While I will cast a suspicious eye on anyone - esp. those with a religious background - who makes such claims, character assisination, while casting doubt on the claims certainly doesn't remove the physical evidence. Thus it is still worth a longer look and not an attempt at cursory dismissal.
Character assassination? The man had little character to assassinate, but that isn't the point. The quote I offered was of a Christian organization that was raising valid questions: where are the artifacts now? How did Wyatt dive to 2400 feet? It can be done, but it isn't done with recreational equipment. And you don't get those kinds of lighting conditions captured in Wyatt's photos. The photos he shows are in depths of less than 130 feet. Probably less than 50.
Clearly, Wyatt was a liar. No character assassination required.
MarcAC said:
when they refer to significant techtonic activity and the migration of the shoreline do they refer to the migration on such a short timescale as that of the effect of a tsunami?
What they are stating is that during the last 5000 years, no significant tectonic activity occurred. (no chariots in the region over 5000 years ago -that would be around the 1st Dynasty). The shoreline has
prograded, or advanced toward the sea, because of sedimentary deposits, which extend about 100m into the Gulf. This, they suggest, could have been the result of mid-Holocene erosion due to flooding or tectonic activity (I'm thinking liquefaction of terrestrial sediments was what they had in mind). There's nothing in their report that would be consistent with the type of tectonics that would create even modest tsunami. Perhaps a rouge wave, but these don't expose 2400 feet of seabed.
MarcAC said:
Another question; why would the mention of a "land bridge" be pertinent to their study?
They were studying Holocene shorelines. If there was a "land bridge" that was shallow enough to have been a possible shoreline or exposed at some point between now and the Holocene, I would think they'd have mentioned it. The reason they didn't is that the "land bridge" sits 2400 feet below the surface.
References:
Laughton, A.S. (1970) A New Bathymetric Chart Of The Red Sea.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences. 267(1181)
Sandor, Bela (2004).The Rise and Decline of the Tutankhamun-Class Chariot.
Oxford Journal Of Archaeology 23(2) 153–175