The Baalbek foundation stones.

Yes I was being facetious about the huts, its more of a comparison how the people live in comparison to the effort they put into their religious buildings. I guess we do they same?

The drum is a complete mystery isn't it? theres no photos or witnesses, did it just vanish? was it mistakenly reported to begin with?

How exactly did these reports identify the older appearing stone and the trilithons as being roman? Don't they lack the same tool markings typically found in roman quarrying? Dont they also lack the leading romans used to to keep their stoneworks from moving - I dont know what they call that, but its where they notch into two stones then pour lead in the notches to keep them connected. Maybe that came from a later roman period?

I've read Ragette and Alouf, so whatever opinions I have tend to be shaped by their work. Alouf disputed the existence of any drum. However the older stones came to be there, it makes sense the romans rebuilt or reset them to make sure they had a solid foundation for their temples.

Theres a picture I think in one of the early posts that shows them sliding the big trilithon off of rollers onto the block wall but how does that happen? Grease maybe? It seems like a lot of friction would be generated trying to slide into place over the wall below it. Its either that or rol it into place then lift it off rollers but thats even less believeable.

The only "fringe" theory I ever came across was the giants, but thats part of the folklore around the stones, the canaans were hated by the hebrew and isrealites so maybe they would prefer to give credit to some mythical monsters for building anything before acknowledging their enemies were capable of doing it. Just a wild guess lol.



[edit on 2-4-2009 by frankensence]

reply to post by frankensence


Howdy Frankensence

The drum is a complete mystery isn't it?

Hans: I have no source for it do you? What do you mean by 'drum'?

How exactly did these reports identify the older appearing stone and the trilithons as being roman?

Hans: By indentifying the ruins as Roman, remember the ruins you see now were extensively damaged and rebuilt, the temple was used as a fortress and the flat terrace was given walls. I have been unable to find any source to ID the stones as anything but Roman……which is why I’m now trying to follow up on the German source.

Don't they lack the same tool markings typically found in roman quarrying?

Hans: No, I've never seen a mention of this in any scientific source

Dont they also lack the leading romans used to to keep their stoneworks from moving - I dont know what they call that, but its where they notch into two stones then pour lead in the notches to keep them connected. Maybe that came from a later roman period?

Hans: Called staples or clasps I believe, they were not used as this was a temple to be made in the classical style of temple. If they had used “modern” (modern to the Roman’s of the period) they would have used concrete. However temples needed to be made in the old style for religious reasons I guess.

Theres a picture I think in one of the early posts that shows them sliding the big trilithon off of rollers onto the block wall but how does that happen? Grease maybe? It seems like a lot of friction would be generated trying to slide into place over the wall below it. Its either that or rol it into place then lift it off rollers but thats even less believeable.

Hans: Yet they were moved, if the Roman’s couldn’t do it how did the less technically advanced Phoenicians do it?

Hi Hanslune

What do you mean by 'drum'?

A piece of a roman column or "drum", it was written in a old text book that this was found beneath the trilithon, Alouf in his book dispuites that any druim or column segment was ever found and it was an erroneous report. I mentioned it becasue someone in the early post mentioned it. I also figure its the main reason that everyone is claiming only the romans build the whole complex. Soory for the confusion!

the temple was used as a fortress and the flat terrace was given walls.

I'll have to recheck Ragette, but I was under the impresion the terrace was built at the top level of the trilithons or the outer foundation walls that are being disputed. The top of the terrace is over the older appearing stones. The "quala" (from Ragette) is buried beneath the roman jupiter temple. That part is undispuited belonging to pre roman builders.

I'll also have to olok for the csource about the tool markings but from memory the romans made holes into the stones so they could lift them, Im guessing this was only done to the smaller stones so they could be lifted from the quarry with a clamp like hoist. I'm still trying to figure out how to post images here, [img=] doesnt seem to work, lol. But its not that big a deal about the tool marks becasue rome lasted for a millinea their building methods were sure to change.

Yet they were moved, if the Roman’s couldn’t do it how did the less technically advanced Phoenicians do it?

