It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Baalbek foundation stones.

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:47 PM
Don't rise to the bait Frank, Hans hasn't provide one citation yet that hasn't refuted his own claim and speculates wildly on a "Roman only" theory. Anyone who takes the time to read some books on Baalbek will learn that Rome was only the LAST builder at the site, and made extensive use of earlier ruins. Look into the Canaanite temples also built around 1000BC and you'll see the similarities between Baalbek's foundations and those of temples at Tyre and Byblos and even the "wailing wall" of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem. As to Hans questions about "where are the Canaan - Phoenician scholars?" I can only ask "have you even tried to look?" Even the official authority at the site (the DAI) openly states that the origin of the trilithons cannot be attributed to the Romans and that the "gigantic T-shaped terrace" is of pre-Roman origin.

Here's what I've used as a source:

F. Ragette - Baalbek 1994, I scanned several pages from his book and included them in my posts. Ragette makes one contradictory claim in that he depicts a Roman scheme to move the trilithons by way of lewis holes and cranes, when he also states (per Weigand) that none are present. He did claim his depiction was purely hypothetical.

E. Weigand - Baalbek und Rom, die römische reichskunst in ihrer entwickelung und differenzierung - the library was full of books by Weigand, he wrote prolifically on Roman sites.

Paul Julius Alexander- The oracle of Baalbek: the Tiburtine Sibyl in Greek dress A quote from him ""There is no agreement among scholars as to the beginning of the second building period at Heliopolis"

Hélène S. Sader - Baalbek: image and monument, 1898-1998 (excellent images of the site, you can clearly see the quarry and stone of the south and the implausibility of just rolling the stone around without serious lifting involved)

Ruprechtsberger, E. M. (1999) Vom Steinbruch zum Jupitertempel von Heliopolis / Baalbek also includes several maps of the site, but a little too simplified.

A DAI derived map of the site including topography - the quarry for the stone of the south is about ten minutes walk to the site, but is not a simple slope. The terrain has a "ravine" (called a ditch by Weigand and a ravine by others) that either had to be bridged or required a difficult uphill climb once on the western slope of the tell. If you've ever driven up a steep hill, you were probably experiencing a 7% or 8% grade. Now imagine trying to pull or drag 800 tons up that hill. That's what you would be doing if you chose to slide one of these trilithons downhill out of its quarry and then back up the tell to its final resting spot on the western wall - not to mention the fact that spot is about 20 feet above ground.

The quarry is at 33 59'32.43 N 36 12'50.46 E and can be verified on Google Earth (they've noted its location). This is the closer quarry, the next closest quarry os about three miles from the site.

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 02:35 AM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Even the official authority at the site (the DAI) openly states that the origin of the trilithons cannot be attributed to the Romans and that the "gigantic T-shaped terrace" is of pre-Roman origin.

Yes I have seen and read (I believe I cited to you the evidence of the T-shape terrace) what I haven't seen but you claim to have read is that the DAI is saying the trils are attributed to the Phoeys, or as you know claim, "the trils cannot be attribted to the Romans". That is a different claim than you've previously made.

Okay great.

What DAI publication by name and ISBN is this in? What page? The whole question is simple. I have no problem at all with the tril being Phoey. What I want is a cite. You seem unwilling or unable to provide it. I begin to doubt your comments. LOL

Just give the cite. You either have it or you don't. This is third and last time I will ask. If you refuse again then you go from being an interesting guy to discuss stuff with to yet another fringer who makes stuff up.

Provide the cite.

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:56 AM

If you refuse again then you go from being an interesting guy to discuss stuff with to yet another fringer who makes stuff up

One can the same about you, Hans, you were literally making stuff up throughout this thread, and have not produced one cite for any of your claims. The link BlackM sent me was to the author/book that published a detailed map of the tell and surroundings whiuch was based on the DAI surveys. You can find photos from that survey too online. One photo in particular shows the "gap" between the stone of the south andf the temple podium.

