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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:38 AM
reply to post by karl 12

Big Thanks for starting a thread on the Baalbek foundation stones! Every time I see these stones and read about their sheer weight and dimensions, I am completely blown away, yet in comparison the the Giza Plateau, they get next to no coverage.

The only reason I can come up with for their lack of coverage in the MSM is that they are indeed a fundamental embarrassment to modern science and the status quo. The Baalbek foundation stones are (i hate to use this word) proof of a "Golden Age" and an intelligence that far surpasses our own. It lends much weight to Cremo's "Theory of Devolution".

History would have us believe that with each successive generation, mankind surpasses the accomplishments of the previous... that we can confidently draw a bell curve depicting the accelerated growth of combined human knowledge and intelligence. Yes, it appears we love to pat ourselves firmly on the back whilst conveniently looking the other way.

Did we truly have giants in our past? Can we believe those stories? Was Earth's gravity much lower in the past making these and other feats common fare? If we look to the dinosaurs and the anatomy of the T-Rex, one could not be blamed for entertaining such ideas as a lower gravity.

One thing is certain, things we much bigger in our past!

Rant Complete!


[edit on 23/2/09 by InfaRedMan]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:42 AM

Originally posted by stikkinikki
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.

It would probably break under it's own weight!!!

You can hypothesise all day long but we cannot manage these blocks today how the hell did they do it then ? No one has found a solution for this problem yet!

There is much lost knowledge of the past from metellurgy to masonry and construction. We still don't know how the Muslim's made real Damascus Steel! About a year ago research in Germany found NANOTECHNOLOGY (nanotubes) in some steel samples. They still DON'T KNOW how the hell they did it. Having said that, there was no 'magic' involved but elevated expertise and knowledge that excels what we have acheived today in the same field.

These Baalbek stones were lifted by beings known as Djinn\Demons etc. in collaboration with humans. Why do I say this? Most of the Islamic, Judaism, and Christian scriptures indicate the Solomon's Temple was partly built by Djinn because of their engineering feats, strength and speed. It is therefore highly likely the same beings are responsible for other mason work including Baalbek. Unfortunately the ways to collaborate with such species is now lost (in most of the world).

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Jinni]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:02 AM
Great thread. I've been interested in the Baalbek stones for some time, though I'm yet to be convinced by any evidence presented regarding purported methods of construction.

The 'official' view would lead us to believe that the Romans and Roman cranes were responsible for the transportation and positioning of the stones. Debatable?

Interestingly, the largest stone cut (1500 tons) for Baalbek was never moved from the nearby quarry. Does this indicate that the builders - human or otherwise - had reached their limit?

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by sezsue

Howdy Sezsue

So why would giants be able to do this is you don't think Humans could?

You migth want to take a look at Roman construction technique page 26-29 might be of interest

Thanks for the link, that was very interesting.

But why not giants?

There is really nothing to suggest the Romans laid the 3 large stones, according the the article I found here

Although constructed by the Romans, it apparently supersedes a much earlier altar which was dedicated to the god Baal-Hadad, and is built over a natural crevice some 150 feet deep, at the bottom of which is a small rock-cut altar. There are few tourists around to provide a comparative scale of measurement, but such a person would in fact be no taller than the base of this altar.

The Great Tower which once stood here was not a Roman tradition, but probably a concession to local traditions of worship in 'high places'. Note the excavations to the left of this picture. The dig uncovered middle bronze age houses, from the 2nd millennium BC and evidence of earlier occupation back to 2900 BC.[2]

If you ask an archaeologist, he will tell you that the Romans built the temples of Baalbek and he or she might well point out that there are work gang inscriptions which date the construction of the Temple of Jupiter to the 1st century ad, i.e. to the Roman era. The archaeologist might also point out to you that the Romans did know how to move and lift heavy stones; after all, we know that they transported a large number of multi-hundred ton obelisks to Rome from Egypt, and that was no mean feat two thousand years ago. The archaeologist will thus suppose that the platform of Baalbek, on which the Roman temples stand, must also belong to the Roman era. And he or she will thus explain the construction of the Trilithon by reciting what is known about Roman construction techniques. Thus the explanation involves the erection of the Trilithon by push-and-shove methods, with the Romans probably using nothing more than wooden rollers, ropes, wooden lifting frames and human muscle power. Archaeologists typically overlook the fact that experiments with stones much lighter than 800 tons have crushed the wooden rollers. And even if such a method was feasible, it would, by one estimate, have required the combined pulling power of 40,000 men to move the Stone of the South.[5] Incredible indeed.

