Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Baalbek

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
For those of you that don't know, the baalbek is a huge temple built somewhere in mesopotamia.. google it. I'm on a #ty comp and cant post links..

The baalbek was supposably made by giants

The base columns are over 1000 TONS. thats a weight that even our strongest cranes cannot pick up. These rocks were cut perfectly and placed together so a paper cannot not be inserted between!!!!!!!!

(also, the 1000 ton rocks were moved 5 miles =/)

Theres also been soem rumors of antigravity tech being used then

alien evidence?

you better believe it

 
Mod Note: Starting A New Thread – Please Review This Link
Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

edit on Sat Sep 11 2010 by Jbird because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Reminds me of what people first thought of stonehenge, not even 1000 people could move it. But sure enough a few dozen could. But I suppose these rocks were a lot bigger. Maybe aliens did actually do it. Very cool.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MooradianTheres also been soem rumors of antigravity tech being used then

alien evidence?

you better believe it


This is a joke right?

Show us the evidence before you make these outrageous claims.



edit on 10-9-2010 by Turiddu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Baalbek

Temple of Bacchus
Details inside Temple of BacchusBaalbek (Arabic: بعلبك‎) is a town in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon, altitude 1,170 metres (3,840 ft), situated east of the Litani River. It is famous for its exquisitely detailed yet monumentally scaled temple ruins of the Roman period, when Baalbek, then known as Heliopolis, was one of the largest sanctuaries in the Empire. It is Lebanon's greatest Roman treasure, and it can be counted among the wonders of the ancient world. It contains the largest and most noble Roman temples ever built, and they are among the best preserved.

Towering high above the Beqaa plain, their monumental proportions proclaimed the power and wealth of Imperial Rome. The gods worshiped here, the Triad of Jupiter, Venus and Bacchus, were grafted onto the indigenous deities of Hadad, Atargatis and a young male god of fertility. Local influences are also seen in the planning and layout of the temples, which vary from the classic Roman design.

Baalbek is home to the annual Baalbeck International Festival. The town is about 85 km (53 mi) northeast of Beirut, and about 75 km (47 mi) north of Damascus. It has a population of approximately 72,000.


en.wikipedia.org...


Baalbek Temple



Interesting find, here is some information on the Baalbek Temple build over 9000 years ago, don't know if there was help by Aliens, anything is possible.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Here is a good link:

www.sacredsites.com...

It's amazing how these societies built these large structures (like the Egyptians). They were brighter than what we give them credit for.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Turiddu
 


Did you read his post?

The 'evidence' is that these 1000+ tonnes quarried, carved and placed colossal stones, can not be moved today by our largest, modern cranes. These gargantuan blocks were lain and set approximately nine-thousand-years-ago!

That's a 9 followed by three 0's, or put another way...9,000 freaking years ago. Twice the reported age of the great pyramids of Egypt. Nearly twice as old as Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England.

According to establish science, humanity at that point in time, NINE THOUSAND YEARS AGO, did little more than run around in animal skins, lived in caves or other primitive accommodations, lived as hunter/gatherers using primitive hunting weapons and farming would not be widely practiced for another 1000-2000 years.

Yet these things were quarried, supposedly using animal bone and stone tools, and then transported over FIVE miles from the quarry site, to be lifted and stacked precisely.

No...it's NOT a joke. There are plenty of websites that carry images of these things, go take a look if you are really interested in leaning something, rather than taking the piss out of anyone who posts somethings you consider to be controversial.

Failing that, why don't you tell us how you think these stones came to be where there are?


edit on 10/9/2010 by spikey because: Missed out info



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Turiddu
 





The 'evidence' is that these 1000+ tonnes quarried, carved and placed colossal stones, can not be moved today by our largest, modern cranes. These gargantuan blocks were lain and set approximately nine-thousand-years-ago!


It is an amazing find, a shame that so much attention is put on Giza, we could possibiily learn more from these ancient strutures than Giza which is much younger.

Like your post Spiky.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


Thanks Aquarius1,

(although, i've just added to it, so you might want to take that praise back!)


