The Baalbek foundation stones.

originally posted by: GBP/JPYwhomever placed those monumental stones had to be in the supernatural lifting business

If that's supposed to be true, then the guys who moved the thunder stone must have been gods. They lifted the largest rock ever moved by mankind, with no modern equipment and transported it from Finland to Russia, compared to that, Baalbek was built by amateurs. Your credulity is your problem, not theirs...
en.wikipedia.org...

Lugging a 1500 ton statue on a pedestal across probably mostly level terrain
isn't so great. Now place 1200 ton cut blocks on top of each other with nary
a gap on the sides and bottom - that is the greater feat and without any
explanation of how it was done. Man is good at pushing, lugging, finagling
and sliding large stones (Thunder stone too) but not building architectural
structures with 1000+ ton blocks. It wouldn't be possible to place those
blocks as precisely as the builder did. Even with the climbing crane it is
probably still too heavy for any modern pick and placement equipment
including any climbing crane.

a reply to: Marduk

originally posted by: Drawsoho
Lugging a 1500 ton statue on a pedestal across probably mostly level terrain
isn't so great. Now place 1200 ton cut blocks on top of each other with nary
a gap on the sides and bottom - that is the greater feat and without any
explanation of how it was done. Man is good at pushing, lugging, finagling
and sliding large stones (Thunder stone too) but not building architectural
structures with 1000+ ton blocks. It wouldn't be possible to place those
blocks as precisely as the builder did. Even with the climbing crane it is
probably still too heavy for any modern pick and placement equipment
including any climbing crane.

a reply to: Marduk

Oh please, the quarry was half a mile away and the route was downhill and the blocks were 800 tons.
So you aren't even aware of the facts
This is what I meant by not relying on pseudo historians. I know for a fact that it was Sitchin that made the claim that the blocks were 1000 Tons, so again, you have based your hypothesis on the word of a journalist. The Thunder stone was moved from Finland to Russia, not half a mile and it didn't take aliens to do it...
And your claim that modern cranes couldn't do it is also based on complete and utter crap, the Taisun Gantry Crane could lift 25 of the trilithion stones at the same time
en.wikipedia.org...
The term "climbing crane" doesn't even exist. Please link me to a page that says "this is a climbing crane" or admit you made it up
You got pretty much everything wrong, imagine that...
This is like your Nazca claims all over again isn't it, we are still waiting for you to back up those claims and here you are making a load more false ones, we're not kids here sonny

originally posted by: Drawsoho
Lugging a 1500 ton statue on a pedestal across probably mostly level terrain
isn't so great. Now place 1200 ton cut blocks on top of each other with nary
a gap on the sides and bottom - that is the greater feat and without any
explanation of how it was done. Man is good at pushing, lugging, finagling
and sliding large stones (Thunder stone too) but not building architectural
structures with 1000+ ton blocks. It wouldn't be possible to place those
blocks as precisely as the builder did. Even with the climbing crane it is
probably still too heavy for any modern pick and placement equipment
including any climbing crane.

a reply to: Marduk

This very thread contains all the information on "how it was done" that you need. Posted here by Blackmarketeer several years ago. Perhaps you should read the threads you post in.
Let's not pretend that such info isn't here, nor that no explanation has ever been provided.

Harte

I did review this thread even back to the beginning. A self-erecting tower
crane or climbing crane is used to build tall buildings and hoist huge
weights of construction material. No crane can work in the small quarters
they did, at Baalbek, and assemble the trilithon stones (870 tons) as
precisely as they are under close inspection of the construction of the
trilithon and the temple. It has been purported that the stones may have
been cast, rolled or slid into position. That is possible because the quarry
was uphill from the site. Perhaps construction took place in mud, allowing
support of the massive weights. Then the sand could be removed and the
stone gently falls precisely into place.

As I stated, the builder of Baalbek had skill that exceeded the ability
of present day construction techniques and machines.

I knew previously about Nazca, the lines and Maria Reiche's work
there trying to explain their purpose and origin. Since the longest line
is about 4 miles long, it is logical that the preciseness of the straight
line would be impossible to accomplish at this distance, so it must be
they were created (drawn in the desert ground) some other way.


a reply to: Harte

If I rent the crawler for 1 hour and pay Roger Hopkins $5
I can remove those pesky trilithon stones.

a reply to: Anonymous ATS

"how it was done" is your fantasy. nothing posted is even remotely close.

a reply to: Harte

Sitchen said they were built as a beacon for the triangulation to the landing place in Lebanon. What did you do read one book? Marduk was imprisoned there after they were destroyed by his cousin. You can besmirch Sitchen all you want but the more you do it is in direct proportion to how wrong you are.

a reply to: Marduk

there is an obelisk in Aswan still attached to the stone under it with the top and sides carved out (with some sort of machining marks where the stone eventually cracked) . how were they planning on detaching this stone from the Earth? there are channels around it no more than 3 feet wide and they say workers would crouch underneath and chip away with round stones. Really? and then what? the thing is inside a tub of granite.
www.neowebz.com...

a reply to: GBP/JPY

originally posted by: Drawsoho
I did review this thread even back to the beginning. ....