Curiously, it would seem that not one Roman emperor ever claimed credit for the Baalbek temple complex or for the construction of its massive foundations.[12] Similarly, we find no evidence for Roman construction among the local people. What we do find instead are legends which suggest that Baalbek was built by super-human powers in an epoch long before human civilisation began.

The Arabs believed that Baalbek once belonged to the legendary Nimrod, who ruled this area of Lebanon. According to an Arabic manuscript, Nimrod sent giants to rebuild Baalbek after the Flood. Another legend states that Nimrod rebelled against Yahweh and built the Tower of Babel here, in order to ascend to Heaven and attack his God.

The local Muslims believed that it was beyond the capability of humans to move the enormous stones of Baalbek. Instead of giants, however, they credited the work to demons or djinn. Muslim tradition states that Baalbek was once the home of Abraham, and later of Solomon. It is also suggested that the prophet Elijah was taken into Heaven from Baalbek - upon a steed of fire.[14]

This article was a very interesting read, it's 5 pages and has pictures. Anyone who is interested in this topic should check it out.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:27 AM
The Baalbek stones truly intrigue me. Personally when I look at them I honestly cannot imagine how they were moved. To me it almost has to be an advanced civilization. Have you ever tried to move a large rock and put it in a certain place, I will tell you it is incredibly difficult and things don't act like they are supposed to, fulcrums sink, steel bars bend, etc. As for the Romans not having records of them being built, I would guess that people were simply banned from writing about the trilithon.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:42 AM
Once again we grossly underestimate the ingenuity of our forebears. There is a simple reason we cannot move such blocks easily today. It is because we don't have to.

I have absolutely no doubt that if we put a thousand engineers to work with the tools available at the time they would come up with a method to move the blocks within a year, if they had to.

And with regard the crafty old carpenter, as he points out, the bigger and heavier the stone, the easier it is to handle with his method. I have seen his videos before, absolutely amazing.

As far as possible hypotheses go, mythical creatures or ancient giants don't really cut it when compared to human beings with a problem to solve.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:56 AM

Originally posted by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin

As far as possible hypotheses go, mythical creatures or ancient giants don't really cut it when compared to human beings with a problem to solve.

Why take years and years to move such blocks if they have already used smaller ones anyway?

These 'mythical' creatures are part and parcel of Abrahamic Religions. So let's look at the figure shall we?

1 Christianity 1.9 billion
2 Islam 1.1 billion
6 Judaism 14 million

That's over 3 billion people in the world that should believe in these 'mythical' creatures as part of their religion. These creatures also feature as part of other major relgions too so the figure is much higher.

These beings need to be seriously considered as a potential culprit for construction feats and need to be investigated further. The occult seem to be having some success on that front.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Jinni]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin

You may very well be right but there is evidence to suggest it was not the Romans.


posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Jinni
Why take years and years to move such blocks if they have already used smaller ones anyway?

Thats is a good point

Here is a fascinating question. Why did the builders of the Trilithon struggle with 800-ton weights when it would have been far easier to split the giant monoliths into smaller blocks? Why not use 4 x 200-ton stones rather than a cumbersome 800-tonner?

According to my engineer-friends, it was very risky to use 800-ton blocks in the way seen at Baalbek. This is because any vertical defects running lengthwise through the stone might have led to a critical structural weakness. In contrast, a similar fault in a smaller block would not have affected the overall construction. Either the builder was incompetent and just plain lucky or he was competent and supremely confident in his materials.

Whichever way we look at it, however, it makes no sense to imagine tens of thousands of men struggling to move and erect three of these monstrous 800-ton stones.
So the question is "why did they not split the stones?".

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:17 AM

Originally posted by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin

As far as possible hypotheses go, mythical creatures or ancient giants don't really cut it when compared to human beings with a problem to solve.

Giants are proven to exist, or didn't you see my earlier reference to Steve Quayle's site earlier in the thread....

And as far human ingenuity goes, if we can do all the things we do with OUR brains, how much more could they have done?

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:21 AM
Great topic. Do you think that the stones from Egypt showing what could be a helicopter and an array of other vehicles might have played a part.

Feasible if the image is taken "say what you see" as such. Just how old were the egyptians really.


posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:25 AM
Wow, what a thread. thanks to the OP and thanks to all the posters for an engaging and truely fascinating read.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:06 AM
Cranes! Cranes??