Phoenician were advanced, they were a great sea faring nation and built many impressive walls and buildings . I wouldnt rule them out completely! Don't underestrimate an ancient civilzation, they had just as much brain power as we "modern" humans do.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by frankensence]

[edit on 2-4-2009 by frankensence]

Howdy Frankensense

D'uh on my not realizing you were talking about column drums. I worked with people who tended to call them 'disks and pucks' for some odd reason.

Phonenicians, sure they could have dragged them there just like the Egyptians did using raw man power. The question is why all the qualified people who know Roman and Phoenician ruins would mis-identify the stones and continue to do so for over a century.

I'm going to have to get the DAI latest report to be able to understand this. When stuff that isn't earth shaking is published it sometimes gets lost in the amount of material that is produced during the year.

The identification of the terrace to the Phoenician would be an interesting development.

The Roman original I believe was based on Weigand digging down to the bedrock thru typical Roman construction, masonry on the outside, brick matrix (honey comb) that was filled with rubble. That rubble was said to have contained Roman shards and other materials and no others.

The holes you are speaking of may have been on the long ends and not the wall ends-those have not been uncovered to my knowledge.

thanks for the info. Next question is, where did they do this excavating to the bedrock? The outer walls that are in question are solid to the rock below yes? Ragette mentions the trilithins as an unfinsihed building phase on top of the megaliths (not sure if that is the correct term) with the fourth stone still in the quarry. He indicates the disparity between the roman walls at the western corner where the coursing doesnt line up with the trilithins. It's like the romans may have had to cut one uneven course to make up for the different spacing.

reply to post by frankensence


thanks for the info. Next question is, where did they do this excavating to the bedrock?

Hans: 1904-5 Expedition, its evidence placed in Weigands 1925 site report, three volumes 1921-1925, Jarhbuch fur Kunstwissenshaft

The outer walls that are in question are solid to the rock below yes?

Hans: Ah yeah I would presume so but I may not fully understand this question

Ragette mentions the trilithins as an unfinsihed building phase on top of the megaliths (not sure if that is the correct term) with the fourth stone still in the quarry.

Hans: the big stone (and there is yet another found in the 1990's) were to have been used to form an altar, they don't appear to have anything to do with the retaining wall, AFAIK. I have not read Ragette so I cannot comment further

He indicates the disparity between the roman walls at the western corner where the coursing doesnt line up with the trilithins.

Hans: What does he say?

It's like the romans may have had to cut one uneven course to make up for the different spacing.

Hans: Is that his conclusion or yours?

I'll upload some scans I made from Wiegand which I've taken from a library. A hard series of volumes to find! How do you use this report as a claim the site is Roman through to the bedrock, have you actually read this? The largest and oldest stones were not disturbed. The T formation lies beneath the temple of Jupiter and was used as a part of its foundation and is entrierly pre roman in origin. Its blocks are massize and cyclopean, which resembles parts of the western wall. There were three builders at work that include Romans, Arabs (who rebuilt part of the roman wall as a fortification) and a pre-roman builder who laid some of the foundation stones. Before the roman temple was built I read there was a hellenistic temple built by the Ptolemys whos foundations the roman must have incorporated.

I think you are being to critical of the idea another and earlier builder was at work in this site, but that's just my opinion!

Allow me the liberty to post images from Ragette Frankensence -

The original site configuration based on Weigands German archeological report: This complex is built over an ancient altar site dating back several millennia. Earliest settlement occurred around 7000 BC. This site is Canaanite in origin. The altar marks the location where the Canaanites believed the nefilim came to the earth. In the Judeo-Christian belief this is where Satan was cast down. The Arabs also have a belief something came to earth here.





The second image shows the expanded complex with temple addition built during Ptolemy - Seleucid times. The likeliest builder is Solomon.





Early Roman scheme. The terrace expands in three directions, North, East, and South.





Final site, as discovered by the German team, remnants of a basilica and Arab fortification walls obscure the Roman temples and underlying terrace, which in turn bury the ancient terrace.





