BAALBEK - Pre Roman Thousands of Years Old - ANCIENT CAVES

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

The thing is these marks/grooves (Baalbek) don't appear to have been made by chisels. That's the conundrum.

So what is that image of? Context remember?

We were speaking about one stone and you seemed to have switched to another??

This is as much context as I can give you.

Here’s a Russian Team from the Laboratory of Alternative History taking some measurements –











They don’t look like chisels mark to me.

a reply to: JamesTB

Thanks for the attempt at context. And what did that Russian party come up with?

You have images do you have link to their page?

Edited to add here is a link

Large stone being cut up - interesting





My remarks on iron chisel was with the first stone you put up not with the ones from what appears to be elsewhere.

It might be useful for you to post a link to where the photos are coming from.

However, in the close ups I note that the lighter lines seems to be inclusions in the matrix of the limestone itself but its not entirely clear.

a reply to: JamesTB

The Romans did not build the Temples in Baalbek. They have similar design but Baalbek was a major home to the Giants of the Bible. No man could lift or even think about moving most of the stones there. Its no shocker that every door or opening-entryway is huge. They were big buildings for very big people. They were sons of the Watchers IE: The Fallen ones.

Baal was a real god, a Watcher and this is where he was worshiped, that is his Temple where they did blood sacrifices of humans to him.

These caves were made by Humans to get the hell away from the Giants.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: JamesTB

The Romans did not build the Temples in Baalbek. They have similar design but Baalbek was a major home to the Giants of the Bible. No man could lift or even think about moving most of the stones there. Its no shocker that every door or opening-entryway is huge. They were big buildings for very big people. They were sons of the Watchers IE: The Fallen ones.

The people who actually excavated the site seem to disagree with. Care to point to the passage in the Bible that says that the Giants were at that site?

Baal was a real god, a Watcher and this is where he was worshiped, that is his Temple where they did blood sacrifices of humans to him.

If Baal was a real god why were his followers using rocks?

These caves were made by Humans to get the hell away from the Giants.

Inventive but, do you have evidence to support that?

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: JamesTB

Thanks for the attempt at context. And what did that Russian party come up with?

You have images do you have link to their page?

Edited to add here is a link

Large stone being cut up - interesting

My remarks on iron chisel was with the first stone you put up not with the ones from what appears to be elsewhere.

It might be useful for you to post a link to where the photos are coming from.

However, in the close ups I note that the lighter lines seems to be inclusions in the matrix of the limestone itself but its not entirely clear.

Using your pics I have deduced how they moved them. Obviously those rubber tires are contemporary to the quarrying of the blocks.



In regard to Baal worshipper use of stone tools. They were inexpensive, effective, and readily available. Any metallurgy would be comparatively expensive and not as readily available( if it existed). Any metal would be better utilized as a chisel or some temple item that had a strong religious attachment to it.

A lot of people view preColumbian Natives in The Americas as Stone age yet some of those cultures had very advanced metallurgical technologies. They simply did not incorporate the use of metal into various tooling that Europe and Asia had at that point.

originally posted by: Jarocal


Using your pics I have deduced how they moved them. Obviously those rubber tires are contemporary to the quarrying of the blocks.

Hardly; that black thing you mistaken have identified as a tire is actually a very old giant's chocolate doughnut.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Which really makes you wonder how they managed to move something that was 800 tons let alone lift it twenty feet in the air thousands of years ago when we today would not be able to move a stone that is 400 or 800 tons let alone at the level of precision that they moved them. Hell who cut them out for that matter the cuts look pretty sharp.

originally posted by: jashn20002000
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Which really makes you wonder how they managed to move something that was 800 tons let alone lift it twenty feet in the air thousands of years ago when we today would not be able to move a stone that is 400 or 800 tons let alone at the level of precision that they moved them. Hell who cut them out for that matter the cuts look pretty sharp.

As evident by the pictures... They didnt manage to move the largest stone as its still laying abandoned in the quarry.

The largest stone moved is 1250-1500 tons (thunderstone, 18th century).

Using modern machinery, we have cranes today that can lift things over 20,000 tons 80 meters straight in the air.

I dont quite see your argument. We can most certainly lift puny 400 ton stones at a laughable 20 feet if we really set our mind to it. That's lightweight.

a reply to: jashn20002000

The world record as I mentioned earlier is a 4,800 ton hotel being moved about 60 metres,so contrary to badly researched TV programs we could move anything we needed to.

originally posted by: jashn20002000
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Which really makes you wonder how they managed to move something that was 800 tons let alone lift it twenty feet in the air thousands of years ago when we today would not be able to move a stone that is 400 or 800 tons let alone at the level of precision that they moved them. Hell who cut them out for that matter the cuts look pretty sharp.

We can easily lift 400, 800 or greater weights.