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 02:00 AM
You're trying to put words into my mouth Hans, I never said the DAI made any claim that the Phoenicians were responsible for the trilithons. In point of fact the DAI states that the trilithons, and much of the podium, are still debated as to who built them. They make no claim whatsoever the podium or the trilithons are definitively Roman or Phoenician. What is certain and this is stated by several authors, is that portions of the podium is pre-Roman, originating in the Hellenistic era when the region was governed by the Seleucids, and dating back for many thousands of years before that. The Seleucid era does coincide with the time frame when Solomon ruled, and he was catered to by both the Ptolemeys and Seleucids. But rather than side-track the thread into a "Solomon theory" I'll give you, yet again, a run down on sources that credit the podium to a pre-Roman era. You inexplicably won't list your sources for your "Roman only" theory, other than what I've pointed out you cribbed from a certain "Doug Weller" site.

The primary source is Weigand, in particular, Volume 3. This volume lists all the plans and diagrams from the original German missions in Baalbek that took place at the beginning of the last century. A series of plates (illustrations) contain a detailed site map with topographic lines. Since this book was a reserve only item at the library I wasn't able to scan it in, so I suggest you read the book to see what you are missing. Another author also used the same DAI source material and that is Albert Champdor, a French author. His work is almost entirely derivative of Weigand so I didn't bother to mention it.

Ragette I've mentioned ad naseum, but here is yet another quote from him, regarding the pre-Roman phase:

"In Baalbek, the direction of the main axis of the acropolis seems to have been established in pre-Roman times, as recent excavations in the courtyard indicate."

Those images I've posted should help understand how the site progressed over the ages.

Now theres a certain "misconception" that comes from a pseudo-debunkers camp that the temple podium was "through and through" Roman down to bare bedrock. I've read virtually every author that has covered Baalbek and the ONLY source that comes close to matching this claim was Ragette, who states that the only place the temples were excavated down to the bedrock was at the Temple of Bacchus, which is without dispute purely Roman. It does not apply to the Jupiter podium which was only expanded by the Romans. Weigand mentions vaulting which occurs under the hexagonal court, and again that is also purely Roman. Applying these claims to the entire site is misleading. From reading Weigand, who covers the extent of the DAI missions, the great court was never fully excavated, and indeed only the altar area has recently been excavated (where it was determined the site dates back to around 7200 B.C., when worship began at that spot. One discernible difference in construction these authors point out is that the Romans were using leading leading as a binder.

The masonry construction did not rely on mortar as a cementing agent, but was composed of perfectly cut stones placed one upon the other and hooked together by iron and bronze clamps and dowels embedded in lead.

Ragette, Baalbek 1994 (1st ed. 1980)

This feature is not found among the stonework of the Phoenician podium walls. Ragette, as pointed out earlier in this thread, considers the bulk of the wall beneath the famous six columns to be Phoenician. The Roman expansion at this wall occurs only in one row still at ground level, where the stones are riddled with "Lewis" holes, useful for craning them into place.

Here's yet another author and quote that indicates a non Roman origin to the podium:

"The early history of Baalbek is obscure. Solomon is said to have built temples to Bel (Baal) here. Dr. Thomson and others thought that it might be the Bel-Gad of Harmon mentioned in the Bible. Others have suggested Balaath, the frontier city of Solomon or Bel-Hamon, the gardens of the Canticles or Bel-Hermon."

Hoyningen-Huene, Baalbekm the Sacred Sanctuary Site 1946

The acropolis, called by the Romans "Trilithon" because of the great stones, is to the west of the modern town.

Hoyningen-Huene, Baalbek the Sacred Sanctuary Site 1946
(I'm only copying what was in the book, I'm not claiming this is a conventional view other than this author's opinion.

