The Baalbek foundation stones.

Text

Text

so then you explain the difference in "erosion". it's not a style of design like you can see with the stones that have finished edges but still have rough interiors. that shows you that it's not something to take lightly when working with such stones at such scales. It is not easy to work the blocks to such a degree because you can only put so many people in front of the space and one mistake in the angle and yer screwed and ya gotta start alllll over again. you guys think this stuff is as simple as a couple stick drawings by some French dude who wants to be famous. these things were part of a structure made with many more massive stones such as these. actually I'd love to see some of the other original work. it's probably at the bottom of the Eastern Mediterranian after being washed away.

you can just look at pictures of them yourself or you could go there and take pictures and I wish there were more pictures and much more empirical data. I'm sure the pictures on the internet don't do them justice but even looking at them you can see the obvious. as long as you know what you are looking for and you guys are evidently not looking with your eyes open.

one could argue the ones called Trilithon ( or whever the ph-uck you call it) are more worn because they were fashioned with more primitive technology by Herod or Hadrian (and I'm still waiting to hear what happened to the rest of the temple or was it just those few stones) and that is silly because obviously that flaring at the bottom over the smaller ones is something that would add much more difficulty in not only weight but accuracy and symmetry problems. much harder to pull off than the lazy work done by the Romans. and to go through all that effort and to just stop would be silly. so what happened to the rest of the earlier structure?
www.goldenageproject.org.uk...



a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

you woulda saved yerself some credibility if you woulda proposed a better idea of what caused the damage. Instead you held the "haha" key on caps lock. zero for effort.


a reply to: Marduk

a reply to: bottleslingguy

You keep referring to the erosion of the Trilithon (I assume) but please state exactly what you are comparing the weathering of the those 3 blocks to:

• The cyclopean blocks placed by Herod (the oldest of that site, circa 4-1BCE, most likely just before his death)
  
• The blocks placed by the Romans (which includes the Trilithon, circa 1st century AD)
  
• The blocks placed by the Arabs, circa AD 600.

When you look at any image of the western edge of the temple platform, everything you see above the Trilithon are at least 500 years newer. Not to mention, all those Arab-placed blocks had been dismantled by the DAI in the first part of the 20th century, then reconstructed. Of course the Arabs were also re-using blocks from the site, so they show a great variety of wear, the faces of some blocks previously buried were now exposed, etc.

On top of the differences in age, is the fact that limestone varies in hardness greatly thus weathering varies.

It's just bad archaeology to say "this stone looks more worn thus must be older than this stone over here."

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
what are you talking about? so you're saying that Herod built a complete wall with more stones of that size and it was destroyed?

I suggest you read what has been posted over the last couple of weeks.
Herod used 600 ton stones in theTemple in Jerusalem.

Herod's work at Baalbek was covered over by the Romans.

Both facts have been explained in this thread, with evidence that backs them up.

Harte

oh so Herod/Hadrian didn't built the part of the wall called the Trilithon? who did and how do you know this?

www.goldenageproject.org.uk...

all the stones below and including the three largest ones. not the obviously crappy ones made later building on top of the more ancient ones. notice the flaring design, that's not easy and then whoever made it just decided to do crappy work after that? you guys are nuts to believe Herod had those made. Did he and others build around what was already there? absolutely no doubt but they never did it again so what's up with that? They have the ability to do work on such an unimaginable scale and then they never do it again? they would exploit that ability if they had it in the first place but they never did so they didn't, end of story.



a reply to: Blackmarketeer

a reply to: bottleslingguy

Seriously you need to review Dr. Lohmann's reports on the site so you can differentiate the pre-Roman (Herodian) temple platform and the Roman expansion of that platform, which includes the 3 blocks making up the 'Trilithon.' Every photo of the Trilithon shows Roman (from the Trilithon down) and Arab (from the Trilithon up) stonework. The Herodian stonework is primarily exposed along the northern platform edge, and where the Roman work had been removed/excavated to expose the underlying Herodian stonework.

Herodian architecture worked on a grand scale, as exemplified by the Temple Mount, the western wall of which contains a stone weighing in at 660 tons. Both sites (the Temple Mount and Baalbek) were similarly laid out with identical masonry. Someone had overlaid the Temple Mount site with that of Baalbek and noted how all the features of the site matched up - clearly the work of the same builder/architects.

When the Jews revolted in Jerusalem the Romans flattened the city and rebuilt it as a Roman city, and rebuilt the Temple as a Roman temple to Jupiter. The same thing happened in Baalbek, Herod's Jewish temple platform was used to build a Roman temple to Jupiter.

All the clues point to Herod and the Romans as the builders of Baalbek, with the three blocks of the Trilithon being placed by the Romans.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Herodian architecture is a style of classical architecture characteristic of the numerous building projects undertaken during the reign (37–4 BC) of Herod the Great, the Roman client king of Judea. Herod undertook many colossal building projects, most famously his reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (c. 19 BC). Many of his structures were built upon comparable, previous Hasmonean buildings and most of his have, in their turn, vanished as well.

en.wikipedia.org...

reconstruction?

originally posted by: jovan
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Herodian architecture is a style of classical architecture characteristic of the numerous building projects undertaken during the reign (37–4 BC) of Herod the Great, the Roman client king of Judea. Herod undertook many colossal building projects, most famously his reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (c. 19 BC). Many of his structures were built upon comparable, previous Hasmonean buildings and most of his have, in their turn, vanished as well.

en.wikipedia.org...

reconstruction?

Herod's "reconstruction" of the Temple of Solomon, for which there is only textual evidence.

Solomon's Temple was supposedly destroyed by the forces of Nebuchadnezzar II, IOW Neo Babylonians.

