liddell's claims have had a far more critical reception from scholars specialising in magic and witchcraft in british history. in 1975, eric maple dismissed lugh's claims as preposterous. he believed that such tales had been fabricated by someone who had used his own book, "the dark world of witches", as a basis. maple informed the historian james w. baker that he believed people connected to valiente were behind the lugh claims, although baker disagreed, commenting that valiente was "one of the most honest of commentators on the subject" of contemporary witchcraft, and that as a result was unlikely to be involved in such duplicity. baker described liddell's account as "an extravagant hoax", with its claims constituting "a preposterous ahistorical muddle".