The Baalbek foundation stones.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:24 AM
The best current resource for Baalbek is the book

Ruprechtsberger, E. M. (1999) Vom Steinbruch zum Jupitertempel von Heliopolis / Baalbek (Libanon), Linz. DB879.L6 R852 1997

If you want actual facts and not made up fringe stuff that is the book to take a serious look at.

He has a large section on the Roman quarries where the stones came from.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by Hanslune

Hey there, yeah if it did serve as a retaining wall then they could have taken into account stability and safety issues as a serious precaution. Thanks for bringing this up again. Perhaps that would explain the use of megalithic stone blocks. It does look very stable... and that's a no-brainer! It could be that they merely wanted to be sure the structure will be structurally sound. Like the way our engineers sometimes tend to "over-design" our own structures as a safety allowance. At least that sheds some light to a few issues I have with it.

But this now kinda leaves me with a couple more questions: Were they aware of alternative methods to achieve maximum use of mass for buildng retaining structures without having to go through the "hassle" of incorporating megalithic 870-ton stones? And if they knew of an easier way of achieving this, did their past culture harbor a tradition and thought process much different from our present time, to the point that they were willing to go through all that trouble anyway? Because that would somehow explain the issues on practicality and efficiency.

This is all assuming they didn't really have advanced technology. Because available technology would easily explain why they did opt to build that way as opposed to let's say, religous reasons or traditional beliefs that triggered the "unique" yet seemingly impossible construction.

One example of what I'm trying to say is the Hoover Dam. We already have the technology to build a huge artificial dam, and it was built for a very good reason. Basically we used steel and concrete which is technology readily available to our builders. The engineers could have specified solid quarried stone (doesn't even have to be megalithic) at least for the core of the structure, but of course it costs too much and is impractical both physical and logistics-wise. Technically we could, but if there was a way to easily quarry and transport solid 870-ton stone blocks all the way to the construction site, we probably would have?

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:54 AM
reply to post by smirnoffsky

Howdy Smirnoffsky

Regretably the Roman's left us nothing definitive of why and how they did things at Baalbek. We have to do the archaeology then make intelligent assumptions. A few posts back I linked to a book on Roman construction techniques. Well worth the read if you are interested in this stuff.

Modern societies use archaic building methods at times, a number of buildings have been made using ancient techniques (the Washington monument is stone build. We sometimes build with wood, etc for cultural reasons.

My main beef with the idea of the Roman's not building it is a total lack of any evidence for anybody else having built it. The 1904/5 expedition found numerous Roman materials and a few items from the neolithic era and the bronze age. No civilization, no habitations, no pottery, no evidence of any kind for anyone else in the vicinity.

Another key point is that the Romans and Greeks were keen on writing stuff up about amazing things - yet there is no mention of something at Baalbek.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:13 AM

Another key point is that the Romans and Greeks were keen on writing stuff up about amazing things - yet there is no mention of something at Baalbek.

Just curious, do you think it's possible that something was written up on Baalbek, but was lost due to all the wars and the burning of libraries? The Greeks and Romans have both been through a lot of really rough times. I sometimes wonder just how much we have lost in terms of knowledge just because of the burning of those ancient libraries.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:38 AM
Someone posting anonymously suggested casting large stones.

I'm typing this miles away from my books, so no citation. But there was an Egyptian archaeologist writing in the 80s who claimed there was a tradition of combining materials in a dense liquid state that hardened into porous stone. This accounted not only for the gigantic blocks made in the very distant past, but also how they were able to be fitted with virtually no spaces between them.

The casting technique, according to the writer, was one of the secrets of the original Freemasons that somehow did not get passed on.

May sound flaky by my summary description, but the author quoted Egyptian sources and the whole thing sounded credible.

Mike F

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:45 AM
As a frame of reference.........

The Crawler Transporter that moves the Space Shuttle to and from the launch pad would be able to carry roughly 2 and 1/2 of these 800 ton stones. The space shuttle weighs approx 2,000 tons.

And the crawler transporter would be able to move these stones from the supposed quarry site to their location over the uneven terrain.

