The Baalbek foundation stones.

page: 11
87
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Allow me the liberty to post images from Ragette Frankensence -

The original site configuration based on Weigands German archeological report: This complex is built over an ancient altar site dating back several millennia. Earliest settlement occurred around 7000 BC. This site is Canaanite in origin. The altar marks the location where the Canaanites believed the nefilim came to the earth. In the Judeo-Christian belief this is where Satan was cast down. The Arabs also have a belief something came to earth here.


Re: talking about the nefiliim coming down; this was also said about Petra in Jordan - known as "the place of the descent" i heard (maybe there was more than one 'landing site?'). Petra also has massive doorways/ruins.




posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Or, transportation of all megalithic stones was assisted through telekinesis.

A fringe theory, perhaps. But all the explanations and theories I've seen support the idea that such feats are achieved via the cerabral capacity, that historic or ancient intelligence was not as 'developed' as modern man's and that therefore the builders must have had outside help, of which there is insufficient proof of their existance, whether legendary or ET.

I believe new understanding of engineering, mechanation and technology has helped humanity to 'forget' a lot of the old knowledge and skills. If you don't exercise a muscle, it soon atrophies and dies. Same goes for mental muscle.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
in childress book lost cities of asia, india etc, there is a photo of indian 'priests' (or whatever they're called - i forget the name) levitating a stone - apparantly monks in tibet ? too? i think are sposed to be able to do this. there is also sounds made/chanted or something. I read it could be some sort of acoustic levitation using sound somehow.

you know the walls of jericho that joshua 'blew down' with the trumpets; i think the cia has the technology to bring down walls using certain sound frequencies today - which would explain the trumpets.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I think perhaps the Canaan's are the source for the giant myths, but there is no physical evidence giants actually existed.

I'm surprised to read the Romans had much less to do with the actual building of the temples and the terrace according to Ragette and other authors. They were the primary funders of the project, but most of the building was given to the local Phoenicians, perhaps it was a point of pride of theirs to restore a temple that was a part of their cultural heritage. The Romans were so worldly by the first century AD that they could coordinate Phoenician laborers, Egyptian column makers, and the massive funding to pull it all off. I'd like to find out more about the work gang insignias left during the Roman phase, one is the letters MER and the other is a Phoenician flag symbol (?)



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Interesting information being exchanged here. Thanks to all the true archeologists.

A little fantasy and disinformation unfortunately.

The Childress books are completely unreliable ans he blends fact, hearsay, local beliefs, and pure BS indiscriminately.

On Giants. Well biology and basic physics demonstrate a man 12 feet high would not even be able to walk. Body mass would be multiplied by 8 times that of a 6 footer, given that all proportions would be equal (2 cubed = 8)

A 12 foot Giant would weight half a ton. Circulation distance demands on the heart alone would make him a not very robust fellow.


Men on average were physically stronger back in those days given the day to dat demands of ordinary existence. A better understanding of leverage for sure And an incredible patience and determination. Some probably lived half their short lives just moving stones from one place to another on a single structure.

Crews likely have had targets of moving a particularly huge giant stone only a few feet forward some weeks.


Mike



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
There are several modern humans that have achieved remarkable heights, I beleive the tallest was 11.5 feet, from the Guinness book of records. Of course these people were pathological (disease or glandular problems), but they could still move around on their own. The race of ancient Hebrews were an average of 5'5" to 5'7". A race of Canaanites that stood an average of 6' or more would have been "giants" to them. King Og is in the bible as sleeping in a bed around 13'6" in length, but no one sleeps in a bed as long as they are tall. Another biblical source lists him as 9'6", and that's not nearly so impossible. A race of larger (over 6') people of Canaanite extraction that was wiped out utterly by the Israelites, whom they referred to as the "rephaim" could easily be the source for tales of biblical "giants".

I blame the creationists for taking everything in the bible too literally. The Universe was not created in six days and "giants" didn't stand 36 feet tall.

I'm in agreement with the findings the Canaans or Phoenicians built most of the underlying temple complex, it fits so much of the archeological data known from the german digs, it also explains how the "giants" were connected to the site, and why even the romans made no claim to the temple building. Over all I'm satisfied with the findings in this thread. I'm disappointed that debnuker sites like Doug Weller made so many errors, especially with the claim the baalbeck site was 100% roman. that he needed to be debunked himself.