Additional reading I've done mentioned several "black, conical stones" which were recovered from the site during early excavation which appear to have been related to the worship there. One of the stones was removed to the museum in Germany. It's interesting to note that the temples depicted on Canaanite/Phoenician coins (Byblos, for instance) show a temple and courtyard with a large conical altar. I don't have a source for that since it was among a stack of books I've read on the topic but it stuck in my memory.

Another author (Philip K. Hitti) wrote a "History of Syria" which give a good breadth of history covering the many cultures that settled there, but it mainly concerns itself with the moslem influence (a source for many of the Solomon / Jinn construction theories).

Lastly I will say this - I have indeed read through some of the DAI publications. My library does stock them. Sadly they do not seem to concern themselves with trying to determine who originated the site, beyond what the Romans wrought there. I do not have access to all their publications, and they are not indexed on computer so it's a slow process to find anything regarding the podium (plenty of info on the temple columns and inscriptions of various Roman emperors however).

This is the one publication that I found most directly related:
Erster und zweiter Jahresbericht uber die Ausgrabungen in Baalbeck (Berlin, 1902, 1903), excavations by O. Puchstein.
Fuhrer durch die Ruinen von Baalbek (Berlin 1905)

Everything from this publication can be read in Weigand, as he covers this excavation in Baalbek, particularly in the 3rd volume, and I of illustrations, published by Leipzig in 1921-1925.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:58 PM
Howdy Gentlemen

Sorry for my long delay in replying

You're trying to put words into my mouth Hans, I never said the DAI made any claim that the Phoenicians were responsible for the trilithons. In point of fact the DAI states that the trilithons, and much of the podium, are still debated as to who built them.

Hans: Great please cite where this is said.

They make no claim whatsoever the podium or the trilithons are definitively Roman or Phoenician.

Hans: Again cite this. What book is this coming from, which publication? Have you or have you not read what you claim is in the DAI publications? Yes or no?

It is very nice of you to repeat over and over again the findings of earlier studies. However you refuse to cite the evidence from the latest, most exhaustive study taken of Baalbek. Why that is so I don’t understand. You seem very interested in the subject but avoid the most recent DAI findings...why?

[edit on 3/9/09 by Hanslune]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:03 PM
The pre-Roman Egyptians having moved already the colossal
statue of Ramses of 1,000 tons 270 km from Aswan to Thebes
and the colossi of Memnon of each 700 tons 680 km over land
from near Cairo to Thebes, (Wikipedia: list of megalithic sites)
the Romans certainly did not yet have more capabilities of
moving heavy stones than the Phoenicians.
Therefore the authors of the transports of the Trilithons cannot be deduced
from the technology point of view.
The wheel did exist already since 4,000 BC. Both knew and used the elephant.
Did anybody mention those in this thread ? In a tug-of-war test against an
elephant, the 50 men did not have a chance. Even a camel has almost double
the towing capacity of a horse.
Looking through the various reports of archeological transportation tests you
can find anything from 1 to 20 men dragging a stone of one ton.
How conclusive and real can be those tests running so far apart,
when overcoming the friction already seems to be so big a
problem ?
I can move a car of 3 tons and more on 4 wheels on a level floor.
An elephant alone could pull 50 of those cars, equalling 150 tons.

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Blackmarketeer- thanks for your (and everybody elses) posts on this subject -it certainly is some fascinating reading and it appears the Roman-only opinion is not as clear-cut as some folks like to make out.

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:29 PM
Another theory is that Cain built it.

by Jiri Mruzek

Are the World's Biggest Building Blocks Prehistoric?
In 27 BC, the Roman Emperor Augustus supposedly took the unfathomable decision to build in the middle of nowhere the grandest and mightiest temple of antiquity, the Temple of Jupiter, whose platform, and big courtyard are retained by three walls containing twenty-seven limestone blocks, unequaled in size anywhere in the world, as they all weigh in excess of 300 metric tons. Three of the blocks, however, weigh more than 800 tons each. This block trio is world-renowned as the "Trilithon".

