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.

 

BAALBEK - Video March 2015 Simply Amazing Structure

page: 2
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
yes I see your point.

But it is just wired that they would do something like that, i mean...why bother? it is just easier going straight if you are chiseling stone.

And what about the stones with smooth surface, how did they do that? what other tool did they use aside from chisels to make surface so smooth? Water and sand maybe? It is just hard to imagine...


a reply to: skalla

Yes yes, hehe i know.

What I was trying to say is that it is hard to carve in that manner with a chisel. I would not dare to argue that I compare to them in any way, because whatever tool they used, they were masters of the craft which even today we with all our technology cannot figure them out for sure.

And that is wired and it maybe points to other solutions or tools they used?




posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
It had me moderately interested until they started talking about controlling gravity with sound.Then I just had to
watching.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Imagewerx
It had me moderately interested until they started talking about controlling gravity with sound.Then I just had to
watching.

After a decade or two, you start to just read the text accompanying the video to save some time.
Like I said in a previous post.

"Sonic levitation" is insanely stupid regarding objects bigger than a few ounces. The energy required would kill anyone standing nearby and certainly cannot be generated by a bunch of monks beating on drums.

Very glad I didn't click on "play."

Harte



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Imagewerx
It had me moderately interested until they started talking about controlling gravity with sound.Then I just had to
watching.


Why can't you nitpickers just turn the sound off and enjoy the views of a video?



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: TinfoilTP


Pretty sure it is pre Roman and it was a temple for Baal. The Romans came along and married it to Jupiter, built on it so that the populace would be doing a Roman thing instead of their own thing.

It is a nice video if you never been to the site, you can even hear firsthand what the local tour guide says to all the tourists without having to pay for it.


That's incorrect, as far as the 'temple to Baal' goes. There was never a temple for Baal at that site. Herod built a temple podium but never got around to building any temple before his death. Romans took over the site and enlarged the temple podium (including adding the Trilithon along the western edge) then built the temple to Jupiter on it, along with a couple other temples nearby. Prior to Herod the tel (dating as far back as 7,000 BC) contained evidence of man's presence and an altar, but no evidence of any temples.

Sorry to say, but Herod's and then the Romans were the first and only temple constructions at that site. The rest is folklore.


Herod was a Roman ruler.
They worshipped Baal there. Then the Romans, as they always did, built on the already important sacrifice sites in order to get the peoples to do Roman things.


Herod the Great and Herod I, was a Roman client king of Judea

Source

If you cannot get the story right, by saying Herod built there then the Romans, why would anyone take the rest of what you say seriously?

This is a serious nit fkn pickin subject, this will not pass! Witness all previous posts.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

When you look at this pic, which the OP posted on p1..



look at the chisel marks on the left of the pic - it's pretty obvious that who ever carved that side was less skilled/methodical than the guy/gal who carved the section on the right in that nice radiating pattern - perhaps the one on the left was apprenticed to the one on the right.

And looking at the left of the pic, it's clearly done by hand. The only difference between these and the ones on the right is the radiating pattern, which is not perfectly spaced and therefore certainly not done by some machine as suggested earlier.

Thing is, we can figure it (the tools) out for sure.

We know they had chisels.

We know they could use them.

We know what marks they leave.

We know they had a shed-load of manpower.

The only obstacle many seem to have (to accepting hand power and judicious use of physics did this) is they don't appreciate the magnificent scale of what smart planning and years of back breaking effort can achieve.
edit on 3-4-2015 by skalla because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: TinfoilTP


Pretty sure it is pre Roman and it was a temple for Baal. The Romans came along and married it to Jupiter, built on it so that the populace would be doing a Roman thing instead of their own thing.

It is a nice video if you never been to the site, you can even hear firsthand what the local tour guide says to all the tourists without having to pay for it.


That's incorrect, as far as the 'temple to Baal' goes. There was never a temple for Baal at that site. Herod built a temple podium but never got around to building any temple before his death. Romans took over the site and enlarged the temple podium (including adding the Trilithon along the western edge) then built the temple to Jupiter on it, along with a couple other temples nearby. Prior to Herod the tel (dating as far back as 7,000 BC) contained evidence of man's presence and an altar, but no evidence of any temples.

Sorry to say, but Herod's and then the Romans were the first and only temple constructions at that site. The rest is folklore.


Herod was a Roman ruler.
They worshipped Baal there. Then the Romans, as they always did, built on the already important sacrifice sites in order to get the peoples to do Roman things.


