The Baalbek

reply to post by Turiddu


Wow. Stunning, truly. Do you understand what is being discussed?? The weight, size, the age of the structure, precision of tooling, things we cannot do even today with our largest industrial cranes, cutters and the like. My God man, open your mind up.

There were no outrageous claims made in this post, if you have any evidence on how they were constructed, by all means, enlighten us.

Originally posted by Aquarius1

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Turiddu

 

The 'evidence' is that these 1000+ tonnes quarried, carved and placed colossal stones, can not be moved today by our largest, modern cranes. These gargantuan blocks were lain and set approximately nine-thousand-years-ago!

It is an amazing find, a shame that so much attention is put on Giza, we could possibiily learn more from these ancient strutures than Giza which is much younger.

Like your post Spiky.

I believe Giza is just as old personally. There is water erosion on the Sphinx and the pyramids line up with the sky goes back to about 10,000 years ago, not what we are told.

It is my belief that the pyramids and the Sphinx are much older than we are told.

I do think that Baalbek is very interesting and I do wonder how they built these things. It could have been alien or it could have been the people. We do not know for sure what they knew back then when it came to moving heavy objects. There are various structures such as my favorite Puma Punku that makes one wonder just like Baalbek on how it was built without the technology we have. For all we know they had some sort of technology unknown to us.

I believe in aliens but I also believe that we don't give our ancestors enough credit.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by NoahTheSumerian
You're saying humans (and Romans no less) could have built it. Show us how.

I already have in this thread. You should not ignore it then lie and say I have not.

Originally posted by NoahTheSumerian
You're otherwise asking someone to prove a negative.

Not at all; I am asking for a cogent argument. None of the believers have yet to produce a cogent argument about why it was impossible for the Romans to have built the complex. You have not produced a single, mainstream source that supports your opinion, you either just completely dismiss the idea based on personal incredulity or unsourced paranormalist sites.

In order to have a mature, rational discussion, every party involved must be sincere. And there is a distinct lack of it here. If you are going to ignore evidence presented and lie about it, then there is no point in ever having a conversation with you.

edit on 11-9-2010 by DoomsdayRex because: (no reason given)

[snip]

We're talking about the base layer of the temple here, the BAALBEK, not the opper foundations. the romans found these huge cut stones and built around them, there is no record of the romans building such things plus, the stones are over 10,000 years old.

MY GOD doomsday, youre talking mad sh** on NoahTheSumerian and everyone else who breathes that humans were not responsible, yet your 'evidence' you have presented is minimal and the evidence Noah has put out is backed up with sources, If I were on the fence of this discussion I would be going Noahs way.

Why don't you stop talking crap on people and put your money where your mouth is.

But OHHHH wait we're retarded believers, we're mentally handicapped.. We can't comprehend this.. My bad.

reply to post by AlreadyGone


Hi mate,

I have also dragged 1000lb logs out of the woods using no tractor, horse, or truck...just rope, an upside down Y piece of wood...learned that from Easter Island and how they moved the statues.

I'd be very interested if you would care to elaborate on your log moving technique a bit more AlreadyGone..i use a log burner too, and at present lug individual logs out to the where i can park my 4X4. A lot of knackering journeys!

Please tell!

I love the stone ball idea trouble is there no mention of trenches tracks balls footings or any other means of rolling the stones or lifting them once there or may built them and waht else they built have found in relation to these particular stones

Now I'm going to take a walk on the wild side and tell you a story, when I was a kid on Holidays and so forth my cousins and I would get together and say say a chant and lift each other effortlessly with only our finger tips touching the one being lifted and sometimes they would be touching the ceiling and we wouldn't even have to touch them any more to keep them up

them we would start laughing and the liftee would lose lift and we would have to catch them because they would tumble down then we would do it again and again. We were between 11 and 15 years old

our parents freaked out when they found out what we were doing and made us stop

I can't say I know what it was about us all together that made it work but it wasn't magic

whatever we did anyone can do.. I think

reply to post by mblahnikluver


Hi mblahnikluver,

I believe Giza is just as old personally. There is water erosion on the Sphinx and the pyramids line up with the sky goes back to about 10,000 years ago, not what we are told. It is my belief that the pyramids and the Sphinx are much older than we are told.

I too think they are both a lot older than we're told. I also don't believe ANY of the large pyramids were used as tombs either.

Also, i believe the smaller, cruder 'attempts' at pyramid building in Egypt and elsewhere, came much later, not earlier as conventional science would have us believe.

I think they represent an attempt to replicate the great pyramids, after the knowledge required to build them was forgotten.

