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 images shows something unimaginable HUGE is buried beneath ancient Baalbek

page: 5
126
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

I think they found that in Iraq.




posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Funny no one mentions this ,,


You See this ??





Thats part of the Gornaya Shoria megaliths in Siberia

from the location of the Site Its a Big Debate .

Some Scientist claim its a Natural Rock formation , Some claim they are not!
as what they could be is what they are is, Crude prehistoric Man made Structures to monoliths
in the Area

Depends of the perspective could be both,

another Ancient Mysterious Unexplained AGE.

yet It Looks So much Like this

Baalbek




edit on 42017ThursdayfAmerica/Chicago6158 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

edit on 42017ThursdayfAmerica/Chicago6158 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 06:39 AM
link   
At what point did rollers become the answer for all heavy blocks? It's like an assumed given despite lack of explaination. Let's actually think about this:

1) How do you lift the block onto and off the rollers?
2) How do you get the radial strength for several 100 tonne blocks? You're limited to maximal diameter local wood.
3) How do you control the load? Rope? Problem we get here is that the rope they used was too weak in general. That being said there seems to be no other answer available.
4) How was the load made stable during travel?
5) What did they bear their rollers on?

There's literally no satisfactory answers for these questions so even though I understand your good intentions, it is dangerous to just make this leap of faith that rollers were definitely used.

Regarding rope; the best rope back then (date pam tree) at 2 inch diamter (largest found from ancient times) would break at a tenslie load of about 300kg (0.3 tonnes). A 100 tonne block would require up to 900 (!!) individual ropes on a single block. How was that facilitated? Did they have a pulley based system all along their travel route? Did we have knowledge of pulleys X amount of years ago for example? Does that change our view of history?

It's often thought that the solutions such as rollers, fulcrums and loads of big men answer away most of the mystery of ancient masonry. This couldn't be further from the case when you analyse the details logically. They simply introduce way more questions to answer. It doesn't matter if you have 100 or 1000 men if your ropes can't take the force for example.

We need to really ask thorough questions at every step of the way. If at any point we are jumping steps by nonchalantly assuming effective rollers were used without asking 'how?', we are not being detailed enough in our investigation.

edit on 9-6-2017 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wolfenz
Funny no one mentions this ,,


You See this ??





Thats part of the Gornaya Shoria megaliths in Siberia



yet It Looks So much Like this

Baalbek





Because the first photo is not from Gornaya Shoria. It's from Baalbek.
There are a great many photos of megalithic construction on the internet that are claimed to be at Gornaya Shoria, but aren't. Many are from Baalbek. A few are from Israel.

Harte



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: DazDaKing
At what point did rollers become the answer for all heavy blocks? It's like an assumed given despite lack of explaination.

Professionals do not postulate the use of rollers at all. That idea comes from people on the internet that either don't know anything about work conducted at Baalbek or are trying to make money from the (understandable) ignorance of the average person concerning the site.


originally posted by: DazDaKingLet's actually think about this:

1) How do you lift the block onto and off the rollers?

You don't. Rollers would have been crushed. The limestone megaliths were quarried at an angle above the ground. this has led some Archaeologists to hypothesize the possible use of sledges. Others say there's no need for sledges - the stones could have been dragged.
I lean toward the use of sledges myself, because the angle of the stones in the quarry would facilitate getting them on a sledge.


originally posted by: DazDaKing
3) How do you control the load? Rope? Problem we get here is that the rope they used was too weak in general. That being said there seems to be no other answer available.

"The rope they used..."? What rope do you believe was used? You realize the Romans had rope more than strong enough to accomplish the task? I mean, it's not like they would put one rope on such a large stone.


originally posted by: DazDaKing4) How was the load made stable during travel?

How could the load, resting on the ground, become "unstable"?


originally posted by: DazDaKing5) What did they bear their rollers on?

Temporary roads would have been used whether the stones were dragged as they are or put on sledges and dragged.


originally posted by: DazDaKingThere's literally no satisfactory answers for these questions so even though I understand your good intentions, it is dangerous to just make this leap of faith that rollers were definitely used.