If we think within the official academic framework of history, Augustus had no obvious reasons for selecting Baalbek as the temple's building site. Supposedly, Baalbek was just a small city on a trading route to Damascus through the Bekaa valley in Lebanese mountains, about sixty kilometers from the Mediterranean coast (34º lat., 36º long.) It was of no special religious significance, apart from being in the centre of a burial region, in the midst of thousands of rock cut tombs.

But, lavishing great architecture on Baalbek then seems totally out of character for the undeniably selfish Rome, which had at the very same time been stealing historic treasures from other countries, such as the obelisks from Egypt. It makes more sense that Baalbek had something no other place could offer, not even the city of Rome, the heart of the empire. This something may also be the reason why so many people wished to be buried there. Indeed, it has been noted that the blocks in the retaining wall of the Baalbek temple site clearly look a lot more eroded than the bona fide Roman ruins of the Temple of Jupiter, as well as those of the other two Roman temples also on the site. Therefore, the heavily eroded blocks should be much older.

Bonfils, ca. 1870. Negative inscribed "468. Mur Cyclopeen a Balbek." Albumen. Unmounted.

11 x 9 inches.
© 1996 Middle East Section.

Joseph Regenstein Library.

The University of Chicago

This fact naturally gives rise to a different scenario: At Baalbek Rome had found a fabulous ready made foundation, a mighty platform to add a suitably majestic structure to, stamping the Roman eagle upon the whole for the perception of future generations.

Material Evidence
The much greater erosion of the big Baalbek blocks qualifies as material proof of their much greater age. The issue really seems rather simple. This is how the stone looks when it is almost like new after having been recently sanded. However, sanding did not get rid of the deep pits, signs of either considerable previous erosion, or the product of drilling, if not both.

Circumstantial Evidence
One also finds plenty of circumstantial evidence undermining the official version of Trilithon's origins:

a) Absence of Baalbek records. Above all, Rome records no claim to the incredible retaining wall.

b) Presence of other records of actual Roman transport capabilities. Elsewhere in the Roman empire, just a little over 300 metric tons seemed to be the limit for the transport of big blocks, achievable only with the greatest difficulty. Transport of the 323 ton Laterano obelisk to Rome spanned the reigns of three emperors. Clearly, the record setting engineers from Baalbek, had they existed, could have also managed the task of transporting the relatively light Lateran Obelisk. The fact that they were nowhere to be found, no matter, how crucial the task, indicates that they simply did not exist.

c) Baalbek was an important holy place. The Ptolemys conferred the title of Heliopolis upon Baalbek. Therefore, like the other Heliopolis (Sun City) under Ptolemys' domain in Egypt, it had to be an ancient holy place, it must have had some notable architecture, and the two places had to have some connection. I suggest it was the titanic blocks that instilled awe in everybody. In Phoenician times, Baalbek had supposedly been a religious centre devoted to Baal. Local Arab legends place the cyclopean walls (the Baalbek Terrace) into the time of Cain and Abel.

d) Roman and Megalithic styles of building. Orthodox scholars of today scoff at all suggestions that Romans had not brought the great blocks to the temple site, despite the fact that building with megalithic blocks was not at all in the Roman style, and was no longer practiced in those days. Romans knew and used concrete. The Colosseum still standing in Rome is a good example of a classic Roman concrete structure.

The sad truth is that regarding the Trilithon, some scholars have mental blocks its own size. Admissions that blocks weighing over a 1000 metric tons were quarried and transported in prehistoric times would invite uncomfortable questions on what technology had made it all possible. Regardless of such touchy issues, I have several personal observations, which support dating of Baalbek's megalithic walls to the megalithic era. Have a look at this nice northwestern view of the wall (right image) as it was circa 1870.

The wall has two distinctly contrasting parts:


One forms the bulk of the wall, five layers of considerably eroded blocks. Several such blocks also survive in the sixth layer. Sizes of these blocks vary from big to unbelievably big, the largest building blocks anywhere.


