New images shows something unimaginable HUGE is buried beneath ancient Baalbek

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

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.

About twice the mass of water, which corresponds to the density I mentioned.

Harte

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.

You can't say as a fact there wasn't.

I have the oldest historical document in the world claiming they existed.

Did someone say... Baalbek?
previous Baalek desicussion

(illustrations and links to surveys and studies in the above link)

The other monoliths in the quarry have been known for a while, but very little archeological work can take place in the region due to armed conflict/war zone.

Considering we had to cut Egyptian statues
into piecesto move them with modern equipment,
I'd say the ancients were better at moving larger stones
than we'll be for a while .

And there hassn't exactly been a line of constructors chomping at the bit to
recreate the great pyramid . Although the bragging rights would be
enormous.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Maybe it was a quarry... to find whatever is underneath.

This is very interesting......

a reply to: Devino

What comes to my mind is a failed movement of the stone that left it there.. ruining the prep for the stone underneath, which was abandoned along with the original stone ie: didn't make it into a wall whether upright or horizontal.

Just consider this for a moment, how an Egyptian obelisk was raised at it's base into a prepared hole, such a stone as this, once upright, might have lent itself to a fulcrum allowing the stone to be "walked" to its destination, and then levered into place.

This has "abort" written all over it.

Something went awry.

How on earth did they move them at all to begin with? I imagine a mass of pullies and levers and gears in a giant wooden contraption. as was the case with the obelisks, with oxen and men heaving on a network of ropes.

Why did they like such large stones?

I think it was all about the fulcrum and their way of trying to master gravity while making a building to last forever.


What a cool site.

Göbekli Tepe takes the cake though, along with the measure of the royal cubit and it's relationship to the Neolithic Yard, used in all such constructions all over the world, including the Pyramids as the literal apex of this type of engineering.

Are any stones of similar dimension seen to have been utilized in the construction? Maybe this one simply exceeded their capabilities, but my suspicion tells me that once one falls, you can't re-erect it. It's like a rock in need of Viagra.

Someone should figure out where it goes and move it to it's intended destination, in honor of the ancient builders, imho.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation


It's the same in South America, all the massive stones are placed either by giants or by some technology we seemed to have no idea about.

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.

That's one hell of a dangerous practice for underground!

1 cubic meter of water is 1 tonne not stone.
Weight charts

a reply to: AnkhMorpork\



The stones left unfinished, not just in one place but all over. The way I am starting to think about it is, that an age ended probably by the ice age and weather disruption. Everyone started living in the moment to survive then thousands of years later. Would use the secure bases, of megalithic stone, and re build in a totally different style. The places would have been originally good places by water. When recorded history starts up again, we just have the legends. The whole society would have been flooded out, and the cities by the sea where we still build today , being the main drivers of this society got destroyed. I think it might have happened a few times. Because we would have trouble getting through an ice age with our society intact. In fact any centralised system will end up being disrupted, because it cant cope with a big climate change.

a reply to: anonentity
Your post makes the most sense of all.
Thank you.

Thank you for the 100 flags!

-MM

a reply to: JohanDees


We could also elaborate, and go a bit more down that track. How does one survive such an event as an Ice age intact? You build structures underground, and use your high tech to survive, as the temperatures below are balmy. Anyone on the surface would be too busy surviving . We might be looking at a parallel civilisation with limited numbers who have organised themselves to weather the natural state of this planet, and or perhaps others in this solar system. Antarctica anyone?

We always assume high technology must take the form which ours has taken. Clearly no ancient culture achieved indusrializatioin, because the number of artifacts would be staggeringly large. They probably also didn't have the printing press.


But perhaps we are missing some technologies which they considered to be common place? Maybe anti-gravity will end up being simpler than anybody ever thought. No need for computers, or even steel. Just some chemicals, crystals, a bit of careful arrangement to create resonance..


To a modern observer, sacred geometry looks like nothing more than a fancy way to make a recurring pattern in a piece of pottery, but there is stuff buried in that lore that looks like it could be used to improve on modern trigonometry, if anyone really understood it enough to make the conversion between math languages. A different view of reality, with 9 dimensions instead of 4, elemental associations for the various sacred polygons, and a math system that relies on shapes instead of numbers to get an answer to a calculation.

We'll never know what they knew, until we start drawing the abstracts shapes they drew on our own. Not copying them. Doing it for ourselves.

But it's difficult because today we are so fixated on computational mathematics. 1's, 0's. Decimal numbers crunching at billions of operations per second by computers that can render video images in real time. It gives us a reach no previous culture ever had, but it may also be blinding us to what they could see with their shapes conch shells.

en.wikipedia.org...


Lots of mysteries here. Not very many answers to those mysteries...

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Clearly no ancient culture achieved indusrializatioin, because the number of artifacts would be staggeringly large.

Given enough time, even a solid bar of gold would turn into dust/disappear due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So, just the fact that you don't find any artifacts for ancient high-tech societies here on Earth does not mean that there has never been any, rather, the society may have existed so long ago that the all traces have been lost.

-MM

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
en.wikipedia.org...


Lots of mysteries here. Not very many answers to those mysteries...

On the contrary, the mysteries of TRUE sacred geometry (as opposed to the New Age rubbish one reads on the internet) HAVE received answers and there is no longer ANYTHING mysterious about them anymore. In fact, their transcendental provenance has been mathematically proven, their isomorphism has been demonstrated for the first time and the way in which they embody the mathematics of superstrings, the 8 Church musical modes, and the 64 codons in DNA has been elucidated. You just have to spend the necessary time and effort to assimilate the huge amount of pioneering research that has now revealed the amazing nature of certain sacred geometries and the scientific information they embody. For details about how to identify TRUE sacred geometries and how they embody scientific knowledge about certain holistic systems, visit:
smphillips.mysite.com...

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
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...

Great find, S&F, although can't say I necessarily agree with your logic that archaeologists are purposely calling this site a quarry for the sake of trying to protect their current theories about how human civilization evolved. Let alone because they can't explain how stones like this could be moved. I tend to think scientists are always striving to make new discoveries despite what current theories say. Think about the attention (read grants) a new and exciting discovery could yield

If you ask me, this resembles exactly like what a quarry from ancient times might look like, versus it being the tip of some kind of mysterious buried structure. I guess they'll have to keep digging out that area to see.

Everytime I see the Baalbek stone, an amazing feat of stone carving, I think of the abandoned obelisk in Egypt. The dimensions are very similar, I think. And the sites look very similar as well in my opinion.

Estimated to be 1200 tons - big sucker



Not sure where archaeologist stand on how these obscenely heavy stones were moved around, but if they can't figure out how advanced civilizations like the AE's or Romans did it, then how would they explain how an even more ancient civilization could have done it?

Anyway, I'm fairly comfortable with the Baalbek site being called a quarry (for now). It seems to have served as the birthing place of huge stones for ancient temples - whosever they are.

a reply to: Sublimecraft
Wait. Steel floats? Maybe I misunderstood what you said.