It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 5
103
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Maybe these guys




flew the stones about in these things




wild guess of course.




posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by komp_uk
Maybe these guys




flew the stones about in these things




wild guess of course.



The Giant pic is a hoax:

kedarsoman.wordpress.com...

However, I think Giants did once exist.

forums.canadiancontent.net...


The Heiroglyphs are said to be worn out glyphs that happen to resemble craft. Can;t find the debunking page though.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Jinni]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by komp_uk
 


Aside from obvious questions posed by the Giants theory, can you or someone here more knowledgable than I about it answer with some authority as to if this specific temple is considered the same as the "cedar-forrest landing site"?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
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.


And thanks for that link too. The problem I have with it is that it's a drawing. I'm all for giving engineers their due, but when it's all said and done, until it's done in the real world, I'm gonna doubt it. I know the Romans were some brilliant people. I've been to Italy several times, and am always amazed with what they were able to accomplish. That said, moving a 1000 ton rock and getting it properly in place with the methods described is great on paper, but until it's proven to be done in reality (and not with any of those silly professors using scaled models and out in the middle of a flat area where nothing is in their way, and there's no other stones to match up to with the precision evidenced in Ballbek either), I'm just not able to believe it. I guess I'm just too skeptical, but then again, I live not far from where "Galloping Gertie" collapsed. Those plans looked solid on paper as well, until they met reality. The closest thing I could find to modern day moving of something nearly the same size (but still smaller I think looking at the size of the man standing there) is this (bottom of page). Once again, if this is the best we can muster today moving something of this size, I just can't believe some Romans and oxen moved those stones in Baalbek. Though, I'd love Myth Busters to pull it off using the oxen and a huge stone of equal size from a quarry.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Jinni
 


ATS and HOAX? surely it deserves more than that. How about




and













posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Did you read my post properly?


Originally posted by komp_uk
reply to post by Jinni
 


ATS and HOAX? surely it deserves more than that. How about



and





Originally posted by Jinni

Originally posted by komp_uk
Maybe these guys

flew the stones about in these things

wild guess of course.


The Giant pic is a hoax:

kedarsoman.wordpress.com...

However, I think Giants did once exist.

forums.canadiancontent.net...


The Heiroglyphs are said to be worn out glyphs that happen to resemble craft. Can;t find the debunking page though.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Jinni]


[edit on 23-2-2009 by Jinni]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by scrapple
 






largely unmovable due to natural composition


Humans have been moving large limestone blocks for thousands of years, not sure what is unmovable about them since we have lots of examples of movement.


That said, moving a 1000 ton rock

Hans: They didn't move a thousand ton rock they moved three rocks in which the top estimate of their weight is 800 tons with an average estimate around 700. The 1000 tonner were never moved



and getting it properly in place with the methods described is great on paper, but until it's proven to be done in reality (and not with any of those silly professors using scaled models and out in the middle of a flat area where nothing is in their way, and there's no other stones to match up to with the precision evidenced in Ballbek either), I'm just not able to believe it.


Hans: Well an argument from personal opinion based on be incredulously against it is fine but here is a question. We have two indisputable facts, the stones were quarried and moved. You can explain it based on what we know about Roman technology or we can bring in the "mysterious".



Though, I'd love Myth Busters to pull it off using the oxen and a huge stone of equal size from a quarry.


Hans: Sure come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to do this and someone will try.

Other comments:

Yes the much abused Abydos are damaged hieroglyphs called a palimpest. They were translated in the 19th century. The panel is part of series of panels that contain a message about the pharoah. The one shown is photoshop image that has made it look more artifical than it actually is.

There are threads here on that subjects



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I'm half Lebanese and I can assure that if all Lebanese mothers are as strong as my mom it would only take 3, maybe 4, of them to get these stones moved before noon.



Some other posters have voiced what I'm thinking. Even if you had a million people to move them you still have a 'space' issue. How do you get enough hands on them to lift and move them. Everything that they would have had tool-wise would have been organic in nature ... rope, rolling logs and cranes - and I don't believe for a second that organic rope or rolling logs or any type of make shift wooden crane would have held up under the weight.

If the unidentified aircraft buzzing our sky contain beings that have vastly superior technical capability than us then it's not too hard for me to imagine them having some kind of hand in Baalbek.

Great post OP and another reason for me to want to live/move to/visit Lebanon.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Hans: Well an argument from personal opinion based on be incredulously against it is fine but here is a question. We have two indisputable facts, the stones were quarried and moved. You can explain it based on what we know about Roman technology or we can bring in the "mysterious".


