The Baalbek

"Uncle Google?"

"I'll be back with my sources?"

Please, people.

Use the search function. All the evidence is already posted and argued over, right here at ATS.

It's Roman, no doubt about it.

It's not called "The Baalbek."

The name Baalbek has nothing to do with the god Baal.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
The name Baalbek has nothing to do with the god Baal.

It does too! Because it was the god Ba'al that moved the giant stones at stone at Baalbek! Prove me wrong! And he looks superficially like a grey alien! This is proof that aliens built Baalbek and that aliens are the ancient Semitic gods returned!

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


You forgot how he moved it with anti gravity, i have sources you know!, i can be trusted!!!

I've been fascinated by this particular site more than any other all my life for some reason.

Isn't it true that each Trilithon stone, is over 3 x bigger than the next largest stone ever quarried and moved in all of history? 800+ tons, that's a big rock. You can't compare that to a little bity 250 ton stone, which is about the biggest the Egyptians, or the Romans ever managed to move as far as I know.

Just speculating but, it seems more likely to me that this construction was originally meant to be a fortress than a temple. The reason I think this is because if it was a temple I would think the size of the blocks would be more uniform. If it was meant to impress your god you would think they would be very picky about the appearance. On the other hand if a war was brewing who cares about looks, but the bigger the blocks the better. This could explain why some of the blocks were left over. They might have simply run out of time. If they lost the battle, there might not have been anyone left that knew how to move stones that size. That also explains why stones that big were never used for construction again.

reply to post by Harte

From the ground level up its Roman the Foundations are something else!

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
From the ground level up its Roman the Foundations are something else!

And that means what?

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


What do you think i mean? now im not sure id go along with a Space Port, but the Huge stone Blocks were not put up by any Romans, they were there a long time before the Romans came an built on top of the said Blocks!

Just speculating but, it seems more likely to me that this construction was originally meant to be a fortress than a temple.

Speculating is all fine and good, but keep in mind there's a known history to the site. When speculation runs counter to that, then it's pointless speculation. During the Arabic occupation of these lands (long after Rome) they did re-purpose the site as a fortress. I speculate the original paved road used in bringing the trilithons and other stone blocks to the site was ripped up by these Arabs for building their fortress and perhaps other town construction. The Romans themselves may have taken up this road - why leave perfectly good building material in the ground?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8822483a8ede.jpg[/atsimg]
Image: Frederick Ragette: Arab fortification of Baalbek.

You can't compare that to a little bity 250 ton stone, which is about the biggest the Egyptians, or the Romans ever managed to move as far as I know.

They moved far heavier blocks than that, and they left plenty of records on how they did it.

The heaviest known blocks to be brought from Aswan to Giza were the massive granite stones used for the roof of the King's Chamber in the pyramid of Kufu. Each weighed about 50 tons. 5th and 6th Dynasty pyramids included gabled roofs with blocks weighing up to 90 tons. The mortuary temple of Menkaure included limestone blocks weighing 200 tons. In the 18th Dynasty, two colossal statues of Amenhotep III (the "Colossi of Memnon"), each weighing more than 700 tons, were moved an overland distance of 700 km. Fragments of statues in the Ramesseum (built under Ramesses II) suggest an original weight of 1,000 tons. How was it possible for objects of this size to have been moved?

Read the rest at Catchpenny.org - moving large objects.

The Romans moved the Lateran Obelisk from Egypt to Rome, some 450 tons, over extremely rough terrain. Took them a long time and they may have had to lop off a part of it to accomplish their goal, but they did it.

More from catchpenny.org:

Herodotus described moving the 580 ton "Green Naos" under Nectanebo II: "This took three years in the bringing, and two thousand men were assigned to the conveying of it ..." (History, 2.175)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3832a9f00340.gif[/atsimg]
Images: Catchpenny.org - Moving a statue in 12th Dynasty Egypt.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f377013bff54.gif[/atsimg]
Images: Catchpenny.org - Moving a stone in Assyria.

The Assyrian image shows them helping along a large block with the use a gigantic levers - so large they have to lasso them to pull them down. Like Archimedes said, "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."

Something that should be addressed by the "ET / Anti-gravity builder of Baalbek" crowd, are these points:
why would ETs rely on crude copper/stone tools to quarry these blocks (as indicated by the markings)? Surely an advanced space-faring race would have mastered the use of lasers for cutting stone?
why, if they possessed anti-gravity lifting technology, weren't there hundreds of Baalbeks, scattered all over the globe?
why did Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks (just to name a few) leave such an extensive illustrated record of themselves moving heavy objects, with crude manual labor?
why wouldn't this advanced, space-faring race have just used reinforced concrete? It's easier, it's faster, it's more economical.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


an interesting note, archimedies lever would have to be light years in length, anti gravity anyone??, amirite???