Link to an all terrain crane that can lift 1,200 tonnes

a reply to: Hanslune

this is one of my favorite heavy lift pics

and here is a pic of the same crane preparing to lift a 3500 ton bridge section



from
heavy lifting crane

Doubt be ridiculous. Obviously thothey were gifted vulcanized rubber tech by the annunaki. Chocolate would have melted...

originally posted by: Jarocal
Doubt be ridiculous. Obviously thothey were gifted vulcanized rubber tech by the annunaki. Chocolate would have melted...

N A Y S A Y E R !!

Actually this is proof that the people who built the retaining wall at Baalbek were going to the Malay peninsula to pluck tires from the tire trees there.

The largest hewn stone in history. The Temple of Jupiter is here. www.atlasobscura.com...#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20the%20trilithon,equivalent%20to%20three%20Boeing%20747s.

originally posted by: bluemooone2
The largest hewn stone in history. The Temple of Jupiter is here.

www.atlasobscura.com...#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20the%20trilithon,equivalent%20to%20three%20Boeing%20747s.

There were six unfinished stones at Baalbek the heaviest at 1,650 tons but most if not all of them were never detached from the bedrock. The largest hewn stone - but not moved is actually the one in China at 16,500 tons. en.wikipedia.org... thumbs.dreamstime.com...

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: JamesTB

To determine how those cuttings were made you'd need to do a close up inspection of the cutting marks, looking for chisels or other marks.

If Roman there would be iron chisel marks.

Would that be an effective way of determining whether the Romans made the larger stones?

Anyone who possesses iron isn't going to use pounders. So there should be some residue from the iron chisels if the Romans made them.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JamesTB
How were those marks made? What tool was being used?

Ropes with quartz embedded into them?

That makes a lot of sense for a pre-iron aged culture to do. The ropes would wear out and keep needing to be replaced, but if they had a lot of material to make ropes with, it would be fine.

(Also rope making is a confirmed ability of the Gravettian that lived 33,000 years ago, so there is no question of pre ice aged people having ropes.)

originally posted by: merka

originally posted by: jashn20002000
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Which really makes you wonder how they managed to move something that was 800 tons let alone lift it twenty feet in the air thousands of years ago when we today would not be able to move a stone that is 400 or 800 tons let alone at the level of precision that they moved them. Hell who cut them out for that matter the cuts look pretty sharp.

As evident by the pictures... They didnt manage to move the largest stone as its still laying abandoned in the quarry.

The largest stone moved is 1250-1500 tons (thunderstone, 18th century).

Using modern machinery, we have cranes today that can lift things over 20,000 tons 80 meters straight in the air.

I dont quite see your argument. We can most certainly lift puny 400 ton stones at a laughable 20 feet if we really set our mind to it. That's lightweight.

Very, very few really heavy stones were moved in ancient times (because it was probably horribly difficult) just one of 1000 tons, in all time by all civilizations, the 3 800 tonners at Baalbek, two colossi of Memnon at 700 t each, one of 520 tons , another at 415 tons (an obelisk taken from Egypt and taken to Rome and set up), a bunch of 400 tonners mainly used around the Sphinx, etc. Big rocks moved was rare very rare.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: JamesTB

To determine how those cuttings were made you'd need to do a close up inspection of the cutting marks, looking for chisels or other marks.

If Roman there would be iron chisel marks.

Would that be an effective way of determining whether the Romans made the larger stones?

Anyone who possesses iron isn't going to use pounders. So there should be some residue from the iron chisels if the Romans made them.

When the DAI finished their century long excavations at Baalbek I don't recall their mentioning anything about 'chisel' marks on those stones but I read them a long time ago, Harte read it too perhaps Bryd? You guys remember anything?

www.academia.edu... tween_the_Temples_at_Heliopolis_Baalbek_and_

www.academia.edu...

gilgamesh42.wordpress.com...

Hey Harte do you have a valid link to the two main DAI studies the one Blackmarketer post here some years ago?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: JamesTB

To determine how those cuttings were made you'd need to do a close up inspection of the cutting marks, looking for chisels or other marks.

If Roman there would be iron chisel marks.

Would that be an effective way of determining whether the Romans made the larger stones?

Anyone who possesses iron isn't going to use pounders. So there should be some residue from the iron chisels if the Romans made them.

When the DAI finished their century long excavations at Baalbek I don't recall their mentioning anything about 'chisel' marks on those stones but I read them a long time ago, Harte read it too perhaps Bryd? You guys remember anything?

www.academia.edu... tween_the_Temples_at_Heliopolis_Baalbek_and_

www.academia.edu...

gilgamesh42.wordpress.com...

Hey Harte do you have a valid link to the two main DAI studies the one Blackmarketer post here some years ago?

All I have is a link to this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't recall reading about the quarrying, just the construction.
IIRC, we got a response from one of the DAI guys telling us that the Trilithon is Roman, as well as the platform.
The previous foundation they described as Herodian.

Harte

Harte

a reply to: Harte

This is a search for "Baalbek" on the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut site.

I couldn't find anything that looked like what Blackmarketeer might have posted, or what Hanslune meant ... But someone else might spot something.