Hans, I agree that personal opinions are a dime a dozen. That said, it's also the personal opinion of Jean-Pierre Adam, and Anthony Mathews (the authors of the work you linked to) sadly the bibliography page for entry 31 (the drawing of moving the stones) has been omitted by Google so I can't cite the artist that drew it for their personal opinion as well. I know it's just semantics, but these people simply put forth their own propositions in the form of a book or drawing representing their own personal opinions. I'm not trying to start an argument here, just stating that these people being cited are giving us their personal opinions as well based on what they "think" not upon anything that they have actually done to physically recreate this feat of engineering. Does that mean I'm bringing in the "mysterious" as you mentioned? Not really. I'm not suggesting giants. I am suggesting that other means were undertaken than those posited by Jean-Pierre Adam and Anthony Mathews. What were they? Who knows. But I'm not going to believe the oxen theory until it's proven in reality rather than a drawing. As I said in a previous post, I think we as a civilization have lost much knowledge due to losing our historic libraries either intentionally (war) or unintentionally. The methods used to move these stones may not have been relearned yet by humanity (once again, just my personal opinion).





Hans: Sure come up with the hundreds of thousands of dollars to do this and someone will try.


I wish we could! I'm all for physical demonstrations of techniques rather than theories on paper. Either way, I think the site of Baalbek, and the pyramids, are something we as a society ought to never forget. They represent methods of construction no longer in use.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bpg131313
 


Howdy B 13x3

Most correct all we can do is speculate as no one does that type of movement with old technology now. The special skills associated with that have been lost. We can make reasonable assumption thou. Some other things to consider when looking at this problem

1. No sign of any other technology or culture to have moved these stones
2. We have no mention of the site prior to the Romans getting there
3. The construction is consistent with traditional Roman style

So mysterious is possible but not probable.(IMHO)

I remember a cartoon from long ago, showing two aliens with hand tools building a stone wall. One says to the other, "Man these humans will never figure out why we built this, it'll drive them crazy". 2nd aliens says, "we'll building this because you said the commander's wife look like the bad side of a dwarf star".



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Hello Board -

I am a long time lurker here but after reading through this post decided to join up.Great subject !
Someone posted a few pages back about a theory suggesting megalithic stones as having been cast in place like concrete.I think the book he might be thinking of is"The Pyramids-An Enigma Solved" by Dr.Joseph Davidovits and Margie Morris.
It deals with the Great Pyramid at Giza and basically the theory is that all the stones were cast in place and not cut and moved.It is interesting to read but for me there are lots of holes and does not prove it was not cut stones that made up this monument.
It is truly perplexing how ancient man handled huge stones,quarrying,moving and placement.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
One question, how do we know exactly how much these stones weigh?

I mean it may seem stupid to ask, but how exactly are we determining the weight of a stone that's under a stone that's under another stone etc?

Is it just by comparing smaller stones of similar materials and extrapolating their weight? What if they are hollow or honeycomb?

The answers might be in this thread or on the net but I haven't seen them ... just some things to ponder. We often make an assumption about a topic and then spend endless debate over it and we don't even realize our assumption is false.

Not saying that is the case, just something to maybe look into.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
The same questions keep being asked and the same answers being ignored.

Thanks for the reply,will certainly look into what you wrote about the retaining wall.


Found this interesting paragraph regarding Roman techniques:

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.


As for addressing differences in graffiti, weather erosion, architecture style, brick, masonry size, horizontal building line, tier arrangement etc..
or speculating upon why the Romans never made mention of
'the world's largest building project' even once in their comprehensive histories,then the discrepencies are listed on page 3 ,12 posts down.

Cheers


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



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
One question, how do we know exactly how much these stones weigh?

I mean it may seem stupid to ask, but how exactly are we determining the weight of a stone that's under a stone that's under another stone etc?


All one needs to do is find exactly the same rock, cut it into a 1ftx1ft sample stone. Measure the weight and volume of the sample rock. Determine volume of Baalbek stone. Divide Volume of Baalbek stone with sample stone volume. Multiply result with weight of sample rock.

