The Baalbek, page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 12-9-2010 @ 11:21 PM by Harte

"Uncle Google?"

"I'll be back with my sources?"

Please, people.

Use the search function. All the evidence is already posted and argued over, right here at ATS.

It's Roman, no doubt about it.

It's not called "The Baalbek."

The name Baalbek has nothing to do with the god Baal.

Harte

reply posted on 13-9-2010 @ 07:18 AM by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Harte
The name Baalbek has nothing to do with the god Baal.

It does too! Because it was the god Ba'al that moved the giant stones at stone at Baalbek! Prove me wrong! And he looks superficially like a grey alien! This is proof that aliens built Baalbek and that aliens are the ancient Semitic gods returned!

edit on 13-9-2010 by DoomsdayRex because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 13-9-2010 @ 09:03 AM by Johnze

reply to post by DoomsdayRex

You forgot how he moved it with anti gravity, i have sources you know!, i can be trusted!!!

reply posted on 13-9-2010 @ 11:39 PM by Minor Deity

I've been fascinated by this particular site more than any other all my life for some reason.

Isn't it true that each Trilithon stone, is over 3 x bigger than the next largest stone ever quarried and moved in all of history? 800+ tons, that's a big rock. You can't compare that to a little bity 250 ton stone, which is about the biggest the Egyptians, or the Romans ever managed to move as far as I know.

Just speculating but, it seems more likely to me that this construction was originally meant to be a fortress than a temple. The reason I think this is because if it was a temple I would think the size of the blocks would be more uniform. If it was meant to impress your god you would think they would be very picky about the appearance. On the other hand if a war was brewing who cares about looks, but the bigger the blocks the better. This could explain why some of the blocks were left over. They might have simply run out of time. If they lost the battle, there might not have been anyone left that knew how to move stones that size. That also explains why stones that big were never used for construction again.

reply posted on 14-9-2010 @ 12:53 AM by DCDAVECLARKE

reply to post by Harte

From the ground level up its Roman the Foundations are something else!

reply posted on 14-9-2010 @ 12:57 AM by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
From the ground level up its Roman the Foundations are something else!

And that means what?

reply posted on 14-9-2010 @ 02:02 AM by DCDAVECLARKE

reply to post by DoomsdayRex

What do you think i mean? now im not sure id go along with a Space Port, but the Huge stone Blocks were not put up by any Romans, they were there a long time before the Romans came an built on top of the said Blocks!

YouTube Link

reply posted on 14-9-2010 @ 02:22 AM by Blackmarketeer

Just speculating but, it seems more likely to me that this construction was originally meant to be a fortress than a temple.

Speculating is all fine and good, but keep in mind there's a known history to the site. When speculation runs counter to that, then it's pointless speculation. During the Arabic occupation of these lands (long after Rome) they did re-purpose the site as a fortress. I speculate the original paved road used in bringing the trilithons and other stone blocks to the site was ripped up by these Arabs for building their fortress and perhaps other town construction. The Romans themselves may have taken up this road - why leave perfectly good building material in the ground?

Image: Frederick Ragette: Arab fortification of Baalbek.

You can't compare that to a little bity 250 ton stone, which is about the biggest the Egyptians, or the Romans ever managed to move as far as I know.

They moved far heavier blocks than that, and they left plenty of records on how they did it.

The heaviest known blocks to be brought from Aswan to Giza were the massive granite stones used for the roof of the King's Chamber in the pyramid of Kufu. Each weighed about 50 tons. 5th and 6th Dynasty pyramids included gabled roofs with blocks weighing up to 90 tons. The mortuary temple of Menkaure included limestone blocks weighing 200 tons. In the 18th Dynasty, two colossal statues of Amenhotep III (the "Colossi of Memnon"), each weighing more than 700 tons, were moved an overland distance of 700 km. Fragments of statues in the Ramesseum (built under Ramesses II) suggest an original weight of 1,000 tons. How was it possible for objects of this size to have been moved?

Read the rest at Catchpenny.org - moving large objects.

The Romans moved the Lateran Obelisk from Egypt to Rome, some 450 tons, over extremely rough terrain. Took them a long time and they may have had to lop off a part of it to accomplish their goal, but they did it.

More from catchpenny.org:

Herodotus described moving the 580 ton "Green Naos" under Nectanebo II: "This took three years in the bringing, and two thousand men were assigned to the conveying of it ..." (History, 2.175)

Images: Catchpenny.org - Moving a statue in 12th Dynasty Egypt.

Images: Catchpenny.org - Moving a stone in Assyria.

The Assyrian image shows them helping along a large block with the use a gigantic levers - so large they have to lasso them to pull them down. Like Archimedes said, "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."

Something that should be addressed by the "ET / Anti-gravity builder of Baalbek" crowd, are these points:
why would ETs rely on crude copper/stone tools to quarry these blocks (as indicated by the markings)? Surely an advanced space-faring race would have mastered the use of lasers for cutting stone?
why, if they possessed anti-gravity lifting technology, weren't there hundreds of Baalbeks, scattered all over the globe?
why did Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks (just to name a few) leave such an extensive illustrated record of themselves moving heavy objects, with crude manual labor?
why wouldn't this advanced, space-faring race have just used reinforced concrete? It's easier, it's faster, it's more economical.

reply posted on 14-9-2010 @ 05:23 AM by Johnze

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

an interesting note, archimedies lever would have to be light years in length, anti gravity anyone??, amirite???

Sorry, hats of to you for referencing Herodotus, the Histories are an awesome read. Pity more people dont have the benefits of a classical education

reply posted on 14-9-2010 @ 08:45 AM by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
I speculate the original paved road used in bringing the trilithons and other stone blocks to the site was ripped up by these Arabs for building their fortress and perhaps other town construction. The Romans themselves may have taken up this road - why leave perfectly good building material in the ground?

Because it was such a common practice in the ancient and medieval world to re-purpose and cannibalize Roman constructions, I would have to say that really is not speculation on your part. If there was a road there, it is almost guaranteed your theory is correct.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
The Romans moved the Lateran Obelisk from Egypt to Rome, some 450 tons, over extremely rough terrain. Took them a long time and they may have had to lop off a part of it to accomplish their goal, but they did it.

Not only that, but the obelisk was intended for Constantinople but Constanius II changed his mind and had it sent to Rome, much further than it's original intended destination.

The largest obelisk, the Unfinished Obelisk, is comparable to the Stone of the Pregnant Woman. It is clear that the Egyptians worked this stone and had plans to move it if it were not cracked.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
why did Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks (just to name a few) leave such an extensive illustrated record of themselves moving heavy objects, with crude manual labor?

The Romans, Egyptians and just about every other empire in the Mediterranean were extensive record keepers. Yet despite the aliens/anti-grav believers claims, there doesn't exist a single record to support their beliefs.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
why wouldn't this advanced, space-faring race have just used reinforced concrete? It's easier, it's faster, it's more economical.

Both the Romans and Egyptians used concrete, yet these aliens did not know it's benefits.

edit on 14-9-2010 by DoomsdayRex because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 14-9-2010 @ 08:50 AM by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

What do you think i mean? now im not sure id go along with a Space Port, but the Huge stone Blocks were not put up by any Romans, they were there a long time before the Romans came an built on top of the said Blocks!

And that means what? You tell me.

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 >> ^^TOP^^