Herod the Great and Herod I, was a Roman client king of Judea

Source

If you cannot get the story right, by saying Herod built there then the Romans, why would anyone take the rest of what you say seriously?

This is a serious nit fkn pickin subject, this will not pass! Witness all previous posts.


Okay, if you can't distinguish between Herod and Romans, you are the one in dire need of a history lesson. Herod was a Jewish king, and accordingly all his major temples were built in strict accordance with Jewish law - example, the Second Temple was build with 1,000 Rabbis as masons and carpenters. Yes, he was a "client king" of the Roman Empire, the Romans allowed their conquered provinces some degree of autonomy. Herod was not the Roman governor of Judea, he was the "ethnarch." An ethnarch has rule ONLY over a specific political group/ehtnicity in a conquered territory by the Romans. Upon his death Herod's temple project was taken over by the Romans proper.

One thing is certain, Herod was not in any way, shape, or fashion building a temple to a pagan god like Baal. What his ultimate plans were we'll never know, since he never progressed beyond laying a foundation. It likely would have been an imitation of the Great/Second Temple in Judea, a Jewish temple for the outer provinces along the Syrian border in the ancient city of Heliopolis. It even had the same proportional t-shape layout.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Imagewerx
It had me moderately interested until they started talking about controlling gravity with sound.Then I just had to
watching.


Why can't you nitpickers just turn the sound off and enjoy the views of a video?


No because I can't watch a video with the sound off if it's intended to have sound.I actually learnt something before that point,that this particular block was left there unfinished because it was poorer quality stone from the bottom of the quarry.Then when the man with the white beard tried to tell us the laws of physics were wrong,I had better things to do.
You,me or even the guys at CERN can not control gravity with sound,and we can't move anything weighing more than a few grammes using sound.The banging of drums and rhythmic chanting would be used to motivate the army of labourers (I believe they all pulled together on each drum beat?) to do the physical work to move the stones from the quarry to the site of the temple,so yes indirectly sound was used to move the stones.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Imagewerx

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Imagewerx
It had me moderately interested until they started talking about controlling gravity with sound.Then I just had to
watching.


Why can't you nitpickers just turn the sound off and enjoy the views of a video?


No because I can't watch a video with the sound off if it's intended to have sound.I actually learnt something before that point,that this particular block was left there unfinished because it was poorer quality stone from the bottom of the quarry.Then when the man with the white beard tried to tell us the laws of physics were wrong,I had better things to do.
You,me or even the guys at CERN can not control gravity with sound,and we can't move anything weighing more than a few grammes using sound.The banging of drums and rhythmic chanting would be used to motivate the army of labourers (I believe they all pulled together on each drum beat?) to do the physical work to move the stones from the quarry to the site of the temple,so yes indirectly sound was used to move the stones.


Who cares about what them crackpots were saying, it was a nice tour video of an interesting place.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: TinfoilTP


Pretty sure it is pre Roman and it was a temple for Baal. The Romans came along and married it to Jupiter, built on it so that the populace would be doing a Roman thing instead of their own thing.

It is a nice video if you never been to the site, you can even hear firsthand what the local tour guide says to all the tourists without having to pay for it.


That's incorrect, as far as the 'temple to Baal' goes. There was never a temple for Baal at that site. Herod built a temple podium but never got around to building any temple before his death. Romans took over the site and enlarged the temple podium (including adding the Trilithon along the western edge) then built the temple to Jupiter on it, along with a couple other temples nearby. Prior to Herod the tel (dating as far back as 7,000 BC) contained evidence of man's presence and an altar, but no evidence of any temples.

Sorry to say, but Herod's and then the Romans were the first and only temple constructions at that site. The rest is folklore.


Herod was a Roman ruler.
They worshipped Baal there. Then the Romans, as they always did, built on the already important sacrifice sites in order to get the peoples to do Roman things.


Herod the Great and Herod I, was a Roman client king of Judea

Source

If you cannot get the story right, by saying Herod built there then the Romans, why would anyone take the rest of what you say seriously?

This is a serious nit fkn pickin subject, this will not pass! Witness all previous posts.


Okay, if you can't distinguish between Herod and Romans, you are the one in dire need of a history lesson. Herod was a Jewish king, and accordingly all his major temples were built in strict accordance with Jewish law - example, the Second Temple was build with 1,000 Rabbis as masons and carpenters. Yes, he was a "client king" of the Roman Empire, the Romans allowed their conquered provinces some degree of autonomy. Herod was not the Roman governor of Judea, he was the "ethnarch." An ethnarch has rule ONLY over a specific political group/ehtnicity in a conquered territory by the Romans. Upon his death Herod's temple project was taken over by the Romans proper.

