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.

 

What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc. Video doesn't prove much. Doesn't address other issues I raised either. Not to mention see how high up those 1000 ton stones are on the great platform. Lifting, moving, placing. Much different than moving a lot less weight. But thanks for the video and nice try.

The largest trilithon stone is 800 tons.

Your persona lincredulity is meaningless. Your credibility isn't helped by overstating the weight by 25% either.

Harte


By all means taking all into account despite any comments or whatever not a single person here can offer any common sense explanation that accounts for the prescision cuts needed, the movement, the lift, and the placement following ancient man with ancient tools.


What "precision" cuts? Do you know what stone these three monoliths are cut from?

Movement? The same technology was used in Jerusalem (at around the same time) by Herod, using 600 ton stones.

"Lift?" What "lift?" The stones are from a quarry uphill from the site. They were moved downhill and into place, albeit not as easily as that makes it sound.

originally posted by: ReallyfolksConsidering the issues we would face with what we have. Now if you people want to continue to avoid that fine, because until you do, nothing else you say helps. Feel free to add any comment, whatever else. None of it will help.

The only avoidance is yours. You avoid finding out for yourself what we know about Baalbek. You rely instead on what scam artists tell you.

It makes one wonder, do you do this to avoid admitting you've been had?

Harte


If the stones are placed so tightly together together that the curator says it would be next to impossible to stick a needle between them it requires a precision cut to accomplish that
These stones came from a quarry about a quarter of a mile away. What method are you referring to to move this?
The lift I am referring to is the one required to get them up onto the great platform section of this city as it's not a straight level shot from the quarry to where the platform stands.

I'm not avoiding anything. Explain away

Already explained here at ATS

From the same thread as above

Unless you're going to say that the Romans couldn't move these three megaliths. Are you?

Harte


You're assuming the Romans built it, unless you can show otherwise there doesn't seem to be any Roman in any Roman credited history books with building it. Or claiming to have had it built. Pretty odd considering it was quite an accomplishment.
edit on 5-9-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
If the stones are placed so tightly together together that the curator says it would be next to impossible to stick a needle between them it requires a precision cut to accomplish that

I'm not avoiding anything. Explain away


The curator, said it was perfectly possible to put a needle in between the stones, the term he used was "Almost impossible", which means, possible, so I think its clear that your bias is showing.


The stones also weren't cut, stone fractures horizontally along its lateral plane, so a few pegs soaked in water is all you'd need, I'm starting to think that you know very little about geology or even Baalbek with claims like you are making.


You honestly are going to tell me a stone fracture is that straight and perfect as to end in that tight of a fit? Accomplished with pegs and water? You are amusing.

I tend to doubt you know much either. You have locked into something you believe though. Despite all the troubles we would face with all our technology. And again all you typed not an explanation walking through the issues laid out. You give pegs and water ...I am blown away with the knowledge
edit on 5-9-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc. Video doesn't prove much. Doesn't address other issues I raised either. Not to mention see how high up those 1000 ton stones are on the great platform. Lifting, moving, placing. Much different than moving a lot less weight. But thanks for the video and nice try.

The largest trilithon stone is 800 tons.

Your persona lincredulity is meaningless. Your credibility isn't helped by overstating the weight by 25% either.

Harte


By all means taking all into account despite any comments or whatever not a single person here can offer any common sense explanation that accounts for the prescision cuts needed, the movement, the lift, and the placement following ancient man with ancient tools.


What "precision" cuts? Do you know what stone these three monoliths are cut from?

Movement? The same technology was used in Jerusalem (at around the same time) by Herod, using 600 ton stones.

"Lift?" What "lift?" The stones are from a quarry uphill from the site. They were moved downhill and into place, albeit not as easily as that makes it sound.

originally posted by: ReallyfolksConsidering the issues we would face with what we have. Now if you people want to continue to avoid that fine, because until you do, nothing else you say helps. Feel free to add any comment, whatever else. None of it will help.

