Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Baalbek

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
ya but if we did it where the heck is the mover?

the ropes and logs don't really do it for me at that size.


not saying aliens did it either.




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
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?


I think the OP is referring to what are called the Baalbek terraces.
This is a platform of no obvious function, and the Romans found them already in place and already ancient, and built their temple complex on top of it. Nobody knows who, when or why this was constructed.

As far as moving these monsters goes, ask a few construction companies how they would quarry, extract, move & place a series of 450 ton to 1,200 ton slabs of rock.
They were not dragged, I can assure you.
Aliens?
Unlikely. Much more likely is that they are an artifact of the last (or earlier) high cycle of civilization on this planet. They were emphatically not quarried with bronze tools & dragged anywhere.


www.sacredsites.com...
The Renaissance architect Domenico Fontana, when erecting a 327-ton Egyptian obelisk in front of St Peter's Basilica in Rome, used 40 huge pulleys, which necessitated a combined force of 800 men and 140 horses. The area where this obelisk was erected, however, was a great open space that could easily accommodate all the lifting apparatus and the men and horses pulling on the ropes. No such space is available in the spatial context of how the Baalbek stones were placed. Hills slope away from where lifting apparatus would need to have been placed and no evidence has been found of a flat and structurally firm surface having been constructed (and then mysteriously removed after the lifting was done). Furthermore, not just one obelisk was erected but rather a series of giant stones were precisely put in place side-by-side. Due to the positioning of these stones, there is simply no conceivable place where a huge pulley apparatus could have been stationed. Archaeologists, unable to resolve the mysteries of the transportation and lifting of the great blocks, rarely have the intellectual honesty to admit their ignorance of the matter and therefore focus their attention solely on redundant measurements and discussions regarding the verifiable Roman-era temples at the site. Architects and construction engineers, however, not having any preconceived ideas of ancient history to uphold, will frankly state that there are no known lifting technologies even in current times that could raise and position the Baalbek stones given the amount of working space. The massive stones of the Grand Terrace of Baalbek are simply beyond the engineering abilities of any recognized ancient or contemporary builders.


edit on Sat Sep 11 2010 by Jbird because: (bbcode EX tags)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
just look at pictures of the preexisting foundation stones and the Roman construction on top of them
Now show me one other spot where Romans used such titanic stones

they didn't , no one we know of did,but somebody did

and we don't know who or why but because the oldest hugest stones don't have any traces at all of the building process or builders

anyway you care to look at it that's a mystery



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
The only valid mystery at Baalbek is whether or not the Romans (and only the Romans) excavated and moved the trilithons which are a part of the temple podium, or an earlier Canaanite/Phoenician people did it. "Ancient Aliens" theories are a complete scam designed to separate certain types of people from their money.

I personally favor the idea that Tyrians under the aegis of Solomon were responsible for this phase of construction, since the podium at Baalbek greatly resemble the style of the Great Temple at Jerusalem, also built by Solomon, and again relying on Tyrian workers.

Do some research on the Canaanites and especially the renowned stone masons and workers of Tyre. Tyre was fabled for it's great projects, which included extending a harbor far out into the Mediterranean. The Baalbek podium adheres to the Canaan style of using only 3 levels or tiers, just as the Jerusalem one does. The Canaanites were quite adept at cyclopean masonry construction as evidenced by the ancient cities Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre. Modern scholars date the site of Byblos back at least 7,000 years. The Canaanites are the source of most of the myths (giants, etc.) that surround the colossal stone work at Baalbek.

The site itself was of supreme religious importance to the Canaanites, as far back as pre-historic times. It became fabled as an oracle. The altar became the nucleus around which the tell formed over the next several aeons (a tell being an ancient mound built up of detritus of continual human occupation). By the time of Solomon this site was integral to the religious views of Canae.

