Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Baalbek

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


I'd love to see your logical argument against ETs, because from here it just sounds like the same arrogance that said men weren't supposed to fly in aeroplanes, or that the earth can only move around the sun if we accept that the sun merely presents the illusion that it is the centre of the solar system. Apart from that little indiscretion (which you began and ended your post with, interestingly), I enjoyed your post and the scholarship behind it. Trouble is, sometimes - when we get so entangled in the details of a particular topic/ subject/ area's history, we can fail to see correlations in the bigger picture.

And on another note, the Canaanites weren't solely responsible for the Trilithon, and an 'oracle' wasn't an organically invented concept in those ancient societies. People went to the physical location of the oracle to receive wisdom. A form of communication, from the 'gods'. Delivered by an object, not a physically present person (exception being the much later 'Sybills' and so on)


Please please please, (anyone so inclined) don't be so arrogant to presume that you can logically argue the case against the possible existence of ETs or their interaction with us in times current or past. Solipsism cannot be logically refuted. The Concave Hollow World/ Universe cannot be logically refuted.

Academic specialism and compartmentalisation of projects are the unwitting stumbling blocks in understanding our origins, current situation and our future.




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoahTheSumerian
These are facts which make sceptics very uncomfortable.


You have not produced a single fact at all. All you have produced is a ignorant paranormalist site that does not known what it is talking about. Produce a single mainstream archaeological source that supporting anything that your ignorant, unsourced paranormalist site is claiming. You cannot.


Originally posted by NoahTheSumerian
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.


BS. Pure, unadulterated BS. We know how the Romans moved heavy objects. It has been documented in this thread. Repeatedly. And repeatedly, the believers either outright ignore them, misrepresent or lie about them; what a shock.


Originally posted by NoahTheSumerian
After all, we're smarter and more technologically advanced than our ancient forbears, aren't we?


What an interesting spin. For this entire thread, the skeptics have been arguing about our ancestors could have accomplished these feats. It is the ignorant, uneducated believers who tell us our ancestors were incapable of it.





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 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoahTheSumerian
I'd love to see your logical argument against ETs,


Your ignorance is laughable. Let us hear your logical argument about how it was ETs that produced Baalbek. Produce a single shred of archaeological evidence showing us that aliens were responsible. Oh, but there isn't, is there? Yet you want to tell us that humans doing it is an illogical argument.

That aside, Blackmarketeer did not say there were not aliens. He was commenting on the ancient astronaut theories, and with good reason. You twisted what he said. A distinct lack of sincerity.

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



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoahTheSumerian
You're saying humans (and Romans no less) could have built it. Show us how.


I already have in this thread. You should not ignore it then lie and say I have not.


Originally posted by NoahTheSumerian
You're otherwise asking someone to prove a negative.


Not at all; I am asking for a cogent argument. None of the believers have yet to produce a cogent argument about why it was impossible for the Romans to have built the complex. You have not produced a single, mainstream source that supports your opinion, you either just completely dismiss the idea based on personal incredulity or unsourced paranormalist sites.

In order to have a mature, rational discussion, every party involved must be sincere. And there is a distinct lack of it here. If you are going to ignore evidence presented and lie about it, then there is no point in ever having a conversation with you.

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



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


DoomsdayRex the Romans built their typical Roman structure ON TOP OF A PREXISTING STRUCTURE ,it is this structure of which we speak, it is not known who built it the Romans found it there the builders of the foundation left no trace of who they were ,why they built this or how








 
Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

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



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

I'd love to see your logical argument against ETs, because from here it just sounds like the same arrogance that said men weren't supposed to fly in aeroplanes, or that the earth can only move around the sun if we accept that the sun merely presents the illusion that it is the centre of the solar system.


What??? LOL, Myself and DoomsdayRex are the ones that believe humankind did build this - you are among those claiming we are apparently too feeble minded to move and place big stone blocks - and that only ET's can somehow accomplish this feat.

As to dismissing the notion of ETs building Baalbek, let's take a look at the source for that speculation - which is one Zacharia Sitchin. He claims Ancient astronauts (which he dubbed the Annunaki from Sumerian lore) built Baalbek as an ancient rocket launch pad. He even showed depictions of ancient Canaanite coins (from Byblos) of this type of temple in which a "ben-ben" sat in the middle of the enclosure which was allegedly representing a rocket. Am I not correct? This is what Sitchin is stating, correct?