The only avoidance is yours. You avoid finding out for yourself what we know about Baalbek. You rely instead on what scam artists tell you.

It makes one wonder, do you do this to avoid admitting you've been had?

Harte


If the stones are placed so tightly together together that the curator says it would be next to impossible to stick a needle between them it requires a precision cut to accomplish that
These stones came from a quarry about a quarter of a mile away. What method are you referring to to move this?
The lift I am referring to is the one required to get them up onto the great platform section of this city as it's not a straight level shot from the quarry to where the platform stands.

I'm not avoiding anything. Explain away

Already explained here at ATS

From the same thread as above

Unless you're going to say that the Romans couldn't move these three megaliths. Are you?

Harte


You're assuming the Romans built it, unless you can show otherwise there doesn't seem to be any Roman in any Roman credited history books with building it. Or claiming to have had it built. Pretty odd considering it was quite an accomplishment.

Didn't read the links, eh?

Again, is it because you can't admit to being fooled?

Happened to me once.

Harte



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc. Video doesn't prove much. Doesn't address other issues I raised either. Not to mention see how high up those 1000 ton stones are on the great platform. Lifting, moving, placing. Much different than moving a lot less weight. But thanks for the video and nice try.

The largest trilithon stone is 800 tons.

Your persona lincredulity is meaningless. Your credibility isn't helped by overstating the weight by 25% either.

Harte


By all means taking all into account despite any comments or whatever not a single person here can offer any common sense explanation that accounts for the prescision cuts needed, the movement, the lift, and the placement following ancient man with ancient tools.


What "precision" cuts? Do you know what stone these three monoliths are cut from?

Movement? The same technology was used in Jerusalem (at around the same time) by Herod, using 600 ton stones.

"Lift?" What "lift?" The stones are from a quarry uphill from the site. They were moved downhill and into place, albeit not as easily as that makes it sound.

originally posted by: ReallyfolksConsidering the issues we would face with what we have. Now if you people want to continue to avoid that fine, because until you do, nothing else you say helps. Feel free to add any comment, whatever else. None of it will help.

The only avoidance is yours. You avoid finding out for yourself what we know about Baalbek. You rely instead on what scam artists tell you.

It makes one wonder, do you do this to avoid admitting you've been had?

Harte


If the stones are placed so tightly together together that the curator says it would be next to impossible to stick a needle between them it requires a precision cut to accomplish that
These stones came from a quarry about a quarter of a mile away. What method are you referring to to move this?
The lift I am referring to is the one required to get them up onto the great platform section of this city as it's not a straight level shot from the quarry to where the platform stands.

I'm not avoiding anything. Explain away

Already explained here at ATS

From the same thread as above

Unless you're going to say that the Romans couldn't move these three megaliths. Are you?

Harte


You're assuming the Romans built it, unless you can show otherwise there doesn't seem to be any Roman in any Roman credited history books with building it. Or claiming to have had it built. Pretty odd considering it was quite an accomplishment.


Herod a roman vassal king started the construction of the temple of Jupiter and the Romans finished it after his death. There are even Roman blocks under the trilithium. You apparently know nothing about this site or its construction at all. Harte actually posted links to the proof, but you apparently didn't bother to read them. How's that wilful ignorance going for you ?




While not as massive as the trilithon stones, these base structures each have a considerable mass. However, below them was discovered a part of a drum to a column. The size of the drum corresponds to the columns used for the Jupiter temple, so this was likely a leftover or no longer useful piece of one of those columns. Because it is underneath the base stones, this drum must have been place there before the trilithon was put into place. Also, on top of one of the trilithon stones there is a drawing of the plans for the Temple of Jupiter, which was built over by the Romans when it was no longer needed. By having pieces of the Jupiter temple below the trilithon and these drawings on top, we can be reasonably certain that the trilithon stones were put into place contemporaneously with the construction of the Temple of Jupiter (H.Kalayan 1969).

H.Kalayan was a civil engineer who worked hand in hand with archaeologists at ancient sites across the region. Whats your source for your credulity ?

