The Baalbek foundation stones.

so you'd rather argue whether the link worked for me or not rather than respond to my question to you? and you're not full of it yerself? what the hell dude? do you know anything about the earlier structure/function of the terracing (read earliest/lowest) stones? Does the link mention what was demolished/removed/destroyed by a catastrophe etc? does any of the links mention ground penetrating radar? carbon dating strata? you know something empirical, objective, quantifiable.


a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
unless it talks about ground penetrating radar analysis and/or carbon dating I don't want to listen to hearsay and speculation. that's why I asked you did it or did it not. If you said yes I would read it if you said no why should I bother? what is so authoritative about it? I don't trust any of those "expert Egyptologists".

a reply to: Harte

There's no Egyptologists working at this site in Lebanon.

And, there's no speculation when you excavate.

Speculation occurs when you sit in your armchair staring dumbfounded at the trilithon, wondering how the temple was erected, but refusing to read the facts that have been discovered at the site by excavation.

Harte

whatever. you know what I mean. why won't you answer me? is there anything in those links you provided that speaks to what I asked you? why will you jump on every tiny little thing like me saying Egyptologists but refuse to say yes or no to a simple friggin question? what is wrong with you? do the links talks about ground penetrating radar and/or carbon dating? do they talk about what the earlier structures looked like and/or where they went? if you say yes I will read it if you say no then why should I care what it says? what makes the context authoritative? what is empirical about the written/oral history?

a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
whatever. you know what I mean. why won't you answer me? is there anything in those links you provided that speaks to what I asked you? why will you jump on every tiny little thing like me saying Egyptologists but refuse to say yes or no to a simple friggin question? what is wrong with you? do the links talks about ground penetrating radar and/or carbon dating? do they talk about what the earlier structures looked like and/or where they went? if you say yes I will read it if you say no then why should I care what it says? what makes the context authoritative? what is empirical about the written/oral history?

a reply to: Harte

As far as I know, no ground-penetrating radar has been used, but I don't know. Is that the question you mean?
I felt it was a silly question.

It would be highly unusual to use ground penetrating radar at a site that has been excavated multiple times (and continues to be now, unless they stopped in 2015.)

See, if you wonder what's under there, and you're there to dig the site, the choice to dig is usually made, and not the choice to bring in ground penetrating radar.

If you mean some of your other questions, look them up yourself. After all, they're your questions.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

From: Giant Strides towards Monumentality – The Architecture of the Jupiter Sanctuary in Baalbek / Heliopolis (Daniel Lohmann)

BAATZ R., 2008. Two-Dimensional Geoelectrical Tomography for the Purpose of Bedrock Edge Detection at the Jupiter Sanctuary in Baalbek, Lebanon. Thesis, Bachelor. Brandenburg University of Technology. Cottbus.

BRAUNS B., 2008. Application of Geoelectrical Resistivity Measurements to enhance the Archaeological
Prospecting in Baalbek, Lebanon. Thesis, Bachelor. Brandenburg University of Technology. Cottbus.

He reviews earlier excavations revealing the extent of the pre-Roman, Herodian temple podium, and the Roman construction that expanded over it and around it. The foundations extend to bedrock, and being made of large limestone blocks, GPR is going to be useless.

You know what's funny about the wall with the really big blocks? the way they don't fit with the rest of the wall. why exert such effort for stones that didn't have to be that big for what they ultimately do? like you said most of it is on bedrock- it's not like the wall had to hold back a hillside, so why spend what must have been an unimaginable amount of effort to not only remove them from the ground but to transport and put in place? and for what purpose? why not spend the gargantuan effort on the temples themselves? I mean if all it takes is more rope and slaves et voila! so why not exploit that ability? I thought the Romans admitted to having something like a 400 ton max ability? Look at the end of the wall where those really big blocks are and at the corner you can see whoever did the work used much more manageable stones and that would beg the question why not use another huge block? why not just make the entire wall like that with smaller stones?

and the erosion evidence is just the icing on the cake.

and p.s Byrd posted that same link and it really says nothing empirical. Almost every statement starts with maybe this and maybe that and it can be assumed and enough is not yet known so give me a break. that report is horrible and you should be embarrassed for standing by it.



a reply to: Blackmarketeer

a reply to: bottleslingguy
It's called a retaining wall.

Do you know what a retaining wall is?

The trilithon is part of a retaining wall at Baalbek.

Harte

a reply to: bottleslingguy

The Trilithon are on the western, downward sloping edge of the site, and they encapsulate the Herodian foundations, how much reworking took place we may never know. The Roman engineers were building for monumentality and had to take every assurance the structure supporting the peristyle could not shift. Their function as a retaining wall is not in the sense of holding back earth, but to prevent the blocks and structures of the temple podium from ever shifting, keeping everything well anchored. If you stack blocks into a large rectangular base, any type of vibration (earthquakes, for instance) will cause the blocks to spread outward, especially the topmost courses.

