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.

 

Lebanon blocks can't have been transported by ropes, my math proves it!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Just a few ideas to toss out:

Depending on the material used to make the ropes, the ropes could be made stronger by soaking them in water or coating them in mud. Silk will actually become stronger if soaked in water (tensile strength wise).

Has anyone come across any info that says for sure that the stones were even moved? What if they had knowledge of a basic concrete and they just built the stones where they lay? this is far fetched i believe.

Remember, they could have also used primative pulley systems to reduce the tension on some of the ropes. This doesnt explain how the rope directly connected to the stone managed to hold though.

I've seen lots of theories about using different technologies such as ropes, levers, pulleys, and elbow grease. I'm sure they were moved using a combination of these methods.

Some types of sand, quicksand, could have been used as a lubricant also to slide the stones down a "stone highway" made from dried mud or down sleds of woven rope like a carpet.

I do not have any definate speculations, but these are just some brainstorming ideas. Interesting topic, i'll be sure to keep an eye on it.




posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Are you really trying to suggest that at Baalbeck a group of people with limited tools quarried and dragged 3 1000 tonne blocks of stone 1 mile, lifted the blocks into the air and built a wall with the aid of mud, trees and rope.
Sorry to disappoint but the logistics of such an endevour make this scenario impossible. There is not a machine today that could lift and transport these blocks of stone. Why use such huge blocks anyway, much easier to build with smaller blocks as later generations did. Also why are the myths of the builders so readily dismissed, there are no written records of who built it so the possiblity of "giants" can't be ruled out.


G



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   


the possiblity of "giants" can't be ruled out.


Amazing giants who decomposed utterly and left no record of their prescence....



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe



the possiblity of "giants" can't be ruled out.


Amazing giants who decomposed utterly and left no record of their prescence....



Recycling...



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Recycling? What do you mean? or are you joking?



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Recycling? What do you mean? or are you joking?


A bit of a joke but also I have heard of African Tribes who will destory everything of their dead, including grinding the bones up. You also have to remember that Homo floresiensis was only found a few years ago - new species are being found all the time.

Imagine if I said 10 years ago, that Homo floresiensis once existed...



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Giants may not have meant their large size, it may have been that they were an advanced people for their age. But then again the Bible, that have bases in the same culture(just look at the story of Noah and Gilgamesh) also mention a giant people in ancient times, which Goliat was a decendent.

[edit on 2-9-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join