I wasn’t addressing the problems with the archaeologists , that is another story .
I was concerned with the hubris of the geomorphologists who imagine that they have capabilities outwith their station and skill set . Caveat ; there is one geomorphologist ,Dominque Sellier , who has some experience and skill in this area , but he certainly wasn’t involved .
The point is that removal of stone from the landscape generally leaves little evidence .
Britain has thousands of megalithic sites , and in the vast majority of cases we don’t know where the components were taken from in the landscape , the distance is immaterial , it's the petrographers who have been of most use in this field .The sarsens (much more difficult for the petrographers )are an obvious case , they are far bigger than the bluestones yet we still don’t know where they were taken from ,they may have been local to the monument or from further afield . If we can’t recognise evidence for removal in an area where the type of rock can be sourced from , how can we recognise the absence of removal ?
If the geomorphologists are really keen to get involved in the recognition of stone removal they could begin with the locally , find the sites where there was removal of rocks in the recent past , the removal has been recorded so it almost certainly took place , if they are successful . they could move on to earlier monuments again if successful they might have an idea what a site that didn’t have evidence for removal might be like . I doubt that they would get past the first stage .
A last thought in relation to the site ,according to the geomorphologists there is a rock that fell naturally from the site and is know as the “proto orthostat / picnic table “ on a ground surface dated to the BA . Even if it did fall without being pushed , if it had later been removed by a medieval farmer , how could they possibly tell ? The problem deepens for the prehistoric period how can they possibly tell that a similar stone wasn’t removed from the area in prehistory .?
The central point is that the paper does not ,and cannot prove prove that CrF was not the source of anthropogenic stone removal in any period .