Hans: See, the quarry is actually uphill from the site by quite a few meters,meaning every stone was moved downhill and absolutely no lifting
was ever required for the megaliths. Also, the quarry is not separated from the site by any "rough and winding terrain."
See the site analysis. The ravine lies between the quarry and the site. Either they went around it (distance of over 2 miles) or through it, a change
in elevation of 92 meters.
Hans: So are you suggesting that these mysterious non Roman's build a shell wall - nothing else and then walked away? LOL...leaving no
No, you are making up comments that I never stated. These "mysterious non Romans", as you say, built a full-blown temple complex complete with
podium and terrace. You, and Ramtops, are the ones claiming the Romans gave up in the middle of building the trilithon wall and just "changed their
minds". I do claim that it was most likely Solomon, or his heirs, who abandoned the placing of the trilithons, which remained there in a state of
ruin until the Romans arrived and revived the building of the temple complex – based not on their own design but on the inherited design of the
original temple complex.
Blackmarketeer: You keep implying that no other culture existed in this region.
Hans: Really? Are you still making stuff up Blackmarketeer? Of course there were other cultures there, try to think logically will you and don’t
make up stuff, I get tired of telling you that over and over. I was referring to the fact that you said the Roman’s couldn’t move the rocks so who
moved them? Who build the retaining wall (a retaining wall is not a foundation) So you are now claiming the Canaanites did it huh? Well the Phonecians
were there, they provided the name. They showed up around 4000 BP - which is in historic times.
So now you're saying their were
other cultures in that area? You posted earlier that there weren't
. You're contradicting yourself.
Hans: You do realize that your 'evidence' consists of denying the Roman evidence?
Actually, my evidence consists of accepting the archeological record of another, buried, structure built by an earlier culture. The Roman evidence
only points to their having built upon that earlier site, having accepted its religious and occult heritage.
Hans: You are forgetting that limestone is a sedimentary stone, it comes in different densities, hardness and erosion resistence. You can see
that clearly in the Sphinx where the different layers of the stone has weathered differently. Different stones cut from different layers will age
differently. You can see the same thing in the pyramids - the different layers reflect the different layers of limestone and when and where it was
The German report actually stated the trilithons and the lower cyclopean wall were the strongest and most durable stones at this site. The signs of
pitting from sand and wind erosion given the comparisons to similar quarried stones in the region seem to indicate a similar age, to around 1000
Hans: It would seem that the work on the last expedition in the 1990's found the remains of some of this Phoenician work which has survived.
These ruins were found during excavations and I'm no looking for the German language paper/publications that describes them.
So NOW you admit it? So WHY were you attacking me earlier for stating just that about the Phoenician/Canaanites? Were you so rapped up in Ramtops
poorly "researched" disinfo that you never bothered to go to the original sources.?
Frankensence: I also read that the "roman drum" beneath the foundation walls has never actually been seen and was just a mistaken report from
an early expedition.
Hans: Can you expand on that please?
I'll expand - the Roman "drum" rumor was started by Ragette, and it should have cost him his reputation. It's never been seen, confirmed, or
found. Andrew Collins writes about that. The DAI make no acknowledgment of a Roman drum beneath the trilithons.
Frankensence: How exactly did these reports identify the older appearing stone and the trilithons as being roman?
Hans: By indentifying the ruins as Roman, remember the ruins you see now were extensively damaged and rebuilt, the temple was used as a fortress and
the flat terrace was given walls. I have been unable to find any source to ID the stones as anything but Roman……which is why I’m now trying to
follow up on the German source.
See the pic on the Arab fortifications. Their stone work is very distinguished from the oldest original stone work and the later Roman additions.
Frankensence: Don't they lack the same tool markings typically found in roman quarrying?
Hans: No, I've never seen a mention of this in any scientific source
That source would again be the German report - the trilithons lack the lewis holes which the Romans would have made to lift them off of the rollers.
The trilithons had been cleared off by the Romans who then used them as a "full scale sketching pad" for the pediment of the temple. (Ragette). They
would have discovered the holes then.
Hans: Yet they were moved, if the Roman’s couldn’t do it how did the less technically advanced Phoenicians do it?
How indeed? How did Solomon build his temple? How was Stonehenge built? These mysteries are lost to history, but that shouldn't mean we rewrite it to
fit what we do know - and what we do
know is that portions of the outer and inner podium is not Roman.
Hans: The Roman original I believe was based on Weigand digging down to the bedrock thru typical Roman construction, masonry on the outside,
brick matrix (honey comb) that was filled with rubble. That rubble was said to have contained Roman shards and other materials and no
Again wrong, and contradicted by the German report so I question where you are getting this "belief" from. The foundation beneath the temple was a
pre Roman terrace. Not only can you view the pre-Roman terrace on the western wall you can view it on the southern wall as well.The Roman expansion of
the terrace is clearly evident by the disparity in stone shape, sizes and weathering from the original terrace.
Hans: I have not read Ragette so I cannot comment further
Yet you linked to his book as a source?