Harte

so that was the only time they ever moved blocks that size? why would they stop doing it if they had the ability? the section of the wall I'm talking about doesn't even look anything like the rest of the damn thing. It's obvious the lower section was done by more sophisticated engineers and the rest is a mish-mash and represents the maximum ability of the people who were building on top of the more ancient part of the wall. they tried but couldn't even come close to the sophistication of the earlier work and they knew that. that's why they called the ancient ones "gods".


a reply to: Blackmarketeer

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
so that was the only time they ever moved blocks that size? why would they stop doing it if they had the ability?

I blame the invention of cheap beer.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

conclusion no. 2.

HEROD MEGALITH TECHNOLOGY:

'I mean, there's not a shred of evidence for it, and there's therefore no reason whatsoever to believe it, but you could try.'

originally posted by: jovan
a reply to: Harte

conclusion no. 2.

HEROD MEGALITH TECHNOLOGY:

'I mean, there's not a shred of evidence for it, and there's therefore no reason whatsoever to believe it, but you could try.'

Are you trying to say that you think there's no evidence for Herod building the Second Temple in Jerusalem?

Harte

you have to admit there is a stark difference between the earlier work and the more contemporary. the older work is without a doubt more sophisticated and the design fits perfectly with what Sitchin says it was intended for- "the landing place". You can swallow the standard stories but if you have an inkling of free thinking ability you have to admit they don't fit with any of the other stones. the landing place was scoured clean and being somewhat protected by their position in the wall and on the topography of the area they remained in place. why do you think that other one sticking out of the ground is there? they just stopped transporting it because it was lunch break and then forgot about it? how come nobody was able to move it after that? and according to your crazy theory they dragged these large stones across level ground so where is the level ground here? did they excavate the earthen ramp they were moving this one over? where is it? how did this stone get here? www.goldenageproject.org.uk...


a reply to: Harte

who cares about any of what the Romans did? the focus should be on the smoking gun in the Trilithon wall section. the Romans saw that. knew the people who did the work were many magnitudes more advanced than them and even called them gods. that's why they built temples there. you love to swim in the bull crap of superfluous details while ignoring the most important dot that needs connecting. linear thinking at its best lol


a reply to: Harte

Sorry, I don't accept "It looks like to me..." as evidence of anything.

I already told you the lower stones are Roman, while the upper ones were put there by Arabs.

You seem to think it's okay to believe whatever you want, in the face of what is actually known.

I suppose those that note the Arab conversion of the site into a fortress are simply hallucinating then.

Harte

a reply to: bottleslingguy

From Lohmann:



The 'Trilithon' sits on top of a Roman foundation.

Views of the western face of the temple podium: The Roman foundations extend down to bedrock, completely enclosing the Herodian temple platform. Over this the Arabs rebuilt the site as a fortress in 636 AD. They did not quarry the stone, rather they scavenged the block from other parts of the sites. (the fortress walls show Herodian and Roman blocks, and some even from an earlier Roman reworking for the temple when it was converted to a Christian basilica by Emperor Theodosius in the 4th c. AD. You cannot compare this stonework to any part of the site as a guide to it's age, as this stonework is a hodge-podge of the previous styles.

North-western corner:


Highlighting Roman vs. Arab:


Western platform edge:


Highlighting Roman vs. Arab:


The Roman stonework is very consistent. Obviously the Arab stonework is not, nor was it meant to be.

The Arab stonework was also dismantled in the early-20th c. DAI archaeological expeditions and rebuilt.

how about something empirical to prove what he says? you can believe him if you want I'm not stopping you.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

originally posted by: Harte
Sorry, I don't accept "It looks like to me..." as evidence of anything.

I already told you the lower stones are Roman, while the upper ones were put there by Arabs.

You seem to think it's okay to believe whatever you want, in the face of what is actually known.

I suppose those that note the Arab conversion of the site into a fortress are simply hallucinating then.

Harte

what makes you think the section I'm talking about was done by the Romans? got anything empirical by these guys who claim to know? so you guys are trusting in written hearsay and claiming I'm crazy for listening to Sitchen? that's funny I haven't heard of anything empirical on your part. so what? the guy drew a diagram of the site and just claims that proves the origin? whatever.

hey what do you have to say about that really really big stone sticking out of the ground over there? I attached a picture of what I'm talking about in that last post to you. I mentioned it because you said they built some huge earthen ramp/roadway and dragged them over that so where is the one where this one was abandoned? that's another one of those smoking guns you guys like to ignore. keep ignoring it and you will only prove my point.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: Harte
Sorry, I don't accept "It looks like to me..." as evidence of anything.

I already told you the lower stones are Roman, while the upper ones were put there by Arabs.

You seem to think it's okay to believe whatever you want, in the face of what is actually known.

I suppose those that note the Arab conversion of the site into a fortress are simply hallucinating then.

Harte

what makes you think the section I'm talking about was done by the Romans? got anything empirical by these guys who claim to know? so you guys are trusting in written hearsay and claiming I'm crazy for listening to Sitchen? that's funny I haven't heard of anything empirical on your part. so what? the guy drew a diagram of the site and just claims that proves the origin? whatever.

hey what do you have to say about that really really big stone sticking out of the ground over there? I attached a picture of what I'm talking about in that last post to you. I mentioned it because you said they built some huge earthen ramp/roadway and dragged them over that so where is the one where this one was abandoned? that's another one of those smoking guns you guys like to ignore. keep ignoring it and you will only prove my point.

I suppose you have an explanation for why the Anunnaki abandoned those stones in the quarry?

Harte

a fully fueled and loaded 747-400 weighs about 430 tons, or 870,000 pounds. A bit more than half as much as one of those stones!

I don't see this happening without some kind of tech that we just don't know about.