Only internet hypothesizers claim rollers.


originally posted by: DazDaKingRegarding rope; the best rope back then (date pam tree) at 2 inch diamter (largest found from ancient times) would break at a tenslie load of about 300kg (0.3 tonnes). A 100 tonne block would require up to 900 (!!) individual ropes on a single block. How was that facilitated? Did they have a pulley based system all along their travel route? Did we have knowledge of pulleys X amount of years ago for example? Does that change our view of history?

Larger Roman rope was considerably bigger than 2 inch and wasn't made of date palm fiber - that's the Ancient Egyptian rope.
Besides that, any ropes attached to the megalith only need to overcome friction, not lift the megalith off the ground. That's quite a bit less tension.

The Jupiter Temple is Roman. There are some quite large pieces that were lifted straight up by the Romans. Huge cornices, columns (which were pieced together) that are larger than required, etc. Some of those stones weigh considerably more than 0.3 tonnes. Why aren't you asking about them?

Harte
edit on 6/9/2017 by Harte because: of the wonderful things he does!



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Hey Harte - long time.

Did not realise this was from Roman era? I only just saw this at work and skimmed through. You're right that Roman rope was significantly more advanced than what I quoted.

As for load stability; I was referring to how the block itself was made rigid to the rollers, including the rollers themselves, such that any change of load direction and magnitude via inclines/decline/the fact it's not a flat plane would not cause slippage or failure.

Thanks for spotting my mistake regarding tensile forces. You're right, I was regarding overcoming gravity (I'm tired today, excuse me lol). I'd assume a friction coefficient of about 0.5 considering typical values for steel-steel, granite-granite and so forth. So in reality it's only half the force I quoted (still massive but of course doable).

I agree with everything else, especially the sledge assumption. That is what I have arrived at too. I also expect them to have purposely given their roads the best friction coefficient possible, through some form of wet sand or whatever.

Part of my post was really about the pyramids if I'm honest, because that's where I've most often seen rollers brought up.

Hope you've been well anyway. I dropped my fascination with Sumerian mythology, if you still remember that phase lol. Though to be honest, I'm more convinced than ever that we have lost a significant chunk of our human history. I think we are only just beginning to scratch the surface with sites like Gobekli Tepe.
edit on 9-6-2017 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DazDaKing
a reply to: Harte

Hey Harte - long time.

Did not realise this was from Roman era? I only just saw this at work and skimmed through. You're right that Roman rope was significantly more advanced than what I quoted.

As for load stability; I was referring to how the block itself was made rigid to the rollers, including the rollers themselves, such that any change of load direction and magnitude via inclines/decline/the fact it's not a flat plane would not cause slippage or failure.

Thanks for spotting my mistake regarding tensile forces. You're right, I was regarding overcoming gravity (I'm tired today, excuse me lol). I'd assume a friction coefficient of about 0.5 considering typical values for steel-steel, granite-granite and so forth. So in reality it's only half the force I quoted (still massive but of course doable).

I agree with everything else, especially the sledge assumption. That is what I have arrived at too. I also expect them to have purposely given their roads the best friction coefficient possible, through some form of wet sand or whatever.

Part of my post was really about the pyramids if I'm honest, because that's where I've most often seen rollers brought up.

Hope you've been well anyway. I dropped my fascination with Sumerian mythology, if you still remember that phase lol. Though to be honest, I'm more convinced than ever that we have lost a significant chunk of our human history. I think we are only just beginning to scratch the surface with sites like Gobekli Tepe.

No doubt that the amount of history that remains unknown is the vast majority, given the 2 to 3 hundred thousand years of our existence. But the only part I would call "lost" is the parts we don't know from the historic era.
That is, before writing there WAS no proper history. Can't lose what you never had.

Harte



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Wolfenz
Funny no one mentions this ,,


You See this ??





