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: 3
51
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
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.


Yes and they expanded the surface area of the temple which required a large retaining wall to hold that structure securely, therefore the three large stones.

They could possibly have been in existence before but there is no evidence to support the idea.




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: 6Taco6Smell6
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.


I know it's mind boggling.

If the rocks are still in situ and part of the natural bedrock where's the rest of the 'hill' gone? The amount of material that has been removed to leave the 2 block is pretty crazy. It almost reminds of another monument which has been carved out of the bed rock, The Sphinx.


s24.postimg.org...


If the Romans 'found' the main site with the 3 mega blocks in place then it's fair to say that the Romans didn't quarry the stones at Baalbek so who did and with what tools? I cannot wait to see what else they have found here during the excavation.

I can't help but think that the 2nd block has been buried just like the site at Gobekli Tepe,

Look at the rubble that has filled the holes and covered it up is that natural?


s28.postimg.org...


And how many years would it take to go from this -


s23.postimg.org...


To this? -


s9.postimg.org...



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Why don't they ever find crushed human skeletons under these ?


If they are quarried on the spot - and not removed - how do you cut them out of the bedrock without having a bunch of guys under it - chipping away until the weight distribution fails and drops on top of them?


I'd expect to find evidence of counter weight systems to support the ENORMOUS weight. But is this even possible given the weight of these monoliths? You'd need at least the same weight… which kind of brings me full circle around to the initial problem.
edit on 20-10-2014 by 131415 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
mayeb they buried some thing?
a great treasures?
or a demon!



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: 131415
Why don't they ever find crushed human skeletons under these ?


If they are quarried on the spot - and not removed - how do you cut them out of the bedrock without having a bunch of guys under it - chipping away until the weight distribution fails and drops on top of them?


I'd expect to find evidence of counter weight systems to support the ENORMOUS weight. But is this even possible given the weight of these monoliths? You'd need at least the same weight… which kind of brings me full circle around to the initial problem.


'the crushed finger argument". There probably are some somewhere.

You put in wood supports (check the compressibility of wood before you ask your next question)

Yes the whole question of dealing with those monsters is probably (maybe) why they were not used; it would have been very difficult to move them. Really heavy rocks were only moved a few times in ancient times - because it was really hard to do but if you had the will, time and resources you could do it.

Here is a wiki list of some of the heaviest monoliths that were moved

The big ones

Moving really big rocks was rare back then, and I think we know why.


edit on 20/10/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I wonder if all the blocks once stood erect with the largest length as it height. The stone on top could have just fallen differently, falling after the others became covered and rotated 90 degrees. I can imagine a dam or countless other possibilities based on the pictures provided.

Stones that big though, fall in line with the other phenomenal stones. Some advanced method or maybe just some forgotten simple trick was used. How ever achieved, it seems to be highly networked between many areas cross continental, possibly semi-worldwide.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
What is the evidence for your belief?

Again, most of the conventional historical accounts place the trilithon being there before the Romans.


originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
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.


Yes and they expanded the surface area of the temple which required a large retaining wall to hold that structure securely, therefore the three large stones.

They could possibly have been in existence before but there is no evidence to support the idea.




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Hello all,

There's really no debate over the Roman origins of the Triliton, which built upon the earlier Herodian temple podium it wraps around. There's an extensive debate on that already here at ATS as Hans linked to.

Some stuff I learned after emailing several authors (Dr. Lohmann among them, as well as an engineer for the DAI):

The "angle" at which the blocks were quarried was very likely done to facilitate removing the blocks. By underpinning the blocks during the quarrying (keeping them propped in place), the blocks - once free, could then be gradually lowered via counterweights onto rollers then hauled out. No lifting required. The surface of the quarry was smoothed and leveled as a roadway to facilitate this.



I made the above pic a while back but never followed though on the theory with any of the authors. The idea is that once the block is free and resting on piers or underpinnings, you can then move counterweights to the forefront of the block, allowing it to slowly lower onto rollers and then hauled to the site.

The "bedding plane" of the quarries were very deep. That alone is what allowed them to excavate such large blocks. A block can only be as deep as the bedding plane allows. Maybe they saw the depth of the bedding planes and said, "let's make these blocks huge, because anyone can quarry small blocks, we're frickin' Rome, let's make this HUGE and impress the world with our might..."