See: DAI (German Archaeology Group)


...The oldest finds are dated by C14 analysis to the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period around 7200 BCE. The settlement mound was only abandoned in the late Hellenistic period due to its transformation into a monumental sanctuary and was settled almost continuously over a period of nearly 7000 years. The architectural history of the relatively well-known sanctuary of Jupiter in the Qalaa is studied in detail since 2005. The documentation of numerous archaeological and architectural features through soundings and measurements in combination with a new analysis of constructional details have yielded a surprising wealth of new insights into the architectural layout and morphology of the sanctuary. As a result, four monumental building phases can be distinguished: the buildings from the pre-roman period forming a gigantic T-shaped terrace, which was later used as foundation of the temple of Jupiter, are now well understood in their dimension and geometry. Through new tachymetrical measurements in the substructions of the Great Courtyard the planning and implementation of the extensive building program of the early imperial period can be easily distinguished from later construction phases. Changes in the Great Courtyard and the construction of the so-called hexagonal courtyard in the middle imperial period indicate two later changes in plan, which successively enlarged the sanctuary towards the east.


The inner podium then is what the trilithons belong to. The Romans then came in and extended this podium in three direction, north, east, and south, leaving the western wall (and trilithons) alone (since it faced the downward facing slope). You can distinguish between the Roman efforts and earlier, especially where the Romans used vaulting filled with rubble and the Canaan simply employed cyclopean masonry. Portions of the Roman extended wall have collapsed, exposing these vaults, in fact a gift shop exists in one of them.

Building Phases:







Additional facts regarding Solomon and the surviving western wall in Jerusalem with the Baalbek podium, to which they bear a striking resemblance;


THE EMBOSSED QUADERS
Aside from the incased trilithon, the attention of the visitor to Baalbek who inspects the wall of the acropolis is drawn to stones of a bossed shape with an indented rim on all four sides of the face of the stone.

O. von Richter in 1822 60 and S. Wolcott in 1843 61 drew attention to the fact that the quaders of the wall of the temple area of the acropolis of Baalbek have the same form as the quaders of the Temple of Solomon, namely, of the surviving western (outer) wall, or Wailing Wall. The Roman architects, wrote Wolcott, never built foundations or walls of such stones; and of the Israelite period it is especially the age of Solomon that shows this type of stone shaping (chiseling).

The photograph of the outer wall of Baalbek’s temple area illustrates that the same art of chiseling was employed in the preparation of stones for its construction. Whatever the time of construction of other parts of Baalbek’s compound—neolithic, Israelite, Syrian, Greek, or Roman—this fundamental part of the compound must have originated in the same century as the surviving (western) wall of the area of Solomon’s temple.


Source

By the time the Romans arrived on the scene, Baalbek already had a lengthy history of temple construction. Trajan is credited with having initiated the construction of the Temple of Jupiter, and was no doubt duly impressed with the sites history and reputation as an oracle, stretching back into antiquity. There's not much else of a reason for him or his successors to build Rome's greatest temple in the middle of a remote backwater, which was Baalbek. Today the temple of Bacchus is considered the greatest example of Roman temple construction still standing. One could only imagine how much more magnificent the temple to Jupiter must have been.

With the eventual eradication of the Canaan/Phoenician culture, we've lost the reason why this site was of such importance. Everyone from the Egyptians, Hittites, to the Seleucid empire, seemed to hold this site in high regard.

Sorry if my post seemed a little off-topic, I happen to favor an earlier origin to the foundation construction at Baalbek than that of the Romans. That doesn't mean that a mythological or extraterrestrial origin holds any water. You could use logic alone to destroy that notion...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
1000ton rocks were not moved?

then i am in another universe.


You must be, because they are still in the quarry.


Originally posted by fooks
and it took them how long to move?


30 meters a day.


Originally posted by fooks
then, use the crane to go back to get the big one, and it disappears?


What in the world are you talking about?


Originally posted by fooks
how big do you think something that can move 1000tons is?


It depends...


Originally posted by fooks
lol! WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!


Yes, where is the evidence that the Romans would have been unable to move those stones? Where is the evidence aliens did it?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
the ropes and logs don't really do it for me at that size.


Tell us why it would have been impossible.


