The Baalbek foundation stones.

This is what has always bothered me.. Say they had all the advanced technology and even aliens helped them. Why use stones?! Why not any other material, but stones. It's not like we use stones anymore..

It must have been easy for them to position huge 800 ton stone
rectangles into intricate positions. Why don't we build the trilithon
in the middle east hundreds of miles from mother Rome. If what
Wikipedia says is true, then we all had great knowledge and skill
from the time of Archimedes. Wiki stuff says:
"the finest examples of Imperial Roman architecture at its apogee"
which makes me want to chuckle.
Comparing the Temple Mount isn't the same scale as no
measurements for the buildings there is available.

originally posted by: Drawsoho
It must have been easy for them to position huge 800 ton stone
rectangles into intricate positions.

"Intricate positions?"
These three stones are laying flat on their sides. What's intricate about it?

originally posted by: Drawsoho
Why don't we build the trilithon
in the middle east hundreds of miles from mother Rome. If what
Wikipedia says is true, then we all had great knowledge and skill
from the time of Archimedes. Wiki stuff says:
"the finest examples of Imperial Roman architecture at its apogee"
which makes me want to chuckle.

Your laughter rings quite hollow to those of us who have taken the time to look into this.

originally posted by: Drawsoho
Comparing the Temple Mount isn't the same scale as no
measurements for the buildings there is available.

Measurements for stones from Herod's rebuilding of the temple have been posted in this thread.
What measurements do you need?

Harte

a reply to: Harte

This is what's intricate:

( cannot upload pic - it 's Baalbek_16.jpg, the famous
one with the man to the left of the trilithon.)

Someone obviously tested the left side joint - hacking
out a huge piece from the top - discovering the precise
fit that exists between the two blocks, well beyond
any roman architectural skill even at it's apogee.

You've looked into the reason it was built so far and
many miles from Rome? Rome's finest achievement
done in Lebanon. It was rainy there once - after the
last ice-age. Maybe it was a summer resort for
senators.

As for the dimensions of the Temple Mount megalithic
stones, it would be nice if you could provide some
comparisons to the trilithon stones.

ever see that tv series Life without humans? it shows how cities will decay in the subsequent decades. Stone is still here after tens of thousands of years. they are finding gigantic pyramids in the Balkins people just assumed were mountains because they've been covered for as long as people have been in the region. Our infrastructure will disintegrate without a trace so you tell me why stone is inferior or the worst choice of building material. It probably wasn't hard for them, it was simple and it was effective for keeping the lowly humans in awe of them and that's why they were considered gods for so many centuries after the fact. they wouldn't have to process and manufacture new building materials, stone is the simplest choice and longest lasting. it makes perfect sense.


a reply to: raikata

originally posted by: Drawsoho
a reply to: Harte

You've looked into the reason it was built so far and
many miles from Rome? Rome's finest achievement
done in Lebanon. It was rainy there once - after the
last ice-age. Maybe it was a summer resort for
senators.

Perhaps you can come to understand that Rome was not simply a city. The Temple of Jupiter was built by Romans and in the Roman Empire.

originally posted by: Drawsoho
As for the dimensions of the Temple Mount megalithic
stones, it would be nice if you could provide some
comparisons to the trilithon stones.

Link.

Harte

The great architectural skill of the Romans could not place
the trilithon or wall stone at the Temple Mount (~500 tons).
Herod's palace Herodion is modest compared with 800 ton block
construction. Recently unearthed it revealed no greater skill
in construction that today's mason could accomplish. Where
are the megalithic blocks at the palace of the architect, Herod,
who can move and position with laser accuracy 800 ton
stones? Where is his crowning achievement? Not at his palace,
devoid of megalithic construction, where they could be his
greatest testament.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Drawsoho
"Laser accuracy"? Source, please.

a reply to: Drawsoho

Are you even trying to learn or understand anything about Baalbek?

Where are the megalithic blocks at the palace of the architect, Herod, who can move and position with laser accuracy 800 ton stones?

Herod did not have anything to do with the 800-ton blocks of the Trilithon. Herod built the underlying temple podium, upon which the ROMANS built their temple podium extension (and retaining wall), including the 800-ton blocks of the Trilithon.