The quarry where the 3 blocks of the Trilithon were quarried from was near the center of the town and directly in line with the temple podium and it was a gentle downhill slope. Hans and Harte finally beat that fact into my skull, lol. They did not come from the quarry where the megaliths still remain in situ. As far as anyone knows, those have never budged - I can imagine a few mutinous work crews might have had something to do with that.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Good diagram. Yes I'm sure we missed a real 'soap opera' over those stones. Some starry eyed engineer wanting to created the biggest stones eve, an older construction manager shaking his head, and an accountant sweating over the cost over runs.

...and a labour contractor trying to figure out where to get 2,000+ bodies* willing to try and move those things.


*if they didn't use windlasses



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
What is the evidence for your belief?

Again, most of the conventional historical accounts place the trilithon being there before the Romans.



According to the DAI it was the Roman's now it is possible that the Trils were there but what use would they have been? They have a specific purpose to act as the center of the Roman retaining wall.

Study

www.academia.edu...[url=https://www.academia.edu/1154793/Giant_strides_towards_Monumentality]Study[/u rl]



------------------------------------

Blackmarketeer: I've noted that our link back to your thread now has broken links to the main studies


edit on 21/10/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Based on my own doomsday research, I don't believe these stones were ever intended to be moved, and their angle made
them more of a astronomical observatory. For instance, the Stone of the Pregnant Woman may be watching for a particular
rising planet or star or comet, and so as it rises up from the end of the stone, it would appear as if it were giving birth to
something important. The stones can be seen on google maps since they are that big, even though they are hard to pick out from
the surrounding buildings in the area. The direction they point is the same as the walkway at the Temple of Luxor in Egypt,
which is roughly 33-34 degrees... makes you think.... I guess the freemasons never thought we would be able to look down from the heavens onto these monuments. It makes me giggle.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: JamesTB

Hey OP



NEW Excavation (2014) at BAALBEK Reveals GIGANTIC New Block

They provide a link to this thread but they posted it as if it's an original post not a quote



They're doing more than that, they're ripping off entire sections of ATS. If you goto their homepage, you even see some user here who listed a poem of theirs called "Burial" on their front page! Some audacity. Better get ahold of Springer or whomever.

OT: I understand that ppl are trying to explain these blocks rationally, (ie" not giants, Nephilim, whatever) but that doesn't account for the sheer logistics of WHY making stones so labor intensive that in the time it would take to make ONE of these stones, you could well be on your way into months of another project altogether.

WHY would they do that? Doesn't that seem counter-intuitive?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Nice! but that does not account for one block being on top of another at the site in the photos.

What if these blocks are the tip of the iceberg? Lol
edit on 21-10-2014 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wifibrains
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Nice! but that does not account for one block being on top of another at the site in the photos.

What if these blocks are the tip of the iceberg? Lol


There is one partially completed and still not detached and the outline of another at a lower level and next to the first one, the other partially completed stone is in another part of the quarry. So not quite understanding your 'being on top of another', comment.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: schadenfreude

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: JamesTB

Hey OP



NEW Excavation (2014) at BAALBEK Reveals GIGANTIC New Block

They provide a link to this thread but they posted it as if it's an original post not a quote



They're doing more than that, they're ripping off entire sections of ATS. If you goto their homepage, you even see some user here who listed a poem of theirs called "Burial" on their front page! Some audacity. Better get ahold of Springer or whomever.

OT: I understand that ppl are trying to explain these blocks rationally, (ie" not giants, Nephilim, whatever) but that doesn't account for the sheer logistics of WHY making stones so labor intensive that in the time it would take to make ONE of these stones, you could well be on your way into months of another project altogether.

WHY would they do that? Doesn't that seem counter-intuitive?


Mankind has done a number of things that appear to make no sense after the fact nor probably any sense while it was being done. People have directed x and y to be done when there is not particular reason to do so besides ego and insanity, and 'why the heck not'.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune


not quite understanding your 'being on top of another', comment


You my friend are not understanding anything in this topic unless the Romans did it.

I'm going from the pictures I can see and not what someone has said. Can you show proof of the area it is "not detached?" from the bedrock? however, the way the lower blocks are set parallel to each other does correspond with the grid patterns at egyptian quarries where the bedrock was being prepared into block shaped stones...






edit on 21-10-2014 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-10-2014 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wifibrains
a reply to: Hanslune


not quite understanding your 'being on top of another', comment


You my friend are not understanding anything in this topic unless the Romans did it.