Originally posted by fooks
not saying aliens did it either.


Don't equivocate, please...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:09 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?

Last time I checked (which was also when this argument came up), we have crane ships that can lift almost 9000 tons (single, or 14000 tons for dual). The largest land based crane is near 3000 tons if I remember correctly.

Fact of the matter is, Romans did amazing feats. Their construction skills was unparalled. But if you told them to lift a 1000 ton bridge segment 50m up in the air over 50km of water while fastening it with steel cables that would circumvent the globe if you laid them out, I think they would call you a madman.

Today, thats easy.

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



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
In an earlier post I suggested a past civilisation with a technology based upon sound - Of course I have no idea how this worked - I do know that sound indicates movement and that vibration is sound also. From this I deduct that certain frequencies could render an object weightless so to speak but the sophistication of such a technology is beyond me so to speak, In our modern world anti gravity is deemed childs play by those who work in that field.
Another point that was made is that the cutting of the stones is remarkable in that one can not slip a piece of paper between the gaps of the stones. I am thinking that this sound technology could be used for cutting too - What do you think?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Turiddu
 


The OP seems to be new, but cut him a bit of slack in light of what IS known about Baalbek

A well written piece summarising the problem of Ballbek (not my own work):


Why these stones are such an enigma to contemporary scientists, both engineers and archaeologists alike, is that their method of quarrying, transportation and precision placement is beyond the technological ability of any known ancient or modern builders. Various ‘scholars’, uncomfortable with the notion that ancient cultures might have developed knowledge superior to modern science, have decided that the massive Baalbek stones were laboriously dragged from the nearby quarries to the temple site. While carved images in the temples of Egypt and Mesopotamia do indeed give evidence of this method of block transportation - using ropes, wooden rollers and thousands of laborers - the dragged blocks are known to have been only 1/10th the size and weight of the Baalbek stones and to have been moved along flat surfaces with wide movement paths. The route to the site of Baalbek, however, is up hill, over rough and winding terrain, and there is no evidence whatsoever of a flat hauling surface having been created in ancient times.

Next there is the problem of how the mammoth blocks, once they were brought to the site, were lifted and precisely placed in position. It has been theorized that the stones were raised using a complex array of scaffolding, ramps and pulleys which was powered by large numbers of humans and animals working in unison. An historical example of this method has been suggested as the solution for the Baalbek enigma. The Renaissance architect Domenico Fontana, when erecting a 327-ton Egyptian obelisk in front of St Peter's Basilica in Rome, used 40 huge pulleys, which necessitated a combined force of 800 men and 140 horses. The area where this obelisk was erected, however, was a great open space that could easily accommodate all the lifting apparatus and the men and horses pulling on the ropes. No such space is available in the spatial context of how the Baalbek stones were placed. Hills slope away from where lifting apparatus would need to have been placed and no evidence has been found of a flat and structurally firm surface having been constructed (and then mysteriously removed after the lifting was done). Furthermore, not just one obelisk was erected but rather a series of giant stones were precisely put in place side-by-side. Due to the positioning of these stones, there is simply no conceivable place where a huge pulley apparatus could have been stationed.

Archaeologists, unable to resolve the mysteries of the transportation and lifting of the great blocks, rarely have the intellectual honesty to admit their ignorance of the matter and therefore focus their attention solely on redundant measurements and discussions regarding the verifiable Roman-era temples at the site. Architects and construction engineers, however, not having any preconceived ideas of ancient history to uphold, will frankly state that there are no known lifting technologies even in current times that could raise and position the Baalbek stones given the amount of working space. The massive stones of the Grand Terrace of Baalbek are simply beyond the engineering abilities of any recognized ancient or contemporary builders.


source

Now let's be reasonable. There are very few modern day engineers and architects who - with no prior knowledge of the site or historical paradigms to maintain - will look at the 'problem' of Ballbek and suppose they could solve it easily/ at all with modern equipment. The best attempts (in thought experiment) involve the most massive mobile cranes in existence, and the construction of properly founded roads (with hardcore and cement/ reinforced concrete etc)



That crane in the picture is the largest mobile crane in the world

In 2003 it hit the headlines (in the construction industry) for achieving an 850 ton static lift and placement of a bridge. As in, it lifted the bridge, swivelled on its base and lowered it into place.