One thing is certain, Herod was not in any way, shape, or fashion building a temple to a pagan god like Baal. What his ultimate plans were we'll never know, since he never progressed beyond laying a foundation. It likely would have been an imitation of the Great/Second Temple in Judea, a Jewish temple for the outer provinces along the Syrian border in the ancient city of Heliopolis. It even had the same proportional t-shape layout.


The Romans controlled the land, Herod would have most likely been building something to flatter the Romans with to stay in favor, like a temple to Jupiter which he may have even been instructed to start on.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Romans controlled the land, Herod would have most likely been building something to flatter the Romans with to stay in favor, like a temple to Jupiter which he may have even been instructed to start on.


Right.

So the Second Temple in Jerusalem - on the Temple Mount, the remains including the Western Wall (the Wailing Wall)- was erected to flatter the Roman pagans too?

Herod did not build Pagan temples.

Harte



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

many statements and generalizations made without links by you in this thread..
Could you provide some please? referencing other discussions as a rebuttal without a link to said discussion is just annoying.

I would love to read of a truly pragmatic method of transporting a 750 ton block during the Roman era .. (thats the 25% off of the 1000 of course )..

Any megalithic sites that don't make sense to you?

b



edit on 3-4-2015 by Bspiracy because: because..



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

Baalbek is amazing, it is one of the sites where it cannot be explained, the visible top structure is much newer, the underlying foundations are thousands of years older with the humongous stones, I wish people would use common sense, when you have stone that weigh thousands of tons, it is one thing to put a demonstration of moving it a few feet, but many stones even in the pyramids of Egypt were quarried 50 miles or more away, there is no convincing explanation for this, I believe there were humans or beings of much greater and larger stature, giants hmmm, not sure if I want to call them that, but there were some physical labor much more superior to any we have today.



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bspiracy

I would love to read of a truly pragmatic method of transporting a 750 ton block during the Roman era .. (thats the 25% off of the 1000 of course )..




This has been posted by Harte many times, someday someone may even read it:

Transporting the Trilithon



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: phinubian
a reply to: JamesTB

Baalbek is amazing, it is one of the sites where it cannot be explained, the visible top structure is much newer, the underlying foundations are thousands of years older with the humongous stones, I wish people would use common sense,

Portions were rebuilt by locals, that's what you see and that's what you fail to even consider in your ridiculous desire to maintain the "mystery."

I wish you would use some common sense, as well as perhaps take a few minutes to try and look into the history of the site before leaping to the sparkly conclusion you reached here without any apparent effort.

Harte



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: skalla

read it...not sure the calculations on paper would actually work.

quarry in relation to temple

I just don't see rounding the stone by framework and moving it the great distance to where the ruins are. Ive read the method before and see how it's a very useful.. it was offered as an answer to Gizza etc...

New stones were found in recent years .. one IS 1200 tons but still in the quarry So odd... did they think they were too big to transport? why not finish them.. such a rhetorical wonder..

b



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Bspiracy

I expect that any sane person would transport the stones from Aswan to Baalbek by river and sea, rendering most of the weight of the stones pretty much irrelevant for a lot of the journey. Then the other methods come into play for getting from port to final location etc etc.

If you are not sure about the calculations working, you could post your own working out here and demonstrate that you are right - it would actually really advance the debate and would be pretty hard to argue against



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bspiracy
a reply to: skalla

New stones were found in recent years .. one IS 1200 tons but still in the quarry So odd... did they think they were too big to transport? why not finish them.. such a rhetorical wonder..



According to the part of the video I did watch,they were not used possibly because they were lower quality stone from the bottom of the quarry.The ones they did use were from nearer ground level and were of higher quality.



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: skalla

I guess I missed the river next to the quarry .. I'll see where that is in a bit

I agree that myself replicating a test would be awesome and would advance the debate but that's an impossibility of course. What's surprising is that no one else has from an institutional level.

The system in the paper required either 800 oxen by straight pulling on a level plane or a buncha men with gears setup in a complex fashion.. The roman constructions I can see using the system in the paper but I just can't see the method working over treacherous terrain like the uphill path to the temple with the larger blocks.. Which that is where the blocks came from right?

The romans weren't the first to build there and I'm not convinced the romans were the ones that built the base with the 3 large blocks..

Still looking around for more info to digest though...the romans are the best bet for this site i agree ...but not others.


B



posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bspiracy

The river by Aswan is The Nile.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join