Also, again, it is not my fault that you are unaware of the peg method of splitting stone. Its overwhelmingly attested in the historic record...The Egyptians used it to quarry granite for their obelisks. In fact, its so well known, that Wikipedia has a page on it.
en.wikipedia.org...
Of course, I don't expect you to read it, ignorance is bliss eh

edit on 5-9-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar
Personally as an astronomer (in training) my eyes roll every time someone says "aligned with Orion's Belt."


I just smile and say "oh, so they were in a straight line? and that's fascinating why?"


Now I am smiling, in a puzzled sort of way. The belt stars were not in a straight line last time I checked...?

I am aware that modern astronomy involves a great deal of data sifting and very little actual stargazing, but still...

In any case, the "alignment" does not simply mean that the arrangement of the three pyramids closely resembles the arrangment of the three belt stars. There is also a time component. Roll the clock back to approx 10.5k BC, and the positions of the pyramids on the ground matches the positions of the belt stars in the sky while the nearby Nile matches the Milky Way.

That's why it's fascinating.

I don't presume to know what it all means, of course, but it does lead to some interesting possibilities. Like, Gobekli Tepe was active around that same time, and it isn't too far away....

See...don't you find this fascinating now too?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Tsurugi

Don't forget to also turn Orions belt upside down and that the constellations of the Zodiac originate from Mesopotamia and were completely unknown in Egypt until the much later Graeco-Roman era.

Oh and that it doesn't match at any time except, 10,000 bce isn't adding credibility, but taking it away. Since the Giza radiocarbon project conclusively proved that the pyramids were built approx. 2500bce, you'd have to imagine that the tribes who lived there before the Egyptians existed to notice the alignment, sat around for 8000 years before doing anything about something that must have been so important that the Egyptians themselves never mentioned it...



edit on 5-9-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Tsurugi




Roll the clock back to approx 10.5k BC, and the positions of the pyramids on the ground matches the positions of the belt stars in the sky

Do you have a source which "rolls back" the relative positions of Alnitak, Alnilam and Mintaka? Are you sure they better matched the pyramids than they do now?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tsurugi




Roll the clock back to approx 10.5k BC, and the positions of the pyramids on the ground matches the positions of the belt stars in the sky

Do you have a source which "rolls back" the relative positions of Alnitak, Alnilam and Mintaka? Are you sure they better matched the pyramids than they do now?


The source is Graham Hancock, a journalist who had a book out.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk
I know about Hancock.

He didn't say that the relative positions of the stars changed to better fit the pyramids than they do now. He went off on precession, quite a different matter.




edit on 9/5/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc. Video doesn't prove much. Doesn't address other issues I raised either. Not to mention see how high up those 1000 ton stones are on the great platform. Lifting, moving, placing. Much different than moving a lot less weight. But thanks for the video and nice try.

The largest trilithon stone is 800 tons.

Your persona lincredulity is meaningless. Your credibility isn't helped by overstating the weight by 25% either.

Harte


By all means taking all into account despite any comments or whatever not a single person here can offer any common sense explanation that accounts for the prescision cuts needed, the movement, the lift, and the placement following ancient man with ancient tools.


What "precision" cuts? Do you know what stone these three monoliths are cut from?

Movement? The same technology was used in Jerusalem (at around the same time) by Herod, using 600 ton stones.

"Lift?" What "lift?" The stones are from a quarry uphill from the site. They were moved downhill and into place, albeit not as easily as that makes it sound.

originally posted by: ReallyfolksConsidering the issues we would face with what we have. Now if you people want to continue to avoid that fine, because until you do, nothing else you say helps. Feel free to add any comment, whatever else. None of it will help.

The only avoidance is yours. You avoid finding out for yourself what we know about Baalbek. You rely instead on what scam artists tell you.

It makes one wonder, do you do this to avoid admitting you've been had?