I agree, there are loads of mysterious sites around the world, that not only incorporate unexplained features, but unexplainable features!

Cheers.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Nah, not changing my mind Spikey.

Thank you.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Mooradian
 


Except it doesn't matter if our cranes can lift the stones or not, because the builders wouldn't have been lifting them, they would have been sliding them. It has already been shown that large blocks can be moved using relatively few people. Furthermore, I don't know where this claim of 5 miles comes from. This was mentioned in another thread, yet everything I can find says that the quarry was 1/4 of a mile away, at least for the Trilithon. Why can't people believe that ancient Man was extremely resourceful and ingenious?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Very interesting subject on which I would like to leave a few simple and alternative views.
Interesting that like many ancient pyramids this structure defys our technilogical abilities.
Never trust an expert unless you know for your self that what they state is in fact true. In the same breath I dont ask you to believe what I am about to say and offer no proof as I leave it up to you to find your own proof. Only when you know it to be so for your self is it of any value to you.

To cut to the chase my points for consideration are as follows-

1. The dating of the Pyramids say at Giza is very speculative and in repeating what so called experts tell us we fall into a trap ie that the pyramids at Giza were built as a tomb some 4,570 years ago.

2. A previous civilisation rather than our present one (Including Ancient Egyptian) built these structures. Indeed in those times there were many more such structures which encompassed the equaterial regions of the Earth. These structures over time have been altered and or built upon.

3. The method of construction was by use of a sound technology unknown to us.

4. The purpose for which the pyramids I speak of were built is for space travel (but not as we do so today)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 


Interesting points artistpoet, there is also some evidence that the Sphinx is much older because of the water erosion, there was no water 4000 plus years ago in that area, some think it may have been built 10,000 years before that.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Turiddu

Originally posted by MooradianTheres also been soem rumors of antigravity tech being used then

alien evidence?

you better believe it


This is a joke right?

Show us the evidence before you make these outrageous claims.



edit on 10-9-2010 by Turiddu because: (no reason given)



theres somethign called uncle google. see for yourself and tell me what made these thigns



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Turiddu
 


Did you read his post?

The 'evidence' is that these 1000+ tonnes quarried, carved and placed colossal stones, can not be moved today by our largest, modern cranes. These gargantuan blocks were lain and set approximately nine-thousand-years-ago!

That's a 9 followed by three 0's, or put another way...9,000 freaking years ago. Twice the reported age of the great pyramids of Egypt. Nearly twice as old as Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England.

According to establish science, humanity at that point in time, NINE THOUSAND YEARS AGO, did little more than run around in animal skins, lived in caves or other primitive accommodations, lived as hunter/gatherers using primitive hunting weapons and farming would not be widely practiced for another 1000-2000 years.

Yet these things were quarried, supposedly using animal bone and stone tools, and then transported over FIVE miles from the quarry site, to be lifted and stacked precisely.

No...it's NOT a joke. There are plenty of websites that carry images of these things, go take a look if you are really interested in leaning something, rather than taking the piss out of anyone who posts somethings you consider to be controversial.

Failing that, why don't you tell us how you think these stones came to be where there are?


edit on 10/9/2010 by spikey because: Missed out info



AMEN



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Hey there Spikey .

Have you got a decent link to some of the precise measurements and distances involved with these Baalbek stones.

So far , from the little research online , i have found some conflicting info.

That the quarry is higher than the eventual resting place of the stones .
That the distance the stones were transported from the quarry to the platform is approx. a half mile .(not 5 miles as op stated)
The three blocks used were 800 Tons each with the unused block weighing 1200 Tons .

================================================================================

Are the Romans not the most likely candidate for this feat of engineering ?

===============================================================================
I am presuming that your figure of 9,000 years is based on the weathering of the stone .... correct ?

===============================================================================

Thanks in advance Spikey !






posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
The 'evidence' is that these 1000+ tonnes quarried, carved and placed colossal stones, can not be moved today by our largest, modern cranes. These gargantuan blocks were lain and set approximately nine-thousand-years-ago!