The second part is a later Arab addition. Its blocks differ by being:

Uneroded, of a different color and texture

Much smaller


The Arabs had a fortress here. It was devastated by wars and finally by a major earthquake several centuries ago. The Romans must have left the old sacred enclosure walls as they were, and concentrated on building the temples. They had no need for defensive walls like the Arabs.

The top corner of the northern block of the Trilithon is well rounded by erosion, and human abrasion. One of the newer, small blocks rests directly on this eroded, round spot. So, when it was lain into this position, the damage was much like it is today.
It is evident that one block is a lot older than the others, as the position of the newer blocks marks the extent of erosion in the older blocks at the time

If the big blocks were to be Roman, then the newer Arab blocks would mark the erosion of the older Roman blocks as it was after the first six or seven-hundred years. But, how could this erosion be a lot greater than the subsequent erosion of both the old and the new blocks in twice as much time?

In the details below, we can see that whoever had added the smaller blocks (presumably also limestone, and coming from the same quarry, the nearest one to the temple), had made adjustments for erosion in the old ruin, which are visible as steps, or notches in the elsewhere straight line of the newer blocks. The eroded blocks seem to have been hewn flat on top to facilitate the laying of additional blocks.

Of the four blocks atop the eroded blocks, each is at a different horizontal level

Time to Draw the Line

A horizontal line was cut into the older block. It seems to continue the bottom line of the neighboring newer block quite exactly. The red line you see is there to show this fact.

I believe that the cut line had marked the top portion of the older block, which was to be cut away, so that the newer blocks could be set level. Thankfully, the plan was not carried out for some reason.

Consequently, we have a clear clue to what had happened here. Because the line in the eroded block survives about as well as the newer blocks, the two materials must be similarly durable.
It then follows that by the apparent rate of aging, the heavily eroded blocks should be at least several millenia older than the newer blocks. Ergo, the older part of the wall cannot be Roman.

Hadjar el Gouble (the Stone of the South) 1,170 metric tons
In a quarry about half a mile away from the Trilithon is an even bigger block It measures 69 x 16 x 13 feet, ten inches, and weighs about 1,170 metric tons.

There is a belief, the block was slated for the retaining wall, but was later found to be too big. Thus, it was abandoned in the quarry while still joined to the bedrock at one end.

The important question is, was it younger, or was it older than the three Trilithon blocks? It seems that it had to be made later than the Trilithon. If it was made first, and then deemed to be too big, it would have still been utilized, rather than quarrying a new block, the Romans would have simply whittled the big block down to a more manageable size. We would not see it in the quarry today.

On the other hand, despite their brilliant ability to move about burdens as unprecedented as the Trilithon, the unknown architects lost their nerve at the very end, the big block looming almost ready. There was no attempt to move the practically finished block. This just does not behoove the solid Roman engineers, especially the creme de la creme entrusted with the task by the Emperor himself. Why did they leave behind a monument to their engineering limits and human weaknesses, and by extrapolation - Roman emperor's limitations? Again, this would be very un-Roman of them, and even more so in view of what the same engineers saw at Aswan. It is a fact that the big block still in a Baalbek quarry seems to weigh about the same as the famous abandoned obelisk at Aswan, Egypt. Here, the question begs itself if this really is by chance.

How could the two biggest ever blocks of quarried stone coincide in weight, despite being made in different eras, by different techniques, and abandoned for different reasons? Not likely, is it?

This thread gets funnier, when we learn that the fifty-four enormous columns for the Jupiter's temple actually came from Aswan! There the Roman engineers could not have missed witnessing the abandoned 1,170 ton obelisk, which the Egyptians had obviously intended to move, prior to discovering that it was cracked, a fatal flaw.

