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: 9
21
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
while reading thru this thread something said about the stones at baalbek struck a note with me.
if the romans had drawn the blueprints for their temple of jupiter on top of one the the trilathons this actually speaks against those particular romans having placed the stones there.
if you are planning to construct something you do not usually place your foundation and then draw up plans for your building. i would also doubt that they would draw plans there before moving the stone. this is certainly not the usual way anyone would do this.
this is not to say that other romans might not have done it at some earlier point in time.
personally i do not believe the romans placed those stones but i do not have any proof for this.




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Benevolent Adversary
while reading thru this thread something said about the stones at baalbek struck a note with me.
if the romans had drawn the blueprints for their temple of jupiter on top of one the the trilathons this actually speaks against those particular romans having placed the stones there..

Its actually standard practice in Ancient world construction, the plans show where the stone is to be placed,




if you are planning to construct something you do not usually place your foundation and then draw up plans for your building. i would also doubt that they would draw plans there before moving the stone. this is certainly not the usual way anyone would do this.
this is not to say that other romans might not have done it at some earlier point in time.
personally i do not believe the romans placed those stones but i do not have any proof for this.


So someone else placed a Roman drum (part of a Roman column) underneath the trilithium stones.



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.

gilgamesh42.wordpress.com...

So I get what you're saying, someone came along after the trilithium stones were in place, lifted them and then placed an unused part of a Roman column underneath. Or alternatively, the Romans travelled back in time and placed their block under the trilithium just to mess with you guys in the future
Or the Romans built it

I wonder if you know that every qualified person who's ever worked at the site claims its Roman, whereas the only people claiming it isn't are pseudo historians who are motivated financially to spin you a story that ignores the established facts. It was actually Zechariah Sitchin who originally made this claim when he was writing that Baalbek was a space port used by the Annunaki. Sitchin was a qualified economist and a journalist, he had no engineering and no history qualifications at all, but he was pretty well qualified to examine a market and understand what would sell in it.

You're aware I'm sure that the Romans moved multiple hundred ton obelisks from Egypt to Rome, Italy,
Egyptian Obelisks in Rome
yet you can't conceive of them doing the same thing for three blocks less than 1/5 of a mile downhill

edit on 14-9-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

read what i wrote again before ignoring what i actually said.
for your first point if you plans are on top of the stone you are moving just how are you going to see where to place it.
for your second point i didnt say the romans might not have put the stones there but that i did not believe those particular romans did because of the fact that the plans were on top of the stone (which was my main point).
seriously try to read clearly what you are disputing.
do you really think they would draw their plans on the material they were to move? i just cannot see that anyone would make such a thing common practice.
do not attribute my saying things that i clearly did not say!
read, think then reply!
damn i hate prejudice.

edit to add: i suppose you might draw your plans on something that wasnt as large as those stones but even then it really doesnt sound logical
edit on 14-9-2015 by The Benevolent Adversary because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Benevolent Adversary
a reply to: Marduk

read what i wrote again before ignoring what i actually said.
for your first point if you plans are on top of the stone you are moving just how are you going to see where to place it.

By having the foreman stand on top, or are you claiming that the plans which were drawn before the stone was quarried were on the sides, which hadn't been quarried. lol
I think you are reading "plans" as "blueprints", the plans here refer to where the stones should be placed, not the design of the entire site


for your second point i didnt say the romans might not have put the stones there but that i did not believe those particular romans did because of the fact that the plans were on top of the stone (which was my main point)..

You have a point, ok, perhaps you could list the sources you have drawn from to arrive at your credulity ?
is it just this thread,


do you really think they would draw their plans on the material they were to move? i just cannot see that anyone would make such a thing common practice.
do not attribute my saying things that i clearly did not say!

Pretty much anyone can read what you said, here you are because you've forgotten



this actually speaks against those particular romans having placed the stones there.

