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: 17
285
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Howdy Hans,

Are you saying now that the thriths are maybe Phoenician.....where in that old balbeck thread you huffed and you puffed about them being roman....and any one who disagreed with you was just fringe muck.....How dare you question the old german dig.....even if it was selective and narrow in scope...

Hans....I'm very confused by time teams turn about here.....Who would of thunghed??...




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by tri-lobe-1
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Howdy Hans,

Are you saying now that the thriths are maybe Phoenician.....where in that old balbeck thread you huffed and you puffed about them being roman....and any one who disagreed with you was just fringe muck.....How dare you question the old german dig.....even if it was selective and narrow in scope...

Hans....I'm very confused by time teams turn about here.....Who would of thunghed??...


They might, but the people who have been excavating there for century have put their money on there being placed by the Romans and I won't disagree with them. Re-read what I wrote in the post before and consider that was before I had read the DAI report....I was reflecting on the past.

I believe my ire was directed more at people who believed they might be placed there by aliens, the evidence for the trils is very thin, the experts vote for Roman and there isn't enought evidence for someone else doing it to raise a good alternative scenario

Could the Phoenicians have quarried those stones? Maybe, we will probably never know



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Thanks for the reply.....and your own view on Balbeck...it truly is an interesting place.....

2nd line...



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Its best to pick one theory based on what information you have and then try to prove or disprove it.

I agree.
I was under the impression that you considered the matter closed(set in stone?), when it looked to me like a "best guess" scenario, at most.



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.

I've seen the Phoenicians mentioned several times while poking around in this. I know next to nothing about them...looks like that will be my next reading topic.

And yah, evidence for the Trils is limited all right. To me, it actually seems to be non-existant! I mean, we know they got quarried, transported, and put there by someone, at some point. End Of Story.

Why is evidence so slim? Is there no 'weathering' estimates that can be made for time elapsed since cut? Are there possible future avenues of study like digging around the foundation under the Trils, or have all those things been tried?

What about the big mamma-jamma still down in the quarry? It's sitting on the ground instead of atop another layer of stone 20ft above-ground....has anyone poked around near it? Maybe tried to make an estimate for time elapsed since cut using subsidence? Any age data discovered about that one should be applicable with the other three, as it seems highly unlikely they were cut at different times, right?

I seem to remember reading about the possibility of a 'grotto' or something beneath the platform--a remnant of the old days when the site was first used as a ceremonial place. Is that true, or am I misremembering something?



I believe my ire was directed more at people who believed they might be placed there by aliens, the evidence for the trils is very thin, the experts vote for Roman and there isn't enough evidence for someone else doing it to raise a good alternative scenario

Yeah. Why do experts pick Rome, do you know? I mean, if the Phoenicians were around, and they sometimes exhibited a fetish for megaliths...why not them?



Could the Phoenicians have quarried those stones? Maybe, we will probably never know

Well, that's an annoying thought. Look, it must have been a gargantuan effort....surely somewhere, someone recorded the event in some way.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


The Phoenicians were responisble for the 1st temple of solomon..ie builders....you know the King of Tyre, Phoenician coastal city state...not a great distance to Balbeck.....



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tri-lobe-1
 


The Phoenicians real achievements were maritime trade and navigation skills, as well as the spread of the alphabet (basis of all modern phonetic alphabets).

All in all, a rather impressive people. And sorry to the OP for going off topic!



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Thank you for a great read. I have thought for a long time that the " ancient aliens" were us.
S&F



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by shake101
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


Now you call it an attack when I literally said nothing to insult you. But its typical when your statements are proven to be ignorant and you can't back them up. Emotion has nothing to do with this is - this is about your previous post,
and your ignoring everything I just said
because you know I'm right. Have a nice life.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin

I still believe in the AA theory. Especially considering if previous advanced human civ's existed it is quite possible they had space technology.



The Ancient Astronaut theory doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny........besides if these ancient peoples had "Space technology"........then why would they only use it to build monuments?

And why is it that those ancient astronauts haven't come back to help us build.........more monuments?

edit on 29-3-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


That's known as the AA paradox why were these guys only interested in moving rocks around......



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Logical one
 


That's known as the AA paradox why were these guys only interested in moving rocks around......


Yeah, If an alien species travelled millions of miles through interstellar space,,,,,,,would they really be interested in building stone monuments.


If man ever gets to land on another planet inhabited by intelligent life (I somehow doubt we ever will though.......travel within our own solar system would most likely be the very limit to man's capabilities)......then would we really set about making stone monuments?