Now the real question is, the extent and history of the canaanite temple and terrace, and how did Solomon interact with it (rebuild, replace, or expand?)



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
howdy Hanslune, have you learned anything new on Baalbek? I saw your post on hallofmaat asking about the t shaped terrace, do they know who it was built by, if not the phoenicians?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Wow these structures are really amazing. Good post



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by frankensence
There are several modern humans that have achieved remarkable heights, I beleive the tallest was 11.5 feet, from the Guinness book of records. Of course these people were pathological (disease or glandular problems), but they could still move around on their own.

...

Now the real question is, the extent and history of the canaanite temple and terrace, and how did Solomon interact with it (rebuild, replace, or expand?)



Lots of stories, but the tallest man verified was Robert Ludlow, at just over 8 ft 11 inches.

A man well over 11 ft, at half a ton, would barely be able to get out of bed, and not do ordinary work.


Not the topic under discussion, non-religious affiliated archeologists and historians pretty much agree, zero evidence of a historical King Solomon.
A lot of wishful attributions of ruins purported to be from his non-existent reign.


Mike



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
accidental double post

Sorry

[edit on 15-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by frankensence
 


Howdy

Having a frustrating time trying to get that information. The DAI isn't terribly helpful beyond, 'buy our books". Unfortunately my one good German archaeologist contact is ill and not responding.

I suspect that the 'T' makes up part of the foundation stones, whether these are visable is not known at the moment. I have noted that no ripples have occurred in archaeological circles, no thumping of chests by Phoenician experts, etc. So the 'T' may be an non-event.

Fringe haven't jumped on it either which is probably and indicator of status quo supported more than status quo changed.

I may have to break down and purchase the materials but one of the annoying aspects of DAI is that they won't tell me which books contains that data.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Blackmarketeer,
How extensive did Weigand and Ragette claim the pre-Roman terrace go? Isn't the "T" shape the overall terrace or is it an underlying structure? Did you have the color map showing the different sections (Roman, not Roman, and so forth)

Hanslune,
I've read Weigand but not Ragette, he is the author of the german reports, he says a lot of the lower coursing of stone is from a pre-Roman building phase. For me the question isn't if it's roman or not, but how much of it was there before Rome started their rebuilding of the complex.


ps: BlackM, could you send me the map again?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by frankensence
 


Ah and that is question. Are the retaining walls we can see Roman or are they Phoencian (or other)? Until someone breaks down (as I will tomorrow) and goes and looks into the publications.

I'll be wandering over to the University library and see if they have those publications. I'll take my German archeology dictionary (I hate those long words) and see what I can find out. Hopefully there is a map that will make this clear.

I suspect this information would also be available on the German language archaeology forums too. With a excavation of that lenght (the 1990s one) hundreds of grad students would have moved thru that site.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
okay got more detailed info from Weigand/DAI, the "t" shaped terace is the orignal terrace that is depicted in Blackmarketeer's post/images above, it had a Canaanite temple at the Western edge facing east, and a wider "court" that held an open altar. Thus the temple was the stem of the "t" and the wider court the top bar of the "t". The Romans expanded the terrace to the east, and expanded it to the south (tho they left the original Canaan/phoenician stonework exposed). The western end and trilithons are original (Canaan / Phoenician). Most of the terrace is still the original construction, the Romans it appears only had to clean it up and ensure it was solid for their temples. The Ramtop/Doug Weller information seems to be completely incorrect in regards to Baalbek, but then I guess it depends on WHERE you are sampling the terrace construction. The temple of Bacchus is completely of Roman origin so anything beneath it foundation-wise came from the Roman phase.

Am I wrong in thinking that Ramtops website set out only to DISPROVE Sitchin, by attempting to discredit his claim the Baalbak terrace was a landing stop for spaceships in ancient times, by showing the terrace wasn't constructed until Roman times? If that's so, then he made an even greater factual error than Sitchin did, becasue the terrace is indeed older than Roman times. According to DAI, the altar itself at the heart of the temple complex and sitting upon the ancient tell may be as old as 7000 bc. Even Solomon's work there may have been a continuation or rebuilding of an undoubtedly ancient worship site. I know the above paragraph is straying into speculation, but it is based on reading the known facts of this site.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by frankensence
 


Howdy Frank

Interesting

Can you provide the cite for that information? I still plan to get into the DAI material and it would allow me to focus the search.