Roman stone moving technique. All of the temple stones and Roman walls stones had these Lewis holes. None of the lower podium walls or pre-Roman terrace stones had such holes. The Greeks used a different method similar to the Romans; they would carve a loop into the side of the block to be moved, looping a rope into the carved relief. The Roman method would preserve the face of the block and of course be much safer. The trilithons bear neither the loop or Lewis holes (The "Hajar el Gouble" has a strange assortment of holes which are round and randomly placed.)



The caption reads "Hypothetical procedure for placing an 800-tom block for the trilithon. Ragette doesn't explain how this would work without the Lewis holes. He later writes in his book that the trilithons had no such holes and that the Romans had actually used the top surface of the trilithons as a giant sketch pad for laying out the stone work of the temple at full scale. Only the very ends of the trilithons (where they butt one another) haven't been seen.





Ragette's caption for this image reads: "The six remaining columns of the temple of Jupiter resting upon the pre-Roman podium wall. The huge stones in front of it belong to the base course of the intended Roman podium extension." You can clearly see the Lewis holes in the Roman stones; they are very consistent and closely spaced.





Phoenician coins depicting a similarly styled temple and terrace:



The coins show a wide terrace with an altar in the center, with a temple to the west (The Phoenician temple “holy of holies” faced East) The coins are from Byblos.

A quick site survey - from a geodetic survey here is the likeliest route the trilithons took to the site:
The quarry where the trilithons were excavated lies is at 33 59'32.43 N 36 12'50.46 E at an elevation of 1,200 meters. The west wall of the podium is at 34 oo'25.25 N 36 12'10.45 E elevation 1,143 meters. A direct line-of-sight distance of 1.2 miles / 1.9 kilometers. The route is not level, at the 1/3rd (it’s lowest) point it dips to 1,130 meters. Then it steadily climbs to 1,222 meters (about 2/3rds the distance to the final site). In a distance of 0.40 miles (648 meters) the path climbs 92 meters, resulting in a slope of 8.08 percent. Too excessive to safely navigate or haul a load like the trilithons. As an aside, the theory behind the Great Pyramid ramp was that is wouldn't exceed 7 percent slope at over one mile in length, and that was for hauling stones of only 250 tons. I personally don't subscribe to that ramp theory since even that slope and distance would cripple a crew of stone haulers, oxen or human. To expect a load weighing up to 1,000 tons, or even 800 tons to ascend an 8 percent slope on rollers for a distance of 648 meters would be... daunting.

So the direct route to Baalbek for the trilithons is out. Anyone claiming the stones only had to travel 1.2 miles (or less) to get to the site never worked out the elevation changes. The alternate route would be a dogleg NNE where the terrain remains fairly flat until it begins to slope to the site - that route extends NNE from the quarry then NNW back to the tell. There is no appreciable rise in that route. That distance would be approximately 2.4 miles (3.9 KM), or as Ragette claims the route was 3 miles. There is one problem on this route and that is the stones would have to be climb uphill out of the quarry to get to the NNE slope. The quarry itself opens to the west and south, to the north and east there is a small incline. So you either deal with a short route and a major incline at the midpoint or you take the long route (it winds a bit) with no appreciable inclines with the exception of that of getting it out of the quarry and to the NNE face. It is not a pure downhill run.

These coordinates should work in Google Earth.

Ragette writes "When recently the top of the trilithons were cleared of rubble it was discovered that this surface had been used as a drawing board for the design of the pediment above..." Proof then the tops of the trilithons have been exposed and viewed. In this same chapter he also writes "...a discarded column drum once intended for the Temple of Jupiter, has been used in the foundation below the trilithon." A grave error on Ragette's part as no column drum has ever been seen or located. See Andrew Collins for more on his take on the vanishing drum.

Phoenician contribution: Ragette also writes ”The Phoenician influence on planning seems to have been matched only by a very large participation in the financing of the work, so large indeed that no emperor claims credit for having constructed or even contributed to the construction of the Temple of Jupiter."