So what would happen if one were to launch a rocket, capable of reaching orbit, from such a facility? Luckily we've launched plenty of our own rockets so we know exactly what happens when you send one up. A lot of hot exhaust gases get blasted at the launch pad. Tell tale scars are left behind. In fact our shuttle requires a lot of precautions to ensure these hot exhaust gases don't destroy the rocket engine during a lift off. Take a look at the photos below; these are of the "flame trench" located beneath the launch assembly of the shuttle - it diverts the tremendous exhaust gases away from the shuttle.


Photo above: A view of the flame deflector trench - the shuttle is perched over this by the launch assembly.


Photo above: A close-up of the flame deflector: the wall is angled to direct all exhaust gases out towards the water and away from the shuttle and launch assembly.


Photo above: During a launch you can see the amount of rock and debris splashing down in the water.


Photo above: A close-up of the debris blasted from the flame trench wall.

So this would indicate the using a stone enclosure as depicted by the coin from Byblos, and the layout of Baalbek, would not be very conducive for launching rockets. I don't see a flame deflector trench there, do you? No tell-tale scars left behind as evidence of rocket launches.

Then there's the setting for Baalbek. It's a bit rugged, hilly terrain, lots of rock outcroppings (and quarries). The temple podium is situated slightly down the slope from the city center. Again not very conducive for the movement and transport of a rocket - as opposed to say, a flat and level terrain as we see at Cape Kennedy.

Sitchin is the ET origin for Baalbek. He's using bad archeology and bad science to concoct a fairy tale to sell books. Doesn't it strike you as odd, that with all the detritus, artifacts, and clues left behind in the dirt of Baalbek, there's not one related to something "out of this earth"? Not one screw, steel cable, or drill dropped by these ETs, but plenty of crude primitive tools related to man. You'd think with ETs and rockets coming and going over hundreds of thousands of years (as Sitchin claims), the earth would be strewn with cast-off or lost mechanical pieces and parts. No one will ever doubt the presence of humankind based on the amount of junk we'll leave behind, but these ETs must have been some serious neat freaks to have never dropped anything.

As to the technology of ancient man, whether it was Roman or an earlier Phoenician phase, take a look at these illustrations from Frederick Ragette; these are his concepts of how Romans, using technology well known to them, would have moved and placed the trilithons (or for that matter, any of the heavier building blocks at the site).

Romans favored using a special block designed to fit into a trapezoidal hole, carved into the top of any block to moved (the holes are named "Lewis holes" for their discoverer). The pieces slide in one at a time, then when clamped together can't be removed. This offers the Romans the perfect grip to which they can attach ropes for lifting. Earlier Greeks, Phoenicians, and Egyptians would leave "bosses" on the sides of their quarried stones which can then hold a rope, the bosses would then be removed once the block was in place.


Photo: Ragette

If the Romans had moved the trilithons, they could have done so by attaching many ropes to a number of these Lewis holes, and relying on block and tackles attached to a rig such as this one. Mechanical lifting force could be greatly increased by using winches anchored in the ground.


Photo: Ragette


Photo: Ragette

Keep in mind, the heaviest block at Baalbek that was ever lifted was 800 tons. The 1,200 ton "Stone of the South" was never moved from the quarry. Ancient man clearly met his match.

In fact, that brings up another interesting point, regarding the failure to move and place the "Stone of the South". We see only 3 trilithons were placed, then the design abandons this monumental effort, and reverts to using smaller blocks. The stone of the south appears to have been the largest so as to accommodate the corner. One can understand why ancient man would have abandoned this effort if it was proving to difficult to achieve. But what does this say about these ETs? If they had, say, anti-gravity tech in their possession, then Baalbek should be completely built of 800-1,200 stone blocks - and not a failure as it is.

Can any Ancient Alien adherents explain why these ETs failed to accomplish the construction of Baalbek along these lines? For them moving these sizes of block should have been a snap, yes?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
DoomsdayRex the Romans built their typical Roman structure ON TOP OF A PREXISTING STRUCTURE ,it is this structure of which we speak, it is not known who built it the Romans found it there the builders of the foundation left no trace of who they were ,why they built this or how


Though we do know the Romans did build upon a pre-existing site and though it may have been built onto a pre-existing structure, evidence suggest it was Roman. Even if it wasn't Roman, it doesn't mean it was Atlantean or alien; there were many other advanced civilizations that occupied the area before the Romans.