Did the obelisk somehow inspire Romans to quarry a block of the same weight (albeit not proportion) at Baalbek, and then abandon it, when almost complete, mimicking the Egyptians ad absurdum, every inch of the way? Monkey see, monkey do? Is this not insane?

Another theory holds that work on the block stopped, when Rome suddenly became Christian, and stopped all construction on the site. That is of course impossible, because the retaining wall with the big blocks was long complete by then, and where else would the big block go, other then the retaining wall? So, none of the explanations makes sense

Then there is that utter lack of documentation for these stunning exploits, which should have been proudly noted by Roman historians, politicians, and so on. It's a little like if American history books skipped the fact that America went to the Moon. Meanwhile, local legends ascribe the stones to the time of Genesis. The big blocks were part of a fortress built there by Cain.

So, did Romans move the Trilithon blocks? Absolutely not! Romans had no desire to move such weights, because they knew just as well as we do that they could not move even substantially smaller blocks. History supports our notion with solid evidence from the same time period.

When Augustus, emperor of Rome had conquered the region in 27 BC, he ordered that the massive obelisk towering above others at the Karnak temple in Egypt be brought to Rome, but the effort was aborted, when the trophy proved too heavy. Sources give varying estimates of its weight, from 323 tons to 455 tons.

The discrepancy must stem from the fact that the original obelisk was 36 meters long, and had weighed 455 tons. Now that it is 4 meters shorter at the base, it must be correspondingly lighter, and because obelisks are always considerably thicker at the base than higher up, the loss of a hundred tons would be realistic. So, the discrepancy is self-explanatory.

It seems to suggest a reason to why some 300 years later, Emperor Constantine I (reigned A.D. 306-337) had succeeded where Augustus had failed, namely, in taking the obelisk out of Egypt. But, in the process, the pedestal and a large part of its base were destroyed. Well, since we are talking about the otherwise indestructible Aswan granite, we have to deem the obliteration of the thickest, strongest part of the obelisk deliberate.

Unable as they were to move the whole obelisk, the Romans had taken only as much as they could carry. After all, Constantine's workers had similar troubles with the obelisk of Tuthmoses III now standing in Istanbul. Here is a quote I found at Andrew Finkel's site:

"The decision to import the structure was taken by Constantine himself. Rome had at a dozen obelisks. His city, Constantinople or the "New Rome" had to have at least one. The Byzantines succeeded in fetching the monument from Deir el Bahri near Thebes, although in a sawn-off form. The original shaft was probably a great deal longer. Yet having brought it to the harbor on the Sea of Marmara side of the city, no one could figure out for an entire century how to get it up the hill"

At the same time the big 323 ton Lateran obelisk from Karnak was still in Alexandria, remaining there until after Constantine's death. His son, Constantius II [reigned A.D. 337-340] had then taken it to Rome instead. However, it did not get to Rome's Circus Maximus until A.D. 357, seventeen years after the death of Constantius II. Finishing the centuries old project took almost fifty years...

Knowing all these facts then bears heavily on our judgment of what the Roman could, or could not do at Baalbek.

a) Roman engineers had failed to even budge the 455 ton Thutmoses' obelisk at Karnak for emperor Augustus.
b) But, allegedly, the same Roman engineers had successfully transported the three Trilithon blocks weighing twice as much, plus, twenty-four more blocks weighing pretty well as much, i.e., 300 - 400 tons, all of which we see in the enclosure wall of the Baalbek temple terrace.

Moreover, the transport of the Trilithon blocks would have had been incredibly rapid, because the retaining walls should be in place prior to the construction of the temple itself, as logic would seem to dictate

Unable to move the 455 ton Karnak obelisk, Augustus took two other obelisks from the Sun Temple in Heliopolis, instead. It was the first transport of obelisks to Rome. The obelisks are now in the Piazza del Popolo (235 tons), and the Piazza di Montecitorio (230 tons). Funny, 235 + 230 = 465. So, Augustus got his 455 tons, plus change, but it was in two parts. These are solid indications of the then Roman capacity in moving heavy objects.