It was common practice, how many quarries have you worked at ?


i do not believe the romans placed those stones

Your belief is irrelevant

You are having difficulty believing that the Romans built the temple of Jupiter, despite the fact that the evidence shows they built it, the experts say they built it and you having no evidence that they didn't


edit to add: i suppose you might draw your plans on something that wasnt as large as those stones but even then it really doesnt sound logical

You don't know much at all about ancient world quarrying do you





damn i hate prejudice.

prejudice. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge,
and yet, you are prejudiced because you are speaking here about "your belief" rather than the facts you didn't bother to research. That's practically anti science bigotry

edit on 14-9-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
[SNIPPED]
you have knowledge that i freely admit and respect.
but why do you always have to bully people who might think differently and make assumptions about them.
i guess i shouldnt think that people would actually try to be civil on the internet.

you are correct that by plans i did assume blueprints. and if they had been blueprints what i said would be a logical conclusion.

but i never said the romans didnt build it, just that, that was my belief. was it my use of the word belief, instead of opinion, that tickled your prejudice bone in way that made you think of sitchin.
as if no one can have their own opinions about something and only the accredited and educated and socially accepted can think for themselves?

in my original post i went out of my way to twice leave the posssibilty of the romans having moved those stones both of which you obviously couldnt understand even though you went out of your way to directly qoute one of them seperately. which part of " those particular romans" wasnt clear to you.
for what its worth i believe, (this is an opinion, of which we all must have at least one in order to make any reasonable statement) that if the romans actually did move these stones then it was done at 2 different points in time as this would be a reasonable explanation of why they stopped using the big stones.
and quite frankly it is attitudes like yours to anyone who doesnt agree with you that make me not want to post on this forum it was why in my original post i never claimed the romans did not do it, unfortunately i have been visiting this forum long enough to know how you wannabe gatekeepers will react to anything different then your own opinions, and yes they are just your opinions and not fact no matter how you try to kid yourself into believeing that your theory (or whoevers you agree with) is actually truth when it just another theory no matter how much academically accepted weight is put upon it.
why is it that people who use terms like "un-scientific" or "psuedo this that or the other" always confuse theory with fact?
as if everyone who disagrees "obviously" believes in sitchin or ancient aliens or whatever fringe you think is out there?

oh and yeah i do actually have a lot of respect for graham hancock because he does try to think of possibilities and admits when he got things wrong. not that i believe all he writes but at least he tries to think of new things.

i like possibilities they are how we move forward as a species you might try thinking of some yourself it might make you sound less like a fundamentalist [SNIPPED]. (but of course as in all things that is just my opinion).

edit on 9.14.2015 by Kandinsky because: Snipped name-calling and oblique insult



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
damn you it is just my opinion backed up by my own thought and dont tell me what the ideals are on this site as i have been coming here for 12 years.
you attacked me first! look back at my original post all i wanted to do was give what to me might have been a novel idea but you had to go and start throwing sitchin at me and making me sound like some fool who didnt believe the romans were capable of great feats (though nothing you have used even comes close to proving that the romans could in fact move stones that large.
and now you start throwing fallacies at me when when all i wanted to say was a simple thing. of course i should have known not to give any opinions of my own because there are people like you on this forum who hate free thought and do not want to imagine new things.
[SNIPPED] making me pay in dignity for actually bothering to state my opinion which i do not normally do on this forum because of people like you.
edit on 9.14.2015 by Kandinsky because: removed ill-mannered comment



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Benevolent Adversary
damn you it is just my opinion backed up by my own thought .


Your opinion on this subject you have never bothered to study is about as valid as a chocolate fireguard.


Again, here are some good links
gilgamesh42.wordpress.com...
michaelsheiser.com...
www.persee.fr... (French)

You can blather on all you want but until you are aware of the facts your opinion is unqualified.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   

*** ATTENTION ***



We're getting off-topic here. The topic is:

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


Let's make sure we're Discussing the Ball, Not the Player. In other words, discuss the topic and not other members.

Any more personal jabs, insults, etc. after this post will result in post removals and possible posting suspensions.

Thank you and carry on.





(Do not reply to this post.)


edit on 14-9-2015 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Shane


Yea well most of this dust up really does have to do with people listing to others rather than the establishment. And yea don't have any faith that evidence will be incorporated into the whole if it supports views outside the established schools of wash.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
So I get what you're saying, someone came along after the trilithium stones were in place, lifted them and then placed an unused part of a Roman column underneath. Or alternatively, the Romans travelled back in time and placed their block under the trilithium just to mess with you guys in the future
Or the Romans built it

If the stones are trilithium, I'd say someone from the Federation of Planets built the place.

Harte



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Marduk
So I get what you're saying, someone came along after the trilithium stones were in place, lifted them and then placed an unused part of a Roman column underneath. Or alternatively, the Romans travelled back in time and placed their block under the trilithium just to mess with you guys in the future
Or the Romans built it

If the stones are trilithium, I'd say someone from the Federation of Planets built the place.

Harte


I knew there was a reason I kept spelling that wrong

Thanks




top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join