The Ramtop/Doug Weller information seems to be completely incorrect in regards to Baalbek, but then I guess it depends on WHERE you are sampling the terrace construction.



They cited Weigand as their source. Doug posts at the Hall of Ma'at but a few weeks ago I queried him on the DAI information and he stated he was unaware of it. I'll contact him again for comment. Actually both the DAI and Weigand may be right. The Romans may have cleared part of the 'T'. We would need to see the DAI information to see to what extent of their sampling was and how they determined the size of the structure. They certainly didn't clear the structure off from above! They probably did selected excavations along the boundary of the existing structure to find out the directions and parameters of the foundation.

I'm still puzzled at the lack of interest in this by the Canaanite and Phoie scholars.

Howdy Blackmarketeer

Referring to your claim of the quarries a few pages back. Why did you select one of the farthest quarries? Why not the quarry that is located in the town itself? The one where the large stone of 1,000 tons still sits to this day? It is 375 meters from the Tril's and is located at an altitude of 1240 meters versus the wall at 1252.

If I was cutting large stones I'd pull all my large stones from the closest quarry. Unless you have a study that connects the stones to that quarry?

[edit on 29/5/09 by Hanslune]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Frankensence: the "t" shaped terace is the orignal terrace that is depicted in Blackmarketeer's post/images above, it had a Canaanite temple at the Western edge facing east, and a wider "court" that held an open altar. Thus the temple was the stem of the "t" and the wider court the top bar of the "t". The Romans expanded the terrace to the east, and expanded it to the south (tho they left the original Canaan/phoenician stonework exposed).


Yes, that is what I read as well. The T is the overall shape of the original terrace podium with the temple residing to the west, the altar and court to the east. The images I posted earlier show it's overall layout. The DAI didn't conduct as thorough a survey of this section of the site as they did with the Temple of Bacchus. For that temple they did an extensive below grade dig and thoroughly documented every stone, they then reconstructed the various phases of the Temples history, from its original Roman design, and the later Arab and Medieval modifications made to it. The DAI also shows itself to be focusing on the Roman history of the site and not its overall history, the Temple of Bacchus is considered to be the best preserved Roman temple and consequently been the area of attention from the DAI.

Professor Kalayan, an engineer in the Dept. of Antiquities has written about the original altar location and pre-Roman construction:

"In the rectangular courtyard, to the south of the temple of Jupiter, there is a natural crevice about fifty meters deep. At the bottom of this crevice there is a small rock cut altar. In all probability this crevice was the center of first worship. Pre-Roman construction is confined to the middle part of the rectangular courtyard and contains remnants of the late second millennium BC. The site was a tell (an artificial hill, usually the site of a city) which grew gradually like other tells of the Beqa'a." (From Regette, sorry no online source for the quote)

You can view most of the pre-Roman podium along the southern wall, under the six remaining columns of the temple of Jupiter. Another line of stones was placed by the Romans along side this wall in their attempt to expand the podium (they are easily distinguished from the older stones by the Romans use of the Lewis holes).

The western wall is also preserved as a pre-Roman phase. The DAI did clear all the stone work from the top of this wall which includes the famous trilithons. What they uncovered was NO Lewis holes (eliminating the Romans as its builder). They then reconstructed the wall as they found it.

Kalayan goes on for some length about the extent of the podium in its pre-Roman phase, especially as an enclosure for the ancient altar. The first true temple to be built at Baalbek came in the "Seleucid" times, which may(or may not) coincide with the reign of Solomon.

Building Phases

1. Ancient altar and enclosing court, raised upon a podium (late 2nd millenium, although the altar has been dated much earlier):


2. Seleucid phase, addition of temple and expansion of court, including possible placement of the trilithons. This would be the "t-shaped" podium referred to by the DAI. The existing temple of Jupiter is using the Hellenistic temple's podium as a foundation.


3. Roman phase, which was to have expanded the podium in three directions, North, South, and East. The East was the direction of greatest expansion since it incorporated the addition of their Propylaeum.