PLEASE look up these titles:

Giant Strides towards Monumentality – The Architecture of the Jupiter Sanctuary in Baalbek / Heliopolis
by Daniel Lohmann

Drafting and Designing. Roman Architectural Drawings and their Meaning for the Construction of Heliopolis/Baalbek, Lebanon
by Daniel Lohmann

RECONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS OF THE JUPITER SANCTUARY AT BAALBEK USING 3D CG
by J. Ito*, S. Sueyasu**, *Prof., Dr. Eng., **Student, Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan [email protected]

‘Master, look at the size of those stones! Look at the size of those buildings!’ Analogies in Construction Techniques Between the Temples at Heliopolis (Baalbek) and Jerusalem
by Andreas J. M. Kropp and Daniel Lohmann

(this is a good one as it shows how related Baalbek (it's Herodian foundations) is to the Temple Mount.)

ROMAN BUILDERS A Study in Architectural Process
by Rabun Taylor

(another good one as it delves into some of the underlying structures at Baalbek)

I know that and I know you nerds are really anal about that kind of thing so I do it to see how nerdy you really are and it's pathetic. I love how you jump on insignificant details like what to call the retaining wall and as if your correcting me somehow makes you "right". That's all you got Harte- you are the spelling/grammar Nazi. congratulations hahaha


a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
I know that and I know you nerds are really anal about that kind of thing so I do it to see how nerdy you really are and it's pathetic. I love how you jump on insignificant details like what to call the retaining wall and as if your correcting me somehow makes you "right". That's all you got Harte- you are the spelling/grammar Nazi. congratulations hahaha


a reply to: Harte

You asked a question, and I answered it (though Blackmarketeer did a better job than me.)

In the face of an actual answer for what you thought was unanswerable, you decide to insult the answerer, rather than consider the answer.

You put more of your empty mindset on display than you intend, it appears.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
I know that and I know you nerds are really anal about that kind of thing so I do it to see how nerdy you really are and it's pathetic. I love how you jump on insignificant details like what to call the retaining wall and as if your correcting me somehow makes you "right". That's all you got Harte- you are the spelling/grammar Nazi. congratulations hahaha


a reply to: Harte

You asked a question, and I answered it (though Blackmarketeer did a better job than me.)

In the face of an actual answer for what you thought was unanswerable, you decide to insult the answerer, rather than consider the answer.

You put more of your empty mindset on display than you intend, it appears.

Harte

no you did not answer anything. I called it "the wall with the really big blocks" instead of the retaining wall and you got all bent outta shape like you were going to school me on using the correct terminology. you weren't answering anything and on top of that you were responding to something I wrote to the other guy whatshisname. and he put up a couple links one of which Byrd had previously offered and they still don't prove or answer anything. they say what is there- not how old each layer is and how they determined that. hardly definitive and many times in those links we are told "it is yet to be determined how or when exactly" " most are in agreement but it is not concluded" so I don't get why you guys are acting like this stuff is some holy grail. it's garbage and what Sitchin is saying makes way more sense and is much more simple and credible than what you stooges are trying to say.

the contemporaries built on top of much earlier work. they were inspired by these impossible structures to emulate "the gods" as best they could. What does any of you have to say regarding the admitted max the Romans could lift was less than 500 tons? can any of you jump right on the subject of erosion and how the older blocks are so eroded that they can't be Roman? I'd love to see how do you guys handle tangible questions the same way you jump right on terminology or whether or not a link worked. Man you guys get right on that stuff lickety split.I don't expect much in the way of answers and anticipate I'll be ignored and that's great because it just convinces me I'm right about this or should I say Zecharia Stchin? these massive stones were part of a gigantic space port. Which also happens to be at the apex when triangulating between the Giza Pyramids and Sinai Penninsula after finding the navel of the Earth where the four corners were divided between the family members. these people are from a Type 1 or Type 2 Civilization so I don't see any of this being a problem for them and the fact they didn't leave their machines behind doesn't matter they left plenty of other evidence lying around. You guys are just too brainwashed to see it.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
I know that and I know you nerds are really anal about that kind of thing so I do it to see how nerdy you really are and it's pathetic. I love how you jump on insignificant details like what to call the retaining wall and as if your correcting me somehow makes you "right". That's all you got Harte- you are the spelling/grammar Nazi. congratulations hahaha


a reply to: Harte

You asked a question, and I answered it (though Blackmarketeer did a better job than me.)

In the face of an actual answer for what you thought was unanswerable, you decide to insult the answerer, rather than consider the answer.

You put more of your empty mindset on display than you intend, it appears.

Harte

no you did not answer anything. I called it "the wall with the really big blocks" instead of the retaining wall and you got all bent outta shape like you were going to school me on using the correct terminology. you weren't answering anything and on top of that you were responding to something I wrote to the other guy whatshisname. and he put up a couple links one of which Byrd had previously offered and they still don't prove or answer anything. they say what is there- not how old each layer is and how they determined that. hardly definitive and many times in those links we are told "it is yet to be determined how or when exactly" " most are in agreement but it is not concluded" so I don't get why you guys are acting like this stuff is some holy grail. it's garbage and what Sitchin is saying makes way more sense and is much more simple and credible than what you stooges are trying to say.

