The Baalbek foundation stones.

originally posted by: jovan
a reply to: Harte

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

"Theory?" No theory involved, the Romans even sketched their blueprints on top of one of the large megaliths.
The site has been excavated down to the bedrock. What was found at that level? Roman architectural scrap.

How about some evidence - any evidence - for the "theory" that some unknown, truly ancient society built it?

I mean, there's not a shred of evidence for it, and there's therefore no reason whatsoever to believe it, but you could try.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

ROMAN MEGALITH TECHNOLOGY:

'I mean, there's not a shred of evidence for it, and there's therefore no reason whatsoever to believe it, but you could try.'

originally posted by: jovan
a reply to: Harte

ROMAN MEGALITH TECHNOLOGY:

'I mean, there's not a shred of evidence for it, and there's therefore no reason whatsoever to believe it, but you could try.'

You're suggesting that Herod, a Roman client, could accomplish constructions that the Romans could not?

Harte

sure. everything works great on paper. this is the kind of crap you linear thinkers swallow hook line and sinker. fails on so many levels

a reply to: Harte

the erosion evidence proves it's much older than Herod. did he take credit for it? sure he did. did he do it? not a chance.


a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
the erosion evidence proves it's much older than Herod. did he take credit for it? sure he did. did he do it? not a chance.


a reply to: Harte

Have you got any real proof or are you just speculating?

Don't get me wrong, having a brainstorming session can be good sometimes, but to just deny something without evidence is not how things work in the real world.

a reply to: TerryDon79
It's neither.

He's denying. Wants to maintain that magical worldview.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: TerryDon79
It's neither.

He's denying. Wants to maintain that magical worldview.

Harte

Oh I keep forgetting he believes Sitchin. Who needs proof when you believe that guy?

it's not my responsibility to prove anything to you. it's up to you to put together the evidence you determine as credible. if you don't know anything about the erosion difference between the oldest stones and the more contemporary ones then maybe you should stay quiet until you know a little more about the subject. it's obvious the time scale is much further back than Herod. and where is the rest of the earlier structure? it would take the same scale of work to disassemble it than to build it. I'm talking about the lower portion of the wall with the really really big stones that flare at the bottom. the part that was remaining after it was hit with the tsunamis of the deluge over ten thousand years ago. that part of the wall is what i'm focusing on.

a reply to: TerryDon79

denying what? stick drawings?

a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
denying what? stick drawings?

a reply to: Harte

That Sitchins ideas about Baalbek are based on imagination

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
it's not my responsibility to prove anything to you. it's up to you to put together the evidence you determine as credible. if you don't know anything about the erosion difference between the oldest stones and the more contemporary ones then maybe you should stay quiet until you know a little more about the subject. it's obvious the time scale is much further back than Herod. and where is the rest of the earlier structure? it would take the same scale of work to disassemble it than to build it. I'm talking about the lower portion of the wall with the really really big stones that flare at the bottom. the part that was remaining after it was hit with the tsunamis of the deluge over ten thousand years ago. that part of the wall is what i'm focusing on.

a reply to: TerryDon79

So, every stone on Earth erodes at the same rate then, according to you.

I mean, all you need to do is see two stones in the same place eroded differently and to you that means one stone was placed far earlier than the other.

What you are denying is that the Romans had techniques allowing them to construct the platform we see at Baalbek.

You are also denying that Romans are the ones that left the Roman scrap materials behind under the platform among the (also typically Roman honeycomb-type) foundations.

All the while providing not one whit of evidence that any of the construct6ion is older than Herodian.

