The Baalbek foundation stones.

page: 8
87
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Another source of bad information (but interesting to read) for Baalbek is Michel M Alouf tourist guide to Baalbek written in 1890. He has lots of tourist guide stories. For those who have not travelled a lot overseas, some travel guides, based on your nationality and religion, tell you the stories for the site based on that.

History of Baalbek ISBN-13: 978-1585090631 for the new reprint

He is able to associate all the main ruins with the various religions, some of which I found on a Alan Alford site, be advised these have been edited by Mr. Alford and are not what Alouf wrote, he appears to have "moved" them to reflect his belief in space aliens.


legend states that Nimrod rebelled against Yahweh and built the Tower of Babel here, in order to ascend to Heaven and attack his God. According to one version of this legend, Nimrod ascended to the top of the Tower but found himself as far from his objective (Heaven) as when he had begun; after the Tower collapsed, Nimrod attempted to scale the heavens in a carriage drawn by four strong birds, but the carriage, after wandering for a long time in space, eventually crashed on Mount Hermon



they credited the work to demons or djinn. Muslim tradition states that Baalbek was once the home of Abraham, and later of Solomon.



they credited the work to demons or djinn. Muslim tradition states that Baalbek was once the home of Abraham, and later of Solomon.



Other legends associated Baalbek with the Biblical figure of Cain - the son of Adam - claiming that he built it as a refuge after his god Yahweh had cursed him. According to Estfan Doweihi, the Maronite Patriarch of Lebanon: 'Tradition states that the fortress of Baalbek... is the most ancient building in the world. Cain, the son of Adam, built it in the year 133 of the creation, during a fit of raving madness. He gave it the name of his son Enoch and peopled it with giants who were punished for their iniquities by the flood.



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.


Of course these stories all post date the building of Baalbek but may refer to the smaller site man in pre-hellenistic times. Most reflect the religious stories of the different religions in the area and of course have the added belief in a deluge to remind you they are just stories.




posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 



Hans,

I had looked at those sites before posting, but discounted them for two reasons. The massive block wasn't able to be seen (though I figured that might be due to the lack of a high definition passover of the satellite), and two, the Jupiter Temple ruins are between the quarry and the collection of 6 pillars (which can be seen in the black and white picture where the people are on the huge block still in the quarry).

The angles just don't make sense for the quarry to be southeast of the site. I'm sure they had multiple quarry sites for a project of that scope (wouldn't it be awesome to see it restored?!?!). If you look at that B&W picture you can see that the huge stone really isn't that far away from the site because those 6 pillars in the background are close enough to actually see detail. They aren't that far away. Once again, that's just my personal opinion based upon what I've seen in the pictures and the evidence on the ground today from what we have of a satellite overpass.

[rant] I wish we weren't constantly messing with Iran (close friends with Lebanon) so I'd feel safe enough to travel there and see the site myself. I've been fascinated by this site ever since I saw the first pictures. Perhaps someday we'll stop with all the political bullying [/rant]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bpg131313
 


South west, not south east. Look at any google Map of baalbek, some of the tourist maps show the quarry sites too, most are full of rubble and built over. It shows the quarry (one of them to the SW) the other I suspect are to the south also.

Lebanon has had a violence filled history for centuries, The maronite Christians, Druse, Shia, Sunnis, Circassians and Alawites have been at each other jugulars for a thousand years before American was founded. Warfare has been rife in that area for over 8,000 years as a matter of fact.

I was lookin' thru my notes from previous discussions of old Baalbek and noted that one German on the DAI said that they thought that a great deal of limestone had to cut away from the site to level it. It was his opinion that the 3 x 700 tonners were from the site of the temples themselves - which would make transport a tad easier. But of course no evidence for that at all.

Howdy Karl

Correction on an earlier post

Keppie, L. Understanding Roman Inscriptions (1990) states that they think 5% of Roman inscriptions survived, around 300,000 from 6,000,000. No estimates of how much literature or records survived however. But large number of books are known only by quote and title but have never been seen. So less than 1% is probably still a good guess or Roman record survival.

[edit on 24/2/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin
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.


