It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEW Excavation (2014) at BAALBEK Reveals GIGANTIC New Block

page: 2
51
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
It would be nice to know what else they found during the excavations. Tools, remains?
Surely something else was unearthed.


You'd have thought so wouldn't you.

At least a few broken tools, remains of pottery from the workers lunches cooking pots etc, maybe even small idols to their gods etc.

One thing that strikes me about this dig though...look at the original massive block, see how it is about a meter higher than the block below it?

Perhaps there is a clue here how these massive stones were moved?

The exposed block, was presumably quarried from the spot it was left in, which means it was the last block to be quarried and left where it remains after it cracked and was found to have defects...we must assume then, that the newly discovered blocks beneath the block we all know about, must have been quarried and discarded earlier.

The question then is, HOW does an even layer of around 3 - 4 feet of mud, gravel and shingle get sandwiched between the exposed block and those blocks beneath it, which must have been quarried earlier (being below the exposed one).

Could, and i say could tentatively, the thick layer of mud and gravel have something to do with moving the stones?

And if so...how could it have been used to move these huge blocks i wonder?




posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
There seems to be not to many pictures taken from the Side these stones were unearthed. Strangely, It would appear most are taken from the other side. I did find this one that has the edge of one of the lower blocks exposed tho.... Looks old?




posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

Those are immense, wow! And they're stacked
Odd!




posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

They were never moved. I suspect the Roman's, those engineering masters, quelled at the idea of moving the larger ones and instead quarried and moved the smaller three that were actually used. Those probably took months or years to move into position. In the stones we see in the quarry the Roman's bit off more than they could easily chew. Later man did move such weights but the Romans went for a faster and easier way (or so I speculate).



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Correction to my first post

The outline of the incomplete monolith is a NEW discovery, there is a second one that was discovered in 1990, an image of which is below.



Ruprechtsberger, Erwin M. (1999), Vom Steinbruch zum Jupitertempel von Heliopolis/Baalbek (Libanon) [From the quarry to the Jupiter temple of Heliopolis/Baalbek (Lebanon)], Linzer Archäologische Forschungen (in German) 30: 7–56 (page 17)
edit on 19/10/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Heliopolis was greek not roman, as the name itself suggests



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hellas
Heliopolis was greek not roman, as the name itself suggests

It was renamed by Alexander. The Romans called it by that same name. The name of the place is actually Baalbek, which is Arabic.

The Arabic language is Semitic, and its original form is similar to Akkadian.

So, no, it's not Greek.

The Romans are the ones that placed the three megaliths at the Temple of Jupiter (the Roman god) there. It was they that built that temple.

Harte



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
a reply to: JamesTB

Those are immense, wow! And they're stacked
Odd!





Shades of Yangshan -

Yangshan – Surreal Chinese Megalith

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dr UAE
Ive been to that place several years ago , that place is so beautiful , i think those stones are part of a structure of its own if they keep digging deeper and deeper .


 



when the modern excavations go deep enough they will find the amorphous mass of bedrock stone...

the whole idea was to create the illusion that massive blocks of stone were cut & moved...
thus implying an advanced technology and unlimited resources (including knowledge) to have even engaged in these colossal undertakings


I will once again suggest that the temple floor itself is a monolithic stone, cut to look as if pieced together... of course the pillars & columns are additions which were engineering reproducible in Egypt, Greece, and later the Romans
but at the time of Baalbek...the false assumption of their engineering prowess made other aspirant kingdoms trethink making war with these super-human peoples & their accomplishments

didn't we go through this debate a few years back ?



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hellas
Heliopolis was greek not roman, as the name itself suggests

It was renamed by Alexander. The Romans called it by that same name. The name of the place is actually Baalbek, which is Arabic.

The Arabic language is Semitic, and its original form is similar to Akkadian.

So, no, it's not Greek.

The Romans are the ones that placed the three megaliths at the Temple of Jupiter (the Roman god) there. It was they that built that temple.

Harte


the Roman God huh? They just so happened to have the same Gods as the Greeks had prior to them. Or that the trojans build Rome. Of course those romans were engineering masters, lol.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Destinyone
The more I see of our discoveries of ancient mankind. The more I think we are the cavemen compared to them. We are the ones digging our way out of some cataclysmic event that destroyed the highlight of society of the past.

Nice find...S&F

Des


Quite right. I mean, they left behind traces of skyscrapers, tunnels through mountains and under the sea floor, there are huge open cast pit mines and roadways around the whole world, along with obvious signs of technological superiority such as machines, spaceships, and computers.

Uh, no, actually, they weren't 'cave men' either, but we are way more advanced.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hellas

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hellas
Heliopolis was greek not roman, as the name itself suggests

It was renamed by Alexander. The Romans called it by that same name. The name of the place is actually Baalbek, which is Arabic.

