New images shows something unimaginable HUGE is buried beneath ancient Baalbek

You've probably already heard of the mysterious 1,000 ton Baalbek stone in the (so-called) quarry. However, recent archeology digs at the site have revealed that the 1,000 tone stone is just the top of the iceberg - beneath it are even larger stones, perhaps even as heavy as 3,000 tons in my estimation based on these recent pictures.

So much for it being a quarry - it seems that beneath Baalbek there is burried something unimaginable HUGE, perhaps an ancient megalithic wall or a building of some kind. We're living in exciting times.






Edit:
The only reason that mainstream archeology still calls this a "quarry" is because they have no explanation how the ancient people could move such huge blocks back then, and therefore they must call it a quarry as calling it something else would invalidate their current theories of how human civilization has evolved from ancient times. By calling it something other than a quarry, they would at the same time admit their current theories are wrong. IMO, this is the smoking gun, ladies and gentlemen...

Also, notice that we see four megalithic cut stones, all at a 30 degree angle, while the rest of Baalbek from Roman times has a flat layout. One would imagine that these cut stones also had a flat layout once, but how far back in time are we talking about? Has the tectonic plate that Baalbek is on moved 30 degrees upwars after they were cut, and is this proof that the cut stones is way more ancient than the Roman palace there?

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I think it's pretty cool.
But I don't know if these pictures prove it's not a quarry. Because that's what it looks like was going on to me.

I think them cutting the giant stones right there is a more likely and realistic scenario than a ginormous buried building or wall.

a reply to: watchitburn

Why would anyone quarry stones beneath other stones without taking the top stone out of the quarry first, seems the harder way of doing it. That approach don't make any sense to me as it seems very unpractical. These photos paints a different picture to me - we're seeing part of a wall or building of some kind. I don't think they have even reached the bottom yet, below it can be even more cut stones. Hopefully they will get the funding to keep on digging.

-MM

An easy way to do an approximate tonnage estimation is to consider a 1meter x1meter x 1meter rock = 1 tonne.
We use that easy estimation underground when we have a fall of rock. Anything over a certain tonnage has to be reported to the ministry.
By using the above formula we are able to give a fairly accurate estimation.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Even though many ancient stone structures found around the world have this in common, old structures built upon older structures that were built upon even older structures, I have to wonder if this is just a quarry?
Unfinished hewn stones sitting on top of natural rocks. Similar to this unfinished Egyptian Obelisk.
Here is a link with better images.
Never the less Baalbek is an amazing site.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: watchitburn

Why would anyone quarry stones beneath other stones without taking the top stone out of the quarry first, seems the harder way of doing it. That approach don't make any sense to me as it seems very unpractical. The images speak a different language to me - we're seeing part of a wall or building of some kind. I don't think they have even reached the bottom yet, below it can be even more cut stones. Hopefully they will get the funding to keep on digging.

-MM

It looks to me like the process of cutting the stones out of the quarry continued after the top stone was cut free. The top stone was moved out of its original position, which seems unlikely to be due to natural causes, and then left where it is today. Notice how the top stone has dirt or debris under it propping it up at an incline? Propping up hewn stones in this manner is also indicative of megalithic stone blocks found at other sites, like Machu Pichu for instance.

Heluva site. I wonder what it was?

I bet that sand has been drifting over that area for a really long time. I wonder how old that place really is?

originally posted by: rickymouse
Heluva site. I wonder what it was?

I bet that sand has been drifting over that area for a really long time. I wonder how old that place really is?

The four stones we currently see are all layed out at the same 30 degree angle, and I would imagine they had a flat layout originally. From this evidence, one can only conclude that the whole tectonic plate has moved 30 degrees since the time of its construction - in other words, VERY ancient stones as all the other monuments at Baalbek from Roman times have a flat layout.

-MM

a reply to: watchitburn

OK, let's say it's a quarry; still, why would that have cut out multi-ton stones at a quarry had there not been technology available to move them to there they'd have been employed?

That's a big part of the question.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: watchitburn

Why would anyone quarry stones beneath other stones without taking the top stone out of the quarry first, seems the harder way of doing it. That approach don't make any sense to me as it seems very unpractical. These photos paints a different picture to me - we're seeing part of a wall or building of some kind. I don't think they have even reached the bottom yet, below it can be even more cut stones. Hopefully they will get the funding to keep on digging.

-MM

If you use rollers to move the stones, then having a couple stacked on top of each other doubles your productivity.

They might be the topping stones !!!

Probably never know

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: watchitburn

Why would anyone quarry stones beneath other stones without taking the top stone out of the quarry first, seems the harder way of doing it. That approach don't make any sense to me as it seems very unpractical. These photos paints a different picture to me - we're seeing part of a wall or building of some kind. I don't think they have even reached the bottom yet, below it can be even more cut stones. Hopefully they will get the funding to keep on digging.

-MM

If you use rollers to move the stones, then having a couple stacked on top of each other doubles your productivity.

A 340 ton block has the Guinness Book of Records for the ‘largest boulder ever transported in modern times‘, these cut stones at Baalbek are almost 10 times as heavy. To be able to transport that boulder back in 2012 they had to use a custom-built 176-wheel transporter truck that traveled at 10mph.

Claiming that the ancients used wooden rollers and manual labour to move cut stones almost 10x the weight of that boulder seems highly unlikely to me.



Source

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: rickymouse
Heluva site. I wonder what it was?