Herod's largest megalith was the 'Western Stone' of the Great Temple's podium in modern Jerusalem, weighing in at at an estimated 570 to 630 tons. No, that isn't as heavy as those of the Trilithon, but it is damn close.

I suppose we have no problem believing Herod could move a 630 ton block, but for some inconceivable reason we can't believe Romans could possibly move one weighing 800? That could only be done by some even older more primitive yet more capable civilization (or aliens from Nibiru).

So once again, numerous clues and evidence prove that Herod was the builder of the older portion of the Baalbek foundations. That evidence includes the peculiar masonry dressing Herod used, evident at both the Great Temple in Jerusalem and at Baalbek.

Following Herod's work came the Romans. In the 1st century AD the Jews revolted. 68-70 AD to be exact. Rome flattened the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and much of that city. They built a Roman city in it's place. About that same time they flattened Baalbek, and used the temple podium begun under Herod to build their temple to Jupiter.

Why would the Romans need to use such large blocks to reinforce or expand the Herodian podium?

Once again I was in communication with a member of the DAI who has authored a paper on the architecture at Baalbek. His explanation was actually quite simple. Picture building a sand castle. You dump a bucket of sand out and form a mound. Now take your fist and smash down in the middle of the mound. What happens to the sides? They blow outward, don't they? So what happens when you have a large cubic mound of ashlar masonry and fill (fill being rubble, sand, earth, etc.) and you place an extremely heavy mass over this mound? The sides blow outward. That heavy mass of course is the Temple itself, whose weight transfers through the inner and outer walls of the temple to the foundation/podium. The Romans understood this, perhaps better than any civilization prior, the need to contain this lateral force by placing those excessively large blocks around Herod's platform to keep it from spreading outward.

To reiterate, the Trilithon, placed by the Romans, were designed as a retaining wall - not to prevent the movement of the hillside or slope, but to prevent the spread of the inner podium masonry and rubble filling.

This link goes into this concept regarding Herod's foundation work in Jerusalem at the Great Temple: The Stones of Herod’s Temple Reveal Temple Mount History - Ancient construction techniques evident in the Herodian temple There are numerous parallels to the foundation blocks of the Herodian portion of the temple podium at Baalbek, as pointed out by Lohmann of the DAI.

This link covers some of Herod's masonry techniques: Ashlar Stones of Herod's Building Projects, it'll give you an idea of how impressive Herod's "master course" at the Great Temple was, nearly on par with what the Romans would later achieve at Baalbek.

You know that the technology required to place the blocks far
exceed Herod's or any other of that age.

If the peak of their technology culminated with the trilithon
and superstructure and the Temple Mount wall stone - then it
was lost immediately subsequent to these fantastic
achievements. Therefore no other megalithic example can be
provided that the Romans ever built anything close to the
splendor of the megalithic stones. The whole of the Roman
society creates a singular wall, retaining or not, it is their
supreme achievement. How accurately they are aligned,
I do not know, but it might be very precise.

In conclusion, there is no possible way Romans built with
megaliths, and no evidence exists that they did. Just show me
one example subsequent to 50 A.D. that exemplifies the skill
used in the architecture of the Trilithon or the wall stone.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

a reply to: Drawsoho

You know that the technology required to place the blocks far exceed Herod's or any other of that age.

So do you believe that Herod or the Romans had nothing to do with ANY of the megalithic structures at Jerusalem or Baalbek? Or do you single out just these few extremes - the 3 blocks of the Trilithon, or the Western Stone?

Do you understand that while the Trilithon, at 800 tons apiece, are the largest of the Roman blocks at Baalbek, there are numerous other blocks pushing 400-500 tons there, and no one doubts those are Roman as they have evidence linking them to Romans?

Do you not also understand that the 570+ ton Western Stone is built several courses into the retaining wall at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, that is also unequivocally linked to Herod, which compromises a large number of megalithic blocks?

there is no possible way Romans built with megaliths, and no evidence exists that they did.

This claim is profoundly absurd.

How accurately they are aligned, I do not know, but it might be very precise.