Harte


If the stones are placed so tightly together together that the curator says it would be next to impossible to stick a needle between them it requires a precision cut to accomplish that
These stones came from a quarry about a quarter of a mile away. What method are you referring to to move this?
The lift I am referring to is the one required to get them up onto the great platform section of this city as it's not a straight level shot from the quarry to where the platform stands.

I'm not avoiding anything. Explain away

Already explained here at ATS

From the same thread as above

Unless you're going to say that the Romans couldn't move these three megaliths. Are you?

Harte


You're assuming the Romans built it, unless you can show otherwise there doesn't seem to be any Roman in any Roman credited history books with building it. Or claiming to have had it built. Pretty odd considering it was quite an accomplishment.


Herod a roman vassal king started the construction of the temple of Jupiter and the Romans finished it after his death. There are even Roman blocks under the trilithium. You apparently know nothing about this site or its construction at all. Harte actually posted links to the proof, but you apparently didn't bother to read them. How's that wilful ignorance going for you ?




While not as massive as the trilithon stones, these base structures each have a considerable mass. However, below them was discovered a part of a drum to a column. The size of the drum corresponds to the columns used for the Jupiter temple, so this was likely a leftover or no longer useful piece of one of those columns. Because it is underneath the base stones, this drum must have been place there before the trilithon was put into place. Also, on top of one of the trilithon stones there is a drawing of the plans for the Temple of Jupiter, which was built over by the Romans when it was no longer needed. By having pieces of the Jupiter temple below the trilithon and these drawings on top, we can be reasonably certain that the trilithon stones were put into place contemporaneously with the construction of the Temple of Jupiter (H.Kalayan 1969).

H.Kalayan was a civil engineer who worked hand in hand with archaeologists at ancient sites across the region. Whats your source for your credulity ?

Also, again, it is not my fault that you are unaware of the peg method of splitting stone. Its overwhelmingly attested in the historic record...The Egyptians used it to quarry granite for their obelisks. In fact, its so well known, that Wikipedia has a page on it.
en.wikipedia.org...
Of course, I don't expect you to read it, ignorance is bliss eh


You scream pegs all you want, pegs do not make a precision cut. Give herod credit but again except for us given him credit I know of know Roman history book doing the same nor him claiming credit. So if we take the Roman built it approach then we can throw out the Trispastos being used for the lift. Are you coming back with the Pentaspastos the ace in the hole the Polyspastos..you can try. Multiple capstans which dealt with weight specifically at ballbek with the use of extra holes for those weighing between 55 and 60 tons? What dealt with the lift for the 800 tons? All these devices some classified at cranes dealt with lift not movement. What dealt with the movement? If you say cut down trees save the embarrassment. Again water and peg fractures do not deal with the precision cuts required for the final placement. Fractures aren't that accurate. And not only did I question precision cuts pertaining to baalbek in my intial post but also at places like puma punku, I guess the Romans used pegs and water there too right. Whatever you do don't stop this amazing knowledge transfer.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks
You don't know how they did it with available tools so therefore...



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc. Video doesn't prove much. Doesn't address other issues I raised either. Not to mention see how high up those 1000 ton stones are on the great platform. Lifting, moving, placing. Much different than moving a lot less weight. But thanks for the video and nice try.

The largest trilithon stone is 800 tons.

Your persona lincredulity is meaningless. Your credibility isn't helped by overstating the weight by 25% either.

Harte


By all means taking all into account despite any comments or whatever not a single person here can offer any common sense explanation that accounts for the prescision cuts needed, the movement, the lift, and the placement following ancient man with ancient tools.


What "precision" cuts? Do you know what stone these three monoliths are cut from?

Movement? The same technology was used in Jerusalem (at around the same time) by Herod, using 600 ton stones.

"Lift?" What "lift?" The stones are from a quarry uphill from the site. They were moved downhill and into place, albeit not as easily as that makes it sound.

originally posted by: ReallyfolksConsidering the issues we would face with what we have. Now if you people want to continue to avoid that fine, because until you do, nothing else you say helps. Feel free to add any comment, whatever else. None of it will help.