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


There was an interesting Sci-fi story written inthe 1950 (???) that speculated on this - the aliens were giant creatures and silicon based - they crashed here repeatedly and tried to create a female of the species and bring it to life - poor bastards



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

The Ancient Astronaut theory doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny........besides if these ancient peoples had "Space technology"........then why would they only use it to build monuments?

And why is it that those ancient astronauts haven't come back to help us build.........more monuments?

edit on 29-3-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


One other thing to think about to add to your, why only help us with large stones...If an alien race was let's say millions of years advance to us would our level of advancement today really be that much far off from 2000 years ago in their eyes? Why would they be in hiding EVER... Kind of like if they helped us in the stone age, and then thought when we became farmers, WOW we need to hide they are too far advance now...lol

Once again, many of us focus our thoughts with us as the center object and not the other way around in that our advancement to them would still be very close to the stone age in their perspective.





edit on 29-3-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune


That's known as the AA paradox why were these guys only interested in moving rocks around......


Well rocks and to eat us....

One of my biggest points...we are talking raw stone work no matter how you look at it. No matter how sexy one tries to paint the picture on how it was done it is still raw rock.





edit on 29-3-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

One other thing to think about to add to your, why only help us with large stones...If an alien race was let's say millions of years advance to us would our level of advancement today really be that much far off from 2000 years ago in their eyes? Why would they be in hiding EVER... Kind of like if they helped us in the stone age, and then thought when we became farmers, WOW we need to hide they are too far advance now...lol


That's exactly my line of thinking too..........the ancient astronauts would STILL be light years (literally) ahead of modern day man.
One of the main "evidence" that the "Ancient Aliens" tv show uses is that they think they can see depictions of rockets, air planes and helicopters in ancient artefacts ............. if anything that totally argues against the ancient alien hypothesis........... super advanced aliens using primitive fuel combustion rockets, air planes and helicopters..........yeah right!

You also have the mystery as to why ETs had no qualms showing themselves in public in ancient times......but in modern times suddenly they have become somewhat shy of us primitive humans!


The more you examine the Ancient Alien hypoythesis the more ridiculous it gets!

edit on 29-3-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

You also have the mystery as to why ETs had no qualms showing themselves in public in ancient times......but in modern times suddenly they have become somewhat shy of us primitive humans!


The more you examine the Ancient Alien hypoythesis the more ridiculous it gets!



Then we look at the evidence... 6000 years ago we had eye witnesses, drawings, lights in the sky...

6000 years later we have eye witnesses, pictures and lights in the sky...

Kind of weird that they are all around us and now we have 7 billion cameras and instant communication to every part of the world and really have nothing more than what we also have for big foot.

But damn, we could not build without them...lol



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Kind of weird that they are all around us and now we have 7 billion cameras and instant communication to every part of the world and really have nothing more than what we also have for big foot.


Talking of cameras, it perplexes me that the ancient aliens have left no evidence of their super advanced technology....... not even a simple recording device like a camera or photographs......... but instead they choose to leave us the "Baghdad battery".........which when fully charged would power my brand new Olympus digital camera for a good............millisecond!

edit on 29-3-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


Also if the Ancient Alien theory were true why wouldnt they build more advanced buildings rather than stone aged buildings.

The only problem that people are having with these ancient sites is that they are lost as to how or why they would cut and move such huge stones, it has perplexed people so much that they fashioned the idea that aliens must have built it.

I personally find the facts and the mystery that more advanced men lived in the past built the site and lived sparsely on the earth over aliens.

There just isnt any evidence to support aliens.
edit on 29-3-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

There just isnt any evidence to support aliens.
edit on 29-3-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


I agree, no evidence of ancient ETs, but I guess it makes for a romantic fairy story that some want to believe as fact..........rather like man believing in a "creator"..........a romantic story......but just because many things in the universe seem beyond human comprehension.......then God must exist.......even though there is no evidence whatsoever.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tsurugi
Could the Phoenicians have quarried those stones? Maybe, we will probably never know

Well, that's an annoying thought. Look, it must have been a gargantuan effort....surely somewhere, someone recorded the event in some way.

Only about 1% of what the Roman's wrote is known to survived. So probably somewhere they wrote about but it hasn't survived. Now the Roman's also liked cool, weird stuff but for some reason none of the writers thought the Trils made the list.

The trils are part of a Roman retaining wall that encloses earlier constructions, as its part of that construction it was either quarried and placed by the Romans or possibly reused.

The big stones were never moved, they probably had such a tussle getting the 800 tonners in that they decided against it

Sorry don't know anything about a grotto



new topics

top topics



 
285
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join