It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'm not attempting to debunk the whole "Ancient Alien" theory and in all honesty I'm just as open minded enough as the next person to believe in the existence ET's and their possible visitations both past and/or presently. Having said that, I refuse to blindly give credit to each and every perceived anomalies in ancient construction to ET.
This fact naturally gives rise to a different scenario: At Baalbek Rome had found a fabulous ready made foundation, a mighty platform to add a suitably majestic structure to, stamping the Roman eagle upon the whole for the perception of future generations.
The important question is, was it younger, or was it older than the three Trilithon blocks? It seems that it had to be made later than the Trilithon. If it was made first, and then deemed to be too big, it would have still been utilized. Rather than quarrying a new block, the Romans would have simply whittled the big block down to a more manageable size. We would not see it in the quarry today. On the other hand, despite their brilliant ability to move about burdens as unprecedented as the Trilithon, the unknown architects lost their nerve at the very end, the big block looming almost ready. There was no attempt to move the practically finished block despite the recent brilliant successes with transporting the other blocks.
Then there is that utter lack of documentation for these stunning exploits, which should have been proudly noted by Roman historians, politicians, and so on. It's a little like if American history books skipped the fact that America went to the Moon. Meanwhile, local legends ascribe the stones to the time of Genesis. The big blocks were part of a fortress built there by Cain.
Originally posted by vasaga
Your arguments... Hm.. I don't feel like addressing the whole thing.
I'll just tackle two..
The whole thing being 'stuck in the ground'.. Two remarks. For it to be stuck in the ground you have to assume that one, the place was always like that and two, that there was no sedimentation to bury a part of the stone.
As for the 'using smaller stones', it's not like that. The foundation below is a lot older, and some other civilization built on top of it some time later....
It got stuck and was abandoned in place and never moved
Originally posted by rabzdguy
Really, thats your theory?