The only avoidance is yours. You avoid finding out for yourself what we know about Baalbek. You rely instead on what scam artists tell you.

It makes one wonder, do you do this to avoid admitting you've been had?

Harte


If the stones are placed so tightly together together that the curator says it would be next to impossible to stick a needle between them it requires a precision cut to accomplish that
These stones came from a quarry about a quarter of a mile away. What method are you referring to to move this?
The lift I am referring to is the one required to get them up onto the great platform section of this city as it's not a straight level shot from the quarry to where the platform stands.

I'm not avoiding anything. Explain away

Already explained here at ATS

From the same thread as above

Unless you're going to say that the Romans couldn't move these three megaliths. Are you?

Harte


You're assuming the Romans built it, unless you can show otherwise there doesn't seem to be any Roman in any Roman credited history books with building it. Or claiming to have had it built. Pretty odd considering it was quite an accomplishment.


Herod a roman vassal king started the construction of the temple of Jupiter and the Romans finished it after his death. There are even Roman blocks under the trilithium. You apparently know nothing about this site or its construction at all. Harte actually posted links to the proof, but you apparently didn't bother to read them. How's that wilful ignorance going for you ?




While not as massive as the trilithon stones, these base structures each have a considerable mass. However, below them was discovered a part of a drum to a column. The size of the drum corresponds to the columns used for the Jupiter temple, so this was likely a leftover or no longer useful piece of one of those columns. Because it is underneath the base stones, this drum must have been place there before the trilithon was put into place. Also, on top of one of the trilithon stones there is a drawing of the plans for the Temple of Jupiter, which was built over by the Romans when it was no longer needed. By having pieces of the Jupiter temple below the trilithon and these drawings on top, we can be reasonably certain that the trilithon stones were put into place contemporaneously with the construction of the Temple of Jupiter (H.Kalayan 1969).

H.Kalayan was a civil engineer who worked hand in hand with archaeologists at ancient sites across the region. Whats your source for your credulity ?

Also, again, it is not my fault that you are unaware of the peg method of splitting stone. Its overwhelmingly attested in the historic record...The Egyptians used it to quarry granite for their obelisks. In fact, its so well known, that Wikipedia has a page on it.
en.wikipedia.org...
Of course, I don't expect you to read it, ignorance is bliss eh


You scream pegs all you want, pegs do not make a precision cut. Give herod credit but again except for us given him credit I know of know Roman history book doing the same nor him claiming credit. So if we take the Roman built it approach then we can throw out the Trispastos being used for the lift. Are you coming back with the Pentaspastos the ace in the hole the Polyspastos..you can try. Multiple capstans which dealt with weight specifically at ballbek with the use of extra holes for those weighing between 55 and 60 tons? What dealt with the lift for the 800 tons? All these devices some classified at cranes dealt with lift not movement. What dealt with the movement? If you say cut down trees save the embarrassment. Again water and peg fractures do not deal with the precision cuts required for the final placement. Fractures aren't that accurate. And not only did I question precision cuts pertaining to baalbek in my intial post but also at places like puma punku, I guess the Romans used pegs and water there too right. Whatever you do don't stop this amazing knowledge transfer.


You were told the theory and linked to credible sites that explained it, again, just because you want everyone to think that you're wilfully ignorant and laugh at you when you feign knowledge which has been proven to be unsupported opinion, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about. Like did you miss the explanation by an engineer who worked restoration at the site who stated that Roman evidence was found above and below the trilithiums. That's the Romans, who transported multiple hundred ton blocks from Egypt to Italy, but you can't figure they could do the same for 3/4 of a mile downhill
You are breaking new ground for the ignorant here. Keep it up, its been a while since someone made me look like a genius



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reallyfolks
You don't know how they did it with available tools so therefore...



Nor does anyone including archaeologist. Which was my initial point. If you don't know and say it was done in this manner without really knowing and the explanations just don't fit then you invite theories of ancient aliens and God's into the mix. I'm even open to having archaelogy saying we think they had more advanced tool than we are aware of but are looking, or they seem to have used methods we don't quite understand and are looking for blue prints and working to identify those methods.