What you and every other believer in this thread are relying on is an archaeological God-in-the-Gaps argument.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoahTheSumerian
After all, we're smarter and more technologically advanced than our ancient forbears, aren't we?


What an interesting spin. For this entire thread, the skeptics have been arguing about our ancestors could have accomplished these feats. It is the ignorant, uneducated believers who tell us our ancestors were incapable of it.





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)



Since youre such a smart guy, tell us how you would move 1000 ton+ stones and set them up so a paper cannot be placed in between?

The baalbek is upwards of 10000+ years old... Romans were not here then... youre telling me hunter gatherers with sticks and hide built them?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
You know the question I always have for people who think aliens built all the large ancient stone buidings is this. Why were advanced beings building with giant stones to beging with. They like modern man could have built better buildings with better materials instead dragging giant stones all over the place.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Reply to OP:

You made three new threads in one day. None of which was longer than a paragraph or presented any new information or original research.

Are you just trolling for random S+F, or are you desperate for approval, or what?

I mean, you start a thread about "Baalbek", but then don't even provide us a link of any kind. Not even a freaking Wikipedia page! How lazy can you be?

People on ATS expect a little bit more than this...

No star and no flag. And, frankly, I think this thread should be closed like your other two. Either present something new - some new insight or something, or don't bother. Quit wasting peoples' time!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBird
Reply to OP:

You made three new threads in one day. None of which was longer than a paragraph or presented any new information or original research.

Are you just trolling for random S+F, or are you desperate for approval, or what?

I mean, you start a thread about "Baalbek", but then don't even provide us a link of any kind. Not even a freaking Wikipedia page! How lazy can you be?

People on ATS expect a little bit more than this...

No star and no flag. And, frankly, I think this thread should be closed like your other two. Either present something new - some new insight or something, or don't bother. Quit wasting peoples' time!


If yo uread the full post, i am on an old computer which freezez when i try to copy, paste, open docs etc., so quit whining,

what is the difference between clicking on a link and typing in Baalbek on wikipedia...

maybe youre lazy?

and hey, its a forum on the internet... not a huge deal



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I just like to put stuff out here that i find interesting for other people to see. if you dont like it, stop sniping at me and get out



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
You know the question I always have for people who think aliens built all the large ancient stone buidings is this. Why were advanced beings building with giant stones to beging with. They like modern man could have built better buildings with better materials instead dragging giant stones all over the place.


I have the same curiosity, why build with ginormous stones ? what were these structures for ?
and why are the oldest stones the biggest? who were they ? we have structures but no accompanying culture? it's bassakwards



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
"..they are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them.."
Michel Alouf,Former curator of the ruins.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
There's hardly anything unusual about the Greeks and Romans rebuilding temples on sites that had long been considered sacred. It happened all over the ancient world, and this temple was originally dedicated to the god Baal, which goes back to the Phoenicians in the Bronze Age--long before the Roman Empire existed.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Not sure why Aliens had to be responsible for such structures. Just because we're unaware of how some cultures built their spectacular structures, it doesn't mean some life beyond our planet did it instead.

Through time, our species advanced in building and creating. We will continue in our evolution of advancements.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
DoomsdayRex the Romans built their typical Roman structure ON TOP OF A PREXISTING STRUCTURE ,it is this structure of which we speak, it is not known who built it the Romans found it there the builders of the foundation left no trace of who they were ,why they built this or how


Though we do know the Romans did build upon a pre-existing site and though it may have been built onto a pre-existing structure, evidence suggest it was Roman. Even if it wasn't Roman, it doesn't mean it was Atlantean or alien; there were many other advanced civilizations that occupied the area before the Romans.

What you and every other believer in this thread are relying on is an archaeological God-in-the-Gaps argument.



Well I think Aliens have been here but I can't credit any buildings that I know of to them but I do have questions ,Like clearly it used to easy to cut stones to within thousandths of an inch and stack them with ease ,and why are the biggest stones the oldest ? How did they do it ?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Doomsday - I said sources would be forthcoming and they will. That site provides context for the original argument I was making. Plus, apologies that I seem to have missed your explanations. My fail for not reading the entirety of the thread before posting an enthusiastic reply. I will go back and read your posts, and when I return with my own sources I'll answer your points then.

