It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trade Professional (RE: Ancient Monuments): "I can not build even one wall. Here's a theory."

page: 16
285
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 





Please pardon my gender identification misstep, the problem is, if in a scientific discussion you bring up the 'biblical deluge', as if it actually happened this instantly shows you're not having a scientific discussion! It like bringing up the texture of cheese the moon is made up of


Read "Worlds in collision" by Immanuel Velikovsky. Along with "The Awesome Lifeforce" by Joseph H. Cater. Their works go hand in hand with the deluge. And I feel sorry for your narrow view of things.




My use of root out is a collective term for all knowledge, information on weapons, yes but since we are so far beyond them I really don't think a better bow, atlatl or chain mail design is really going to help out the modern world, lol


You don't understand what was in there before the deluge. Let me put it into a clearer perspective, they had everything we have today. They had computers, they had the latest fashion, the latest gun, the latest weapon, and the latest of everything. So you say you don't think a better bow is really going to help out the modern world? They used the bow, but what about the arrows? They could be high-tech nanite arrows designed a certain way to take down a target.



Mass sheding of blood has occurred nearly every year since year 5,000 BC not sure what you are referring to, did you miss WWI?


Not this kind of shedding of blood. This ranked up into the billions in a year, from what various sources say. WWI's death rate; 15 million dead with 20 million wounded on both sides. The American Civil War death rate: At least 618,000 on both sides. These numbers can be dwarfed by those numbers of the past, the real past.




I believe it was longer than that actually. Not really sure what you comment is about, are you saying that you cannot chip granite? Sure you can, the Spanish noted that the roads


It's obvious when you said scientific conversation that you would be refering to college-level conversation. I don't do that due to the fact that they are people trained the think only left brain mentality and shed and spill blood before they rebuke their theories. Granite processed in the past is harder than granite processed in the present and they did it on site, with the intention to go through all obstacles. These roads were a lot more advanced than the Roman's road system.




either dug up the road completely in some areas, or allowed it to deteriorate and fall into ruin under iron-clad horses' hooves, or the metal wheels of ox-carts

Cameron, Ian (1990). Kingdom of the Sun God: a history of the Andes and their people. New York: Facts on File. p. 65. ISBN 0-8160-2581-9 If iron horse shoes and wheel rims will do in a road (they will) I'm not sure about your comments on 'advance drills', granite is granite, they bashed it and we can cut it without great difficulty


Whoever controls the present can change the future, whoever controls the present changes the past. I cannot trust mainstream books and education due to the fact it could be altered so that no one gets close to it and finds out how to re-create the item.

I leave these words for you to ponder. But I know your going to shoot back at me, not read all of the post, and say something that you'll think is logical as well get a little frustrated in the process thinking that I'm a loser and a wing-nut that doesn't know what he's talking about. Reply rationally, then maybe I'll be convinced that you still have a way to think openly.




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander


Read "Worlds in collision" by Immanuel Velikovsky. Along with "The Awesome Lifeforce" by Joseph H. Cater. Their works go hand in hand with the deluge. And I feel sorry for your narrow view of things.


I've read the first, which was debunked decades ago and was notable for the scientific errors it contains, what insight does the second book provide? How can my conclusion based on fact versus your believing what you've been told to believe without supportin' evidence = a charge that I have a narrow view of things ? lol, one would counter that you have the narrow point of view



You don't understand what was in there before the deluge. Let me put it into a clearer perspective, they had everything we have today. They had computers, they had the latest fashion, the latest gun, the latest weapon, and the latest of everything.


No they didn't, what do you base this preposterous statement on?



So you say you don't think a better bow is really going to help out the modern world? They used the bow, but what about the arrows? They could be high-tech nanite arrows designed a certain way to take down a target.


sorry you are going down the slippery slope of 'what I believe in actually exists', and every one else has to believe it too....



Not this kind of shedding of blood. This ranked up into the billions in a year, from what various sources say. WWI's death rate; 15 million dead with 20 million wounded on both sides. The American Civil War death rate: At least 618,000 on both sides. These numbers can be dwarfed by those numbers of the past, the real past.


