New images shows something unimaginable HUGE is buried beneath ancient Baalbek

It's truly fascinating...

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
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

As someone pointed out, ball bearings weren't invented yet. The Thunder Stone was moved using bronze spheres. Surely if you're as interested in ancient times as you seem to be, you're aware that we had bronze long before 2000 years ago. Iron was also available at this time. Math was sufficiently advanced. So all of the technology used to move the Thunder Stone was available when these stones at Baalbek were being quarried.

As for the lower stones being heavier, that does not mean they could not be moved. The largest example of a stone being moved in such a manner does not necessarily mean that's the largest possible stone you could move. All you would really need is more spheres and more people/animals to supply the power, and a transfer system as Herte has already explained.

Lastly, I'll point out we have no way of knowing whether they intended to move the stones at their current sizes. Obviously whatever they were doing there was left uncompleted. They may have intended to cut them smaller and just never got around to it. Sorry to burst your bubble, there's really no there there.

Take awe at the cleverness and determination of our ancestors. Their accomplishments are to be venerated. Not explained away with pseudoscience.

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

Exciting times indeed, but Archeology will not change their point of view (yes point of view). If a 1megakilo block doesn't do the trick a 3megakilo block makes no difference either.

And as long as everything stays the same it's good to know that Veles was a very powerfull god.

Basically its an ancient practical joke! They're all laughing it up right now looking down on us. "I told you they'd think it was a quarry! HA HA HA!!"

Fascinating, thanks for sharing. I've always been interested in the place since reading Sitchin and this new info further adds to the enigma.

a reply to: Skywatcher2011

peashooter85.tumblr.com... he-trilothon-stones-of-baalbek-located-in-what

This is a fun topic, the link above will help provide some insight and may stop all of the alien talk.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Either way... It looks like they went through alot of trouble to bury whatever it is they have underneath all those gigantic pillars of stone.

Didn't Tom Cruise just warn us about unearthing tombs and such in the new Mummy?

only a clearing away of loose fill dirt would reveal if the 'supposed' huge blocks underneath the present day, unfinished, huge megalith blocks which are 98% quarried..... are the remains of an earlier made floor of a much earlier and much bigger building or just the mere 'bedrock' from which the unfinished blocks were hewn from...a Quarry after all


I really doubt side-scan radar would reveal the site as a huge deposit of ancient seafloor, but a costly & time consuming excavation would shed some light on the true origin of the site.... excavate both the Temple where the 3 super-size megalithic blocks are and the nearby 'quarry' that is home to several big megalithic blocks still attached to the (natural IMHO) formation

All it would take is giant men to move a rock like that.

And I'm not kidding either.

There were giants in the earth in those days - Gen 6:4

originally posted by: WhyDidIJoin
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Either way... It looks like they went through alot of trouble to bury whatever it is they have underneath all those gigantic pillars of stone.

Didn't Tom Cruise just warn us about unearthing tombs and such in the new Mummy?

Thought I was the only one thinking that. Maybe not trying to get to the bottom of this is a better idea.
"Once the chambers open the signal will be sent...to a place far beyond the stars"

originally posted by: xstealth
All it would take is giant men to move a rock like that.

And I'm not kidding either.

There were giants in the earth in those days - Gen 6:4

No there wasn't. Giants did not exist you could have someone taller.

originally posted by: St Udio


only a clearing away of loose fill dirt would reveal if the 'supposed' huge blocks underneath the present day, unfinished, huge megalith blocks which are 98% quarried..... are the remains of an earlier made floor of a much earlier and much bigger building or just the mere 'bedrock' from which the unfinished blocks were hewn from...a Quarry after all

Unfortunately for your fantasy, Baalbek has been excavated down to the bedrock. Underneath the platform is typical Roman foundation construction - called "honeycomb" construction:

Why is it no ancient spaceship landing platform? Because of its construction. Its a typical Roman honeycomb-brick-construction. Underneath the forum is a labyrinth of brick walls and chambers, filled to support the weight with shards and other compact trash. All of roman origin. Only beneath the temples on top of the forum are fundaments to the bedrock to support their weight. And in typical roman fashion, to conceal the flimsy inner construction an outer wall of monoliths between 50 and 800 tons each was placed around the construction so that it looks massive. But this is only an outer appearance, the whole construction is so unstable, that any decent space ferry would simply break through the ceiling and land in a heap of roman shards.

link

Note that Roman waste and trash was found down to the bedrock.
Note also what I already mentioned - an older foundation lies within the Roman one - built in the time of Herod.

No evidence of any other structures on that particular site were found.

There ARE older remains at other (nearby) sites though.

Harte

Really fascinating, these ancient people sure did have time on their hand's for such an undertaking.

Nice vid, good details

a reply to: stormcell Right but how did they lift a 1000 ton stone onto rollers? Seems implausible.

Baalbek is officially a Roman temple that was built on the foundations of a much earlier site. Some of the foundation stones that make up the main platform weigh in at around 800-1000 tons. However, the true origins of this site are shrouded in mystery, but it is known that the Romans called it Heliopolis - with its namesake in Egypt. The name ‘Baal’ generally means ‘Lord’ or ‘God’, and to the Phoenicians it meant ‘Sun’. The site sits upon a ‘tel’ or occupational mound 1150m above sea level, and has been inhabited since the Early Bronze Age (2,900 - 2,300 BC), with continuous occupation.

In 1977, Jean-Pierre Adam made a study suggesting the large blocks could have been moved on rollers with machines using capstans and pulley blocks, a process which he suggested could use 512 workers to move a 557-ton block (almost half as heavy as the trilithon blocks) (6). However, this does not explain how they were then lifted in to place.

Note the smaller Roman stone, atop the pre-existing larger stones


There is a high probability the Romans were not even aware of the quarry stones. As they were covered in meters of sediment. If they were, they would not of been left where they lay. Most like, they would of been cut up and used either there, or other locations.

There are no legends or folk tales from Roman times that link the Romans with the mammoth stones. There are absolutely no records in any Roman or other literary sources concerning the construction methods or the dates and names of the benefactors, designers, architects, engineers and builders of the Grand Terrace. The megalithic stones of the Trilithon bear no structural or ornamental resemblance to any of the Roman-era constructions. The limestone rocks of the Trilithon show extensive evidence of wind and sand erosion that is absent from the Roman temples, indicating that the megalithic construction dates from a far earlier age

A more recent video, which visually puts things into better perspective.

There's always a chance they cut them that large initially, but intended to cut them into smaller slices before moving them.

It's easier to figure out what the assembled product will look like if you create it first in its complete intended form, then cut it up, and then reassemble it after moving it.



But idea of them keeping it intact and moving it is a fascinating prospect. So naturally I hope they weren't intending to cut it up before moving it.

[images.gmanews.tv...[/url]



Just admit it already... you know its true!!!

originally posted by: PRSpinster
a reply to: stormcell Right but how did they lift a 1000 ton stone onto rollers? Seems implausible.

There are many ways it could be done. Here's one. Keep in mind this is using wood, but as I noted above, at the time the Baalbek site was being quarried they had access to bronze and iron. All it takes is cleverness and a lot of manpower.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Harte

1m x 1m x 1m (1 cubic meter) of fresh water = 1000kgs = 1 ton (tonne)

Yeah, but most stone doesn't float.

Harte

LOL - same thing was said about steel prior to working out that buoyancy is not a myth, but yes, stones don't float otherwise the mafia would not use concrete in their graveyards.