Thats part of the Gornaya Shoria megaliths in Siberia



yet It Looks So much Like this

Baalbek





Because the first photo is not from Gornaya Shoria. It's from Baalbek.
There are a great many photos of megalithic construction on the internet that are claimed to be at Gornaya Shoria, but aren't. Many are from Baalbek. A few are from Israel.

Harte


ohh yea! ?

because Evey site ive been on claim its from Siberia

tell you what Harte take that photo ive Posted and drop it in google image , and see what you find
the majority of the sites are saying from Siberia especially the Russian Websites ..


THE EDGE OF REALITY .com.ar
alfilodelarealidad.wordpress.com...


see this
finanzcrash.com...,146087,146087


Well here a Cool Site to look at about Monoliths
around the World ! Very interesting
megaliths.org...
megaliths.org...


of Course the the 2nd Photo is in Lebanon,


so Im up in the Air with this
the Stones look color texture like from the Area of Gornaya Shoria Siberia
not Lebanon.

you could be right , it doesn't look like it would fall into place of a Lebanon environment.
no if a man in a long like dress with a weird hat on , I Would not Question its from Lebanon
edit on 52017FridayfAmerica/Chicago6159 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

edit on 52017FridayfAmerica/Chicago6159 by Wolfenz because: meant doest not does



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Well yes, of course. I look at it from the perspective of how the knowledge has simply changed through the course of my own life.

When I was a kid we were taught in school about the Egyptians being the dawn of civilisation and human societies before them were essentially cavemen level of intelligence and sophistication. It all began there.

Then we discovered significant evidence of the Sumerians, and that entire model I was taught in school goes out the window by a good 2000 years perhaps. Furthermore, you learn this society is the root of many concepts of Christianity and so forth which is absolutely fascinating in its own right.

Now we know that humans were in fact making megalithic sites of worship or significant esoteric/abstract importance (with imagery which is essentially language) around 10,000 BC. I mean what I was taught as a child is completely blown away by a good 7000 years lol. That's the difference of us and the Sumerians almost. It's mind blowing.

What has the Earth swallowed up over all these millenia? Even recently we've pushed anatomically modern humans an extra 100,000 years back! It even seems to cast doubt on the OOA theory.

What about the abrupt end of the ice age and how that moulded us as people? What to make of the recent study claiming Gobekli Tepi symbolism refers to a comet like event around the time of the ice age event?

We even now know that Neanderthals believed in the afterlife up to 50,000 years ago, which in and of itself is a much greater intelligence than I was taught to believe pre-3000 BC man could have, let alone that far back!

You begin to wonder how much of this lost history actually lies in stories we now dismiss as myths. They may be our best bet besides archaeology to piece this together.

Anyway, I ramble and it's off topic but screw it. It's only the internet. I'm just happy we keep finding all this new stuff

edit on 9-6-2017 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2017 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DazDaKing

You might think that, all this same style of stonework , seems to stay roughly in the tropics, and might coincide with what we think of as the Neolithic. But I was looking at Viking structures on Greenland, and one Church in particular, had a massive stone in the corner, which might have meant they quarried them from structures they found there already. Its widely held that the Greenland colony failed because of climate change.



Nd about 19.11 into this vid are some massive stones on a Viking settlement. www.youtube.com...
edit on 9-6-2017 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger


Yeh that how they did the small ones, the big ones would just crush the sledge.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Blackfinger


Yeh that how they did the small ones, the big ones would just crush the sledge.



My thought too. How could the ancients, with their primitive tools compared to today, have constructed a sledge that would hold 3,000 tons, when to transport a 340 ton boulder back in 2012 they had to use a custom-built 176-wheel transporter for the job.

-MM

edit on 10-6-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Blackfinger


Yeh that how they did the small ones, the big ones would just crush the sledge.



My thought too. How could the ancients, with their primitive tools compared to today, have constructed a sledge that would hold 3,000 tons, when to transport a 340 ton boulder back in 2012 they had to use a custom-built 176-wheel transporter for the job.

