The point is surely to look at the evidence. The archaeologists are doing themselves no favours by keeping the evidence to themselves and saying, essentially, "Trust me, I'm in sales".
Having followed this debate closely for a few years it is beginning to look like the CRF quarry hypothesis is wishful thinking.
The geomorphologists and geologists are stating with evidence that Rhosyfelin looks like a completely natural site. Surely the scientific way would be to refute these claims with evidence? There should be plenty of proof for what I was told was the biggest neolithic quarry in Europe, and if not, then we are all grown-up enough to admit that we sometimes get it wrong. Are we not?
The downside to continuing to pretend that the emperor is wearing a full suit of clothes, is that archaeology in general gets discredited, something that none of us on this list would want. So come on guys, time to show us some cards, your bluff is being called.
Whether we believe in human transport of the bluestones over a long distance, or not, is not germane. A quite reasonable hypothesis would be that glaciers moved a selection of volcanic rocks an unspecified distance south-eastwards where they were used for a megalithic monument thousands of years later, and that monument was moved in its entirety to Stonehenge. Maybe Professor Parker Pearson is right after all, and so is Dr John
Time to look at the evidence and behave like grown ups.