We don't have to go to space. We don't have to build bunkers 40 stories underground. We don't have to build 2000 foot tall towers. We don't have to build 260,000 foot long bridges. We don't have to do a lot of things, but we do.

We've had engineers working on this for decades. None of them has come up with a viable solution.

His videos deal with levers, and as I've pointed out earlier in this thread you can easily use an online lever calculator to find out the length of lever you would need for these thousand ton stones. www.engineersedge.com... To use 50 pounds of force on the lever, the lever would have to be 63 miles long. His other idea, the rolling stones on fulcrums idea would require a perfectly level service a third of a mile long, a perfectly built frame a third of a mile long and a hundred feet wide, and capable of supporting two million pounds of weight. And that still doesn't solve the problem of actually putting the stone in place at the wall. Neither one of his methods are possible for this application.


[edit on 24-2-2009 by bronco73]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bronco73
 


Fortunately they never moved a 1,000 tonner just three 700 tonners and guess what they probably used windlasses with pulleys to get the mechanical advantage they needed.

The Lateran obelisk which weight 455 tons and 33 meters tall was taken down and moved to Rome from Egypt and erected. That was after the Egyptians had previous erected it of course It was found fallen and reraised in 1588 - using windlasses and pulleys.

Now of course people will say well - they could move 455 tons but not 700, well the Egyptians moved up to a 1,000 tons, the Russian 1,600. So if people in 1588 with essentially the same technology as the Romans could do it. Why is it so hard to believe the Romans could do it 1,500 years earlier? Well because fringe thought needs there to be evidence of mysterious powers!

Yep the sole proof of an unknown civilization is three rocks.....



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


reply to post by Hanslune
 


I just wanted to add in my opinion, something that popped in my head whilst reading everybody else opinions and theory's. I will agree with you Hans, that the Romans built a temple on the existing site at Baalbek. However, do you have any historical citations (other than Roman contruction techniques) showing without a doubt that the Romans built the entire site? I would like to see them, but I don't think you can provide. My point is, you are theorizing about all of this. You obviously have a very strong opinion regarding this site, but to simply poo-poo it away as a Roman site, without any documentation other than books about Roman construction is irresponsible. It could have been constructed in any of the ways that have been described in the previous posts, anything is possible.

What I wanted to know, and maybe give you something to honestly ponder Hans, is if this site is indeed ancient, and we try to look at some of the oldest texts in the world that describe a terrible flood, could it not be possible that this site was completely obliterated and these giant stones are all there is left? I mean think about it, this site predates human civilization, a catasrophic flood hits, destroying the site, and a few VERY large blocks are left. I wonder if there has been any ground penetrating radar done at the site, maybe there are more stones that were covered up in silt after the waters subsided. Maybe that is something that can be verified by looking at the weathering patterns on the stones? It just looked wierd to me to see that one stone in the first post, sunken into the ground on one side, and sticking up on the other like it sunk down in mud or something.

I don't know, nor am I any sort of expert, I just wanted to add my opinion and perspective. This is one of those sites you read about that make you want to be Indiana Jones!!! (Yes I have a secret desire to become an archeaologist
)



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


This site says they are 1000 tons:
www.andrewcollins.com...

This one says they are up to 1000 tons:
www.geocities.com...

And this one too
morris108.wordpress.com...

This one says 800
www.world-mysteries.com...

This one says up to 1500 tons
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

This one says they are over 300 tons:
www.vejprty.com...

So does this one:
www.eridu.co.uk...

This one says 450
www.biblelandstudios.com...

Looks to me like nobody can agree on how heavy they are, so forgive me if I don't put too much faith in your estimation of 700 tons. Your idea of windlasses and pulleys doesn't hold any more water than that other guys' idea of giants. Unless of course you've unearthed evidence of such at the site? Groundbreaking indeed.

I'm happy for you that somebody re-erected an obelisk using windlasses and pulleys 16 or so centuries later (many historians and scientists believe they were erected 2k BC, so that could be 36 centuries later, but who's counting), that isn't evidence that that is what happened at baalbek, again unless you've unearthed the pulleys or something there.