It certainly couldn't lift up an 1100 ton piece of carved stone, and then carry it the full distance (over steep and uneven terrain) to where the trilithon is located.

Here's something else to consider:


The megalithic stones of the Trilithon bear no structural or ornamental resemblance to any of the Roman-era constructions above them, such as the previously described Temples of Jupiter, Bacchus or Venus. The limestone rocks of the Trilithon show extensive evidence of wind and sand erosion that is absent from the Roman temples, indicating that the megalithic construction dates from a far earlier age. Finally, the great stones of Baalbek show stylistic similarities to other cyclopean stone walls at verifiably pre-Roman sites such as the Acropolis foundation in Athens, the foundations of Myceneae, Tiryns, Delphi and even megalithic constructions in the ‘new world’ such as Ollyantaytambo in Peru and Tiahuanaco in Bolivia.


source

These are facts which make sceptics very uncomfortable. They can't speculate on how, or the beginnings of WHY, so they tend to avoid the issue - or make pretty terrible, dismissive and sweeping statements, such as: 'the builders used lots of slaves' or 'they built, utilised and after construction removed a reinforced surface that allowed them to use a really big rope and pulley system made from wood'. This is despite the fact that our MODERN technology, when required to lift something weighing 1000 tons (not even to lift and move it, just to lift it) looks like this:



Oh - and there's zero archaeological evidence for any such specially constructed surface ever having been built/removed. And yes, there would be traces of such a set-up.

They (the die-hard sceptics) just don't like to admit it when they don't know how it was done! After all, we're smarter and more technologically advanced than our ancient forbears, aren't we?



edit on 11-9-2010 by NoahTheSumerian because: picture embed didn't work



edit on 11-9-2010 by NoahTheSumerian because: clarifying quoted sections



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



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
At the end of the day we really dont know how these blocks were put in place. It cdertainly is a wonder as there are numerous sites worldwide that we are left dumbfounded.

I attach a video of a man who moves big rocks with relative ease without mechanical help.

Doesnt prove everything but certainly thought provoking.

www.youtube.com...

He doesnt look like an alien



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
hey guys, im back, i was out having fun last night



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish Matador
 


Very interesting, but having a two ton block delivered to your back yard is a wee bit different from quarrying and moving and lifting and placing three 1000 ton blocks and tens of 450 ton blocks, which is what the Baalbek mystery is all about.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by artistpoet
In an earlier post I suggested a past civilisation with a technology based upon sound - Of course I have no idea how this worked - I do know that sound indicates movement and that vibration is sound also. From this I deduct that certain frequencies could render an object weightless so to speak but the sophistication of such a technology is beyond me so to speak, In our modern world anti gravity is deemed childs play by those who work in that field.
Another point that was made is that the cutting of the stones is remarkable in that one can not slip a piece of paper between the gaps of the stones. I am thinking that this sound technology could be used for cutting too - What do you think?


relatively simple, in a nutshell:

Using intense frequencies of sound, scientists can literally hover and manipulate objects. however, this has only been done (so far) with a styofoam cup in an enclosed environment. if we cant do it with our max technology.. i dotn see how they could have,

Again - only logical explanation at the moment = ETs



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Could someone also, PLEASE, explain how the H*** these gigantic stones were erected as a paper cannot be slid between? skeptics? anyone? put your money where your mouth is skeptics.. if a civilizatio nwith higher technology didnt, who did and HOW