Where are you coming up with this imaginative past, your own or someone elses heroic making stuff up?


It's obvious when you said scientific conversation that you would be refering to college-level conversation. I don't do that due to the fact that they are people trained the think only left brain mentality and shed and spill blood before they rebuke their theories.


Huh?


Granite processed in the past is harder than granite processed in the present and they did it on site, with the intention to go through all obstacles.


HAW Haw haw, sure granite has changed it physical properties over time.......lol



These roads were a lot more advanced than the Roman's road system.


Based on what criteria? Incan roads were for foot traffic while Roman's roads were made for vehicles


Whoever controls the present can change the future, whoever controls the present changes the past. I cannot trust mainstream books and education due to the fact it could be altered so that no one gets close to it and finds out how to re-create the item.


??? what item would this be, yes fringe materials are always better especially when the contradict one another


I leave these words for you to ponder. But I know your going to shoot back at me, not read all of the post, and say something that you'll think is logical as well get a little frustrated in the process thinking that I'm a loser and a wing-nut that doesn't know what he's talking about. Reply rationally, then maybe I'll be convinced that you still have a way to think openly.


I read your posts, and think you're answering questions from a different thread, nevertheless, you appear to be making that most common of fringe mistake, that actually believing what you believe somehow makes that belief real. It doesn't



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Cataclysm
 


Yes a foundation was there but not the stones we're talking about. The DIA has been excavating at Baalbek for over a century

Blackmarketeer report

It is there opinion that the trils are Roman and Roman emplaced



Hans.

I am not a proponent of the AA concept. It's fun to discuss with friends over a couple of beers, but it's also distressing to see how many people embrace it in an almost religious fashion.

I am also not particularly inclined to believe in an ancient "super civilization" of humans--that is, ancient humans with tech so advanced as to appear as magic.

Nor am I very fond of the "Conspiracy of the Ages" idea...that there is a massive coordinated movement of certain persons to conceal vast mindblowing truths concerning the human race and its origins that extends out of the misty past and culminates in today's "secret societies" and elite academics.

What I do think is that in archaeology and paleontology, yesterday's "ridiculous bull#" is today's "truth" is tomorrow's "debunked and discarded." All science is like that to some degree or there would be no progression. Assuming constant progression(I'm an optimist), all science will continue to be like that until we can progress no more(if such a thing is possible). Even so, I think maybe this "progression" effect is more pronounced in these two particular fields, more noticeable, more acute...and not necessarily because changes in "current understanding" in these disciplines is more drastic than others. Drastic changes do occur, of course, but they are more than matched by paradigm shifts in other fields of science.
I think it is more pronounced, more noticeable, because of the subject with which these two fields of study are concerned. You are digging into our past, seeking answers to the oldest questions. Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here?

Archaeology and paleontology attempt to address these questions, using scientific principles. Admirable. It also requires some personal fortitude, much more so than other sciences. Chemists and physicists can work in their fields for their entire lives and never once go anywhere near the "public eye." Archaeologists, on the other hand...well, the eyes of the world are on you guys all the time, now more so than ever(IMO).
Chemists and physicists work in clean, controlled environment labs and get to wear spiffy white scientist coats. Archaeologists have to battle anacondas, sleep suspended from trees while wrapped in mosquito netting, survive three different kinds of diseases that haven't even been named yet, and avoid being converted into a "shrunken head" decoration, just to get to the place they want to study.
When physicists come up against some really difficult, fundamental questions, they build giant machines underground to exact specifications and run experiments with results so complex that they are very nearly at the extreme edge of the human ability to comprehend. Well, aren't they lucky? Archaeologists are studying humans, which no one has ever understood. Physics has immutable laws. Humans spend a great deal of time making up laws, then go on to break them in every way possible.
Finally there is a bit of comedy (to me anyway) in the idea of The Science Nerd, an archetype we are all familiar with(I myself am one of them, ok)...the guy who was awkward, no social graces, never got dates, seemed permanently startled and mystified at the actions of his peers---who gets a degree in Archaeology and spends his life telling us what ancient cultures were like and why they did the stuff they did.