Finally, I didn't claim even once in this or any other thread that these stones were not put in place by normal everyday humans. What I've said is that they could not have used levers or fulcrums, so save your condescending remarks for somebody else.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Another source of bad information (but interesting to read) for Baalbek is Michel M Alouf tourist guide to Baalbek written in 1890.
He is able to associate all the main ruins with the various religions.

History of Baalbek ISBN-13: 978-1585090631


I will take a look at it when I am in a second-hand bookstore again.


Originally posted by Hanslune
, some of which I found on a Alan Alford site, be advised these have been edited by Mr. Alford and are not what Alouf wrote, he appears to have "moved" them to reflect his belief in space aliens.


Thanks for the advice, but there is nothing wrong with Mr. Alford's belief in space aliens in my opinion.
I am glad you mentioned him here because this is his interesting view on the Baalbek compex.


This view from the quarry shows that the distance to the Baalbek acropolis is not huge - no more than a third of a mile. Nor is the elevation very different between the two points.



Nevertheless, when we consider the size and weight of the Baalbek stones and the fact that the route to the acropolis is not entirely flat, transportation via non-technological means would have presented the builders with formidable problems.



If you ask an archaeologist, he will tell you that the Romans built the temples of Baalbek. 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. 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, incredible indeed.



Is there any evidence that the Romans built the platform of Baalbek as well as the temples upon it? One text book assures us that: 'Part of a [Roman] drum or column similar to those found in the Temple of Jupiter was used as a block in the foundation under the Trilithon'.[6] But where is the evidence for this Roman drum? I myself have been to Baalbek and I can show you dozens of photographs of the foundation walls, but I cannot show you the alleged Roman drum. It seems to have vanished into thin air.


I wonder, have you seen that so called drum yourself?


A good counter argument lies in the fact that the Baalbek platform is out of all proportion to the temples which stand upon it, being thus suggestive of two different phases in construction. This same observation was made by Professor Daniel Krencker of the German archaeological mission, although it led him to the conclusion that the Temple of Jupiter was originally planned on the same colossal scale as these foundations. In other words, Krencker believed that the Roman builders must have had a change of mind. (How many times have we heard this before? Call me a sceptic but it seems to me that 'a change of mind' is archaeologist-speak for anything which the archaeologist cannot comprehend!)



In the absence of any proof as to who built the platform of Baalbek, it becomes very difficult to draw any firm conclusions as to the construction methods used.


www.world-mysteries.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by UMayBRite!
Wally Wallington did it...
Here

If a retired carpenter can move a 10,000 lb + machine with just a 2x4 maybe its not so hard!



Kind of reminds me of the Choral Castle(sp?) structures...in regards to the incredible precision, and unknown techniques used to create them. If you are familiar, maybe you see the resemblance-if not, look it up. A good read none-the-less...



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by smitewinit
 


Howdy Smitewinit



However, do you have any historical citations (other than Roman contruction techniques) showing without a doubt that the Romans built the entire site? I would like to see them, but I don't think you can provide.


Hans: no one can provide that but let us reverse the question can you prove anyone else was there? Or that the Roman's didn't build it?

You go with the best evidence. What evidence we do have points to the Romans. I would personally LOVE for their to be proof of an earlier civilization - been looking for one for forty years.

Most if not all of the fringe evidence consists of denying evidence of the Romans.

It's never to late to become an amateur archaeologist



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   


Looks to me like nobody can agree on how heavy they are, so forgive me if I don't put too much faith in your estimation of 700 tons.


Hans: The science sites go from 640 to 850, the fringe sites go all over the place. So whose estimation would you have faith in?



Your idea of windlasses and pulleys doesn't hold any more water than that other guys' idea of giants.


Hans: Not my idea just passing on how the Roman moved heavy loads – based on the information they left for us. I’d say that the Giant idea is ridiculous while mine is evidenced based – unless you can prove that the Romans didn’t use windlasses and pulleys and that the literature on the matter have all been faked? LOL



Unless of course you've unearthed evidence of such at the site?


Hans: Have you unearthed evidence that they didn’t or how they were moved? If not why no accept based on known sources what the Roman could do.



I'm happy for you that somebody re-erected an obelisk using windlasses and pulleys 16 or so centuries later


Han: You sound so bitter that real evidence has been shown to you, you really must have suffered a crushing blow to your ego. Evidence is evidence try not to take it personally.



