On 10/15/15, Constantinos Ragazas
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> David Petts,
> The question before us is "was this ruin a mill?" And no amount of me
> reading up on Wales mills and cottages can answer this. Only onsite
> investigations and excavations can do that. I have already agreed on that.
> Several times.
> We should and need to ask questions whether or not the answer is known or
> not. More so if the answer can be so consequential as to render a "ruling
> hypothesis" false.
Indeed we can ask questions, but the answers won't be consequential if
they aren't supported by facts.
Even if the ruin was a mill, it might have no relevance to the quarry
site. The location of the mill would only indicate the level of water
in the medieval and not the neolithic. There is a vast amount of time
You seem to have stuck into your head any means in which you might be
able to disprove the quarry theory over your glacial transportation
theory. We have already disproven your glacial theory of 'wind blown
rocks over an imaginary frozen lake', and so now you want to disprove
the neolithic quarry theory using whatever means possible.
This is called 'clutching at straws' though in this case you have no
straws to clutch.