Newall's Boulder - A short note on a defective paper

I note the publishers of the deeply flawed paper -  A bluestone boulder at Stonehenge: implications for the glacial transport theory  - have added a warning to it:

"Please read the editorial note first before accessing the article."

"As a platform for scientific discourse, EGQSJ welcomes and expects critical commentary on this article. This page will be updated accordingly."

The comprehensive paper that deals with the egregious errors in the paper is on track to arrive but in the meantime an example of a sin of omission by the author is probably all you need to know.

The bluestone boulder excavated at Stonehenge the paper is about.

A photo of a near identical boulder at Craig Rhos-y-felin (Rhosyfelin), previously published by the author of the paper and not referenced in the paper. (Click photos to embiggen)

The geochemistry of the Stonehenge "Newall" Boulder has been traced back to Craig Rhos-y-felin and other near identical boulders there have been measured and are of similar size to the excavated one. The photographed one and the excavated one would be hard to tell apart, as a photomontage shows:

The paper is based on the idea that the boulder found at Stonehenge is so different from those at “Craig Rhos-y-felin” that only glacial transport can explain the transformation. The logical explanation that humans moved the rock is therefore discounted by him. By not referencing the relevant evidence of his own photographs he eschews that there is no such transformation but at the cost of his integrity.