Oh - I wasn't lying either - it was, as per above, an oversight.

My underlying sense with this and many other cases, is that modern day scholars are desperate to 'fit' anomalous pieces of the historical puzzle into a comfortable and understandable paradigm. As stated in one of my previous posts, maybe the damn thing was built simply to show off technical capability - a demonstration that would last for millennia. I certainly didn't say it was a rocket launching site.

But while we think about it; who's to say they used rockets in a fashion similar our crude attempts these days? We try to overcome gravity by force; I believe they had a means to displace the effects of gravity. But that's speculation obviously. However, if one had an anti-grav craft, which needed to land somewhere, then I assume it would be quite heavy once it had the anti-grav switched off. In which case a large support structure would be quite useful.

The aggressive tone of your responses makes me certain that you won't consider any of the ideas I present. Are you one of those guys that holds we must be the masters of the universe at all costs, even at the cost of logic?

"Modern humans, destroying people's dreams and controlling the truth since 1947."


PS -

Did anyone actually try to logically disprove the possibility of ETs,or was it just an aggressive, dismissive response...? Can anyone disprove the concave hollow world theory while we're at it? How about solipsism? Be careful, that one can drive you bonkers.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Reading this thread is like sitting in the corner of a bar and watching a few ol' boys go at it.... great debate fellas.

I'm just an ol' country boy that has been to college and reads a lot, and I've picked up a few things here and there...

Recently, I moved a 1000 lb building by my self using a 12' 4x4 post, and 2 pieces of heavy duty PVC pipe... my wife thought I was lying until I showed here. "Where'd you learn that?" I replied..."The History Channel." Basically the Egyptians and the Romans.

I have also dragged 1000lb logs out of the woods using no tractor, horse, or truck...just rope, an upside down Y piece of wood...learned that from Easter Island and how they moved the statues.

HERE'S THE POINT... If I can do this by myself with no engineering training, imagine what a team of engineers...even ancient ones...can move and construct.

I have a friend I haven't seen for some time, but he IS an engineer at NC State University, and he built a log cabin all by himself...not a typical log cabin, but very large logs imported from Canada...lengths of 30 - 40 feet, and he crosstied and laid them out using nothing but pulleys, blocks, and cantilevers.... damned fascinating to watch him work. He was the topic of much discussion in our community to say the least.

Do I think Baalbek predates the Romans?...Yes

Can man build such a thing with no alien or giant help?...Yes



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


This is a LONG post folks, so if you are in a lazy mood and don't want to read a long post, i'd skip this if i were you. It does contain a reasonable hypothesis on how the Trilithon and other ancient megalithic structures may have been built though, so if you're interested in that read on...

Hi UmbraSumus and all,

How are you.

TBH, i'm thinking of revising my post a little..i have to admit that i responded a little hastily before actually checking the consensus on the dating and other details of the site before i posted. (i had my 'blood up' you see) Sometimes, my passion can cloud my objectivity.

Upon further research, i too have found wildly conflicting claims about the specifics of ancient Baalbek.

I found it difficult to actually pin down a definitive timeline for the construction of the 'trilithon' and there foundation stones.
I may revise the date i posted down to 7000-8500 years old, as there is anecdotal evidence of this being a possible date of construction, plus it ties in with the established Neolithic-2/3 (Neo - New / Lithic - Stone. 'New stone age') periods known to be in evidence in Lebanon, Syria and the region around that time (6,500BC)
Link: en.wikipedia.org...

The local people and people of the general region, tell in their oral traditions that the trilithon and the enclosure, had been there a long, long time before the worship of the sky/sun deity Baal, (to the point of the 'creation' of Adam and Eve) and certainly long before Augustus initiated the building of what would become the largest and greatest Roman temple complex ever seen in their entire history, which is strange considering it was so far from Rome, the heart of the empire.

This was (reportedly) started around 27BC, built upon the pre-existing Grand Plaza walled enclosure, which included the largest stones on Earth ever quarried, shaped, moved and laid by human beings -- to this day.

I liken the construction of the Roman Temple complex, and in particular the temple of Jupiter (sky/sun god) as being akin to the Spaniards who upon traveling to 'the new world', proceeded to construct their monuments and cathedrals upon the pre-existing foundations of buildings and complexes that had already been there for many centuries or millenia before they arrived.

