I have to say that I think it is a bit of a pity that this report
hadn't been published about six months, or so, ago as it might have
relieved everyone of a rather fractious summer.
I think it is rather ironic that this recent report not only attempts
to disprove the quarry theory but clearly disproves Kostas' theories
After all the lively debate over levels of water at the site and its
relationship to the supposed watermill, there isn't a single mention
of this in the report. In fact the evidence supports the fact that the
'quarry' site wasn't flooded in the neolithic as Kostas had led us to
believe. Indeed there is evidence of flooding but at a much earlier
date as was supposed by the rest of us..
The report suggests that the rock could have been deposited on the
coast of Somerset, which is entirely plausible given the method
described, and was even considered as a possibility in earlier
discussion. However the report certainly doesn't concur with Kostas'
vast glacial lake where wind blown rocks would travel from SW Wales to
the middle of Salisbury Plain.
I think Kostas jumped the gun, before seeing, or digesting all the evidence.
Kostas has been victim to that age old saying, 'a little knowledge is
a dangerous thing'.