I can understand how science would think it a natural progression, an example of refining pyramid building technique...it's a logical assumption to make, i just don't happen to agree with it, i instinctively feel it's the other way around.

I agree about the water erosion on the Sphinx pointing to a much older age. A golden age, if you like, from which humanity fell.

A paved causeway would likely have been pulled up after construction, much of the causeway blocks being used in other construction. Around 600 AD Arabs turned Baalbek into a fortress, building on top of the Roman temples and peristyle. When you look at images of the trilithons, you see much cruder stone blocks above them - those are the Arabic efforts. That wall had actually collapsed and was restored in modern times. In fact they had cleared the tops of the trilithons off, and saw a full-scale, engraved image of the Temple of Jupiter pediment - left by the workers who used it as a template for their stone masons.

What they didn't find were "Lewis holes" indicative of Roman handling of that era, so it only adds to the mystery, did Romans place the trilithons or simply build over them.

Much (nearly everything you see) of Baalbek is Roman, the Temple of Bacchus is purely Roman as is the Temple of Venus. The Temple of Bacchus has foundation blocks that extend more the 30 feet to the bedrock below, and are of massive size in their own right (not trilithon massive, but still durn big).

Romans adopted or merged deities from around the Aegean, Egypt, and the Levant to their own pantheon. It allowed them to placate the local populace while ruling them, and gave them a sense of autonomy (even when under Roman governorship). Baal, Hadad, Zeus, Jupiter, the titular head of a cultic practice that spanned many Eastern Mediterranean cultures that died out when Rome collapsed. When Rome took possession of Baalbek, the majority of the workmen under them were Phoenician. They were probably enthusiastic that they were getting a chance to restore their temple complex, even if it was merged with the Roman version of their deity. Workgangs left their Roman marks on much of the blocks, column drums, etc. (either the words MER or two outward-facing crossed flags). You have to dig deep into the stone work to start finding signs of the earlier, (possibly Canaan, but more probable Phoenician), foundation blocks.

Did anyone actually try to logically disprove the possibility of ETs,or was it just an aggressive, dismissive response...? Can anyone disprove the concave hollow world theory while we're at it? How about solipsism? Be careful, that one can drive you bonkers.

You don't disprove something - you prove it. That's how the scientific method works. You claim ETs built Baalbek for their flying saucers. PROVE IT. It's not up to anyone to disprove it.

The balls in your court, let's see some proof of ETs, or UFOs at Baalbek.

However, if one had an anti-grav craft, which needed to land somewhere, then I assume it would be quite heavy once it had the anti-grav switched off. In which case a large support structure would be quite useful.

But a support structure that's only partially built? Wouldn't one have to assume, following your argument, that the entire structure would need to be built of trilithon sized blocks - else why would they have used only 3, then switched to a much smaller block size?

I believe they had a means to displace the effects of gravity. But that's speculation obviously.

Again, if they had anti-gravity, then the "Stone of the South" would not have been abandoned where it lay. They went to the trouble of quarrying it, obviously they had plans to use it. Anti-gravity would have made it a snap to float into place. So why didn't they?

"..they are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them.."
Michel Alouf,Former curator of the ruins.

If I take several stone blocks, square them up, and slide them together, they will fit so tightly that not a slip of paper will fit between them. This is not a mystery. I've read Alouf's book, and what's not being mentioned are the many places where you could fit your hand between the blocks, maybe even your entire arm. Some places the blocks fit tightly and neatly together. Other places they don't. Weathering and settling obviously took their toll, while some blocks were never that well fit together. You have to look at the big picture.

---

Hi Spikey; It's a good theory you have, using stone balls (like ball-bearings) would be a whole lot easier than wooden rollers - rollers have a tendency to skew, fouling up the other rollers, or could bind up, making it necessary to lift the object being transported from the rollers so as to clear or straighten them. I don't think however, there's any evidence to support such a theory.

reply to post by MrsBlonde


Thanks MrsBlonde.

BUT...there would be no mention of the spherical stone balls, and grooved track in blocks, because it's a brand new theory i've come up with.

There wouldn't be any evidence left behind either, not if i'm correct. They would have used up the track in the upper stages of the enclosure, after the huge monoliths had been transported and put into place.

All they'd have to do, is starting at the quarry end of the track, lift the first grooved slab, turn it over so it's groove pointed downwards, position it atop the next 'track' block and use the sphere pivot/roller to move it to the construction site....then do the same with next 'road' block along, and so on until they had no 'road' left to dig up

Positioning the stones into their final places would also have been accomplished using the grooved 'track', sphere and counterweight system. Remember, the construction site is on a hill..just pull the blocks past the point where you want them, and then release some of the counterweight blocks to allow it to fall into place where they wanted it put.

