Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Baalbek

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Hi Aquarius you wrote ...."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."
I remember reading a book by somebody called West who said the same thing about water erosion and estimated the true age of the Spinx to be at least 12,500 years ago which is half a proccesional cycle and indeed at that time certain small passageways in the so called Queens and also the Kings chamber would have aligned with what are termed as the Duat stars. The duat stars being the brightest and so often close stars such as Sirius, Rigel, Alderbaran, Procyon. Pollux, Castor etc

I hope am not straying off subject here so I wont ramble on too much about futher aspects of these stars.
As regards there not being water at Giza some 4,500 years ago there is another strange discovery that was made - when excavating the Giza Platau a large cedar wood Barque (boat) was discovered - The ancient Egyptians claim that there civilisation was started on the banks of the nile some 7000 years ago and that they had settled there after the inundations at that time. Another interesting piece of the picture is that Ancient Egyptian Philosophy which came before the religions states that their knowledge goes back some 50,000 years. OK I best stop at that point

edit on 10-9-2010 by artistpoet because: typo




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 


You are referring to John Anthony West, the below quote is from his website.



Author, lecturer, and guide, John Anthony West delivered a seismic shock to archaeology in the early 1990's when he and Boston University geologist Robert Schoch revealed that the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt, showed evidence of rainfall erosion. Such erosion could only mean that the Sphinx was carved during or before the rains that marked the transition of northern Africa from the last Ice Age to the present interglacial epoch, a transition that occurred in the millennia from 10,000 to 5000 BC



www.jawest.net...



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Yes Aquarius that is the fellow I mean thank you for the link. As well as the polar shifts that occured at that time (and are occuring now) there were magor inundations/floods some 5000 and 8000 years ago. These floods are recorded mythologically in ancient texts such as Mesopatamia Sumeria and of course the Old Testiment



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 


Agreed, if you are familar with Graham Hancock he talks about that all the time, he is not an archeologists but does his own reseach, not everything he says is accurate, but much of it is in my opinion, check out his website.


www.grahamhancock.com...


Also his video youtube page.


www.grahamhancock.com...


Sorry O.P. but think I am way off topic, but certainly related.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Heres what gets me about sites like Baalbeck and Puma Puku it seems the further we go back in time the bigger the stones used to construct structures we have no idea what they could be used for ???

The Baalbeck stone foundation of something sat there for a half a dozen millenia before the Romans came along along and and thought well here's a perfect foundation lets build a temple on it!!

Foundation of what ?
What the H. E. double hockey sticks was irt supposed to be who built the BIG STONE part of it ?
one thing is certain 15 to 10,000 years it was easy to move and carve any size stone ,and now it isn't



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MrsBlonde
 



Foundation of what ?
What the H. E. double hockey sticks was irt supposed to be who built the BIG STONE part of it ?
one thing is certain 15 to 10,000 years it was easy to move and carve any size stone ,and now it isn't


That is a good question, we may very well have had a advanced civilizations that were destroyed, in fact many advanced civilizations, the artifacts they have found certainly points to that, and who knows what they have found and is being hidden from us.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
The Baalbeck stone foundation of something sat there for a half a dozen millenia before the Romans came along along and and thought well here's a perfect foundation lets build a temple on it!!

Foundation of what ?
What the H. E. double hockey sticks was irt supposed to be who built the BIG STONE part of it ?


Actually, paranormal books on Baalbek are confused. The temple complex was built on earlier temples of the original inhabitants. This was a common practice until very recently in the world. With monoliths such as the Stone of the Pregnant Woman nearby, paranormal authors conflated the two facts, thinking that the Roman temples were built on these giant slabs.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aquarius1
That is a good question, we may very well have had a advanced civilizations that were destroyed, in fact many advanced civilizations, the artifacts they have found certainly points to that, and who knows what they have found and is being hidden from us.


They have found no artifacts, not a single one, that suggests Baalbek was constructed by aliens. They do however, find overwhelming evidence the Romans were responsible, from the hallmarks of Roman construction to the trash (artifacts).



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
The Baalbeck stone foundation of something sat there for a half a dozen millenia before the Romans came along along and and thought well here's a perfect foundation lets build a temple on it!!

