A paved causeway would likely have been pulled up after construction, much of the causeway blocks being used in other construction. Around 600 AD
Arabs turned Baalbek into a fortress, building on top of the Roman temples and peristyle. When you look at images of the trilithons, you see much
cruder stone blocks above them - those are the Arabic efforts. That wall had actually collapsed and was restored in modern times. In fact they had
cleared the tops of the trilithons off, and saw a full-scale, engraved image of the Temple of Jupiter pediment - left by the workers who used it as a
template for their stone masons.
What they didn't find were "Lewis holes" indicative of Roman handling of that era, so it only adds to the mystery, did Romans place the trilithons
or simply build over them.
Much (nearly everything you see) of Baalbek is Roman, the Temple of Bacchus is purely Roman as is the Temple of Venus. The Temple of Bacchus has
foundation blocks that extend more the 30 feet to the bedrock below, and are of massive size in their own right (not trilithon massive, but still durn
Romans adopted or merged deities from around the Aegean, Egypt, and the Levant to their own pantheon. It allowed them to placate the local populace
while ruling them, and gave them a sense of autonomy (even when under Roman governorship). Baal, Hadad, Zeus, Jupiter, the titular head of a cultic
practice that spanned many Eastern Mediterranean cultures that died out when Rome collapsed. When Rome took possession of Baalbek, the majority of the
workmen under them were Phoenician. They were probably enthusiastic
that they were getting a chance to restore their temple complex, even if it
was merged with the Roman version of their deity. Workgangs left their Roman marks on much of the blocks, column drums, etc. (either the words MER or
two outward-facing crossed flags). You have to dig deep into the stone work to start finding signs of the earlier, (possibly Canaan, but more probable
Phoenician), foundation blocks.
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.
You don't disprove
something - you prove
it. That's how the scientific method works. You claim ETs built Baalbek for their flying
saucers. PROVE IT. It's not up to anyone to disprove
The balls in your court, let's see some proof of ETs, or UFOs at Baalbek.
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.
But a support structure that's only partially built? Wouldn't one have to assume, following your argument, that the entire structure would need to
be built of trilithon sized blocks - else why would they have used only 3, then switched to a much smaller block size?
I believe they had a means to displace the effects of gravity. But that's speculation obviously.
Again, if they had anti-gravity, then the "Stone of the South" would not have been abandoned where it lay. They went to the trouble of quarrying it,
obviously they had plans to use it. Anti-gravity would have made it a snap to float into place. So why didn't
"..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.
If I take several stone blocks, square them up, and slide them together, they will fit so tightly that not a slip of paper will fit between them. This
is not a mystery. I've read Alouf's book, and what's not being mentioned are the many places where you could fit your hand between the blocks,
maybe even your entire arm. Some
places the blocks fit tightly and neatly together. Other
places they don't. Weathering and settling
obviously took their toll, while some blocks were never that well fit together. You have to look at the big picture.
Hi Spikey; It's a good theory you have, using stone balls (like ball-bearings) would be a whole lot easier than wooden rollers - rollers have a
tendency to skew, fouling up the other rollers, or could bind up, making it necessary to lift the object being transported from the rollers so as to
clear or straighten them. I don't think however, there's any evidence to support such a theory.