Sorry, hats of to you for referencing Herodotus, the Histories are an awesome read. Pity more people dont have the benefits of a classical education

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
I speculate the original paved road used in bringing the trilithons and other stone blocks to the site was ripped up by these Arabs for building their fortress and perhaps other town construction. The Romans themselves may have taken up this road - why leave perfectly good building material in the ground?

Because it was such a common practice in the ancient and medieval world to re-purpose and cannibalize Roman constructions, I would have to say that really is not speculation on your part. If there was a road there, it is almost guaranteed your theory is correct.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
The Romans moved the Lateran Obelisk from Egypt to Rome, some 450 tons, over extremely rough terrain. Took them a long time and they may have had to lop off a part of it to accomplish their goal, but they did it.

Not only that, but the obelisk was intended for Constantinople but Constanius II changed his mind and had it sent to Rome, much further than it's original intended destination.

The largest obelisk, the Unfinished Obelisk, is comparable to the Stone of the Pregnant Woman. It is clear that the Egyptians worked this stone and had plans to move it if it were not cracked.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
why did Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks (just to name a few) leave such an extensive illustrated record of themselves moving heavy objects, with crude manual labor?

The Romans, Egyptians and just about every other empire in the Mediterranean were extensive record keepers. Yet despite the aliens/anti-grav believers claims, there doesn't exist a single record to support their beliefs.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
why wouldn't this advanced, space-faring race have just used reinforced concrete? It's easier, it's faster, it's more economical.

Both the Romans and Egyptians used concrete, yet these aliens did not know it's benefits.

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

 

What do you think i mean? now im not sure id go along with a Space Port, but the Huge stone Blocks were not put up by any Romans, they were there a long time before the Romans came an built on top of the said Blocks!

And that means what? You tell me.

reply to post by Mooradian


LOL!

Somewhere in Mesopotamia? It is in Lebanon and also known as the ruins of Ballbeck or Heliopolis!

It is Roman Architecture, however, I do agree the base of the temple is much older.

This does not in anyway prove aliens or giants, that is just ridiculous...

Some people have theories that include lost ancient 'HUMAN' technology including either sound waves or anti gravity.

Most theorists are trying to somehow connect this building to the book of Enoch, which is also ridiculous, the bible is amalgamated mythology not literal truth or correct history!

It is obvious that in the past we had an advanced human civilization, which was destroyed and has since been rebuilt. To quote Matrix this is the sixth root race, and we have become damn good at destroying and rebuilding human civilization!

Religion and governments don't want you to know about the freedom we can have, like free limitless power!

Every footage of alien aircraft is either fake, heavily manipulated, or military aircraft simple!

FBI admitted abducting people and staging alien abductions, religion has failed and people's individualism is breaking away from institutions that have restricted our independence, this 8s why we have a new religion, UFOlogy!!! Same control mechanism, new name, don't be fooled!

One man found out the secrets of the pyramids and how they moved large stones, he used an electro magnetic source to build a stone theme park in LA.

Then there is Tesla, Hutchinson effect... There is no doubt anti gravity is possible and it explains how WE HUMANS built extraordinary unexplainable structures!

For the record, since this was discussed in the other Baalbek thread, the Trilithon was excavated and placed by the Romans. Much of the site is Roman. The Romans built the Temple of Jupiter over a pre-existing "T-shaped" podium base that was built by King Herod. Herod's work would have taken place about 70 years prior to the site falling to the Romans. The pre-existing podium is nearly identical in style to the wall of the Great Temple in Jerusalem. Herod himself was a prolific builder. It is thought now that Herod never progressed to the point of building an actual temple on his massive base. When the Romans arrived on the site, they extended the podium base, either for aesthetic reasons or to reinforce it structurally. They placed blocks along the northern and southern edge in the range of 400-500 tons, and placed the 3 blocks along the western edge in the range of 800 tons (the Trilithon). In addition, the Romans left two much larger blocks, unmoved, still in their quarry of 1,000 and 1,200 tons.

Everything you see at Baalbek came from the same relative time frame - around 100 BC, give or take a hundred years. It was started by Herod, but finished by the Romans.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

I personally favor the idea that Tyrians under the aegis of Solomon were responsible for this phase of construction, since the podium at Baalbek greatly resemble the style of the Great Temple at Jerusalem, also built by Solomon, and again relying on Tyrian workers.

There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple