MPPs's flight of fancy re Stonehenge stone 62

From Simon Banton's "Stones of Stonehenge" web site:

In the interim report of the excavations of 2018 at Waun Mawn (a partial stone circle located a few km west of the Preseli Hill outcrops that are the sources of the bluestones), Prof. Mike Parker Pearson reports that stonehole 091 at Waun Mawn shows the imprint of a pentagonal-based stone (long since removed).
He points out that the size and shape of this imprint are a close match for that of Stone 62 at Stonehenge, that a detached fragment of bluestone found in stonehole 091 is the same rock type as Stone 62, and suggests that Stone 62 may once have stood at Waun Mawn.

http://www.stonesofstonehenge.org.uk/2015/01/stone-62.html

Well, this is a nice pillar of unspotted dolerite, with many traces of damage -- some apparently very old, and some attributed to "stone hunters" in recent centuries.  So how reliable is the speculation that it might once have stood in "stonehole 91" at Waun Mawn?  We can forget about the geological connection, because EVERY hole that anybody digs in the ground at Waun Mawn contains fragments of unspotted dolerite -- it is ubiquitous, and outcrops just a short distance from the putative Waun Mawn stone circle -- a fact that the MPP team conveniently forgets.

So what about the "pentagonal" shape of the supposed stonehole being just right for the shape of stone 62 at Stonehenge??

Here is the text description from the Bluestone Brewery Report (you couldn't make this up -- but don't blame me......):

Stonehole 091 on the southwest side of the stone circle

"Stonehole 091 (1.7m north–south x 1.2m east–west x 0.3m deep) was large enough to be visible as a slight circular hollow on the ground surface prior to excavation. On excavation, it was found to be teardrop-shaped in plan with a long, shallow ramp on the south side widening as it leads to a circular pit. In its initial form, it was 1.33m north–south x 0.82m east–west, later enlarged when the standing stone was removed.

The primary fill of mottled orange and yellow-brown silt surrounds a central area in which the imprint of a standing stone has survived. This is a pentagonal impression with each of its five sides between 0.38m–0.47m long, giving the standing stone a diameter of over 0.6m.

Two narrow slots just beyond the northeast side of the pentagonal impression, one east– west and the other north–south, could be voids left by packing stones removed when the stone was dismantled. However, a more satisfying possibility is that these are marks left by wooden levers inserted against the base of the stone to help topple it southwards.

The standing stone was removed along a ramp to the south, the same direction from which it was erected. Its extraction hole was then filled with a sequence of secondary fills containing over 40 struck dolerite flakes. One of these was a large stone flake (22.9cm x 8.4cm) aligned longitudinally along the eastern side of the extraction ramp. With its weathered cortex on its exterior face, it may have been an unintentional removal, detached from the standing stone as it was pulled out of the hole. As with all the other flakes from stonehole 091, it is of unspotted dolerite.

Artefacts found in close proximity (within 2–3m) of stonehole 091 consist of a flint scraper (SF40), a piece of worked flint (SF1) and a trimmed circular mudstone disc (SF3). The mudstone disc is very similar to three such artefacts found in Neolithic levels at Carn Goedog megalith quarry."

End of quote.

This is the rather fuzzy published photo, purporting to show stone socket 091 (supposedly of just the right dimensions) with a ramp used for setting the stone and taking it away again at bottom centre, and at top centre two "slots" which might have held packing stones, or might have been the imprints left from the use of wooden levers for the extraction of the stone before carting it off to Stonehenge.......

OK -- time for a dose of scepticism, based on what we already know about the working methods of this team.

Why should we believe that this is a stone hole?  There are scores of slight hollows and pits across the area excavated in 2018 -- and as I have said before, and shown through my photographs, not one of them is a convincing stone hole.  

Secondary fill?  What is the evidence for that?  What are the features that make it distinguishable from a primary fill?  The 40 "struck dolerite flakes"?  What is it that distinguishes these flakes from the abundant flakes of dolerite -- and indeed fragments of many sizes -- that are scattered across this landscape and throughout all the superficial deposits? What is it that demonstrates human involvement in their creation?  The largest stone flake with a weathered cortex? Why is this not an entirely natural and normal broken piece of dolerite sitting in a glacial deposit and derived from the adjacent dolerite outcrops? 

And then this bit:  Artefacts found in close proximity (within 2–3m) of stonehole 091 consist of a flint scraper (SF40), a piece of worked flint (SF1) and a trimmed circular mudstone disc (SF3). The mudstone disc is very similar to three such artefacts found in Neolithic levels at Carn Goedog megalith quarry.  Do we know that this "close proximity" is unusual or noteworthy?  And how do we know that any of these mentioned things are actually artefacts?  Why should we believe that, having examined the so-called "artefacts" from Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog and having found that they are all entirely natural?  "Artifices" might be a better word.  A mudstone disc?  What on earth is all that about?  Is it demonstrably an ornament, or is it just a roundish piece of mudstone like thousands of others on the site?

Sorry to be nit-picking, but I for one am fed up with being told what things are rather then being shown them, alongside a reasoned discussion as to origins.

There is NOTHING here that demonstrates any connection between so-called "stone socket" 091 at Waun Mawn and bluestone number 62 at Stonehenge.

=======================

PS.  The report labelled   "Waun Mawn stone circle: the Welsh origins of Stonehenge . Interim report of the 2018 season" and published by Bluestone Brewery with the URL

Waun-Mawn-2018-interim-report-lite.pdf

now appears to have disappeared from the web.  At least, I can't get at it.  Can anybody else?

PPS.  The report does seem to be available still.  There was a settings issue on my computer, which had decided, without any involvement from me, to switch on parental controls.   All sorted now, with the help of BT.  Weird that this was the only URL which was deemed to be inappropriate for children to see.......