They are not honeycomb or 'holey'! [pardon the pun]

Such a defect would cause structural problems to the point that Baalbek would be non-existent today.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Jinni]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Why not larger people? There have been many finds of larger humans in the United States during early efforts to build communities. Most have been dismissed as hoaxes. The interesting read is old histories of counties or towns where information about these finds are included as the "early inhabitants" of our area. Seems the Smithsonian was brought into many of these "finds" and took the artifacts - never to be seen again. The proponents of "creationism" held heavy sway in the earliest times of this country. Why would anyone include these discoveries in there written histories unless they had actually been found? There was nothing for them to gain in the way of fame or money. They were just writing down their past for the future generations to read. It seems there were people on this earth before our present known civilization. Why the denial? Fear of not being the "ones". It is known in this day that there were many types of human - why not larger? I think Balbeek is a great example of the fact that there were larger humans at one time. Ever wonder why mammals got so large at one time? I don't have a definitive answer for that one. But, if animal mammals got larger - wouldn't that leave room for human mammals to be larger also? Mammals did not get larger for the fact that there was more room to be had....that does not explain their size. Was the atmosphere different at one time - before the current civilization? I don't have the answers, I just have the questions.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by komp_uk
reply to post by Jinni
 


ATS and HOAX? surely it deserves more than that. How about




and












Wow, haven't seen those for awhile. All of those pictures are fakes.
Gimme a bit and I'll see if I can pull up the older pages from the site here.
www.catchpenny.org...
here's the site on the temple image.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by K.G.B.
Another arrow pointing to the paranormal, and unknown construction techniques. If we couldn't do it now, how many generations of slaves would it have taken to do it then.
Oh yeah, and the Earth is only 8K years old, according to the bible.

Yeah.......right.


hmm not necessarily. i am a bible believer, and don tcliam to bet he most learned of all humans, but I've heard that Earth, and culture as we know it, may be the 10k years. There might have been massive amounts of stuff going on before that, comets, resurrections of life, things like that!



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinni

Originally posted by Fiverz
One question, how do we know exactly how much these stones weigh?

I mean it may seem stupid to ask, but how exactly are we determining the weight of a stone that's under a stone that's under another stone etc?


All one needs to do is find exactly the same rock, cut it into a 1ftx1ft sample stone. Measure the weight and volume of the sample rock. Determine volume of Baalbek stone. Divide Volume of Baalbek stone with sample stone volume. Multiply result with weight of sample rock.


Theres a great link here about determining the size and weight of collosal stones:
www.geocities.com...


Baalbek stones:

"The great mystery of the ruins of Baalbek, and indeed one of the greatest mysteries of the ancient world, concerns the massive foundation stones beneath the Roman Temple of Jupiter.
The lower courses of the outer wall are formed of huge, finely crafted and precisely positioned blocks. They range in size from thirty to thirty three feet in length, fourteen feet in height and ten feet in depth, and weigh approximately 450 tons each. Nine of these blocks are visible on the north side of the temple, nine on the south, and six on the west.

Above the six blocks on the western side are three even larger stones, called the Trilithon, whose weight is about 1000 tons each. These great stones vary in size between sixty-three and sixty-five feet in length, with a height of fourteen feet six inches and a depth of twelve feet.

Several other sources have confirmed the 1,000 ton estimate of the Trilithon stones. At least one other estimate of the Trilithon stone is over 800 tons.

Imagine an architect's specification that called for the foundation of a massive platform to be built of limestone blocks in sizes between 63 and 65 feet long, 14 feet 6 inches high and 12 feet deep and weighing in the neighborhood of 1,000 tons each.
The architects and engineers who built it in the first century BC left no indication of how they accomplished such a massive construction challenge. The limestone blocks were quarried about a quarter of a mile away from the construction site and made up the lower course of the foundation

This would translate into 19.5Mx4.33Mx3.6M=304 cubic meters. That is 730 tons assuming it is average limestone weighing 2.4 tons. They made a reference to high density limestone elsewhere on there site weighing 2.9 tons per cubic meter. They didn't say whether this was what the Baalbek stone was made out of but if it was it would be 882 tons. This is still short of the 1,000 ton estimate that is most common for the Trilithon stones. It appears as if it may have been exagerated and then repeated multiple times without being checked. Which means that the revised estimate should be 700 to 900 tons. this is still enormous and I can't imagine how it could have been transported up the hill which is supposed to be rough terrain although it is possible for a ramp of dirt or sand to have been built and dismantled without leaving a trace.
.
www.geocities.com...


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



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
If these stones were cast--where are the lines of the forms? When you see modern freeway overpass construction, you see the pattern of the foms on the surface of the concrete. If they used forms how were they able to cut the wood to be so flat? I doubt that they had plywood back then. Also--why would they cast a stone while still back in the quarrey?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Hokay... a few of those giant pictures came from this link:
www.worth1000.com...

I know the picture of the femur... it's not a human femur, I'll have to find the page about it...

Eh, never mind. Reread the text with the picture. It's a sculpture based on eye witness account. As for being anatomically correct... not how it doesn't even match the background outline they placed it over.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by RuneSpider]



new topics

top topics



 
103
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join