which assembles the most likely explanations from circumstantial and visual evidence. But at times there's a need to look "under the engine bonnet" through the help of specialist in forensics and DNA etc ......Enter the field of Geology.
And in this case, a "forensic specialist" took the commendable step of proactively investigating, discovering and proposing something which is only controversial because PC Plod didn't think of it first !