The Phoenician Canaanite influence can't be disputed. The Roman style and engineering of temple building was forgone in favor of an outdated monumental classical style - "Beyond that it was an outdated method for the Roman engineer of the day, whose acquired learning was to cast walls economically in concrete and to span lofty spaces with lasting vaults. The temples of Baalbek reflect more strongly the vigorous local tradition of monumental masonry construction, which in its technical excellence and physical magnitude has no equal."- Ragette

The Phoenicians were long versed on monumental building as displayed in their ancient cities. The Israelites invaded and claimed Judea and the biblical lands, destroying several Phoenician cities utterly for their wicked polytheism. However, in the times of David and Solomon they would turn to these Phoenicians for their building and artistic skills.

Phoenicians/Canaanites Help Kings David and Solomon - "When David was chosen king and, thereafter, Solomon; they were in need of artisans, architects, craftsmen, builders and building material especially wood and precious metals to build a temple and palace. The best known and most gifted people to fulfill the kings' needs were the Phoenicians. Hence, both kings sought and received Phoenician know-how and materials."

Enter Solomon
Baalbek fell into dispute between the Seleucid Empire and the Ptolemies. Both camps bestowed great favor on Solomon who held great influence over these lands, particularly the Ptolomies. Solomon built the great Temple in Jerusalem which may have been based on the Temple of Temple of Melqart in Tyre. He is said to have built Baalath. Writes Jan Sammer "Is Baalbek the Scriptural Baalath, as Benjamin of Tudela thought? About Baalath it is said: 'And Solomon built . . . Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness.' (I Kings 9:17-18) Tadmor is Palmyra, far to the northeast of Baalbek."

Solomon’s Baalbek – www.varchive.org

Local tradition, which may be traced to the early Middle Ages, points to a definite period in the past when Baalbek was built: the time of Solomon.

Ildrisi, the Arab traveler and geographer (1099-1154), wrote: “The great (temple-city) of astonishing appearance was built in the time of Solomon.” 36 Gazwini (d. 1823 or 4) explained the origin of the edifices and the name of the place by connecting it with Balkis, the legendary Queen of the South, and with Solomon.37

The traveler Benjamin of Tudela wrote in the year 1160 of his visit to Baalbek: “This is the city which is mentioned in Scripture as Baalath in the vicinity of the Lebanon, which Solomon built for the daughter of Pharaoh. The place is constructed with stones of enormous size.” 38

Robert Wood, who stayed at Baalbek in the 1750’s, and who published an unsurpassed monograph on its ruins, wrote: “The inhabitants of this country, Mohomedans, Jews and Christians, all confidently believe that Solomon built both, Palmyra and Baalbek.” 39 Another traveler who visited Syria in the eighties of the eighteenth century recorded: ‘The inhabitants of Baalbek assert that this edifice was constructed by Djenoun, or genies in the service of King Solomon.” 40

The lack of Roman tool markings on the disputed trilithons or inner and outer podium walls, the lack of Lewis holes on these same stones, the lack of any record by the Romans over the construction of the terrace, even the lack of workgang graffiti (MER or a flag shape) on these stones, along with the obvious weathering on stones the DAI claim are the most durable in the site leads to one conclusion. Rome did not place the trilithons or other massive stones at the podium level. Note these authors are not disputing Romans building the extensions to the terrace or the burying of the ancient terrace under their new construction – they did, but the most massive stones, those along the western wall – not Roman.

Giants / Djinn / Jinns
I’m only including this so as to be as complete as possible. Understanding a folk tales origin can reveal some of its underlying history.
Solomon supposedly employed “giants” in his works. These giants are from the Phoenician camp – a number of giants crop up in their myths (King Og, for example, or Goliath). The Quran preserves these tales. Did they really exist? Did the Israelites and YHWH banish the Phoenician cult worship of the ancient deities result in the gradual elimination of the giant race? Who knows, until something concrete is found its pure speculation. Consider this though, from Ragette, regarding the excavation of the trilithon stones:
”It seems the Romans also employed a sort of quarrying machine. This we can deduce from the pattern of concentric circular blows shown on some blocks. They are bigger than any man could have produced manually, and we can assume that the cutting tool was fixed to an adjustable lever which would hit the block with great force. Swinging radii of up to 4 M (13 FT) have been observed.”
The spacing of the radii appears to vary between “machines”. Curious then, that a machine should be built of different dimensions and not uniform. Machine – or giant? (like I said, I’m just being complete here, I’m not advocating giants).