BTW, i played that lifting game as a kid too! We didn't chant though, but we did use just our finger tips to lift the person up...it was fun eh?

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Exactly mate (about the blocks acting as the 'road'/causeway), i've got to cook din-dins, but i'll read your post properly afterwards ok?

Fascinating thread BTW OP!

Originally posted by Mooradian
Since youre such a smart guy, tell us how you would move 1000 ton+ stones and set them up so a paper cannot be placed in between?

No 1000 ton stones were moved. However, it has been shown repeatedly in this thread how the Romans (and other cultures) moved massive objects.

Originally posted by Mooradian
The baalbek is upwards of 10000+ years old... Romans were not here then...

Baalbek has been inhabited for 9000 years; the temples are not that old. Produce a single mainstream archaeological source that says any stone in the temple is 9000 years old.

Originally posted by Mooradian
youre telling me hunter gatherers with sticks and hide built them?

Our ancestors at the time were not hunter-gatherers. This was the height of the Neolithic Revolution. They were building towns and becoming farmers.

You are relying on God-in-the-Gaps and personal incredulity fallacies; you can't figure out how the ancients did it, so it must have been aliens.

reply to post by NoahTheSumerian

I'm sorry, but who's being ignorant? We all know that today's construction achievements are phenomenal, but where in your post did you address the actual issue at hand? Which is to say - the lift, movement (over difficult terrain) and placement of three blocks each weighing over a thousand tons..? Oh, and can you provide examples of a modern equivalent? If they could do such a thing way back then, surely if we were to somehow get a crane to Baalbek, we could lift over 20,000 tons I suppose, and move it to the trilithon? No, we couldn't. And could we do a 2000 ton block with a mobile crane? Over that terrain? No, probably not. We MIGHT be able to manage a 1000 ton block over that terrain, but I'm guessing it would be a bit of a struggle. I'm waiting for evidence. Oh, and I'm BEng (Hons) incidentally.

The purpose of my post was to point out to people ignorant enough to think we could not acheive such a feet of structural design with modern technology, like this people who say OMG WE COULDNT EVEN BUILD THIS IF WE TRIED!!!!. Which is of course complete nonesense, yes we could and if you really do have a bachelors in engineering, more than anyone you should know this and also know why no civils company would write a blank cheque just to see it done for no reason other than curiosity.

Can i provide an exact example of a modern equivalant?, i dunno, has anyone re created it perfectly to your knoweledge?, if not, then no i cannot produce an exact example in modern times. That is however not to say it wouldnt be possible, again of all people you will understand how construction works, why would anyone attempt it unless financialy viable?, whos goin to rent a crane at ten grand a day for this exactly?.

Also with your bachelors in engineering, you are under the impression terrain would be a problem?, you obviously realise any difficult terrain would get flattend and back filled with little to no effort by any civils mob, hell use the Bagger 288 you would be finishd by first brew. I really just dont see why you think this would be so improbable with modern technology, you know it isnt.

This probably will irk you somewhat, it does me anyway, but here is one example of a modern building of an ancient one

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok, its not as big, however it only took two years. Basicaly if price was no object, modern engineering would allow us to build this ten times the size, if there was need. You might think AHA BUT THAT ISNT BUILT IN THE SAME WAY!!!!!, well of course it wasnt, because we have evolved for thousands of years since the building of Baalbak and the Great Pyramid and are no longer bound by such inefficiency of design.

reply to post by artistpoet

2. A previous civilisation rather than our present one (Including Ancient Egyptian) built these structures.

Ok, I am open to that possibility, but I often wonder then, why did they use primitive materials like cut stone to build their buildings, and not some advanced metals if they were so far advanced??

There are definitely more questions than answers available to us at the moment. Speculation and intuition is about all we have to go on.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
They were probably enthusiastic that they were getting a chance to restore their temple complex, even if it was merged with the Roman version of their deity.

They were probably more enthusiastic about the Roman money pouring into the area for the project.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
You don't disprove something - you prove it. That's how the scientific method works. You claim ETs built Baalbek for their flying saucers. PROVE IT. It's not up to anyone to disprove it.

Exactly. The believers in this thread are confused about burden of proof, working backwards.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Again, if they had anti-gravity, then the "Stone of the South" would not have been abandoned where it lay.

That is a huge hole in the "anti-grav" aliens nonsense.

Originally posted by Johnze
Which is of course complete nonesense, yes we could and if you really do have a bachelors in engineering, more than anyone you should know this and also know why no civils company would write a blank cheque just to see it done for no reason other than curiosity.