I bet that sand has been drifting over that area for a really long time. I wonder how old that place really is?

The four stones we currently see are all layed out at the same 30 degree angle, and I would imagine they had a flat layout originally. From this evidence, one can only conclude that the whole tectonic plate has moved 30 degrees since the time of its construction - in other words, VERY ancient stones as all the other monuments at Baalbek from Roman times have a flat layout.

-MM

I think there was a different hominid culture that built some of these ancient sites. Humans were probably just running around and not that advanced back then. There is no rule that says that humans were the only hominid that was intelligent, of course people want to believe that these other non humans were primitive but they may have been more advanced than we are today. Of course, there would also have been some that liked rustic living, there could have even been some super intelligent neanderthals.

Modern humans are stuck on themselves, we believe we are better than others ever were, we even believe we are better than other animals. Watching a bird fly through the trees and stop midair and look at me, I feel we are not the most intelligent beings. A robin came every morning and gave the news, I listened to it every day. All the other birds were silent while it talked. when it was done all the birds started to chatter for fifteen minutes, that was every day. The strange thing is that that bird talked in short sentences like Obama did in his speeches at the time. It was kind of comical, I told the wife Obama is a bird brain.

a reply to: rickymouse

Modern humans are stuck on themselves, we believe we are better than others ever were, we even believe we are better than other animals. Watching a bird fly through the trees and stop midair and look at me, I feel we are not the most intelligent beings. A robin came every morning and gave the news, I listened to it every day. All the other birds were silent while it talked. when it was done all the birds started to chatter for fifteen minutes, that was every day. The strange thing is that that bird talked in short sentences like Obama did in his speeches at the time. It was kind of comical, I told the wife Obama is a bird brain.

[Job 12:7 ESV] -“But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;

-MM

old news, we know of the huge buried stones since,at least just a bit after the discovery of the big one

Baalbek = Amazing.
Huuuuuge blocks of stacked stones on wooden rollers = Ridiculous.

Just my opinion.

As was already said, why quarry stones of such size unless you can move them with ease and utilize them with a high degree of accuracy and success?

originally posted by: Macenroe82
An easy way to do an approximate tonnage estimation is to consider a 1meter x1meter x 1meter rock = 1 tonne.
We use that easy estimation underground when we have a fall of rock. Anything over a certain tonnage has to be reported to the ministry.
By using the above formula we are able to give a fairly accurate estimation.

Limestone gravel is 2.2 tons per square yard.
I don't know the difference (if any) between tonnes and tons.

Regarding the stones under the top ones, I've yet to see one cleared enough to tell if it's been quarried at all. There is obvious vertical fracturing, but that's how good, homogeneous limestone breaks.
It breaks even better horizontally, requiring very little finishing for a plane surface.
One of the reasons it was used so often.

Harte

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation


A 340 ton block has the Guinness Book of Records for the ‘largest boulder ever transported in modern times‘, these cut stones at Baalbek are almost 10 times as heavy. To be able to transport that boulder back in 2012 they had to use a custom-built 176-wheel transporter truck that traveled at 10mph.

The "Thunderstone," a granites megalith, is the heaviest stone ever moved by human beings. It weighs 1500 tonnes (one tonne equals about 1.1 ton, I just decided to find out.)
It was moved over nine months at a rate of about 150 meters per day Around 25 to 30 miles) without the use of machines or animals.

The Baalbek quarry is uphill from the Temple of Jupiter site and is less than six miles away, IIRC.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

Claiming that the ancients used wooden rollers and manual labour to move cut stones almost 10x the weight of that boulder seems highly unlikely to me.

[-MM

The "ancients" you refer to here are the Romans, and the moved stones almost as large way further than six miles.

The only people claiming rollers were used are internet tyros. You can't use rollers on such stones. Sledges were used - that's why they were cut at an angle above level, so they could get the sledges under them. The stones were dragged along a road by capstan winches, which have been shown over and over to be more than up to the required force.

Herod included similarly sized stones in his temple (in Jerusalem) and they're still there today. The huge stones at BOTH temples are used for the exact same purposes - a retaining wall.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Thanks for sharing, but The Thunder Stone was moved in 1770's when they had materials, technology like ball bearings, and the math to pull this off - I don't think you can compare that great accomplishment with what would have been possible to pull off 2,000 years earlier at Baalbek. Also, the Baalbek cut stones may be as much as 3 times heavier than the Thunder Stone.



-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: watchitburn

Why would anyone quarry stones beneath other stones without taking the top stone out of the quarry first, seems the harder way of doing it. That approach don't make any sense to me as it seems very unpractical. These photos paints a different picture to me - we're seeing part of a wall or building of some kind. I don't think they have even reached the bottom yet, below it can be even more cut stones. Hopefully they will get the funding to keep on digging.

-MM

If you use rollers to move the stones, then having a couple stacked on top of each other doubles your productivity.

A 340 ton block has the Guinness Book of Records for the ‘largest boulder ever transported in modern times‘, these cut stones at Baalbek are almost 10 times as heavy. To be able to transport that boulder back in 2012 they had to use a custom-built 176-wheel transporter truck that traveled at 10mph.

Claiming that the ancients used wooden rollers and manual labour to move cut stones almost 10x the weight of that boulder seems highly unlikely to me.

Source

-MM

The largest stone ever moved was resonably modern.

The Thunder Stone