That's a 9 followed by three 0's, or put another way...9,000 freaking years ago. Twice the reported age of the great pyramids of Egypt. Nearly twice as old as Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England.


There is so much incredibly wrong in these posts.

The area of Baalbek has been settled for 9,000 years but the temple is not 9,000 years old. The construction of the temple complex began in the first century BC, by the Romans. We know the Romans (not giants, but that is an interesting side-note) built the complex because we have documentation of it. Construction was continuous for well over a century. Baalbek (known to the Romans as Heliopolis) lay near a major trade-route to the East, the local economy was tied to travelers on this route visiting the temples; so construction was always taking place.


Originally posted by Mooradian
The base columns are over 1000 TONS. thats a weight that even our strongest cranes cannot pick up. These rocks were cut perfectly and placed together so a paper cannot not be inserted between!

(also, the 1000 ton rocks were moved 5 miles =/)


No, the base columns are not over 1000 tons. The largest blocks at the temple are around 800 tons. Though we don't know exactly how the Romans moved the stones at Baalbek into place, we have a good idea based on the methods known in other constructions.

However, there are two stones at the nearby quarry that way over 1000 tons, Stone of the Pregnant Woman and another unnamed stone. However, this are still in the quarry 1 kilometer away and uphill from the temple complex, not 5 miles as claimed above. They were not moved; it is unknown if they were ever intended to be moved whole or broken up.

As for such large stones being impossible for the ancients to move, that is wrong as well. The Romans often moved very large stones much further than the one-kilometer from the quarry to the Heliopolis temple-complex. For instance, Augustus had a 230 ton obelisk moved from Alexandria to Rome to commemorate his victories against Marcus Antonius, a distance of 1951 kilometers further than the stones at the Heliopolis complex. As for modern man being incapable of moving such weights, in the 18th century Russian moved a 1250 ton stone, the Thunderstone.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5

(That interesting side-note being that after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, in just a few centuries many Europeans outside of Italy forgot the Romans were capable of great archaeological works...


Saxo Grammaticus, for example, argues that giants had to exist, because nothing else would explain the large walls, stone monuments, and statues that we now know were the remains of Roman construction
Source

The more things change...


edit on 10-9-2010 by DoomsdayRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
This was mentioned in another thread, yet everything I can find says that the quarry was 1/4 of a mile away, at least for the Trilithon. Why can't people believe that ancient Man was extremely resourceful and ingenious?


Because the people making these claims are themselves uneducated on what ancient man was capable of. They rely on books about the paranormal which themselves rely on outdated knowledge, instead of checking archaeological or historical sources.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
Did you read his post?


Yes and his post, much like your's, is bereft of any actual evidence. It is wild assumption and fantasy not based on any actual evidence or outdated beliefs.


Originally posted by spikey
According to establish science, humanity at that point in time, NINE THOUSAND YEARS AGO, did little more than run around in animal skins, lived in caves or other primitive accommodations, lived as hunter/gatherers using primitive hunting weapons and farming would not be widely practiced for another 1000-2000 years.


The oldest known human settlements are around 9 - 10,000 years old. Source. Farming is contemporaneous to this. Source


edit on 10-9-2010 by DoomsdayRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
We have floating barges today that can easily lift 1,500 tons. Where does everyone get the "we can't lift them today" argument?

There's already a lengthy topic on Baalbek in the Ancient and Lost Civilizations forum. Most of the site was built (or rebuilt) by the Romans, 100 BCE to 100 AD. some parts of the site, such as the Temple of Bacchus are purely Roman, while other parts, such as traces of an earlier "massive podium", pre-date Rome perhaps by as much as 1,000 years.

The absolute earliest discovery at the site is the altar dated to around 7,200 BCE. This altar became the nucleus around which the ancient tell formed.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
We have floating barges today that can easily lift 1,500 tons. Where does everyone get the "we can't lift them today" argument?


Because a book on the paranormal said so and they needed no other convincing.






top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join