Foundation of what ?
What the H. E. double hockey sticks was irt supposed to be who built the BIG STONE part of it ?


Actually, paranormal books on Baalbek are confused. The temple complex was built on earlier temples of the original inhabitants. This was a common practice until very recently in the world. With monoliths such as the Stone of the Pregnant Woman nearby, paranormal authors conflated the two facts, thinking that the Roman temples were built on these giant slabs.


I disagree I said the Romans built on top of a prexisting foundation the did not create these stones
who did and what was the original purpose?

Herer's some stuff about the Baalbeck stones

these are big stones really they are a huge mystery



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 





Temple of Bacchus


Did someone say they found a Temple to Bacchus, it's about darn time!

Get me my travel agent I am out of here!

Finally the world is evolving again!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
I disagree I said the Romans built on top of a prexisting foundation the did not create these stones
who did and what was the original purpose?


That's splendid, disagree all you want. But provide a single mainstream archaeological source or even a single archaeologist that agrees with you. Or find a single historical source that mentions the colossal stones at Baalbek before the Roman era; Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Seleucid all ruled the area before the Romans did, such a reference shouldn't be too hard to find.


Originally posted by MrsBlonde
Herer's some stuff about the Baalbeck stones


The author has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. For instance, it is not unknown how the Romans would have moved the stones; we have a good idea based on what we know about their methods. Source

edit on 11-9-2010 by DoomsdayRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MrsBlonde
 


i like your idea/ answer.

star for you~!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



sorry but shouldn't be able to lift 40k tons after so many years?
\

just wondering.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mooradian
The base columns are over 1000 TONS. thats a weight that even our strongest cranes cannot pick up.


Might want to tell that to our strongest cranes...

The Taisun is capable of lifting a 22,000 object.

Crawler cranes can be built to lift 3000 tons.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
sorry but shouldn't be able to lift 40k tons after so many years?
\

just wondering.


What is it you are asking? There is nothing at the temple complex that weighs 40,000 tons.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by fooks
sorry but shouldn't be able to lift 40k tons after so many years?
\

just wondering.


What is it you are asking? There is nothing at the temple complex that weighs 40,000 tons.


ok, we lift 1k tons, whenever years ago. now in the idea of progressive engineering we should be able to lift 40k TONS not LBS!

and tell me where the road to bring that in is.


is there a straight line from the quarry? for a 1000ton rock?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
ok, we lift 1k tons, whenever years ago. now in the idea of progressive engineering we should be able to lift 40k TONS not LBS!


No, we shouldn't. Where are you getting that idea?

Besides, the Romans did not lift and move the 800 ton stones straight; they did it gradually, it fits and starts.


Originally posted by fooks
and tell me where the road to bring that in is.


First off, the 1000 ton rocks were never moved. Secondly, is there a road? I'm not sure but it would not be surprising if there wasn't anymore, after 2000 years of geologic, meteorological and human forces.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by fooks
ok, we lift 1k tons, whenever years ago. now in the idea of progressive engineering we should be able to lift 40k TONS not LBS!


No, we shouldn't. Where are you getting that idea?

Besides, the Romans did not lift and move the 800 ton stones straight; they did it gradually, it fits and starts.


Originally posted by fooks
and tell me where the road to bring that in is.


First off, the 1000 ton rocks were never moved. Secondly, is there a road? I'm not sure but it would not be surprising if there wasn't anymore, after 2000 years of geologic, meteorological and human forces.



1000ton rocks were not moved?

then i am in another universe.

and it took them how long to move?

then, use the crane to go back to get the big one, and it disappears?

how big do you think something that can move 1000tons is?

lol! WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


page 29 of the roman building book talks about how they moved the stones....maybe this can help alil bit.

books.google.com...=onepage&q=baalbek%20trili thon&f=false

To all:

Personally I believe in aliens but theres really no evidence (as of yet) that shows aliens built it. Even if some of it was built before the romans got there, theres no evidence. So for the time being, we have to assume that we (humans) had the manpower and brains to build it on our own......I would like to believe we had help building it but facts and opinions are two different things





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join