Harte

what are you talking about? so you're saying that Herod built a complete wall with more stones of that size and it was destroyed? by what? by whom? how do you know this? and actually the "erosion" on the really really big ones looks like they were battered by other tumbling stones and debris as the tsunamis washed over them. they were in a good spot and being lower they were overridden by the jumbling mass being bulldozed into the Mediterranean. that explains why that one really big stone is sticking out of the ground at such an angle not far away. Sure Herod probably messed around with the ruins but he sure as # didn't build it. your stick drawing is perfect for linear nerds like you guys. you make fun of the simplest, most plausible explanation for all of these mysteries around the world. you guys are becoming irrelevant. the linear paradigm is wasting away. I won't miss it.


a reply to: Harte

a reply to: bottleslingguy

Most plausible answer being "believing a guy who knew zero about what he we doing so, aliens!"?

Yeah, most plausible.

/eye roll

originally posted by: bottleslingguyactually the "erosion" on the really really big ones looks like they were battered by other tumbling stones and debris as the tsunamis washed over them.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Wow, get yourself to a Doctor, you need your head examined pronto, its coming apart at the seams

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
what are you talking about? so you're saying that Herod built a complete wall with more stones of that size and it was destroyed?

I suggest you read what has been posted over the last couple of weeks.
Herod used 600 ton stones in theTemple in Jerusalem.

Herod's work at Baalbek was covered over by the Romans.

Both facts have been explained in this thread, with evidence that backs them up.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

You are also denying that Romans are the ones that left the Roman scrap materials behind under the platform among the (also typically Roman honeycomb-type) foundations.

In fairness, it was common for older monuments to be built over. It still is in fact.

But in doing so, it would be foolish now, just as much as it would have been foolish back in the Roman era, to not dig UNDER the older monuments, to gauge how stable and deep the monument went, and to estimate the general condition with with to build upon.

Trenches, pits and so on for the above purposes would have been dug under the foundation stones, these digs and general excavations would have required tools obviously, and as we know..tools are mislaid, sometimes broken and sometimes ceremoniously thrown into the workings.

This could easily explain the presence of Roman tools and debris under the stones.

There are excavations going on right now, digging beneath several of the major monoliths still at the quarry site...i dare say there will be some modern artifacts, tools, people working there deliberately leaving items behind as a kind of personal 'time capsule' as a result of the modern dig...it won't mean that future scholars will automatically conclude that those megalithic blocks were quarried during the early 21st century, just as Roman artifacts found under the trilithons don't mean the Romans laid those foundations stones either.

a reply to: Harte

Yep.

Spolia (Latin, 'spoils'), the repurposing of building stone for new construction, or the reuse of decorative sculpture on new monuments, is an ancient and widespread practice whereby stone that has been quarried cut and used in a built structure, is carried away to be used elsewhere. The practice is of particular interest to historians, archaeologists and architectural historians since the gravestones, monuments and architectural fragments of antiquity are frequently found embedded in structures built centuries or millennia later.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
...and actually the "erosion" on the really really big ones looks like they were battered by other tumbling stones and debris as the tsunamis washed over them.

"Tsunamis washed over" Baalbek? That's news to me. I assume, with a statement like that, that you have ample evidence to back it up, so let's see it. Put up or shut up.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Harte

You are also denying that Romans are the ones that left the Roman scrap materials behind under the platform among the (also typically Roman honeycomb-type) foundations.

In fairness, it was common for older monuments to be built over. It still is in fact.

But in doing so, it would be foolish now, just as much as it would have been foolish back in the Roman era, to not dig UNDER the older monuments, to gauge how stable and deep the monument went, and to estimate the general condition with with to build upon.

Trenches, pits and so on for the above purposes would have been dug under the foundation stones, these digs and general excavations would have required tools obviously, and as we know..tools are mislaid, sometimes broken and sometimes ceremoniously thrown into the workings.

This could easily explain the presence of Roman tools and debris under the stones.

As I said, there are posts already in this thread that, had you read them, you wouldn't even be thinking that.

Under the foundation at the Baalbek Jupiter temple is bedrock. That's BEDrock, not dirt.

You don't dig down into BEDrock to check some old foundation you want to build on.

Now, I guarantee you that if you figure out how to search this thread, you'll find basically every such speculation has been addressed and/or shown to be counter to the evidence we actually have from this site.

Harte