<HTML>What is this overwhelming volume of contradictory evidence? Is this back to the macroevidence versus microevidence debate again? If so, then it does not matter what the macroevidence looks like, for if the blocks are geopolymer, or for the most part geopolymer, then what really needs to be developed is a meta-model that fits all the evidence. And the 'it is too expensive argument' doesn't work because history is an expense through and through given that the money 'wasted' on investigation of history could be better spent on the living.
As for not sharing samples, well it is really childish. Funnnily enough, it isn't just the samples that they don't share, on occasion it is also the methodology!
Actually, in not sharing the samples they impede the critical power of their own theories. For if, on sampling, the geopolymer theory is refuted the critical power of their own work is bolstered.</HTML>