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Turiddu
 

All right ill trow the ball into your Cort,, how did who ever they were move such huge blocks of stone!? considering we could'n move them with any crane on this plant right now!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Thank you for that Excalibur - As regards ETs -
I have read somewhere (cant remember where) that the past civilisation (Atlantis) used Technology given to them by visitors from out there somewhere
I was told personally by someone I believe to be very speacial that .................................
. It was through the eventual mis-use of this technology that that civilasition destroyed itself. This technology was used as a form of warfare and at that time there were 2 great continents at odds with each other. Atland (Atlantis) being one the other being Lumeria. Atland is around where the Atlantic Ocean covers and Lumeria is South America.
If you look at info about Machupiccu there is something that indicates a truly massive upheavel there - There are sea bed fossils that are found thousands of feet up in the mountains.
The lady that told me and a few others told me many things which I know to be true through experience.
By the way Aleins are real and amonst you now but they are not as many say they are - The truth is all about common sense and one should always be sceptical as I know so many are on this great site. "Alien" is no big deal and not worth dwelling upon as it is not of any practical value.
Those that are awakened know that what are erenously called "Sheep" are the ones that most need assistance.
I will end here as I will go miles off subject
Warmest Regards to all Michael



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

(Originally posted by fooks

...the ropes and logs don't really do it for me at that size.)

Tell us why it would have been impossible.


Erm - sceptics have the burden of proof here matey. As far as I understand Fooks' statement, he is effectively saying 'I'm not convinced that humans at that stage of technological development could have built it in the ways put forward so far'.

You're saying humans (and Romans no less) could have built it. Show us how. You're otherwise asking someone to prove a negative. How about I ask you to prove that God doesn't exist - what difference is there in the questions?


Originally posted by Doomday Rex

(Originally posted by fooks

...not saying aliens did it either.)

Don't equivocate, please...


Don't be so petty, it's not equivocating. He's just reaffirming that he doesn't know how the thing was made. More specifically - it's a statement of his inability to apprehend the matter based on the perspectives touted by both sides of the debate so far. So humour him/us. How was it built? Demonstrate with sources, experimental evidence and testimonies from respected engineering experts.

I look forward to composing my own thread on this at some point.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I like how people like to compare modern technology, and i enjoyed the post a few up with cranes. Ive spent most of my life working on sites, and a 1000tonner crane is a #ing spectacular thing to see.

One thing that should be noted, modern cranes[within in the the last 30 years] are capable of a SWL of over 10,000 tons. Thats right, over ten thousand tons can be lifted in one load by a modern crane.

en.wikipedia.org...

What people fail to realise is, today, there is very little reason to lift 1,000 tons of stone, modern building techniques and advances in material engineering render something like that fairly moot. Why bother cutting and transporting or lifting a 1,000 ton stone when you could just pour a lot of concrete instead?, because at the end of the day it comes down to efficiency and finances.

Oh and Ultra Class dump trucks can transport over 400tons a time and people drive them all day.

en.wikipedia.org...

I undertand ancient man had some remarkable acheivements but anything they accomplishd simply pales into comparison of what can be acheived today. Please stop being so ignorant and have some respect for modern engineering, or at least watch discovery channel now and again please.

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



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NoahTheSumerian
 


I agree with you Noah.

I posted the link with the idea of the technique behind it rather than the weight involved.

The sheer precision of the setting of the stones is amazing as well.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnze
 


I'm sorry, but who's being ignorant? We all know that today's construction achievements are phenomenal, but where in your post did you address the actual issue at hand? Which is to say - the lift, movement (over difficult terrain) and placement of three blocks each weighing over a thousand tons..?

Oh, and can you provide examples of a modern equivalent? If they could do such a thing way back then, surely if we were to somehow get a crane to Baalbek, we could lift over 20,000 tons I suppose, and move it to the trilithon? No, we couldn't.

And could we do a 2000 ton block with a mobile crane? Over that terrain? No, probably not. We MIGHT be able to manage a 1000 ton block over that terrain, but I'm guessing it would be a bit of a struggle.

I'm waiting for evidence.


Oh, and I'm BEng (Hons) incidentally.


EDIT TO ADD - What if the builders at Baalbek built it 'just because we can', to provide evidence of high technology in the ancient past?







edit on 11-9-2010 by NoahTheSumerian because: as per comments





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join