You wanted to pretend that a retaining wall is not needed. I told you it is.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
the contemporaries built on top of much earlier work. they were inspired by these impossible structures to emulate "the gods" as best they could. What does any of you have to say regarding the admitted max the Romans could lift was less than 500 tons?

The "much earlier work" they built on was also Roman - erected by the Roman client king Herod.

originally posted by: bottleslingguycan any of you jump right on the subject of erosion and how the older blocks are so eroded that they can't be Roman?

The site was added to later by locals - that's the more eroded stone.

originally posted by: bottleslingguyI'd love to see how do you guys handle tangible questions the same way you jump right on terminology or whether or not a link worked. Man you guys get right on that stuff lickety split.I don't expect much in the way of answers and anticipate I'll be ignored and that's great because it just convinces me I'm right about this or should I say Zecharia Stchin? these massive stones were part of a gigantic space port.

The foundation - the part against the bedrock, is typical Roman "honeycomb" construction.

originally posted by: bottleslingguyWhich also happens to be at the apex when triangulating between the Giza Pyramids and Sinai Penninsula after finding the navel of the Earth where the four corners were divided between the family members. these people are from a Type 1 or Type 2 Civilization so I don't see any of this being a problem for them and the fact they didn't leave their machines behind doesn't matter they left plenty of other evidence lying around. You guys are just too brainwashed to see it.

Wow. You can make a triangle out of three points, and one of them arbitrary.

Three points make a triangle. This proves an ancient advanced civilization. Can't be anything else, eh?

Harte

"You wanted to pretend that a retaining wall is not needed. I told you it is."

didn't say that. go back and reread what was being said. I said they didn't need stones as big as those really really big ones. why not continue with smaller ones. it's not like the wall had to hold back a hillside. that's what I said. now will you answer that or not? I bet you'll respond but there will be no answer.

"The "much earlier work" they built on was also Roman - erected by the Roman client king Herod."

so what? are you saying Herod made the ones that are many thousands of years more eroded than the rest of the ones "they say" he built? what makes you so sure he built those really really big ones or even the smaller ones under those? where is your tangible proof?

"The site was added to later by locals - that's the more eroded stone."

not true. there are stepped stones added later by him to match the unevenly worn surface of the much bigger/older stones. the locals didn't make those lol and where's your proof? just something somebody said that matches your paradigm?

"The foundation - the part against the bedrock, is typical Roman "honeycomb" construction."

so what? did I ever say nobody did anything later? of course they were all over these things. and they left their signatures and so did the Anunaki.

"Three points make a triangle. This proves an ancient advanced civilization. Can't be anything else, eh?"

see? I said it was simple stupid







a reply to: Harte

oh hey, you conveniently skipped the part where I asked you if you were aware of the admitted Roman lifting max of under 500 tons. you addressed all the words around that part (read: didn't answer) and completely omitted that one. how come?


a reply to: Harte

a reply to: bottleslingguy

Can I ask, why do you believe something Sitchin says?

For starters he didn't have any qualifications in archeology, anthropology, biology, and astronomy.

He has been proven false on many things, including the Sumerians knew about a twelfth planet (they only knew about 5).

His translations are that of a complete amateur (as has been proven by modern translations).

Believing Sitchin would be like going to a mechanic and asking them to perform heart surgery.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
oh hey, you conveniently skipped the part where I asked you if you were aware of the admitted Roman lifting max of under 500 tons. you addressed all the words around that part (read: didn't answer) and completely omitted that one. how come?


a reply to: Harte

Point to any area where 500 tons would have to be "lifted."

No large stone had to be "lifted" in the temple construction.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
oh hey, you conveniently skipped the part where I asked you if you were aware of the admitted Roman lifting max of under 500 tons. you addressed all the words around that part (read: didn't answer) and completely omitted that one. how come?


a reply to: Harte

Point to any area where 500 tons would have to be "lifted."

No large stone had to be "lifted" in the temple construction.

Harte

replace the word "lifted" with "moved"

wait are you saying those really really big stones that are well over 500 tons didn't have to be moved on top of those lower stones underneath?. did they roll them in place? like that guy in the video spinning stones on tiny pebbles after placing them there with a forklift?

a reply to: TerryDon79


nobody else uses language to connect these dots spread out across the globe all referring to the same thing. they use slightly different words and names but they are all talking about the same thing. that's a big deal. it's not "myth" in the sense everybody made up the same stories. the stories are describing the same things.

a reply to: bottleslingguy

But it's not describing the same thing.

Sitchin has been proven false so many times. his "translations" have been proven wrong time and time again. He wasn't an expert. He had no experience to do any of the "work" he did.

a reply to: TerryDon79

there's no "proof" only disagreement. just because the status quo agrees doesn't mean it's correct

besides it's the simplest most elegant theory. Occam's Razor kinda thing. I ties up all loose ends and explains very simply how this stuff was done. It makes waaay more sense than saying they somehow could do things we can't even do today and they had more primitive tools to work with. and on top of that they forgot the technology and stopped exploiting the ability. that's nonsense and the people who cling to it are the ones who will have to admit they wasted their lives on bull#.