Looking at the Meskhetiu claim, the supporting evidence is sprinkled throughout the book. The first set of claims which challenge the generally accepted view can be broadly viewed as an argument that Wainwright incorrectly ascribed Meskhetiu to the Big Dipper. Conman’s supporting arguments include:
1. Wainwright cites a secondary source of Dieterich by leveraging select quotes contained in Nock and in doing so has missed the fact that Dieterich had already accepted Meskhetiu to be the Big Dipper and hence instead of supporting his argument, the citation creates a form of circular logic. (P67).

2. Wainwright leverages a report by Mariette alleging that “the Beduin” of the Western desert still call the Great Bear er Rigl, ‘the Leg’. Mariette’s claim is not supported by modern evidence.(pp67-68)

3. Wainwrights opinion was based on the fact that in the single image of Meskhetiu he analysed there were seven stars, arranged loosely in a pattern matching the Big Dipper. Conman refutes this by supplying images from nine coffins published by Neugebauer and Parker thereby showing that these coffin images present stars arranged in patterns that differ markedly to the Big Dipper. (pp68-71). Further, the representation of Meskhetiu changed markedly in the New Kingdom

Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate a copy of G.A. Wainwright;s paper “A pair of Constellations”, nor am I able to verify whether Mariette’s claim should be set aside.