(many historians and scientists believe they were erected 2k BC, so that could be 36 centuries later, but who's counting), that isn't evidence that that is what happened at baalbek,


Hans: Actually it is it shows how you use windlasses and pulleys – technology we KNOW the Roman’s had to move something using the same techniques the Roman’s had. Its reasonable your denialism is unreasonable.



again unless you've unearthed the pulleys or something there.


Hans: Why would that be necessary you entire argument point consists of denying all evidence. Can you provide any evidence to HOW it was done?



Finally, I didn't claim even once in this or any other thread that these stones were not put in place by normal everyday humans.



Hans: Just above you denied Roman’s using windlasses and pulleys – so how did they do it then? In that denial you go against known evidence that the Roman's had that type of technology and you deny a later example using the same type of technology to lift a 455 tons obelisk.

Deny deny deny, isn't it so easy to deny that which you don't want to believe?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JDSalinger
reply to post by karl 12
 

Maybe they used the some techniques that were employed by the Rapanui people to move the Moai to there locations. Although, many of today's most prominent engineers have only speculated on the techniques used by the Rapanui and never put the theory into practice.

For all we know they may have even used a technique so simple we may have over looked it.




I've been saying this for quite a while now. Look at it this way. Any "modern" person who sees an 870 ton block will say something like "There's no way a crane can move that thing. Modern technology can't move it so there's no way the 'ancients' could've moved it."

If you're a 2000 BC builder and you have to move an 870 tonne block you use the means at your disposal to move it. Modern man cannot think that way. The fact that it was moved is undeniable. Even though I believe in ancient astronauts I still say ancient man could do things we can't do today simply because we can't think they way they did.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   


.... being thus suggestive of two different phases in construction. This same observation was made by Professor Daniel Krencker of the German archaeological mission, although it led him to the conclusion that the Temple of Jupiter was originally planned on the same colossal scale as these foundations. In other words, Krencker believed that the Roman builders must have had a change of mind.


Krenchker comment

Krencher comments are above but note the Krencher also believed the Romans built the foundation. HOWEVER I cannot find a confirmation in any source that Krencher actually made that observation. However we'll - for the moment accept it as genuine. But balanced by the additional observation that he never expressed any doubts as to the Roman building it.

That they had a larger initial idea is probably correct.

So evidence for this non-Roman culture that built this foundation? Perhaps you could point to the other sites where this culture built stuff?

Based on the reasoing given the sole output of this unknown culture was building (in Roman style no less) a foundation.

How do you account for the construction being Roman?

Now I'm not trying to be snippy but comparing this amount of data (one foundation) to the massive archaeological footprints left by early civilizations ones has to ask - "where's the beef"?



In the absence of any proof as to who built the platform of Baalbek, it becomes very difficult to draw any firm conclusions as to the construction methods used.


Hans: "Absence of any proof" [that we are willing to accept] it would seem that writer didn't read the 1925 report by Weigand wherein they dug down to the foundation, the foundation is made of typical Roman 'honey comb" a grid of brick walls with space between filled with rubble, only the out side is limestone. This conclusion was reached also by the French team and by a 1990's German team....


In an earlier part of this post we talked about Daniel Krencher - who was he? He was an expert of Roman architecture. In his 1923 book

Baalbek / 2nd Bd
0rganisation, 1973, Unveränd. 0rganisation, 1973 Unveränd. photomechan. photomechanical. Nachdr. [d. Nachdr [d. Ausg.] Berlin u. Leipzig 1923. Ausg] Berlin and Leipzig the 1923rd

He went into depth about the Roman origins and design of Baalbek.....

[edit on 26/2/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by smitewinit
 


Howdy Smitewinit



However, do you have any historical citations (other than Roman contruction techniques) showing without a doubt that the Romans built the entire site? I would like to see them, but I don't think you can provide.


Hans: no one can provide that but let us reverse the question can you prove anyone else was there? Or that the Roman's didn't build it?

You go with the best evidence. What evidence we do have points to the Romans. I would personally LOVE for their to be proof of an earlier civilization - been looking for one for forty years.

