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: 4
51
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Sparta


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.


Maybe they're exactly where there supposed to be? We can't rule out ancient skateboard ramp.




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

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.


Not sure if they are in the same quarry but they are closeby.

Here's a photo showing both monoliths pre 2014 excavation -


s29.postimg.org...



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: JamesTB


Not sure if they are in the same quarry but they are closeby.

Here's a photo showing both monoliths pre 2014 excavation -


s29.postimg.org...




Thanks that helps to make things clearer. Probably the same ancient quarry just now cut by a modern road



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sparta

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.


The Roman encyclopaedist also did not mention the stones; whether Roman or by other persons, I presume they were not impressive enough to worry about or again the works have been lost. I've seen estimates that we have about 4% of Roman inscriptions and less than 1% of their written material.


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)


They did some smaller ones but generally they were good enough engineers to avoid needing to do so, ie for a retaining wall, for large structures they used concrete (the dome of the Pantheon which is still the world's largest un-reinforced concrete dome at 43.25 meters (142 ft)). I suspect they did what they did because 'X' wanted a temple at that exact location, it may have also have been that the Roman's sub-contracted the job to a non-Roman who was more into moving heavy blocks, who knows?



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune


They did some smaller ones but generally they were good enough engineers to avoid needing to do so, ie for a retaining wall, for large structures they used concrete (the dome of the Pantheon which is still the world's largest un-reinforced concrete dome at 43.25 meters (142 ft)). I suspect they did what they did because 'X' wanted a temple at that exact location, it may have also have been that the Roman's sub-contracted the job to a non-Roman who was more into moving heavy blocks, who knows?


There may not have been a pressing engineering need for using blocks of those sizes - Herod's unfinished work there included a temple podium with blocks up to 400 tons, and in Judea the Western Stone weighing in at 500 tons. How would the Romans feel if they took over the site and were trumped by the engineering feats of Herod? Pride might have been a factor in the Romans moving and placing 800 ton blocks. Can't have the mighty Romans out-engineered by a deposed Jew, can we?



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Hanslune


They did some smaller ones but generally they were good enough engineers to avoid needing to do so, ie for a retaining wall, for large structures they used concrete (the dome of the Pantheon which is still the world's largest un-reinforced concrete dome at 43.25 meters (142 ft)). I suspect they did what they did because 'X' wanted a temple at that exact location, it may have also have been that the Roman's sub-contracted the job to a non-Roman who was more into moving heavy blocks, who knows?


There may not have been a pressing engineering need for using blocks of those sizes - Herod's unfinished work there included a temple podium with blocks up to 400 tons, and in Judea the Western Stone weighing in at 500 tons. How would the Romans feel if they took over the site and were trumped by the engineering feats of Herod? Pride might have been a factor in the Romans moving and placing 800 ton blocks. Can't have the mighty Romans out-engineered by a deposed Jew, can we?


Certainly possible OR the same engineers/workers/artists who did the heavy work down south came north and outdid themselves.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

During my correspondence with Lohmann and a Syrian engineer with the DAI (a Dr. Razzaq) he suggested that it was the quarry itself that provided the impetus to produce these massive blocks, with a greater than usual bedding plane in the limestone quarries. The same thing could be said about the Egyptians with their quarry in Aswan, which could also produce massive blocks which they took advantage of in making gigantic obelisks.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Hanslune

During my correspondence with Lohmann and a Syrian engineer with the DAI (a Dr. Razzaq) he suggested that it was the quarry itself that provided the impetus to produce these massive blocks, with a greater than usual bedding plane in the limestone quarries. The same thing could be said about the Egyptians with their quarry in Aswan, which could also produce massive blocks which they took advantage of in making gigantic obelisks.


Ah that makes sense



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
The ‘Monolith’ thingy behind the stone is very intriguing –


s14.postimg.org...


Wonder how they cut it because it’s actually 2 stones –


s28.postimg.org...


This is the oldest photo/plate I could find of the site -


s29.postimg.org...



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I think you could be right as in the last photo you can see in the back ground a slab that has been cut into the cliff face

a reply to: St Udio



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

The Romans had concrete. Why would they futz around with giant blocks?



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tsurugi
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

The Romans had concrete. Why would they futz around with giant blocks?


It may be because they were building a traditional temple and followed the methods used by custom for generations before - which used stone.



posted on Dec, 6 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Tsurugi
a reply to: Hanslune


The Romans had concrete. Why would they futz around with giant blocks?


Concrete was also just starting to be used on any sort of large scale around the 1st century BC and didn't become refined in its structural use until the latter half of the 1st century AD -- see the "Roman / Concrete Revolution," Wikipedia. Herod also used some concrete construction such as at Caesarea Maritima. However, I don't think the level of understanding in using pozzalana concrete in the early 1st c. BC would have met the structural engineering needs for the foundation walls at Baalbek. Even into the 20th c. we were still using stone blocks for foundations as opposed to concrete. All of the great cathedrals of Europe are built on massive stone block foundations, some to a depth of 40 feet below grade. It isn't surprising at all, given the massive scale and weight of the Temple of Jupiter then, that Roman engineers devised a scheme of massive stone foundation blocks along its western downhill facing edge.




top topics



 
51
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join