Now there is a lot of conjecture being raised by Kalayan, Ragette, and Weigand, most of it having to do with when and how the Romans built the temples. They also have made a few contradictions which elaborates how difficult it must be to accurately discern the overall history of the site, especially given that the Roman building phase must have eradicated a great deal of the clues left by the earlier builders as to their identity. I don't think at this point its a question of these original builders being anyone other than the Canaanites, although Canaanites is a very broad term. Which Canaanite tribe first dedicated the ancient-most alter? Who delineated the tell? Who expanded the altar and built the first of many courts and podiums? All of this seems lost to history. Only a few references exist (one of which is the Bible) that note Solomon's involvement, but by his time the site was already ancient.

My problem with a site like Ramtops (Doug Weller) is he didn't bother to check the facts on the site by reading any of the available sources on Baalbek in his desire to "debunk" Z. Sitchin. He claims that the site is "through and through" Roman, and that Sitchin's theory the site was used in ancient (pre-Roman) times as a launching pad, which necessitated the use of monumental building blocks to bear their weight, couldn't be true because the site didn't exist until the Romans came along and built it. Unfortunately the debunker himself needed to be debunked as the site is indeed pre-Roman. The podium, constructed with monumental building blocks, is simple NOT Roman through and through.

Hanslune:
I'm using a close quarry site, it's where the "stone of the south" is located, being that it is also the largest stone ever quarried and weighs more than any of the three trilithons, I figure it's as good a candidate as any for studying possible routes to the western wall. My description is accurate, and unless there is an undiscovered stone causeway, how would they have dragged or rolled this stone to its final destination? It makes little difference if the quarry is slightly higher in elevation if there's a ravine or downward slope then upward climb back to the wall. Even taking a more northern route would necessitate lifting the stone over the rim that surround most of the quarry (see photos). No matter how you go, you're still lifting the stone. Secondly, there would also be a good bit of turning needed to position the stone, and with the idea of using rollers the turning radius would by immense. So clearly the original builders weren't using narrow pathways. If a stone causeway did once exist who removed it? Did the Romans remove an earlier Canaanite causeway? Did the Arabs remove a Roman causeway?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Howdy Blackmarketer




Another line of stones was placed by the Romans along side this wall in their attempt to expand the podium (they are easily distinguished from the older stones by the Romans use of the Lewis holes).


Lewis holes are used for lifting by cranes - so of course the stones don't have Lewis holes as they were not lifted by cranes!

Which and where in the DAI material is this information coming from? Cites please.





I'm using a close quarry site, it's where the "stone of the south" is located,


Nope, you using the wrong one. The big stone is in the quarry in the town 375 meters from site.





being that it is also the largest stone ever quarried and weighs more than any of the three trilithons, I figure it's as good a candidate as any for studying possible routes to the western wall. My description is accurate,


Nope you got the location wrong




and unless there is an undiscovered stone causeway,


The stone for the causeway were probably used to construct other sites in particular the later forts - you wouldn't want to leave a causeway into your fortification.





how would they have dragged or rolled this stone to its final destination?


The same way they did all over the world. You also are not considering that the larger stone were quarried on the site itself. Leveling the site may have required cuting away of the hill to expand the level ground - but that is just speculation.





It makes little difference if the quarry is slightly higher in elevation if there's a ravine or downward slope then upward climb back to the wall.


Take a look at a map



Even taking a more northern route would necessitate lifting the stone over the rim that surround most of the quarry (see photos). No matter how you go, you're still lifting the stone. Secondly, there would also be a good bit of turning needed to position the stone, and with the idea of using rollers the turning radius would by immense.


Rollers is one idea but the Egyptians used sleds and did others. If the Romans moved it then they used sleds and windlasses.



So clearly the original builders weren't using narrow pathways. If a stone causeway did once exist who removed it? Did the Romans remove an earlier Canaanite causeway? Did the Arabs remove a Roman causeway?


Think fortification and the need for stone




The western wall is also preserved as a pre-Roman phase. The DAI did clear all the stone work from the top of this wall which includes the famous trilithons. What they uncovered was NO Lewis holes (eliminating the Romans as its builder). They then reconstructed the wall as they found it.


So, I've noted your mistake on the Lewis holes now here is the question. You say you have read the DAI material, so quote it as to what they say who built the wall, with a ISBN, title and page.

You really need to document where you are getting this material especially from the DAI publications.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
You ask for sources, yet you provide none for your erroneous assumptions? You claimed Baalbek was a purely Roman site, and the only link you provided completely disproved that notion:


the buildings from the pre-roman period forming a gigantic T-shaped terrace, which was later used as foundation of the temple of Jupiter

SOURCE

I'm sorry but what part of pre-roman gigantic T-shaped terrace don't you understand?