What I'm saying is that Archaeologists are working under some disadvantages, compared to the rest of science. Add that to the fact that most humans are interested enough in the questions of archaeology that they will constantly be watching, criticizing, denying, wildly speculating, and otherwise being a huge pain in the ass...in other words, just being their normal selves. So I think the response from the scientists tends to reflect that by being defensive. I could be wrong.

Anyway, the point here is, I very carefully read the paper you cite about the Baalbek site. It's very scholarly, and above reproach I'm sure. But the entire premise hinges upon dating based on a single graffito found on the structure of the Roman temple, which the author admits that it must have been made near the end of the construction.
I find that to be insufficient reason to say "The trilithon is Roman." Sorry.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

It is rather a function of belief, if one believes that aliens or advanced human technology is needed to do masonry well then, all evidence against that idea is simply rejected. Deny is easy to use and requires little thought or knowledge.


I said this before, aliens are the new God to many people, and they hold on to their new dogma as if their soul depended on it...



As I noted before the majority of people in this thread have no idea of what research has been done in the last century on this subject nor what the Spanish and Spanish educated locals wrote about the Inca culture in the 16th century.


It is even simpler than that....today we still use methods to drill/chip holes into hard granet like rock

Now what they focus on is a lack of documents or images from a non-literate society, yep no manuals, nor will there ever be any found.

It is even simpler than that....today we still use methods to drill/chip holes into hard granite like rock that we see examples of in EVERY ancient quarry of this same style to chipped holes in intervals. Then something wedge like is hammered into these hole that will split a rock very cleanly. Little rock or big rock doesn't matter you just need more holes and wedges.

We have examples of large stones being moved even in more recent past and not a single machine to show anything out of raw tools an man power being used. We showed a video of one man who can move, lift and set up right a 20,000 pound monolith all by himself with nothing but stones raw wood and rope.

I thought it was ingenious that he used round somewhat flat river stones as what he put underneath to reduce the resistance to move it. It was also fantastic when he put fine sand in his hole where the monolith was going to be placed and just the weight of it push the sand a side slowly sinking it to the bottom by only using water on the sand. I would never have thought...

I have also always thought that man never needed to lift a single large stone into place... a part of this alien dogma that states it is the only way...Even with Stone Hedge they would just need to bury the upright support stones to provide a sloping hill just to once again drag the large stones into place and then just dig it all back to ground level.

I saw this as a good way even for the pyramids in every level they add becomes the new ground level and then just remove all the dirt..who needs cranes when you are always close to ground level.

But once again all these methods are totally ridicules because aliens, lasers and or levitation devices are not a part of them.


edit on 28-3-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


Okay and what evidence is there that it isn't Roman and instead, put there by 'x', if they were manufactured and placed by the Phoenicians - and later reused by the Romans how would that be proved?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Its not so much thinking that early man needed aliens to do masonry for them. Its more that aliens and AH believers need something, anything, they can use as evidence for these mysterious folks. Masonry is a good choice, its not well documented, very few people are expert at it and it lends itself to denial by personal incredulity!



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   


Aside from that, aliens and the machinery used would be depicted all over the place in hieorglyphics. But it's not. Nor has one bit of machinery used to supposedly build this stuff ever been found. They have found ancient tools used to help build them.. but nothing alien or tooled or anything else.


Well, one someone builds a house, they don't decorate it with pictures of a circular saw or hammers. It's not important what was used to build it, only that it was built. Perhaps, at the time, everyone that mattered knew exactly how they were built, so it went without saying. When we build skyscapers today, do we include instructions craved in the side explaining how to build your own?




Why is it is hard to believe that all those megalithic buildings were build by some other race, or races we came to earth long ago, and then they took with them all the building materials, and machinery? Maybe even to build more megalithic buildings in some other planets?


Exactly. When someone (people) builds a house, they bring/have tools. When they're done, that take them away, back to where they keep the tools. The tools are no longer required at the building. Perhaps just some small hand tools, like the ones found around the Pyramids. To say those small tools were used to build the Pyramids is like someone finding my house 1000 years from now and thinking the it was built with the "tools" in my kitchen drawer. (I mean spoons/butter knives/forks)

Sorry for the long post. I hope I quoted things correct and made good use of my space. I have dial-up internet, so if there are any problems, I'll just blame that...



