If we do go ahead with the current system I’ll support it all the way but I think the following would be relevant:

I think we should get our story straight. I know Gordon isn’t a fan of archaeologists but we might as well maximise our credibility as much as we can. Sorry to sound like I’m pushing for us to “spin” the project, but I spent years bringing a profession to accept a new concept and I know it’s easier if you build it onto current thinking.

FW’s suggestion for an initial Mission Statement: “"Let's see if Gordon's method of erecting stones is a viable alternative to the other theories" is actually exactly the aim Gordon has been working on from the start, and in some ways it’s an absolute stonker:

A “humble chippie”, having successfully stuffed a Truth down the archeos throats in a way that precludes all hope of regurgitation, to the effect that “The Stonehenge stones arrived without use of a rope” now calmly says to them”… and they were erected without use of a rope as well!”

But I anticipate that the furious reaction to this second stuffing will be “what makes you think they didn’t use a rope?” At the moment, we’re intending to say “they might have, so it’s just one more theory, pretty please.” But, I think it would be much funnier if we could say to them “look, just as you had to swallow stone rowing as the easiest and therefore most likely system, so you must now do the same for the Trilithon demonstration, because it’s the easiest system.” In other words, by moving the focus onto what is easiest we put our method ahead of other theories. It’s only words, I know, but why not use them? So instead of a Mission Statement saying “to see if the method is a viable alternative to other theories” lets publicise an intention to “show the most work-efficient method of erecting a trilithon”. It’s possible that an ergonomic study would show that it was. I bet we could get a university to do one for free.