I'm going from the pictures I can see and not what someone has said. Can you show proof of the area it is "not detached?" from the bedrock? however, the way the lower blocks are set parallel to each other does correspond with the grid patterns at egyptian quarries where the bedrock was being prepared into block shaped stones...







I think you are being misled by the outline of the lower and incompletely cut stone. There was an earlier image showing the main stone still attached. I'll repost it below:



My understanding of that image and the written reports is that the upper or higher stone is shown as being still attached to the bed rock and the outline of the second one (third actually) is right there.

You seem to feel there is another one under the more prominent one?

Here is another view of the upper stone showing its attachment to the bedrock




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune
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


A fine call actually, I realize that a whole heap of written accounts of Roman history has been lost, but this is not just another temple, it is the largest temple ever built by the Roman empire, and to that it was built by their most admired leader.

Such a feat I imagine would not have just been written about in one or two documents, I would think they would have referenced it quite afew times(though my knowledge is limited if they have please enlighten me) considering the man power required to move the blocks (did they even have enough numbers around) of course Caesar had the legions with him which was probably significant man power but it's not like he was holidaying in Lebanon and whacking up Roman tourist resorts, wasn't he marching back to Rome at the time? (not entirely sure on Caesars time in Lebanon so this pure speculation ha) and the time it would have taken I can't understand why they would have gone to such lengths to build incredible foundations, unless the foundation stones were already in place, then not propagandized their achievements in moving such giant pieces of stone.

My other problem is that the Romans have never in my reading worked such megalithic blocks.
Though to blackmarketerr those images you posted were pretty damn good mate, that technique makes sense to me, and the fact the quarry was higher up than the temple means they never had to actually pull such stones up hill just down (I think)

As to why the stones are still in the bedrock, I would think that after failed attempts at moving massive blocks suh as the case of the pregnant women stone they just stopped before it was finished realising it was a fools errand.


Peace


edit: the thunder stone is one of my favourite examples of what man can actually move through pure brute force, which also makes me open to the fact Romans could have moved these stones.

edit on 21-10-2014 by Sparta because: thunder



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: NiZZiM

Doesn't Sitchin have some sort of explanation for this huge building.

O'Brien thinks that Baalbek was near the original Garden of Eden and so the area is steeped with mystery and myth.

Originally though the site was a pagan temple but how they moved those huge blocks is quite another thing. One could almost go with Sitchin's ideas of the Annanaki and the Igigi as man - as we know his capabilities - cannot move it.


The Bible tells you all who built Baalbek!!! Baal and his Giants from the book of Genesis and Enoch. Sitchin did not know jack, he was busted making up crap to sell his fairytale books. He personally made up the word Annaukki or what even he called them. Go ask an expert on ancient languages!! Sitchin was called out on Coast to Coast am by the real expert Dr. Mike Heiser and Sitchin never to be heard from again.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune




You put in wood supports (check the compressibility of wood before you ask your next question) Yes the whole question of dealing with those monsters is probably (maybe) why they were not used; it would have been very difficult to move them. Really heavy rocks were only moved a few times in ancient times - because it was really hard to do but if you had the will, time and resources you could do it. Here is a wiki list of some of the heaviest monoliths that were moved


LOL! We still can not move these stones today with three of our largest cranes and you think humans did way back then? Just look at the fortress in Baalbek and you will see that it was not normal humans who lived there. Humans had no way to move them or cut them to laser precision. The areas that look like they are chipped with tools are not, that is water erosion.

It is only pure arrogance to think that man could have manually moved something heavier than half of an aircraft carrier yet so small in comparison and put it anywhere off the ground with these blocks fitting so perfect matched that you can not slide a human hair between them. It isnt called "Baal" bek just for the hell of it, never mind the bible and the book of Enoch telling you who lived in that area. Only a team of Giants with super human strength could move these after they were cut with advanced lasers. Don't even try to say man cut a perfect 10mm hole in these huge stones with an ancient drill bit. The accuracy can only be checked with today's lasers do to the length of the holes and they are perfect in alignment, There are many at Baalbek this way.




top topics



 
51
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join