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Telos

Originally posted by shake101

Atheists don't even bother anticipating my coming thread. You people are already looked down upon by society and that's where you belong, unless of course your open-minded like normal intelligent people are.

I shall make a thread, but m laptop battery is running out, and incidentally, I need to reach 20 posts


Sorry to the OP for going a bit out of topic here but I couldn't resist. It's funny how religious people consider atheists. Despite Don't judge for not to be Judged they still think have the right to look upon others as like they have the divine truth on their side :p . And the irony goes even further when the quoted member gives lesson of open minded while is judging others with the closest mind possible. Atheism is what made science move ahead. 500 years ago they were the first atheists who said no to the church and dogma and put the wheel of progress in motion. If it wasn't for them, we'd be still considering earth as flat. I'm glad your battery run out. Sparing the bs is a necessity on this site.
edit on 22-3-2012 by Telos because: added bb codes


Humorous, I never categorized myself as one to have divine truth on my side. Atheists are looked down upon not because they don't believe in a divine entity, but because they cannot and won't comprehend just how complex mankind is, and what it had to take for us to come into existence.

As for your remark on judgment and open-mindedness, I'm only judging your one belief on the presence of a transcendent power, not anything else about your dignity or belief system, or intelligence (Ahem). So your irrational drive to launch a personal attack on my post was a mistake of YOUR judgment. This colloquy is not about religion, but rather, plain common sense.

Oh and guess what, my laptop's plugged in!

Anyway back to the original topic, those ancient structures are indeed ambitious, but that doesn't mean beings from another planet decided travel possibly hundreds or thousands of light years (at least 600,000,000,000,000 miles) just to help us with a couple of construction projects and then disappear. We did have help, but it wasn't extraterrestrial. It was very much tellurian, and I shall explain in about 5 more posts.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander


Read "Worlds in collision" by Immanuel Velikovsky. Along with "The Awesome Lifeforce" by Joseph H. Cater. Their works go hand in hand with the deluge. And I feel sorry for your narrow view of things.


I've read 'World's in Collision' and must say that it isn't very well written.





Originally posted by FreedomCommanderYou don't understand what was in there before the deluge.


You don't understand that there was no deluge. The geologic record supports my claim. What supports yours?



Originally posted by FreedomCommander Granite processed in the past is harder than granite processed in the present


Um, no it's not. Granite is a collection of mineral assemblages intruded below the surface. It becomes visible to us when it is exhumed by processes of erosion or uplift (which again is a feedback loop to stimulate erosion).



Originally posted by FreedomCommanderI cannot trust mainstream books


The Bible is seen by many as a 'mainstream' book.

Now, you cannot trust mainstream books, or you choose not to because of your personal belief system?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I see it's pointless to converse with you anymore, I was wrong to tell you this information. All lines of communication between those that believe and are taught a certain way and me are severed.

This conversation is over.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
So, when people disagree with you and challenge you, you have a hissy-fit?
That really doesn't seem very mature.
When people challenge me I try to remain rational and keep the (constructive) lines of communication open, no matter how difficult that may be for me personally.

The simple answer is that through observation we can determine that there was no global flood, that granite is granite and that the facts support this.

I can back up my statements.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Its not so much thinking that early man needed aliens to do masonry for them. Its more that aliens and AH believers need something, anything, they can use as evidence for these mysterious folks. Masonry is a good choice, its not well documented, very few people are expert at it and it lends itself to denial by personal incredulity!


The funny part is I would be right by their side...IF...there actually was something other than pure speculation as proof, but for me when I speculate I try and think about how they could have done it and not first speculate aliens into existence, then speculate they made us, then speculate they gave us advance knowledge not known today...then speculate...at some point this becomes a Tolkien novel..



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

I see it's pointless to converse with you anymore, I was wrong to tell you this information. All lines of communication between those that believe and are taught a certain way and me are severed.