As I stated, the builder of Baalbek had skill that exceeded the ability
of present day construction techniques and machines.

Did it? There are many Roman architectural drawings and models found at Baalbek? It would seem strange that they would waste a lot of time making multiple models and architectural plans for something that they couldn't build.

And it's really similar in many ways to some of the techniques used by Herod in Jerusalem.
Not that it's odd... they were built around the same time.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the overbuilding of previous structures (meaning they didn't have to haul a lot of stone and they had a lot of structure in place)

There's a book you can find on Google Books that talks about the sophisticated construction techniques of the Romans and Greeks. You might enjoy it:
Malacrino, Carmelo G. Constructing the ancient world: Architectural techniques of the Greeks and Romans. Getty Publications, 2010.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
there is an obelisk in Aswan still attached to the stone under it with the top and sides carved out (with some sort of machining marks where the stone eventually cracked) . how were they planning on detaching this stone from the Earth? there are channels around it no more than 3 feet wide and they say workers would crouch underneath and chip away with round stones. Really? and then what? the thing is inside a tub of granite.
www.neowebz.com...

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Your source isn't a very good one... they cut and moved sister obelisks that were slightly smaller than that. One of them still stands in the temple at Karnak.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
"how it was done" is your fantasy. nothing posted is even remotely close.

a reply to: Harte

If "we don't know" how it was done, then please tell us exactly how you know that current theories aren't "even remotely close."

Harte

forget everything else and focus on the fact they still had to detach it from below. Now that's not so hard doing it from a cliff face but this thing is still sunken down in a tub. that raises so many obstacles and makes this thing magnitudes more difficult to remove. It's like they chose the hardest way to do something they couldn't/wouldn't do today because it is not practical from an engineering standpoint.

a reply to: Byrd

I don't know but it sure wasn't done by some dude standing there with a friggin copper saw. all yer little stick drawings do is stroke your ego as if you proved something. and that's fine for children but the reality of this lies with the forensic marks and impossible weights that were cut, shaped and moved.


a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
forget everything else and focus on the fact they still had to detach it from below.

It's not that hard. The Egyptian quarries show how it was done. The rock is limestone, by the way, which is less dense (lighter) and more easily worked than granite. They sent slaves in to peck away the pedestal rock until it was narrow enough to break it free. This technique was done all over the ancient world (based on evidence at quarries) and continued for a very long time

Now that's not so hard doing it from a cliff face but this thing is still sunken down in a tub. that raises so many obstacles and makes this thing magnitudes more difficult to remove.

You seem to be unaware that Romans had iron metal working down to a nice science. They also had pulleys, wheels, ropes, levers, oxen, horses, and donkeys as well as men.

This wasn't a bunch of Australopithecines sitting around saying "gosh, I want to move that rock."

This was the Roman army - headquarters to the 5th and 8th legions, who hauled colossal Egyptian statues back to decorate Rome, built the Capitoline hill, the Colosseum (with its floodgates that could turn the arena into a large lake so they could bring in boats for fights) -and- built the slightly smaller Temple of Bacchus on the same site.

And you're saying that 4,000 of these soldiers (two legions) couldn't move a rock?

a reply to: karl 12

Anything in a town named after Baal gets my attention, my guess is like most stone monuments it does something special at the winter solstice while mapping the stars somehow by there positioning. Very intriguing.

a reply to: Caligula
There is some question as to whether the name refers to the god Baal at all.

I read once that Baal can be translated as "valley," which reflects the location of the site today (Becca Valley.)

Also, there's this:

The etymology of Baalbek has been debated indecisively[18] since the 18th century.[11] Cook took it to mean "Lord of the Beka"[17] and Donne as "City of the Sun".[26] Lendering asserts that it is probably a contraction of Baʿal Nebeq ("Lord of the Source" of the Litani River).[12] Steiner proposes a Semitic adaption of "Lord Bacchus", from the classical temple complex.[11]

Baal meant "Lord" until several Canaanite gods were combined into one they called "Baal," which is simply "Lord" like Christians use today with Yahweh.

Baal is a Canaanite version of "Bel," which is the honorific "Lord" in, I believe, Akkadian.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Hence my interest.

a reply to: Harte

But you didn't comment on my theory.

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: Harte

But you didn't comment on my theory.

You're theory is a bit of a non starter, we're not talking about an ancient monument here so much as we are a wall...