Most if not all of the fringe evidence consists of denying evidence of the Romans.

It's never to late to become an amateur archaeologist



I know, and I indeed may fork over some doe and pull the trigger and start taking some courses. Or do you think courses are even necessary? I mean, how does one become an amatuer archaeologist? Do you have any advice?

Besides start digging in the dirt!!


[edit on 26-2-2009 by smitewinit]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by smitewinit
 


For pure amateur you just need to show up. Look for local groups and Universities doing digs and volunteer. If you want to get more aggressive check the groups like earthwatch which arrange for you to work overseas at a dig.

www.earthwatch.org...

Read

Pick an area and read up on it. Archaeologist always love to find somebody in an area who has an indepth knowledge of x subject. If you live in an area with archaeological stuff - become the local expert on some aspect/site there.

Read

If you want to get serious get a degree, you might also want to consider getting in sideways - in by one of the technical specialities.

Read



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Hans: The science sites go from 640 to 850, the fringe sites go all over the place. So whose estimation would you have faith in?


Seems like you've picked your favorite, so did I. Neither one should be taken as correct so you really had no business correcting me. And the science sites go from 450 to 1000.



Hans: Not my idea just passing on how the Roman moved heavy loads – based on the information they left for us. I’d say that the Giant idea is ridiculous while mine is evidenced based – unless you can prove that the Romans didn’t use windlasses and pulleys and that the literature on the matter have all been faked? LOL


No, you actually claimed that that is how it was done, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim. If your claim is evidence based, how about you point to the evidence that that was the method used at this site? And, asking me to prove it wasn't done by windlasses and pulleys is just like me asking you to prove it wasn't done by giants. Impossible. I would think that a level headed person would realize that before posting it.



Hans: Have you unearthed evidence that they didn’t or how they were moved? If not why no accept based on known sources what the Roman could do.


Of course I haven't unearthed evidence on ANY method. That's why unlike you I haven't made ANY claims as to how it was done. I have said however that they could not have done it using levers and fulcrums.



Han: You sound so bitter that real evidence has been shown to you, you really must have suffered a crushing blow to your ego. Evidence is evidence try not to take it personally.


I am bitter because you are making claims that you cannot possibly substantiate, and at the same time throwing snide remarks at others when their claims are no less provable than yours.



Hans: Actually it is it shows how you use windlasses and pulleys – technology we KNOW the Roman’s had to move something using the same techniques the Roman’s had. Its reasonable your denialism is unreasonable.


It has never been successfully proven that these large stones were even put in place by the Romans, and there is evidence to show that they were put in place many centuries before, so attributing the method of placement to them is even more unreasonable.



Hans: Why would that be necessary you entire argument point consists of denying all evidence. Can you provide any evidence to HOW it was done?


I am not denying ANY evidence. That is the difference here. You are attempting to imply evidence when none exists. There is absolutely ZERO evidence to substantiate ANY placement method by ANY group.



Hans: Just above you denied Roman’s using windlasses and pulleys – so how did they do it then? In that denial you go against known evidence that the Roman's had that type of technology and you deny a later example using the same type of technology to lift a 455 tons obelisk.


Are the ancient Romans the only real humans to ever exist? I've never denied it was done by humans, I've never denied that the Romans had technology to move large objects. And, the obelisk was re-erected centuries later using windlasses and pulleys, there is no evidence that it was first erected using that method. Big deal. They drive cars in Italy now, that doesn't mean that they had the technology in ancient Rome.



Deny deny deny, isn't it so easy to deny that which you don't want to believe?


Again, I haven't denied anything other than the use of levers and fulcrums. What I've said is that there is no EVIDENCE to suggest that windlasses and pulleys was the method used. You have faith in your claims, but without even a shred of evidence to back it up you really have no traction at all.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Hans: Care to point to one of those science sites saying the three stones are 1,000 tons, I found that such sites move the amounts between the stones on a regular basis? I’m not doubting you at all of course!



I am not denying ANY evidence. That is the difference here. You are attempting to imply evidence when none exists.