This conversation is over.


Wow, ok...does this mean you go back under your Sitchin rock? I have also read these books and I found that he painted a fantasy tale, based on his sole interpretation of old text. In other words he made up 90% of his theory.

Even when you take something like the 12th planet Nibiru that is in some huge oblong orbit that pushes it out past Pluto to not be found, I had to ask myself, How could any life evolve on such a planet. Earth is in what is called goldilocks position. Venus and Mars are good examples of what happens when your slightly out of that perfect position. But here we have some thriving advance life on that planet that is NEVER in that position...does that make sense?

Also we are unique to earth but for some reason life evolved on two totally different planets to be alike...kind of fishy.. As example, with everything having two eyes doesn't mean that is how evolution does things. It means that whatever life deep in our past that was the alpha start for all animals today had two eyes. Life has been wiped on earth many times over and older fossils shows abundance of 1 2 3 4 5 6 eyed creatures, but earth today is all two eye... As is our Nibiru friends... Once again does that make any sense?

I can't live on pure speculation alone...at some point as Carl Sagen said

“I believe that the extraordinary should be pursued. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”


One can not speculate and then use further speculation as the only proof or evidence of the initial speculation. That is what Sitchin and a few others were so very good at doing, and you are proof.


edit on 28-3-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jough626
 


The AE did leave some images of working with stone but not many. In the tomb of Djehutyhotep there is the famous scene of men dragging a large statue.

Xtrozero



The funny part is I would be right by their side...IF...there actually was something other than pure speculation as proof, but for me when I speculate I try and think about how they could have done it and not first speculate aliens into existence, then speculate they made us, then speculate they gave us advance knowledge not known today...then speculate...at some point this becomes a Tolkien novel



I'd love to have evidence of aliens or AH, it appeals to my Sci-fi side but alias we just get boring old humans. The best speculation is that which is based on what we know - then you procede from there..


edit on 28/3/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by shake101
reply to post by gaurdian2012
 


It's not the only theory left.

While the OP did do a good job of debunking this ridiculous ancient alien theory. (Of which I know plenty about, watching the show) There is still one more theory that has yet to be debunked.

The Reptilian/Supernatural/Demonic intervention theory. Which can only be explained to and understood by people who believe in God. (You know, that guy up there that you never see and have an increasingly diminishing faith in?)
I shall make a thread about it, but let me make some things clear first.

He's not a guy. Okay? He's an entity and that's all that can be said.

Atheists don't even bother anticipating my coming thread. You people are already looked down upon by society and that's where you belong, unless of course your open-minded like normal intelligent people are.

I shall make a thread, but m laptop battery is running out, and incidentally, I need to reach 20 posts


One of the most ignorant things I've seen in a while. The OP presented a theory, which you would know if you read the thread title. He most certainly didn't debunk anything. How exactly is the AAT "ridiculous"? Please explain. There is a missing link in evolution and they present their "theory" on what "might have happened". By the way, just because you watch the show doesn't mean you know plenty about the theory. It MAY mean you know plenty about the show
. Ever decided to do some independent research instead of staying glued to the idiot box?

By the way, the little atheist comment made me laugh; thats where they belong huh? Generalization of an entire group of people based on what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not believing in a god does not mean your unintelligent or close minded. It means you don't believe in a god.
Anyone reading your posts can tell
your the religious type because of your attempts to slam athiests.

On a another note though, something else that made me laugh was demonic theory (the way you presented it). I'm always open to listen, read about, and consider new things; hence my daily visitation to ATS, but saying you can only believe in a certain theory based on whether or not you believe in a god, is absurd.

By the way, no one needs to anticipate your thread - this isn't a popularity contest, just make the thread. Put up or shut up. Me and every other person on ATS will be happy to destroy it from the inside out using the motto we stand for. Deny Ignorance.


edit on 28-3-2012 by Vandettas because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 


Well, your muted.