I think that is proof right there he is blowing smoke.

Right..hold onto your hats everyone..i think i've actually cracked an enduring archeological mystery, of how these monumental neolithic structures were actually built.

If you feel like a long read, and you haven't already done so, my hypothesis (looking more like a fully fledged theory now!) on the bottom of page 4, and additional info from me on page 5 of this thread is where it's at.

I have found substantial supporting evidence for my theory, from all over the world at ancient quarry and temple sites. The evidence of which i speak, is still not understood by mainstream archeology, so perhaps i can clear things up for them!

Unfortunately (and i AM a believer folks) it doesn't include ET's..BUT it doesn't necessarily exclude them either.

I'm SO excited i can hardly type...i'm going to keep my cards close to my chest for now, while i prepare a proper presentation for you all, i want it to be right...perhaps a new thread, we'll see.

But if you want the lowdown, hop on back to the bottom of page 4 to my post there.

Woohoo! I'm off to start collating the evidence, and assembling it into a coherent (OK, semi-coherent) format.

Best regards,

spikey.

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by MrsBlonde

 

Thanks MrsBlonde.

BUT...there would be no mention of the spherical stone balls, and grooved track in blocks, because it's a brand new theory i've come up with.

There wouldn't be any evidence left behind either, not if i'm correct. They would have used up the track in the upper stages of the enclosure, after the huge monoliths had been transported and put into place.

All they'd have to do, is starting at the quarry end of the track, lift the first grooved slab, turn it over so it's groove pointed downwards, position it atop the next 'track' block and use the sphere pivot/roller to move it to the construction site....then do the same with next 'road' block along, and so on until they had no 'road' left to dig up

Positioning the stones into their final places would also have been accomplished using the grooved 'track', sphere and counterweight system. Remember, the construction site is on a hill..just pull the blocks past the point where you want them, and then release some of the counterweight blocks to allow it to fall into place where they wanted it put.

BTW, i played that lifting game as a kid too! We didn't chant though, but we did use just our finger tips to lift the person up...it was fun eh?

haha Spikey I never thought of trying it on an inanimate object...um I wonder!!

I wanna see the ball technique in action sounds like winner to me

Spikey I'm all a twitter ,can't wait!!!

reply to post by MrsBlonde


It does to me too.

As i say above, i've discovered evidence to support this theory, i'm busy collecting it together now to assemble into a properly laid out post/thread.

I wonder if any Universities would consider a scale model to test the theory? Maybe i'll propose it to a few of the more experimentally inclined institutions to see if they'll give it a bash.

Regards,

spikey.

reply to post by Mooradian


I appreciate the support dude; funnily enough I felt I hadn't made a very good case because my source is essentially a description of the beliefs held by those who oppose the mainstream view (held by people such as Doomsday Rex).

At the moment, I'm working through some information in my book collection to try and pin down some decent scientific sources, and of course I'm checking the web too. Trouble is (and I have no qualms about saying this seeing as we're on a conspiracy website), when a person wants to find information about a subject which is largely taboo within academia, it becomes more and more difficult to locate scholarly articles / papers which deal fairly with the subject.

In addition, I also have a life (unlike some of the proponents of disinfo on this website ) and a family, so I don't have as much time to commit to this as would be most appropriate given that we're effectively debating a point or two here.

It might be nice if Doomsday Rex would agree to a future debate on the subject of ancient megalithic architecture. Given enough time to prepare I think I could put forward a pretty solid case (no pun intended). What say ye Doomsday?

Incidentally, I actually came back to this thread to see how things were progressing and to offer an apology for my ascerbic tone in prior posts. I made a pretty damning assessment of atheists in another forum and it got me thinking that I'm basically being a bit of a dill in general all over the site at the moment. So anyway - ignoring the fact that I have also been lashed pretty severely by a couple of ATSers on this thread (and some pretty offensive things have been aimed at me in all fairness), I'd be up for a full-on debate on the matter, where manners and decorum can be monitored and maintained, and we simply treat the evidence as the crux of the topic, not our opinions of each other. However, I'd need a lot of time to prepare, seeing as I'm otherwise engaged most of the time, and my wife gives me 'the look' every time she catches me on ATS (plus a bit of a rollocking most of the time too).

Noah. (in favour of alternative worldviews since 1999)



DISCLAIMER - I am not suggesting that Doomsday Rex is a disinfo proponent.

reply to post by NoahTheSumerian


NoahTS where did that quote in your signature about the nano thech thermite from WTC come from???

can't wait for more discussion about megalithic architecture it 's a puzzling subject that needs rethinking on many levels