A simple search shows what 'modern' cranes can pick?

Cast out this ancient crane theory.

Flipping! Flipping??


posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:08 AM

Originally posted by scrapple
Cranes! Cranes??

A simple search shows what 'modern' cranes can pick?

Cast out this ancient crane theory.

Flipping! Flipping??


No flipping. These blocks would shatter because of their own weight.

This problem has been brought up many times before and every conventional method has already been considered.

Seems like the 'arabs' were defintely on to something...

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by scrapple
Cranes! Cranes??

This is an interesting read:

The Baldwins Challenge

In 1996, I posed the problem of the Baalbek stones to Baldwins Industrial Services - one of the leading crane hire companies in Britain. I asked them how they might attempt to move the 1,000-ton Stone of the South and place it at the same height as the Trilithon.

Although it is sometimes claimed that modern cranes cannot lift stones as heavy as 800-tons,[9] this is actually incorrect. Bob MacGrain, the Technical Director of Baldwins, confirmed that there were several mobile cranes that could lift and place the 1,000-ton stone on a support structure 20 feet high. Baldwins themselves operate a 1,200 ton capacity Gottwald AK912 strut jib crane,[10] whilst other companies operate cranes which can lift 2,000 tons. Unfortunately, however, these cranes do not have the capability to actually move whilst carrying such heavy loads.

How, then, might we transport the Stone of the South to the Baalbek acropolis?

Baldwins suggested two possibilities. The first would use a 1,000-ton capacity crane fitted with crawler tracks. The disadvantage of this method would be the need for massive ground preparation works - to provide a solid, level roadway for the crane to move.

The alternative to a crane would be a series of modular hydraulic trailers, combined to create a massive load carrying platform. These trailers raise and lower their loads using hydraulic cylinders built into their suspension. The initial lift at the quarry would be achieved by the use of a cut-out section beneath the stone, which the trailer would drive into. The final positioning in the wall, at a height of 20 feet, would be achieved by using an earth ramp.

This is all very interesting, and gives us some feel for the scale of the engineering challenge, but there is, of course, one slight problem with the Baldwins scenario, namely that none of this twentieth century technology was supposedly available when Baalbek was built.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:22 AM

The same questions keep being asked and the same answers being ignored.

May I suggest the following Karl12

Most of your ideas are based on rejecting Roman construction, fine. Without using the rejection of Roman construction as your proof provide the evidence of this other civilization? You might want to explain why this unknown civilization built a retaining wall and no other structure.

Other points only the foundation is the original Roman construction the other stones were placed on top of it comes from reconstruction when the site was used as a fortification during the Byzantine and other eras.

Limestone comes in beds of different density and look. You can see this dramatically by looking at the Sphinx which I beleive has eleven different beds or layers in its cut out body.

other note

Howdy Karl12

They never moved the larger stone, it was never finished or cut completely from the quarry. They only moved the smaller ones. I linked earlier to a book on Roman construction techniques.

[edit on 23/2/09 by Hanslune]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by scrapple

You know, I thought the same thing. I've seen some huge cranes lifting some huge things, but these stones take the cake. I've found a crane that can do it, but there's 100% ZERO chance the Romans had anything that could match this.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by sezsue

Regretably giants haven't been proven to exist.

A fringe source claiming such is not evidence of proof.

Even if they had they would have had to use technology just like th Egyptians and Romans to move large blocks of stone.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by bpg131313

They didn't use a crane they probably dragged it on a sledge with relays of windlass using wire rope.

There is an earlier link to a book on Roman construction techniques.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by Jinni

I am in 100% agreement with you.

'Flipping' is a sad theory transposed from the Egyptian construction crowd.

And as someone brightly mentioned above - why use them at all, if they had already employed smaller terracing stones below - aesthetics?? Please.

Holding onto hope of ancient lifting technology for these monoliths due their mass (add to this what Jinni correctly points out - their being largely unmovable due to natural composition ) dances on a fundamental challenges to engineering education.

The only quick counter to this - without taking basic courses in structural dynamics, is to look at the lift capacity of the largest cranes in use today -2009- around the world. Then place an appropriate unit on site (don't forget the foundation pad required for the crane itself) and then ask yourself honestly - why this thread isn't about time machines.

*Karl 12 great post! This has been an interest of mine for awhile.*


[edit on 23-2-2009 by scrapple]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in