Why did Romans pick the remote Baalbek? Did they do it for practical reasons, utilizing older structures, and perhaps plentiful building materials already onsite?

Even the fifty-four enormous yet typically Roman columns from Aswan granite, which had once surrounded the courtyard, of which six are still standing (image left), may be pre-Roman, but later recarved in the Roman style. Despite being as magnificent as they are, the spectacular and unprecedented construction achievements at Baalbek were not heralded to the world as its own by the proud and glory hungry Rome. Why not?

Making such a claim would have been impossible, if the world already knew about the awesome Baalbek ruins, of course. If Roman and other writers had failed to mention the great Baalbek blocks, they were in amazing sync with the modern day's attitude.

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 04:54 AM
You need to learn how to cite your sources, note where you are copying this material from and read the previous thread. I believe all your material was previously noted in the thread.


posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 03:55 PM
It is said that Cain first built at Baalbek and that after the flood it was rebuilt by a race of giants (nephilim) for Nimrod.

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:31 PM
I think the most compelling evidence that the trilithon is of pre-Roman construction comes from the quantum of mensuration used for the Foundation Platform on which the Trilithon rests, which is entirely different in style from the other parts of the Complex.

The principles of this calculation, together with a statement on the statistical formulae used in the computations can be consulted in papers published by Broadbent in "Biometrika". Here, it must suffice to give a summary of the conclusions:

The Quantum used in design (m) for The Great Pyramids of Egypt and the Foundation Platfrom of Baalbeck is 0.523.

The Pre-Great Pyramid Mastabas and Pyramids Foundation Platforms, along with the Ziggurat of Tchoga Zambil uses 0.524. Quantum of 0.523-0.524 are common in megaliths constructed prior to 1,350BC.

The Quantum used for the Great Altar and Great Court of Baalbeck is 0.588 - common of Greco-Roman period.

Christian O'Brien calculated the traction forces required to pull these blocks on iron rollers using 20cm circumferunce Manilla rope either with men or elephants and concluded each to be impossible. Not enough men could fit the ropes and elephant teams would need to be 440 metres long, rendering them uncontrollable and impossible to co-ordinate.

O'Brien's calculations are the best I have read on the subject and available in his book "The Shining Ones" from

He fails to reach a definitive conclusion on how the blocks were moved.

He suggests it's connection with Ba'al / Ba'al Shamain / Shamash / Tubal Cain / Cain / Enlil (same guy, different deifications) indicate a construction date in, or before the third millenium B.C.
edit on 29-1-2011 by paygan because: I tidied some typos

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by Evasius

Very interesting coordinates indeed. Those pesky masons. I just wish they would let the cat out of the bag. Or maybe the've had it wrong all along, like the people in the book "A Canticle For Leibowitz" by Walter M. Miller, Jr.

Set in a Roman Catholic monastery in the desert of the southwestern United States after a devastating nuclear war, the story spans thousands of years as civilization rebuilds itself. The monks of the Albertian Order of Leibowitz take up the mission of preserving the surviving remnants of man's scientific knowledge until the day the outside world is again ready for it.

posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 08:34 PM
reply to post by Hanslune

The Romans never built anything using any where near 800 ton stones.

At Baalbek, the Romans built on top of an alreading existing structure. The Roman construction is clearly visable; the stones are much smaller (5 tons max.) and the fit is not as exact as the earlier construction.

posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 08:41 PM
In those days people had a whole different relationship with jinn nature spirits etc - Solomon apparently enslaved many of them and set them to work in quarrys to build his temple

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Cataclysm
reply to post by Hanslune

The Romans never built anything using any where near 800 ton stones.

At Baalbek, the Romans built on top of an alreading existing structure. The Roman construction is clearly visable; the stones are much smaller (5 tons max.) and the fit is not as exact as the earlier construction.

