The Baalbek foundation stones.

do you actually think I could say something that would change your mind? see the problem with you and Marduk and Harte and a buncha other people around here is that you have to be able to connect a bunch of non-linear dots and you guys are not capable of doing that.


a reply to: TerryDon79

the Romans couldn't lift those really really big stones at the lower section of that wall. no way not gonna happen.

you want to "help" me? more like dumb me down.

you proofs are crap






a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
the Romans couldn't lift those really really big stones at the lower section of that wall. no way not gonna happen.

you want to "help" me? more like dumb me down.

you proofs are crap

a reply to: Harte

Well, you crap ain't proofs.
The big stones didn't have to be lifted. They came from uphill and were slid into place over fill.

Now, it seems, it's time for me to return to reading the old threads again, since there's nothing worth reading in any of the new posts.

Harte

you poop crap lol see ya in the funny pages buddy! have a good weekend



a reply to: Harte

Three of the stones set in place are 1,000+ tons.

They were quarried from a location over 800 meters away. NOT a location elevated above the temple.

AS you can see in the pic below, one of the 1000 ton blocks was lifted and set into position on top of an existing foundation stone.

Image

There is record stating that the Romans built the Temple of Jupiter on a pre-existing foundation. Which dates these megalithic blocks to a much older age.

A recent discovery made at the quarry site has revealed another foundation stone measuring 64ft, by 19ft, and 18ft in height. Tipping the scale at roughly 1,650 tons. This to date is the largest known stone block from antiquity.

originally posted by: Triton1128
Three of the stones set in place are 1,000+ tons.

They were quarried from a location over 800 meters away. NOT a location elevated above the temple.

AS you can see in the pic below, one of the 1000 ton blocks was lifted and set into position on top of an existing foundation stone.

Image

There is record stating that the Romans built the Temple of Jupiter on a pre-existing foundation. Which dates these megalithic blocks to a much older age.

A recent discovery made at the quarry site has revealed another foundation stone measuring 64ft, by 19ft, and 18ft in height. Tipping the scale at roughly 1,650 tons. This to date is the largest known stone block from antiquity.

Perhaps you should get their weights right first. Then whatever else you claim might be considered.

Harte

a reply to: Triton1128

Three of the stones set in place are 1,000+ tons.

Lol, like Harte suggested, get the weights right. Not even Sitchin (the fountainhead of these claims) states they weigh 1000+ tons. (he gives the correct weight of 600-800 tons, in "End of Days," pg 128)

The Roman client-king Herod also rebuilt the Temple Mount and in the "master course" are massive blocks as well, one is 500 tons. Herod would have had all the Roman technology available to him, although he also insisted all the work be performed in observance of Jewish law and only permitted 1,000 Rabbis to work at the site. Now imagine what a true full-scale Roman workforce could achieve, without limiting themselves to the upper body strength of Rabbis.


Regarding that second 'foundation stone,' (believe it is called the 'Second Monolith') it, like the 'Stone of the South,' has never been removed from it's quarry. That quarry, BTW, is not where the Trilithon blocks came from. I was confused on that point as well, the Trilithon blocks came from a quarry due east of the Temple, at the top of the hill, where the Romans had to decamp much of the ancient town in order to quarry there. It is as many have repeated here, a DOWNHILL slope to bring the quarried blocks to the temple. (a causeway would have been built to handle the weight).

Time to learn.

Medium density Limestone has a density of 2560 kg/m3

For this fun lesson, we'll assume this is very low density Limestone. We'll use the figure 2371 kg/m3.

For volume we plug in : L x W x H = ( 64ft x 19ft x 18ft = 22,464 Cubic Feet )

22,464 Cubic Feet

weight
w = ρ × v

After plugging in the above numbers, this comes out to :

1,508,215 Kilograms
3,325,047 Pounds
OR..... 1,508 tonnes

1,508 tonnes

Ref : Still partially buried, the monolith measures 19.6 meters (64 feet) in length, 6 meters (19.6 feet) wide, and is at least 5.5 meters (18 feet) high. Its weight is estimated at a bulky 1,650 tons, making it biggest stone block from antiquity.

You were saying?

A group of three horizontally lying giant stones which form part of the podium of the Roman Jupiter temple of Baalbek, Lebanon, go by the name "trilithon"...
SNIP
Each one of these stones is 70 feet long, 14 feet high, 10 feet thick, and weigh around 800 tons.

Wiki

The same is true of the three foundation blocks 'The trilithon', in the nearby Baalbek temple, which have the following dimensions: The largest is 65 feet in length, the second 64 ft 10 inches; and the third 63ft 2 inches. They are all 14 ft and 6 inches in height, and 12 feet in thickness. Each block is therefore 350 cubic yards and they are estimated to weigh 750 - 1,000 tons each (1).

ancient-wisdom webpage

Give us your source for these dimensions please.
ETA: Sorry, I see that now you have. Please note that the stone you're calculating for is not part of the Baalbek Jupiter Temple and is not one of the stones making up the trilithon. In fact, it was never transported from the quarry.