Hans: And you are claiming they couldn’t have been moved by windlass and pulleys either – a system known to have been used by the Roman in construction for hundred of years. How do you know that? All your claims are that the Roman’s couldn’t do it – with no evidence that you couldn’t, a purely faith based comment. You may not realize it but you are denying evidence.



There is absolutely ZERO evidence to substantiate ANY placement method by ANY group.


Hans: So do you also deny that the Romans built the REST of Baalbek using their standard techniques – or do you believe they created a totally new set of construction methods just for Baalbek?



It has never been successfully proven that these large stones were even put in place by the Romans,


Hans: Can you provide evidence of someone else moving them then?



and there is evidence to show that they were put in place many centuries before,


Hans: Actually there isn’t any care to provide it? I would note that you said above that there is no evidence. Remember we need hard evidence not some fringe guy opinion.



Are the ancient Romans the only real humans to ever exist?


Hans: There were lots just no unknown civilization that you say could move three stones that you declare the Roman couldn’t move.



I've never denied it was done by humans,


Hans: You deny that the Roman’s could do it despite the proven technology to do it. Or we could ask you again, are you saying that the Roman's could have moved them but you deny they did because there is no direct physical evidence of the method of movement on the stones themselves - is this your argument?




I've never denied that the Romans had technology to move large objects.


Hans: Oh so they could move large object but they COULDN’T move the three rocks? Care to clarify? Perhaps you could tell us what the upper limit of Roman stone moving was? Please also provide the criteria on which you based this.



And, the obelisk was re-erected centuries later using windlasses and pulleys, there is no evidence that it was first erected using that method.


Hans: Ah doh, read about Roman construction techniques, are you actually stating that the Roman’s having windlasses and pulley, refused to use that method to raise the obelisks and instead created an entirely new system of engineering, used it once then went back to windlasses and pulleys? Denialism at this level is very humorous! You do realize that Roman technology was mostly lost then recreated in 1588 the windlass and pulleys were of the same capacity as the earlier Roman ones, LOL

So it was erected and put down at least three times – how was that done? If not with the KNOWN Roman system of windlass and Pulleys….what then?



Again, I haven't denied anything other than the use of levers and fulcrums. What I've said is that there is no EVIDENCE to suggest that windlasses and pulleys was the method used.


Hans: Wow then you can deny they built most of the building in the entire western Rome empire - what sorta evidence would you accept by the way?

You have repeatedly denied that the Roman’s would have used windlasses and pulleys – which we know they used in construction work for centuries
Your using denial of evidence to an absurd level to try and cover up your denialism.

So your saying that just because the stones are in a Roman building, on a Roman site which was built by Roman construction methods that means they cannot have been moved by the Romans using known methods of construction because you don’t want them to use it?

Denialism

I await your evidence



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Hans: Care to point to one of those science sites saying the three stones are 1,000 tons, I found that such sites move the amounts between the stones on a regular basis? I’m not doubting you at all of course!

I'm not sure what you are asking me here, since the links I provided earlier are the conclusions of scientists as to the weight of the stones.



Hans: And you are claiming they couldn’t have been moved by windlass and pulleys either – a system known to have been used by the Roman in construction for hundred of years. How do you know that? All your claims are that the Roman’s couldn’t do it – with no evidence that you couldn’t, a purely faith based comment. You may not realize it but you are denying evidence.

No, I'm not claiming that at all, and in fact I never claimed they couldn't be or weren't. I claimed that there is no EVIDENCE to support the hypothesis, which at this point there is not. Again, you are being very dishonest here. I've never claimed that the Romans did not or could not do it. What I claimed (how many times did you need to hear it) that levers and fulcrums couldn't have done it. It is you who is making claims on faith. Again, Hans, there is NO evidence to support your windlasses and pulleys claim. COULD it have been done using that method? YES. However, you cannot claim it as the correct method until you have supporting evidence.



Hans: So do you also deny that the Romans built the REST of Baalbek using their standard techniques – or do you believe they created a totally new set of construction methods just for Baalbek?

Do you enjoy trying to squirm your way out of supporting your own arguments? I didn't make any claims to any techniques other than to say that placing the large bottom stones couldn't have been done with levers and fulcrums. Furthermore, there isn't evidence to even support the notion that the large Ballbek stones were built and placed by the Romans. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to argue that they were placed many centuries BEFORE the rest of the Roman construction.