The photos/scans and accompanying descriptions i've posted illustrate the podium wall well enough, much of what you see originated with the phoenician builders. Rome adapted it for their use, and relied of these same builders for their temple construction. That is explicitly stated by Ragette, Weigand, and Alouf.

You dismiss Alouf as a "tour guide" author, yet he was the Director of Antiquities for Lebanon. The same position Hawass holds in Egypt. Granted, no one regards Lebanon in the same light as Egypt, but there's no reason to mock Alouf. Have you actually READ any of his works? He is quite descriptive of the site, MORE SO than the DAI or the other two authors. He went to length to describe the culture beyond the temple site itself.

As to what sources I have used, I have already posted those. Ragette, E. Weigand, and one map from the DAI. I've looked through many of the DAI booklets they issue. The DAI is focused on the ROMAN presence at Baalbek, primarily on the temple of Bachus. I have one of their issues that shows their excavation to the foundation of that temple. Of course, no one is contesting the origin of those foundations, since the temple of Bachus was never a part of the scheme of the original pre-Roman Baalbek builders. The temple of Bachus was a Roman addition to the site as was the temple of Venus (although the triumvirate of deities worshiped there was long established prior to the arrival of the Romans). However the temple of Jupiter is built directly over the previous temples location and uses those very same foundations. No where in any of those sources I've listed do they describe the Romans as removing any foundations from Canaanite or Phoenician temples/podiums and replacing them with their own. Not that they didn't repair and expand upon those foundations, and that is according to Weigand and Ragette.

Compare Solomon's surviving western wall in Jerusalem with the Baalbek podium, they bear a striking resemblance.


THE EMBOSSED QUADERS
Aside from the incased trilithon, the attention of the visitor to Baalbek who inspects the wall of the acropolis is drawn to stones of a bossed shape with an indented rim on all four sides of the face of the stone.

O. von Richter in 1822 60 and S. Wolcott in 1843 61 drew attention to the fact that the quaders of the wall of the temple area of the acropolis of Baalbek have the same form as the quaders of the Temple of Solomon, namely, of the surviving western (outer) wall, or Wailing Wall. The Roman architects, wrote Wolcott, never built foundations or walls of such stones; and of the Israelite period it is especially the age of Solomon that shows this type of stone shaping (chiseling).

The photograph of the outer wall of Baalbek’s temple area illustrates that the same art of chiseling was employed in the preparation of stones for its construction. Whatever the time of construction of other parts of Baalbek’s compound—neolithic, Israelite, Syrian, Greek, or Roman—this fundamental part of the compound must have originated in the same century as the surviving (western) wall of the area of Solomon’s temple.

SOURCE


Finally on the location of the quarry that produced the "Hajar el Gouble" - I gave a specific latitude and longitude of it's location, and you can look that up in Google Earth if you choose.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Howdy Blackmarketer

So you have no source for your claims?

I'm seeking actual facts, not opinions. Of course I produced for you materials that talked about the T terrace. I'm into the free flow of knowledge I'm not trying to prove an ego based opinion.

Since you seem to have access to the the DAI material but cannot cite from them to support your position I'm unsure of what your point is.

The question is not if the T terrace exists but whether the Trils are part of it.

We remain without evidence that the T-shape foundation noted by the scientists includes the Trils. You seem to be saying they are but cannot quote from the DAI.

I find it odd that the Germans after such a comprehensive dig wouldn't announce this interesting change.

Nothing at all has been announced on this. No 'buzz' in the Phoenician archaelogy community.

I find it even odder that you cannot produce a cite from the DAI stating that the trils are part of the older T structure. Either you have it or you don't.



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Hanslune, BlackM has listed sources, I'm not sure why you don't seem to see that. I'm becoming really disappointed in the quality of this forum, anyone who posts relevant information gets insulted for their effort.

You yourself listed no sources and only web link to a site that refuted your argument that Roma built Baalbek, when numerous sources show that Rome was not alone in creating Baalbek. I have to say that BlackM has done a good job in bringing information to the post. You've done little except insult anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I'm also disappointed in the moderation of this forum, it's a trend I've seen specifically at "ancient & lost civilizations" where a few individuals (one of them being a mod) openly mock and belittle contributors to this forum.





top topics
 
87
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join