The Arabic language is Semitic, and its original form is similar to Akkadian.

So, no, it's not Greek.

The Romans are the ones that placed the three megaliths at the Temple of Jupiter (the Roman god) there. It was they that built that temple.

Harte


the Roman God huh? They just so happened to have the same Gods as the Greeks had prior to them. Or that the trojans build Rome. Of course those romans were engineering masters, lol.

Absolutely, they were.

The Romans represent the pinnacle of architectural engineering, until the Renaissance.

It's pretty much a given among people willing to study what Romans accomplished. They far surpassed any earlier culture.

Harte



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
By doing what exactly?

Have you studied the sacred geometry in Greece? The perfect triangles, the Parthenon Temple etc. when there were no romans and the rest of the world still lived in caves?

I mean it's fine to acknowledge what other cultures did, but pretending they did not copy ancient greek architecture is just ignorant.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Hellas

The rest of the world was not living in caves while the Greeks were drawing triangles brotha.

I like to believe perhaps the Phoenicians carved, cut and moved the larger stones at Baalbek purely on the notion that the Romans were not exactly the megalithic builders in the sense like the old cultures were. Also if they could manage to move these blocks out in the middle of Lebanon with such ease to the point they never bragged or replicated it, they would have done so in other areas.

Is Baalbek not the site where the largest stone blocks in history have actually been moved?


Peace



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
It seems that people excavating at this site have carved out another massive block, or the top of actually, over there.
Must have been easier then stock piling them so close around each other, with the engineering folks and machines to get them in place and all.

Weird that some pics of the old block, have larger spaces of open area around it then there is with the new block.

Or am I missing something ?



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

More to add to the list of mysteriously 'impossible' ancient megalithic structures. Imagine how hard it would be to do things like that with the tools they supposedly had in the times. I'm sure it would be hard with modern equipment.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sparta
a reply to: Hellas

The rest of the world was not living in caves while the Greeks were drawing triangles brotha.

I like to believe perhaps the Phoenicians carved, cut and moved the larger stones at Baalbek purely on the notion that the Romans were not exactly the megalithic builders in the sense like the old cultures were. Also if they could manage to move these blocks out in the middle of Lebanon with such ease to the point they never bragged or replicated it, they would have done so in other areas.

Is Baalbek not the site where the largest stone blocks in history have actually been moved?


Peace


However, the Phoenicians also (if they made and moved the stones) never bragged or replicated it either. Given the extensive loss of Roman written material its not unusual that a detail may have been lost.

The heaviest stone ever moved by man without modern technology was the thunder stone.

thunders stone 1770



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: MysterX

They were never moved. I suspect the Roman's, those engineering masters, quelled at the idea of moving the larger ones and instead quarried and moved the smaller three that were actually used. Those probably took months or years to move into position. In the stones we see in the quarry the Roman's bit off more than they could easily chew. Later man did move such weights but the Romans went for a faster and easier way (or so I speculate).


The thing is, even most archaeologists state that those stones and the base of the temple predate the Romans. The Romans added the temple to Jupiter superimposed over the original site, which included the three big stones. However, that doesn't mean that your theory is wrong if substituting some other group at an earlier date. But what are the ideas for how those three stones were actually moved into place?
edit on 20-10-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
No, the Romans did not place the three megalithic stones there.

Most historical analyses I have read states that the Romans added to a pre-existing structure, a structure which already had the three stones.

The site was already sacred or ancient in roman times. They then added the Temple of Jupiter on top.


originally posted by: Hellas

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hellas
Heliopolis was greek not roman, as the name itself suggests

It was renamed by Alexander. The Romans called it by that same name. The name of the place is actually Baalbek, which is Arabic.

The Arabic language is Semitic, and its original form is similar to Akkadian.

So, no, it's not Greek.

The Romans are the ones that placed the three megaliths at the Temple of Jupiter (the Roman god) there. It was they that built that temple.

Harte


the Roman God huh? They just so happened to have the same Gods as the Greeks had prior to them. Or that the trojans build Rome. Of course those romans were engineering masters, lol.

edit on 20-10-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: MysterX

They were never moved. I suspect the Roman's, those engineering masters, quelled at the idea of moving the larger ones and instead quarried and moved the smaller three that were actually used. Those probably took months or years to move into position. In the stones we see in the quarry the Roman's bit off more than they could easily chew. Later man did move such weights but the Romans went for a faster and easier way (or so I speculate).


The thing is, even most archaeologists state that those stones and the base of the temple predate the Romans. The Romans added the temple to Jupiter superimposed over the original site, which included the three big stones. However, that doesn't mean that your theory is wrong if substituting some other group at an earlier date. But what are the ideas for how those three stones were actually moved into place?


Yes there is an earlier bronze age foundation which is noted in the DAI report.

Blackmarketeer's post on the stones

Possible ways the stones were moved and placed




top topics



 
51
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join