I'm not trying to disprove any assumption that humans could not have moved the stones....

I'm just trying to give an example of they type and scope of equipment we have available today that would be able to accomplish the job.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:07 AM
reply to post by bpg131313

Good question 13x3

Definitely possible (that material was lost) however if Baalbek had been that outstanding it would have been woven into the myths of the cultures of those areas. Nothing at all about them in any nations myths. Plus no sign of a culture to have made them - now cultures are hard to hide.

Remember all though the libraries were lost they were open for use for hundreds of years and commentaries written about them. No one noted anything about Baalbek in those commentaries either.

We might get lucky and find something in the villa of papyri. It is thought to be mainly poetry but someone may have written poetry about Baalbek!

A fair summary at the wiki

[edit on 23/2/09 by Hanslune]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:13 AM
reply to post by mmiichael

A few years ago The Egyptian Dr. Barsoum proposed concrete was used for some areas of the the pyramid. I believe it was the Frenchman Davidovits who thought the whole pyramid was.

No evidence that these guys are right. Limestone is made from sedimentation - kinda of a natural 'concrete'.

[edit on 23/2/09 by Hanslune]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Solomons
Yip these are a great marvel i must admit,ive heard of them before.Like the pyramids i dont think there was any super technology etc at work..just man power and ingenuity but that doesn't take away the fact it must have been one damn big effort! Good thread,star and flag

[edit on 22-2-2009 by Solomons]

I agree completely.

Yes its amazing, but theres no magic or wizardry at work here, just sheer man power and determination.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:00 AM
It was a rocket launching pad. The rocket on Baalbek is depicted on one Phoenician coin.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:20 AM
The first question that came to my mind is that with all this man power obviously needed to move these large stones, why are there no remains of a major civilization around it? I know that to move the stones for the pyramids, it took thousands, and many many years, and look what is left behind from them. Where is the major city the slaves/workers lived in? It must have been a huge operation.

Or is there one nearby, and im making no sense? lol

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Lombardy Inn]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:10 AM
Hi all,

what a great post.... on the subject of engineering and architecture
heres some more intesting things

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Hanslune
The best current resource for Baalbek is the book

Ruprechtsberger, E. M. (1999) Vom Steinbruch zum Jupitertempel von Heliopolis / Baalbek (Libanon), Linz. DB879.L6 R852 1997

Thanks for the reply,if you could locate the book I'd be interested to hear the man's explanations for some of these points:

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:

1) Uneroded, of a different color and texture
2) Much smaller
3) Uniform

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? This contrast is made bolder by the fact that earth' atmosphere has since become ever more corrosive.

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:

Older masonry:

This wall is made up of many ill-fitted stones, many of them reused from the ruined Roman temple by the Arabs, Crusaders, and Turks when the ruins were used as a fort. Some pieces of the Roman entablature can be seen, as well as slits cut into the rock for firing positions in the wall.

Because all these stones are piled one upon the other, it is clear to see an evolution of stone working. This reveals some of the stones piled upon the megaliths to be even older than Roman. These are also huge stones. Yet despite their size, they are still dwarfed by the megalithic blocks.


"To good Fortune! In the year 371, the second day of the month of Lôos (August 60 AD), the katochoi put off their beards".

Diffferent tiers:

Below them at least 3 tiers of stones can be found, much smaller though still monumental in size.
Another example that they are separate to the Roman temple, is that while the Romans built the back of their temple wall flush with 3 of these stones, on one of the sides of the temple of Jupiter the perimeter clearly falls short of the width of the original megalithic structure, allowing a tier of megaliths to protrude obtrusively from the temple foundation— incongruous if they were simply foundation stones for the Roman temple.But it seems the Romans could not extend the building far enough to cover the layout of megaliths.