The most recent DAI report found that a T-shaped foundation was utilized by the Romans, that was probably the Phoenicians; if you take away the construction from the Romans - who had the technology to move such stones that pushes it back to the Phoenicians whose level of technically is less known. However they did have a tendency to use that type of construction. Blackmarketeer and I went over this is detail some time ago. The DAI report remains (AFAIK) un available on the internet.

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:09 AM
I hate how people say todays engineers couldnt lift these blocks. Are you kidding me? did you even spend 2 seconds to google that fact before you regurgitate what someone else told you? Deny ignorance they say here

Take a look at Liebherr cranes, mobile cranes that can lift 1,200 tons, plenty of power to move a few of those blocks. Or even better if you dont want mobility, the TAISUN lifter, can pick up a whopping 20,000 tons.

They didnt have electronics but not all people were dumb back then, maybe we dont realize how they did it now, but it obviously was done. Maybe they did figure out a way to case those blocks like cement, or maybe they had plenty of crane like machines of there own, combined with the power of thousands of men to move it slowly into place. Maybe they built stable cranes, lifted it barely off the ground then had the men move it as far as they could before setting back down (possibly only inches at a time).

The Masons kept many of these trade skills a secret, and much of the techniques probably died with them.

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by A-Dub

They used windlasses, pulleys, ropes, sleds. leverage, intelligence and manpower

The earlier poster might want to think about how the Romans took obelisks from Egypt and set them up in Rome

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 02:31 AM
reply to post by UMayBRite!

10 thousand pounds is not even close to what the ancients achieved.

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 08:46 PM
reply to post by A-Dub

The crawler crane can lift and move 1000T.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:30 PM
Hi Hans,

Here are some relevant sources indicating the podium base is pre-Roman.

I just want to take a minute to apologize for the attitude directed toward you in some of my posts in this thread, I think we were getting hung up on some minor issues but we obviously both agree Aliens, Atlanteans, or Djinn had nothing to do with Baalbek, outside of fantasy and mythology. I do have a lot of respect for your posts and knowledge.

These are from the DAI, authored by Daniel Lohmann (German Archeological Institute, Aachen, Germany)

Drafting and Design. Roman Architectural Drawings and their meanings for the Construction of Heliopolis/Baalbek, Lebanon

Giant Strides towards Monumentality - The architecture of the Jupiter Sanctuary in Baalbek/Heliopolis

They had been online at:, you'll have to use the search function from there. If I can't find them online I'll upload a copy.

Some images from this presentation;

If this is too hard to read: Blue is "Pre-Roman", Red and Green is Roman and Brown, very faint in the background, is Medieval (mostly the Arabic fortifications of around 600 AD).

The second presentation dealt with the Roman full-scale sketches found atop the pre-Roman podium base when the DAI disassembled the site in the early 20th C. Across the trillithons and the rest of this base they found several etchings of the temple pediment or archways, as aids to the workers in the construction. The thin red line above the blue pre-Roman base in the 2nd image shows the Roman base of polished stone that would have then hid these drawings from view in the completed work. These images might be too faint/low-res to add much to the discussion, but they do indicate the older podium base was intended to be covered by the Roman building phase. The faint outlines are a plan view of the stone comprising the podium base with the outlines of the Roman sketches;

Another good source that goes into the similarity of the monumental stone work at Baalbek and other ancient sites in Syria and Lebanon is:

Sinai and Palestine, In Connection with their History
Arthur Penrhyn Stanley

The author states the Baalbek podium base is of Jewish, Syrian, or Phoenician origin, the comparison to Jewish building is due to the similarity between the Great Temple's base in Jerusalem and that of Baalbek's, (my opinion is that could be due to the use of the same masons from Tyre and/or Byblos). He provides several insights in the location of Baalbek and it's similarities with Palmyra or other locations throughout the region, but those aren't as relevant to the topic. The book is old (late 19th C.), but I learned a lot from it, more so than more recent texts...


new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in