Harte

so what? why don't you focus on the amount of erosion on the really really big ones compared to what we know the Romans did and how they cut their stones to fit the weathered lower/earlier stones? what's your point with the exact weight? they're bigger than even the Romans could lift we know that for sure. so if they weren't meant to hold back a hillside why are they not cut into the size of the ones we know the Romans could do? THEY ARE BUILDING ON ANCIENT RUINS. it's as simple as that. you don't have to get all technical about the exact weight of a particular stone. again this is the linear thinker's conundrum.

a reply to: Harte

a reply to: bottleslingguy

The ONLY ruins present on the site belong to either Herod or the Romans. As Herod was contemporaneous to the Romans, there are no ruins older than the time of the Roman Empire. Read Lohmann, he goes into great detail of the "pre-Roman" building phase.

why doesn't he explain the erosion differences between the really really big stones and the smaller ones on top? you can't get around the erosion I don't care about hearsay from so called experts.


a reply to: Blackmarketeer

originally posted by: UMayBRite!
Wally Wallington did it...
Here

If a retired carpenter can move a 10,000 lb + machine with just a 2x4 maybe its not so hard!

there is a lot of difference between a 10,000 pound load, and that stone which weighs 870,000 pounds

as far as that guy spinning stones on pebbles, they never show:

1 how the stones were made (cast concrete made with machines)
2 how he got the stones to his property (lifted with a forklift/crane and loaded/unloaded from a flatbed with a forklift/crane)
3 how he lifted the stone to get the first board under it

these guys show snippets of parlor tricks and hearsay as if they solved the entire problem and they are batsh!t crazy


a reply to: jimmyx

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
why doesn't he explain the erosion differences between the really really big stones and the smaller ones on top? you can't get around the erosion I don't care about hearsay from so called experts.


a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Already explained.

The coming of Christianity brought decline to Heliopolis. The city continued to live, but the new priests rebuilt it to appease the new gods - first into a cathedral, then into a mosque, culminating in a strong earthquake destroying the complex. During the rule of Emperor Justinian, a part of the giant granite columns of the temple of Jupiter was taken to Constantinople and installed in the church of St. Sophia. In the VII century. Heliopolis was captured by the Arabs, who returned the city its original Semitic name, Baalbek, and rebuilt the temple complex into a fortress. This giant structure withstood the assaults of the Seljuks, the siege of Crusaders and the devastating invasion of the Mongols. With the arrival of the Ottomans, Baalbek was already a remote province.

Source

Harte

all that says is that it has more contemporary stones on top. that doesn't address the contrastingly obvious much older really big stones in that wall. No empirical evidence whatsoever. no mention of how the work was done. in other words ZERO EVIDENCE of anything.

it's obvious to people who can think outside your maya that the lower stones in the wall are much older than a thousand or two years. when put in the context of what Sitchin is saying it makes much more sense. even look at the flaring cut, that is exactly what you would expect in a design for something that had to withstand immense weight and stress loads. Why do you keep ignoring the fact the Romans admit they couldn't lift more than 450 tons?

a reply to: Harte

a reply to: bottleslingguy

Why do you keep ignoring the fact Sitchin was a fraud?

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
Why do you keep ignoring the fact the Romans admit they couldn't lift more than 450 tons?

a reply to: Harte

I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm simply assuming you made it up.

Do you refer to the Lateran Obelisk with this stupid claim?

You know, there is a 570 ton stone in the Western Wall of the Temple in Jerusalem. Put there by Herod.

You know who Herod was, right? Roman Client.

Harte

Despite the apparent simplicity of this energy source, we prefer to look to the human powered, with which the weakness in muscle is compensated by the extreme technical elaboration of the device multiplier used. In the event of a traction provided by the duration of the capstans, movement is a bit longer, since it multiplies the distance traveled by the load, in favor of the force and must ensure the in place and anchor machinery. The advantage of this method lies in the extremely small number of workers needed and the greater accuracy of the progression, allowing rigorous implementation of blocks the one above and beside the other. . . . Each capstan bar with four men using it would make 24 in total. . . . The force exerted directly by the capstan 24 men and six bar is at 20 kg per man of 480 kg. Taking center force application to 1.70 m from the center of rotation and a radius of drum of 10 cm, this force becomes (by a form winch) 8160 kg. Four cables of hemp, each providing four tons of traction, wind around the drum and by acting on the load through a hoist with two pulleys, generate a power of 16,320 kg of the machine; 13,056 kg reduced power by the coefficient of friction. Six of these machines, involving 144 men and providing traction power of 78,336 kg must allow, with a margin of excess power always useful, the transportation of each block of trilithon.”

Jean-Pierre Adam, 1977

His drawing:


Harte

a reply to: Harte

Any hard evidence for that 'theory' on the Baalbek archaeological site?