Solomon had everything to build a monumental temple and terrace – he was fabulously wealthy, had power and the goodwill of his people, he had the subservient Phoenician master craftsman in his employ, and he had the backing of the Ptolomies and Seleucids. Yet, the work was never completed. Solomon died at the age of 52, and Phoenicia was in constant warfare with neighboring states. Does this explain why the western wall is incomplete?

Hans: The stone are large because the Romans were building a traditional temple and the site selected was on a slope. The one wall is on the down hill side. Ever wondered why there is only ONE side with big stones?

Wrong Hans. The Romans did not select the site. The trilithons were not used because they were shoring up a downhill slope. In fact the trilithons are built over the lower cyclopean wall so they were not being used as a retaining wall as you claim. Weigand and Ragette had to force the conclusion that the size of the trilithons had to do with the design decision to go "monumental", before the abandoning the idea. Lame. You on the other hand are fabricating stuff about the trilithons being used as a retaining wall or shoring up a sloping side. The lower course handles the needs of a retaining wall without the need of the trilithons above them just nicely.

Hans: The stone look different because different layers of limestone were used. Limestone comes in different textures and density depending on when and how it was laid down.

The German report actually claims the trilithons and cyclopean wall to be the strongest and most durable stone used at the site. So it is not inferior or weaker than the rest, it's just older.

In the 1904 site report ( Theodore Weigands landmark 1925 report Jabrbuch Kunstwisseschaft 1924-25) the Germans took the temple remains down to the bedrock, they found typical Roman 'honey comb' construction, ie large stones on the outside, brick interior walls and the spaces inbetween filled with rubble. There is some evidence that there was a bronze a culture site here prior to the Romans.

Which you paraphrased from Ramtops website, rather than reading any original source material yourself:

Ramtops: A German expedition dug 1904/1905 through to the foundations of the temple. The temple platform is through and through of Roman origin. They found typical roman masonery, roman trash and so on, down to the bedrock. Nothing un-Roman was found! Btw: The temple platform was not built from massive stone, but typically roman honeycombed. Only the outer shell looks like a massive building.

This guy just made all of that up – the DAI itself states in black and white the Temple of Jupiter is built over an ancient Phoenician terrace. So obviously it is not “through and through of Roman origin”.

Hans: The fringe world has created endless nonsense and disinformation about the site, the grand daddy of all of this came from ("Voyage autour de la mer morte") by Felicien ce Saulcy written in 1864-before any investigation was done, later Sitchin made up some more stuff about it.

And again, your'e paraphrasing from Ramtops (at least link to the guy or give him credit):

Ramtops: The trash you can read about the temple comes mostly from a book from 1864 ("Voyage autour de la mer morte" by Felicien ce Saulcy) and an article from a professor Modeste Agrest, who based his story on a book "published in Paris in 1898" - long befor any serious dig was done. These sources were used by authors like Daeniken and Sitchin. The first real investigation from 1904/1905, published 1921 (Wiegand, Ballbek, 3 bde, 1921-1925), is "forgotten" by these guys.

What Doug Weller, and consequently Hanslune, utterly failed to take into account is that these same German archeology reports commented extensively on the ancient temple platform and enclosure. And it is not Roman "through and through". The ancient platform formed a giant terrace that the Romans built over. Hanslune should have at least given credit to Ramtops rather than taking portions of his argument as his own.

Hans: My main beef with the idea of the Roman's not building it is a total lack of any evidence for anybody else having built it. The 1904/5 expedition found numerous Roman materials and a few items from the neolithic era and the bronze age. No civilization, no habitations, no pottery, no evidence of any kind for anyone else in the vicinity.

And again, the site has a documented history dating back several thousand years. The Phoenician Canaanites, as I already stated, occupied this site until the Ptolomies arrived.