Hans: Can you provide evidence of someone else moving them then?

No, and you cannot provide evidence that the Romans did. However, there is evidence to support that the large bottom stones have significantly more erosion than higher ones placed by the Romans, indicating earlier placement.



Hans: Actually there isn’t any care to provide it? I would note that you said above that there is no evidence. Remember we need hard evidence not some fringe guy opinion.

some fringe guy's opinion like windlasses and pulleys? Because there certainly isn't any evidence to support that idea. One only has to look at a picture of the stones to see that they are far more weathered than the ones above them.
www.scribd.com...
www.biblelandstudios.com...
morris108.wordpress.com...
vejprty.com...




Hans: There were lots just no unknown civilization that you say could move three stones that you declare the Roman couldn’t move.

One of the first signs of somebody losing an argument is when they make false claims against their opposition. I've never said the Romans did not or could not move them.



Hans: You deny that the Roman’s could do it despite the proven technology to do it. Or we could ask you again, are you saying that the Roman's could have moved them but you deny they did because there is no direct physical evidence of the method of movement on the stones themselves - is this your argument?

Hans, you are beginning to look foolish. Again, I've never denied that the Romans could do it. What I've said (for the umpteenth time) is that they couldn't do it with levers and fulcrums, and that there is no evidence to support they windlasses and pulley's theory. There may come a time when there is evidence unearthed at the site or in a text, but until then it remains nothing more than a theory.




Hans: Oh so they could move large object but they COULDN’T move the three rocks? Care to clarify? Perhaps you could tell us what the upper limit of Roman stone moving was? Please also provide the criteria on which you based this.

Before we do that, how about we ascertain if the Romans were the people who in fact moved them? I'm a person who is usually swayed by evidence, and at this site there frankly isn't enough to determine; Who placed them, How they were placed, When they were placed, What they placed them with, Why they placed them.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   


Denialism at this level is very humorous! You do realize that Roman technology was mostly lost then recreated in 1588 Hans: Ah doh, read about Roman construction techniques, are you actually stating that the Roman’s having windlasses and pulley, refused to use that method to raise the obelisks and instead created an entirely new system of engineering, used it once then went back to windlasses and pulleys? the windlass and pulleys were of the same capacity as the earlier Roman ones, LOL

So it was erected and put down at least three times – how was that done? If not with the KNOWN Roman system of windlass and Pulleys….what then?

It was RE-ERECTED using that technique. There isn't any supporting evidence to say for certain it was done using that technique initially.

When exactly did the Romans start using that technique of windlasses and pulleys? Do you even know?



Hans: Wow then you can deny they built most of the building in the entire western Rome empire - what sorta evidence would you accept by the way?

You have repeatedly denied that the Roman’s would have used windlasses and pulleys – which we know they used in construction work for centuries
Your using denial of evidence to an absurd level to try and cover up your denialism.

I Never denied that Romans built the Roman Empire either. Where do you get this stuff? Show me once where I denied that they used windlasses and pulleys. One quote is all you need. We both know you cannot because I did not. I've only said there isn't evidence to support the theory at Ballbek.



So your saying that just because the stones are in a Roman building, on a Roman site which was built by Roman construction methods that means they cannot have been moved by the Romans using known methods of construction because you don’t want them to use it?

Denialism

I await your evidence


I cannot provide you with any evidence, because as I've said throughout this thread there is none. There is however some evidence to support the idea that these stones were placed PRIOR to the construction on top of them by the Romans. There is no evidence to support windlasses and pulleys, no evidence to support giants or aliens, and no evidence to support that little miss muffet moved them, so making any of the forementioned claims cannot be taken as fact unless some sort of supporting evidence is found.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by bronco73]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightworth
Let's see, Egypt: check. Lebanon: check. Israel: nope.

If Israel is the land of "God's chosen people," why are there no megalithic structures there?


Maybe God doesn't care about how big of a building people build. He did however, care about our motive for doing so:

"Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves..." - Genesis 11:4

We were back to our old, "I want to be a god" way of thinking again.





new topics
top topics
 
87
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join