Just don't try and fit all this into the ancient man with simple tools thought. I say simple compared to our current technology, doesn't mean sticks and stones.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tsurugi

originally posted by: JadeStar
Personally as an astronomer (in training) my eyes roll every time someone says "aligned with Orion's Belt."


I just smile and say "oh, so they were in a straight line? and that's fascinating why?"


Now I am smiling, in a puzzled sort of way. The belt stars were not in a straight line last time I checked...?

I am aware that modern astronomy involves a great deal of data sifting and very little actual stargazing, but still...

In any case, the "alignment" does not simply mean that the arrangement of the three pyramids closely resembles the arrangment of the three belt stars. There is also a time component. Roll the clock back to approx 10.5k BC, and the positions of the pyramids on the ground matches the positions of the belt stars in the sky while the nearby Nile matches the Milky Way.

That's why it's fascinating.

I don't presume to know what it all means, of course, but it does lead to some interesting possibilities. Like, Gobekli Tepe was active around that same time, and it isn't too far away....

See...don't you find this fascinating now too?


Plus, the size of the pyramids relates to the brightness of the stars, also with each one in the correct position on the belt.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
Already explained here at ATS

From the same thread as above

Unless you're going to say that the Romans couldn't move these three megaliths. Are you?


Bah. I remember that thread. I read the papers cited. The so-called "proof" of Roman construction of the Ba'albek platform comes down to a single piece of graffito found on a fallen chunk of masonry from the Jupiter temple, and a vague allusion to style "similarities" with stonework in the Mt. Moirah platform. (Edge dressing sometimes seen on blocks at both sites! Therefore Romans. Nobels for everyone!)

The question of whether the Romans could work with trilithon-sized blocks of stone is only pertinent if the answer is "no." If the answer is "yes", it merely means they could do it; it doesn't mean they did.

I find it baffling that this is such a big deal. Why this pathological determination to pin this on the Romans? What's wrong with saying, "It isn't clear who was responsible for building the Baa'albek platform. It may have been the Romans, or perhaps the Phonecians, or someone as yet unknown to science."

Whats wrong with that?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks


Just don't try and fit all this into the ancient man with simple tools thought. I say simple compared to our current technology, doesn't mean sticks and stones.


The Romans were hardly " ancient man with simple tools "

edit on 5-9-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks



Nor does anyone including archaeologist. Which was my initial point. If you don't know and say it was done in this manner without really knowing and the explanations just don't fit then you invite theories of ancient aliens and God's into the mix.

Actually, the archaeological theories are fine. They are based on knowns.
You reject them, of course, but unless you have the knowledge base to do so you're rejection is no better than blind acceptance of aliens as the explanation.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

The difference between us, I know what I don't know. But I know that known tools and methods don't make sense, considering all our technology and all the problems we would have. I also mentioned more than baalbek, we can chalk it all up to the Romans though.

You want to accept the version spouted understanding the limitations that each one of the tools and methods presented would pose certain problems. Want to try and link 200 ton pieces to 800 ton pieces and say no problem when even the Romans had different versions of cranes and even capstans depending on weight, each with limits...do it. Want to take the explanations as the final word, then pass it off as intelligence knock yourself out. Still doesn't fit, still doesn't work. Something is missing. Tools not being discussed, methods not being discussed, something. I'm sure blue prints on things like this would be a great help in understanding but oh well. Not much good with the explanation, if you feel good though have at it.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks




The difference between us, I know what I don't know. But I know that known tools and methods don't make sense

You don't know, but you know.
Got it.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: Marduk

I'm sure blue prints on things like this would be a great help in understanding but oh well. .


blue prints like the ones found written on the top of the trilithion stones by the romans, or some other imaginary blue prints




Also, on top of one of the trilithon stones there is a drawing of the plans for the Temple of Jupiter, which was built over by the Romans when it was no longer needed



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join