With respect to the sandstone samples, it was interesting to see that spike in sodium in the monument sample as compared with all the other source location material. That's certainly a cool discovery. It was far more convincing having a direct comparison with all the source location candidate material samples. Unfortunate they couldn't do the same with the Andesite samples. Definately would be cool to read a follow up from the Peruvian scientists if they ever get cooperation about those source sites.
But at the end when he held up those pucks of stone material he said they made in their lab with those recipes they derived, it was odd he didn't say anything about the hardness they got. I have to assume it wasn't anywhere near comparable. If not, then I didn't see the point of that part.
But as for the Andesite "H's", while they do have that crisp edging and smooth surface which does make one think geopolymers, what it didn't have to really land that presumption was the similarity sufficient to demonstrate that they were made with the same mold, OR, another mold built as close as possible in measurements. They're all unique from what I recall in past discussions or stuff I've watched, and from what I can see on the various videos I think.
This means they had to make different molds for each one and if they were at last attempting to duplicate those shapes, which it appears they were, then when making the molds, you might expect each piece they made, to have been duplicated at that time as the same size, since they were making multiples. But the final shapes don't substantiate that.
Also, as the shapes all have pretty good 90 degree angles, it demonstrates that they didn't build in relief angles to make mold release easier, and that means the molds were extremely complex as multiple parts that had to be disassembled to be removed from the sculpture after it had hardened. So that implies extremely complex molds with many parts, and this situation means it would be highly advantageous to make all those many complex mold pieces at the same time and the same size to simplify that process but as all the sculptures are different enough, it means they did these shapes in the most time consuming and inefficient way, one at a time, over and over again. To me it at the very least is a strong distraction away from a slam dunk on the geopolymer theory, at least when considering all those similar "H" shapes of Andesite.
And as I've brought this up many times before, if there was an ancient period of geopolymer casting in molds, it stretches credulity to consider that there isn't at least ONE spot where you can see exact duplicates of sculptural elements demonstrating that advantage they had. When, as a civilization, you figure out casting in molds, the very first thing you think about is the advantage of duplicating multiples of something. If that's NOT evidence against the previous existence of geopolymers, its certainly evidence of the most confounding coincidence of all time that absolutely none of the examples of page one of the mold casting period have all been lost.
For some reason when humanity developed 'bricks' made orders of magnitude softer and more brittle than this hypothetical geopolymer andesite, bricks as a building shape really took off. Someone really missed the forest for the trees if it was in fact something as hard as andesite was manufactured from a wet slurry and hardend. This is my biggest challenge.