Hans: So Karl show us the civilization that did it, how they did it and why? Can you explain why we cannot find them?

You continue to refuse the evidence provided by the Canaanites.

Hans: There is no evidence for any other culture there capable of moving the stones - if so where is the evidence.

You continue to refuse the evidence provided by the Canaanites. They've build extensively with cyclopean masonry. They even depict the site on their coins, which matches the temple and terrace uncovered by the Germans.


Now if Sitchin chooses to see extraterestrials in that depiction then take up your argument with him, but it’s no casue to rob the Phoenicians of their skills and capabilities.

Hans: I think we could agree that only the Roman's have been shown to have been there and had the technology to move the stones. Can we prove they did it? No. Can we prove someone else did it? No. So we are left with what evidence we do have. The stones are in a building built entirely using Roman technique on a Roman site.

That's poor science at best. The trilithons lack the lewis holes so they were not placed using any known Roman techniques. And you again fail to understand that this is not a Roman site. It was already long established as an important religious site.

Hans: Oh did you read the last german Expedition report on Baalbek the one done during the 1990s? Oh you didn't? That obvious, LOL

It's obvious YOU didn't read it - you only took Ramtops webpage for granted and have been stealing his argument without ever having read some of the material you yourself have been linking to (like Ragette).

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Blackmarketeer]

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Blackmarketeer]

Hans: See, the quarry is actually uphill from the site by quite a few meters,meaning every stone was moved downhill and absolutely no lifting was ever required for the megaliths. Also, the quarry is not separated from the site by any "rough and winding terrain."

See the site analysis. The ravine lies between the quarry and the site. Either they went around it (distance of over 2 miles) or through it, a change in elevation of 92 meters.

Hans: So are you suggesting that these mysterious non Roman's build a shell wall - nothing else and then walked away? LOL...leaving no trace?

No, you are making up comments that I never stated. These "mysterious non Romans", as you say, built a full-blown temple complex complete with podium and terrace. You, and Ramtops, are the ones claiming the Romans gave up in the middle of building the trilithon wall and just "changed their minds". I do claim that it was most likely Solomon, or his heirs, who abandoned the placing of the trilithons, which remained there in a state of ruin until the Romans arrived and revived the building of the temple complex – based not on their own design but on the inherited design of the original temple complex.

Blackmarketeer: You keep implying that no other culture existed in this region.

Hans: Really? Are you still making stuff up Blackmarketeer? Of course there were other cultures there, try to think logically will you and don’t make up stuff, I get tired of telling you that over and over. I was referring to the fact that you said the Roman’s couldn’t move the rocks so who moved them? Who build the retaining wall (a retaining wall is not a foundation) So you are now claiming the Canaanites did it huh? Well the Phonecians were there, they provided the name. They showed up around 4000 BP - which is in historic times.

So now you're saying their were other cultures in that area? You posted earlier that there weren't. You're contradicting yourself.

Hans: You do realize that your 'evidence' consists of denying the Roman evidence?

Actually, my evidence consists of accepting the archeological record of another, buried, structure built by an earlier culture. The Roman evidence only points to their having built upon that earlier site, having accepted its religious and occult heritage.

Hans: You are forgetting that limestone is a sedimentary stone, it comes in different densities, hardness and erosion resistence. You can see that clearly in the Sphinx where the different layers of the stone has weathered differently. Different stones cut from different layers will age differently. You can see the same thing in the pyramids - the different layers reflect the different layers of limestone and when and where it was quarried.

The German report actually stated the trilithons and the lower cyclopean wall were the strongest and most durable stones at this site. The signs of pitting from sand and wind erosion given the comparisons to similar quarried stones in the region seem to indicate a similar age, to around 1000 BC.

Hans: It would seem that the work on the last expedition in the 1990's found the remains of some of this Phoenician work which has survived. These ruins were found during excavations and I'm no looking for the German language paper/publications that describes them.

So NOW you admit it? So WHY were you attacking me earlier for stating just that about the Phoenician/Canaanites? Were you so rapped up in Ramtops poorly "researched" disinfo that you never bothered to go to the original sources.?