As you say UmbraSumas, the weathering and general decay of the walled enclosure in comparison to the much later Roman build, lends credence to much earlier build date. Taken with evidence of folklore and established and dated finds from the area, proves the Romans did not build the whole complex, but were making use of what was already existing to build upon.

Also, when we look at other examples of Roman construction technology, in the temple complex itself, and in the wider Roman empire, the apparent limit to their stone moving/lifting was at around 350-400 tonnes.

As an indication of the difficulty the Romans had in moving very large stones, there are reports of an Ancient Egyptian Obelisk weighing approx 350 tonnes being transported from Egypt to Rome, and the time taken was enough to span three Roman Emperors reigns! (So, quite a number of years)

Link: reinep.wordpress.com...

As for the distance the stones were moved; Again i have found wildly conflicting reports. Anywhere from a quarter of a mile, a half of a mile, one full mile and so on. I took the figure of five miles at face value from the post preceding mine, so that may well be incorrect. In any case, the transportation of 800-1000 tonnes megalithic stones, even over a quarter of a mile would be an almost unbelievable feat, never mind a full mile or more.

I have a personal hypothesis (no proof, only loosely circumstantial) how these megaliths might have been moved..this method may also apply to many megalithic blocks in diverse sites around the world too.

First a 'road' or causeway, would be constructed from 'smaller' blocks (still large by any standards), set into the ground surface along the route from the quarry site to the construction site.

Upon the uppermost face of the blocks in the road, a fairly shallow, linear 'V' or 'U' groove (twice as wide as it is deep) would be cut/etched and when the blocks are lain end to end, this groove would match up and form a continuous line along the route of the 'road', resembling an inverted rail/guide.

The more massive blocks to be transported would also have a similar groove etched into and down the linear center of a single surface, although not extending quite as far as the top and bottom edges .

All that is now required to move these massive blocks with (relative) ease, would be a fulcrum. A rolling fulcrum would be a relatively small stone sphere, made from a harder, more dense material than that of the blocks of the road and those being transported.

The sphere is placed onto the road block groove, and the megalith is positioned atop of this sphere, with it's own matching groove now on it's underside. The block can now be moved along any axis, with great ease. As it progresses along the groove in the road, another sphere can be added to the leading edge, to become the new pivot point.

Since the site of Baalbek is set upon a hill, approximately 1100 meters high, a continuation of this grooved causeway/road arrangement could have extended from the quarry site, through the construction site, and up and over the crest of the hill, with a counterweight system of skids/sledges. These skids would be attached securely to the 'load' megalith, and loaded with easily movable/removable smaller blocks, the combined weight of which would be slightly heavier that the block to be transported.

This of course, would offset the weight of the block being transported.
Allowing a series of skids/sledges loaded with small blocks, to move down the opposite side of the hill (construction site) from the direction of the quarry, gravity would essentially be pulling the megaliths from the quarry site, and up the hill.

When at the bottom of the slope, the small blocks and skids, would simply be unloaded and individually repositioned atop the slope, for another downward run. This would be repeated as many times as was required, until the megalithic blocks were at the construction site.

This essentially means the builders would only have to support the blocks along the lateral axis and the weight would only be the difference between the weight of the series of loaded skids, and the block itself!

This is all hypothesis of course, but may go some way to explaining the mystery stone sphere's found in Costa Rica, and elsewhere in the Americas. They may be the discarded or unused fulcrum/pivots used in the construction of megalithic structures throughout the ancient world.

In Baalbek and other ancient megalithic sites that may have utilized a system along the principles of my hypothesis, the lack of physical evidence for this system of grooves and spheres may be explained by the builders refinishing the faces of the blocks that had the etched grooves, including the causeway/road blocks and sphere pivots and incorporating them in the building itself, or reshaping them into something else later.

Presumably, the spheres from S. America, if the monument builders used them in a similar system, discarded them rather than reworking and/or incorporating them into the finished structure or complex.

There's no reason why this would not have worked. It would certainly have been within the capabilities of the builders, and would have negated the need for thousands of workers, and the need for very large, complex and heavy crane arrangements. Gravity would have been the prime mover.

Cheers.

edit on 12/9/2010 by spikey because: Edit to add that this is a Loooong post.






top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join