EDIT: By the way, launching a personal attack on somebody in an intelligent debate on the basis of emotion, and getting your feelings hurt is basically asking for ignorance. Adieu!
edit on 28-3-2012 by shake101 because: Forgot something



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by shake101
[Atheists don't even bother anticipating my coming thread. You people are already looked down upon by society and that's where you belong


LOL, and that is what was said about the early Christian too.....I didn't quote your 'open minds' part as the irony was just to much ....lol


I'm not Christian, what do you think I am? closed-minded?..

EDIT: Oh look, 20 posts!

edit on 28-3-2012 by shake101 because: I got 20!



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Okay and what evidence is there that it isn't Roman and instead, put there by 'x', if they were manufactured and placed by the Phoenicians - and later reused by the Romans how would that be proved?


Well....I am still in the process of expanding my knowledge of this particular site(the work you cited has been a gold mine of excellent info btw, while also showing the way to other pertinent documents in listing its own sources. Thanks!)...so I would not say "there is evidence that it isn't Roman," and I would definitely not go on to speculate about the identity of 'x.' Lacking such speculation, I am thereby incapable of outlining a corresponding logic for proof.

Those are fair questions, they should be answered. However, the point I was making in my previous post is just this: as informative, insightful, and thorough as the published paper you cited is, it is in the end a study best described by the 'core' of its title -- Analogies in Construction Techniques. The 'analogies' or comparisons drawn by the author have merit...but they are only analogies. And the connections made in support of the comparison exercise seem....well, tenuous? ....

 


Alright, the above line represents a quick fact-finding search that snowballed out of control into many hours of reading. Had fun, learned a lot, got way off-topic(Katochoi?? The Serapeum! Prosopography, Papyrology, the Nekrotaphoi of the Kynopolites!).
Also found many threads where you've argued all this with people before, Hans. So instead of a big old boring
rehash, allow me to re-iterate:

  • I am not trying to push some personal--or borrowed--"theory" about Baalbeck.
  • I am trying to understand why you are adamant that the Romans did it.

Asking me to show evidence they didn't do it, as well as provide a falsifiable hypothesis for who did, gets us nowhere. I have neither evidence nor hypotheses in those directions.
What I do have is this: We know the Romans modified/expanded on an existing structure that was not built by them. That structure in turn may have been a modified/expanded version of something even older. The Roman construction of the Jupiter Temple itself is not under dispute.
The connection drawn from the date of the graffito on the undeniably Roman temple column, to the foundation platform of dubious origins, to the Jerusalem Temple foundation and the Herod expansion project, seems a bit weak, is all I'm saying!
You don't for one second let people get away with making connections like that and presenting it as proof. How come you get a pass?



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


Hello Tsurugi,

Do you think that people who are skilled in useing a paint brush and a trowel should be answering engineering questions....they have no degrees in any engineering or hard science fields....

I'm sure that the oligists are very good at telling us about myths,religion,and ceremonial going on's....and the contents of rubbish dumps,pottery shards and discarded this and that.....and that's all we need them to answer...

If an engineering question arises lets ask an engineer....If a medical question arises lets ask a qualifed medical person......

Tsurugi.....I been to Balbeck.....I have read Haslume post on the trithalons[ which I have paced ].....I'm under the impression that the german exavation that Haslume relies heavely on really only exavated under and around the Baccus Temple that the romans built so that every thing that they found was contempary with roman times......
Haslume does admit to the reality of pre roman constructions under and around the temple of Jupiter which is where the trithalons are built upon.....

Reguardless I'm not aware of the romans moving 800/900...1000 tonnes [depending on who's figures u use]
in one move....scull dragging with capstian whinches down/level with the quarries to their final location.

I think we should be asking Engineers.....Engineering problems.......other wise we have to ask TIME TEAM.....

oooohhhh eeeeeeyyyyyeeeeeee........



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


Its best to pick one theory based on what information you have and then try to prove or disprove it. The evidence for the Trils is limited so that is what you have to go with. Either the stones were Rome quarried and used for building, or Phoenicians quarried, used by them then reused by the Romans.

I'd go with the Romans for the time being but before Blackmarketeer found that DAI report which we had been looking for for some time, I had been tending away from the Romans towards the Phoenicians given there architectural style of large foundation stones.




top topics



 
285
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join