Frankensence: I also read that the "roman drum" beneath the foundation walls has never actually been seen and was just a mistaken report from an early expedition.

Hans: Can you expand on that please?

I'll expand - the Roman "drum" rumor was started by Ragette, and it should have cost him his reputation. It's never been seen, confirmed, or found. Andrew Collins writes about that. The DAI make no acknowledgment of a Roman drum beneath the trilithons.

Frankensence: How exactly did these reports identify the older appearing stone and the trilithons as being roman?

Hans: By indentifying the ruins as Roman, remember the ruins you see now were extensively damaged and rebuilt, the temple was used as a fortress and the flat terrace was given walls. I have been unable to find any source to ID the stones as anything but Roman……which is why I’m now trying to follow up on the German source.

See the pic on the Arab fortifications. Their stone work is very distinguished from the oldest original stone work and the later Roman additions.

Frankensence: Don't they lack the same tool markings typically found in roman quarrying?

Hans: No, I've never seen a mention of this in any scientific source

That source would again be the German report - the trilithons lack the lewis holes which the Romans would have made to lift them off of the rollers. The trilithons had been cleared off by the Romans who then used them as a "full scale sketching pad" for the pediment of the temple. (Ragette). They would have discovered the holes then.

Hans: Yet they were moved, if the Roman’s couldn’t do it how did the less technically advanced Phoenicians do it?

How indeed? How did Solomon build his temple? How was Stonehenge built? These mysteries are lost to history, but that shouldn't mean we rewrite it to fit what we do know - and what we do know is that portions of the outer and inner podium is not Roman.

Hans: The Roman original I believe was based on Weigand digging down to the bedrock thru typical Roman construction, masonry on the outside, brick matrix (honey comb) that was filled with rubble. That rubble was said to have contained Roman shards and other materials and no others.

Again wrong, and contradicted by the German report so I question where you are getting this "belief" from. The foundation beneath the temple was a pre Roman terrace. Not only can you view the pre-Roman terrace on the western wall you can view it on the southern wall as well.The Roman expansion of the terrace is clearly evident by the disparity in stone shape, sizes and weathering from the original terrace.

Hans: I have not read Ragette so I cannot comment further

Yet you linked to his book as a source?

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Thank you, very thorough explanation, although I posted I was looking at Weigand and not Ragette, however Ragette follows Weigand very closely. Ragette does state "hypothetical" Roman construction, but then shows that some of the stones lack the Roman telltale signs of their construction methods.

One has to keep in mind that the site was a ruin from various ages, first the proto-temple terrace (built by Caananites?), then the Solomon terrace, then finally the Romans, who would have had to reconstruct and repair/rebuild much of it, meaning they polluted the site with their debris which the archeologists have to sort through.

I'm reading all the biblical records now, and Solomon is quite a character, he built two major temple sites, one in Palmyra and another in "Tadmor in the wilderness" also known as Baalath - Baalbek?

But anyhow, thank you for the post and very informative. _javascript:icon('')

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Im looking at more info for Phoenicians, can you direct to German langauge sites?

Could that lose stone you see everyone taking a picture on have any clues ? Like why is the one corner in the ground ? Is there any way to tell where that stone from the quarry came from ? maybe trace it's path ? I wonder if it was moved in some way with the use of dirt in some sort of way the Egyptians did with oboists, but not in such at such extreme angles ?

I dunno just some quick thoughts I had on the stones, I mean human giants moving huge amounts of weight sounds really cool but where is the evidence of these beings, aliens, ancient technology any kind of mythical energy or power etc ...

I do believe that there is a lot we don't understand about our past, questioning these types of problems as these stones might help to unveil the truths we seek.

The loose stone you refer to is the "Hajar el Gouble", it lies in a quarry 1.2 miles from the temple terrace. Weigand lists its weight as 1,200 tons. It's since had its weight re-estimated more conservatively at around 1,000 tons. It lies angled as it does in the quarry as it was cut to follow a fault in the limestone.