-MM

No ancient structures contain a stone anywhere near 3,000 tons so the question is beside the point.
800 tons isn't too much for a sledge if the runners are a foot or two square in cross-section, depending of course on the type of wood used (balsa won't work nor will palm trees, for example.)

If it had been acceptable to drag your boulder down the highway, no custom-built transporter would have been required.

Harte



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: xstealth
All it would take is giant men to move a rock like that.

And I'm not kidding either.

There were giants in the earth in those days - Gen 6:4


No there wasn't. Giants did not exist you could have someone taller.


You can't say as a fact there wasn't.

I have the oldest historical document in the world claiming they existed.


Jack and the bean stalk?? Lots of things are claimed to have existed that doesn't make it real.Problem is with giants it's relative for example being the tallest pigmy and your a giant. Hyperplasia of the petuatary can cause gigantism. The tallest human was 8 ft 11 in. To someone this would seem like a giant. Take the average male today back 200 years he would be a giant.

So giants don't exist bit you can have some very tall humans.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

In this case the quarry was built above the site meaning gravity does the transporting.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Blackfinger


Yeh that how they did the small ones, the big ones would just crush the sledge.



My thought too. How could the ancients, with their primitive tools compared to today, have constructed a sledge that would hold 3,000 tons, when to transport a 340 ton boulder back in 2012 they had to use a custom-built 176-wheel transporter for the job.

-MM

No ancient structures contain a stone anywhere near 3,000 tons so the question is beside the point.
800 tons isn't too much for a sledge if the runners are a foot or two square in cross-section, depending of course on the type of wood used (balsa won't work nor will palm trees, for example.)

If it had been acceptable to drag your boulder down the highway, no custom-built transporter would have been required.

Harte


So, according to your logic, the engineers that moved the 340 ton boulder in 2012 obviously should have used a sled? And that a sled would have been cheaper and better than the 176-wheel transporter they had made for the hauling? If so, then you should give them a call, as they'll obviously hire you as a consultant for their next megalithic hauling job
...

-MM

edit on 11-6-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2017 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Heavy greased Wooden skids or rollers and Large Cattle (Aurochs or water buffalo) or Elephants to move them. Why does everything need to be moved by manpower according to archaeologist. It makes more sense to use the heavy haulage of the times and that was large animals Like Aurochs and Elephants.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Heavy greased Wooden skids or rollers and Large Cattle (Aurochs or water buffalo) or Elephants to move them. Why does everything need to be moved by manpower according to archaeologist. It makes more sense to use the heavy haulage of the times and that was large animals Like Aurochs and Elephants.


The Romans moved Nero's statue in Rome using elephants (and like all good Romans then documented it). As they nicked all their best ideas it is a fair bet to say they didn't come up with this on their own.

Never discount manpower and knowledge of materials though.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Blackfinger


Yeh that how they did the small ones, the big ones would just crush the sledge.



My thought too. How could the ancients, with their primitive tools compared to today, have constructed a sledge that would hold 3,000 tons, when to transport a 340 ton boulder back in 2012 they had to use a custom-built 176-wheel transporter for the job.

-MM

No ancient structures contain a stone anywhere near 3,000 tons so the question is beside the point.
800 tons isn't too much for a sledge if the runners are a foot or two square in cross-section, depending of course on the type of wood used (balsa won't work nor will palm trees, for example.)

If it had been acceptable to drag your boulder down the highway, no custom-built transporter would have been required.

Harte


So, according to your logic, the engineers that moved the 340 ton boulder in 2012 obviously should have used a sled? And that a sled would have been cheaper and better than the 176-wheel transporter they had made for the hauling? If so, then you should give them a call, as they'll obviously hire you as a consultant for their next megalithic hauling job
...

-MM

Your straw man argument here is utterly transparent.
Do you believe a transport company can destroy an asphalt highway without repercussions?

In the future, perhaps you might respond to what I actually wrote, instead of whatever you would have preferred that I wrote.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join