No historical Roman records,different architecture:

There are several other matters about the Baalbek stones that further confound archaeologists and conventional theories of prehistoric civilization. There are no legends or folk tales from Roman times that link the Romans with the mammoth stones. There are absolutely no records in any Roman or other literary sources concerning the construction methods or the dates and names of the benefactors, designers, architects, engineers and builders of the Grand Terrace. The megalithic stones of the Trilithon bear no structural or ornamental resemblance to any of the Roman-era constructions above them, such as the previously described Temples of Jupiter, Bacchus or Venus. The limestone rocks of the Trilithon show extensive evidence of wind and sand erosion that is absent from the Roman temples, indicating that the megalithic construction dates from a far earlier age. Finally, the great stones of Baalbek show stylistic similarities to other cyclopean stone walls at verifiably pre-Roman sites such as the Acropolis foundation in Athens, the foundations of Myceneae, Tiryns, Delphi and even megalithic constructions in the ‘new world’ such as Ollyantaytambo in Peru and Tiahuanaco in Bolivia.


The much greater erosion of the big Baalbek blocks qualifies as material proof of their much greater age. The issue reeally seems rather simple. This is how the stone looks (see below, left) 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:

This is how the giant stones look when old. The stone's surface is pitted and cracked. (Above, right)

Out of character:

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.


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 practised in those days.Romans knew and used concrete. The Colosseum still standing in Rome is a good example of a classic Roman concrete structure.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:24 AM
Goes to show what can be done with a few hundred slaves, imagine this sort of feat with todays unions having their say?

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:27 AM
they sit on the ancient ruins of the temple of Jupiter. which the romans built on a more ancient site then previous ..Its also so far from the roman empire ..One has to ask why build a temple on land thats not theirs and at that its a sacred place. Its said that it was the foundation for a landing platfform for the anicent annunakki in earth cronicles .."which makes sense"

a huge coverup for technology and the fate of man every 3600 years.

planet niribu is real just like those blocks are real . and what every ancient culture says ...a deluge is close.

ive heard of these blocks years ago . and know the secret

Its pretecting techology .and ancient bloodlines of nonhumans and their agenda to rule the world and set man straight.

Niribu is near...and when ready it will harvest.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:56 AM
i believe it was created using the Law Of One, just as the great pyramids were. the rocks were not moved because that would physically be impossible. however they were created on site by other"beings" of some sort, im not exactly sure. but also the reason for there being multiple blocks is to create the illusion that it was physically made, but still never able to figure out how. looks like theyve accomplished that part!

btw, im reading the book now, The Law Of One (Ra Material) and this is all mentioned in the first 50-100 pages, its really interesting so far, i recommend it!

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:59 AM
Doug Yurchey wrote a recent article called THE PROBLEM WITH THE STONE AGE. He writes for various unexplained/conspiracy-oriented sites. Here's the PN posting (with comments). (My name there is Snerdelovsky):

As Yurchey and I maintain: lasers and anti-grav. That's the most TRULY scientifically sensible theory. Otherwise some Wile E. Coyote of a physics-engineering master would have figured out a way to IMPLEMENT the pulleys and ramps THEORY by now.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:24 AM

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by prevenge
awesome.. never heard of this.
antigrav/sonic lathing methinks.

This is an interesting picture because you can see the dog holes in the stone where they were picked up by tongs.
I wish I could post pics here but ATS is going to ATS only pic host and I haven't ben able to make it work. I guess untill March 15 these pics might work:

the hook points go into the dog holes and are connected by lifting chain or very strong rope/fabric.

Such large stones as are the topic of this thread seem next to impossible for men as we know them to lift it. However a crew of 100s or 1000's could probably drag or counter balance it perhaps. Me thinks the giant stones were carved in place or at the very least uphill from their present point.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:27 AM
Also it wouldn't be necessary to lift the whole of each gigantic stone. If one end could be lifted they could put a pivot rock underneath and wiggle it back and forth to its destination.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:31 AM

Originally posted by spitefulgod
Goes to show what can be done with a few hundred slaves, imagine this sort of feat with todays unions having their say?

Why is it necessary to bring the unions into it? It's a historical fact that the use of slaves was widespread for centuries and even millenia. Are you advocating a return to slavery? If that's the case then thank god we have the unions fighting for the working people. I just had a great weekend thanks to the unions.

protelariat > bourgeois

new topics
top topics
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in