There a few misconceptions being passed off by Harte and Byrd that the trilithons had only to slide down a hill to the site, but clearly these two never bothered to fact check the map or elevation changes between the quarry and temple complex for themselves. If they had, they would see that the quarry, while it does indeed sit at a slightly higher elevation than the temple destination, is separated from the site by a steeply inclined ravine along the direct route. This would be the NNW path as viewed in the image below (The six columns of the temple are seen along the horizon). The elevation change along this path is an incline of 92 meters, over a span of 648 meters. That results in an 8% slope.

The alternative path lies to the NNE where, once you exit the quarry, are fairly level until it slopes down to the site. However there is a serious problem with this path, as seen in the image below - it requires lifting the stone over the ridge line, and as you can see that is a significant height and a steep incline. You can trace a very tight, rough and winding path along the isobars of the sitemap that stays away from both the ravine and quarry ridge, but that means navigating sharp turns with a stone block weighing 1,000 tons on wooden rollers.

It was these challenges that fuels the "ancient astronaut" theories about the builders of Baalbek. The archeologists offer no solution to the problem, while a handful of writers only offer hypotheticals (Ragette, for instance).

If I could speculate for a minute, the real solution most likely lies with Solomon as the erector of the trilithons, and his downfall and early death left the fourth "trilithon" remaining in the quarry. The path to the site was likely a wide stone-paved causeway that spanned a portion of the ravine, allowing the trilithons to be moved without becoming mired in the ground. When the site was left to ruin the Romans eventually came and resumed the works, but never attempted to continue the construction at the same scale as the Phoenicians. They either saw it as impractical or impossible. They would have seen the stone causeway however as a ready made source of quarried stones. By burrowing "lewis holes" into them and plucking them out of the ground they could resume building. The only problem with this theory is I can't find a source for any remaining causeway spanning the ravine at any point, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have followed a more circuitous path.

It's in the BIBLE....Baal is the bible...They are the fallen angels..The Nephilim.
That's why God flooded the earth and saved Noah who had bloodline that was not tainted with the Nephilim. Giants!! Hello??? They were real!

our offshore oil rig platform cranes could probably lift one of them - just BARELY. i have heard they dont know exactly how much they weigh but some estimates are over 1000 tonnes. However, in the 1960s or 30s say, there would have been no crane that could lift them, probly. And even today, im not sure if theres an on land crane that can lift that weight.

when the space shuttle is moved - weighs quite a bit - they have built a platform and they move it inch by inch on steel. i have read that wooden rollers; even tree trunks just wouldnt work for this weight; youd need steel rollers/tracks; the wooden stuff would just get squished.

personally i think they probly had antigravity devices and special cutting tools; and the builders were probably giants into the bargain. i have read - and someone mentioned it before - that the baalbeck temple is mentioned in the bible; and that i think it was king nimrod ordered it to be built by a tribe of giants after the flood. makes sense to me; even the columns and doorways of the baalbeck temples are MASSIVE; to me they look way bigger than normal for roman ruins. in fact, they remind me of the size of the doorways in Petra - another site associated in legend with giants. there is also the same sort of 'melting' look to the stone - like in petra - looks like some sort of weapon was used on the stone that melted it or something.

but perhaps the temple platform even predated the top part; -maybe even to pre-flood? altho i havent heard any evidence to suggest that.

EVD thinks it was once a landing platform; i guess that would explain why they used such massive stones etc; but i dont know, to me, it looks like the bottom platform IS part of the rest of the building - part of the platform sort of tapers in towards the floor of the temple - looking like (to me) it was conceived at the same time/as one structure.

to the person who said the megaliths were slid downhill to the site and no lifting was required, how did they manage to raise the trilithon INTO its place in the temple wall? this if nowhere else, DID involve lifting. And lifting a stone that size is no mean feat. im afraid i cant swallow the explanation taht the romans did it. the romans never built anything else on anywhere near that scale. why would they suddenly do so? where did they learn from experience how to move stones that size? why would they choose such a massive stone on their first attempt?

Doesnt make sense to me.