Or not so precise. Sorry to disappoint you but the layout of the Trilithon follows that of the Herodian wall. The blocks do not show any sign of "laser cutting," (in fact they are quite rough) or precision alignment (being they abut a previously existing structure which itself follow a simple cardinal alignment).

Just show me one example subsequent to 50 A.D. that exemplifies the skill used in the architecture of the Trilithon or the wall stone.

Because architecture in Rome around this time period was undergoing a revolution in technology, the Romans began utilizing concrete to produce one of the most incredible building of all time - the Pantheon. The engineering behind the Pantheon is a major step forward from that of megalithic building. For Rome Baalbek was the pinnacle of megalithic ashlar masonry but that is a cruder method of building compared to the engineering involved in, for instance, arches or concrete domes.

While the architecture in Rome remained focused on advances in masonry units and concrete, Roman architecture in the "frontier" regions like Syria and Jordan and other points east did often rely on megalithic construction. Here are some place names of Roman megalithic construction, such sites include Qusur Rishan, Qasr Al-Azraq, and Qasr el-Bayda. Of course none of these sites can compare to Baalbek in terms of block size to the Trilithon, but then there was no need for such.

If you doubt the engineering prowess of the Romans, keep in mind the cornice stones of the roof pediment of the Jupiter temple at Baalbek each weigh over 100 tons, and had to be hoisted 19 meters into the air from a temple platform that already stood several meters above grade. The impressive part of this feat isn't just the weight of the blocks but the height they had to be hoisted. I find this accomplishment much greater than just dragging the Trilithon blocks into place.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

It just annoys me (and, judging by responses, i think you too!) that people think the Romans (and, by default, other "ancient" peoples') didn't have the wherewithal to come up with genius engineeing.

I have mentionned it in another thread but again i implore people to read Vitruvius in his "On Architecture". Book 10, chapter 2 specifically deals with various types of machine used for moving heavy blocks and then goes into further detail for moving heavier blocks still. It even Chersiphron and the ingenius machine he invented for laying the foundations at the Temple of Ephesus.

I can guarantee though that if anyone actually reads this magnificent work, they will have infinitely more respect for what was and what wasn't possible.

i read that the limit of the romans equipment was rated at 800000kg mainly due to certain physical limits in the cordage, flax, for example is exceptionally strong as a fibre but cannot transmit all of the potential strength to a rope because it s only a few inches long in itself. the same with the machinery, after a certain size timber creates problems due to its own weight.
so they braided huge cables with the rope (also very heavy) built big cranes and used them as multiple units thus boosting their capacity to this vast load 800 tons, but logistically there are problems with how much equipment can fit into a given area and then there is movement under load and clearance. oh and attachments.
stiil on page 10 but catching up. these are not the machines i expected to see

a reply to: username74

very interesting about the meteorite by the way

a reply to: username74
so i tried to read the thread but its a zoo,
did we find lewis holes?
helloooooo

Perhaps the Romans relied on ancient knowledge carried by elder Egyptian
Priests for their fantastic stone working and megalithic building ability.
Before Egypt fell their knowledge was used to build places like the Serapeum
and create paper thin granite disks. Once the Romans went to using
concrete, everything was simplified and they could pursue to ultimate
buildings using concrete.

A three legged Lewis was used by the Romans, but how much could it lift?

reply to: username74

originally posted by: Drawsoho
Perhaps the Romans relied on ancient knowledge carried by elder Egyptian
Priests for their fantastic stone working and megalithic building ability.

Yes, they got some of their knowledge from the Egyptians, who built very large and complex stone temples with sophisticated and decorative carvings. The Greeks and Romans both improved on the Egyptian techniques... and in addition had access to things the Egyptians didn't (hard wood -- the primary woods in Egypt are palm and other very soft woody plants. Nothing like oak or pine or cedar grew there.)

a reply to: username74

lewis holes?

a reply to: username74

Lewis (lifting appliance)

Look at photos of the site, you'll see numerous instances of "Lewis" holes. Lohmann writes in his treatise that the outer faces of the Trilithon blocks would have been abraded (having their faces taken down to remove evidence of such holes), as they are unsightly. The interior faces are the ones that they didn't bother abrading so that is where the Lewis holes remain.