reply to post by SLAYER69
I would like to point out that I am not trying to bolster a pro "Ancient Alien" theory yet I am open minded to the possibility.
I have several questions pertaining to the site in Lebanon, Baalbek or Heliopolis. The evidence seems to indicate an older site that the Romans built
Location- Why would the Romans build such a huge temple with these massive stones in such a remote location? Perhaps this was the location of a much
older and sacred site which would make it valuable to the Romans.
Building style- As far as I know the Romans didn't build with such massive stones anywhere else. Why use stones as big as the ones found here,
considered the largest human moved stones found on Earth, and nowhere else? This also seems to indicate a previous older site that was built upon
again...and again. This building upon older sites that were considered sacred is found all over the world so we know it does happen.
Building limitations of the Romans- These limitations are evident by the size of their other temples and structures. The huge stones at Baalbek seem
to be far beyond these limitations. Compare the Roman transportation of 300+ ton Egyptian obelisks with the 800-1200 ton stones of Baalbek. Is there
any evidence, outside of Baalbek, that the Romans were able to move stones as massive as those found in the foundation walls?
Size of stones and their placement- The drawing below that you posted intrigued me...
...so I googled some images.
I see a stark contrast between the lower foundation stones, both of the large stones in the middle and the smaller ones below them, to the much
smaller stones on top. Not only are the sizes different but their placement is also very different. Here is another image showing the new addition of
stones on top of older ones.
It is clear that these two walls were build at very different times. Notice how the erossion of the lower blocks were compensated for with the upper
blocks and put into place accordingly. The newer upper wall was built at a later time by the Arabs yet the lower foundation stones seem out of place
even when compared to the Roman construction. It is the size of the stones, the way they were placed and the different weathered look that seems to
give evidence to a much more ancient site. Could these foundation stones have weathered that much in the time between the Roman construction and the
Arab's? We could compare the weathering of the foundation stones with known original Roman structures in that area.
Historical records- The Romans were known for taking technology and making it their own and even boasting about their achievments.
Is there any record of the Romans hewing and placing the foundation stones of Heliopolis?
Is there historical record of this site being built prior to the Romans?
Modern archeological opinion- The opinion of archeologists is that the Romans built this site (period!). We all know how the blind eye of science can
be and the idea for the possibility of this being a site that predates the Romans is upsetting scientifically. If this is the case then where is the
evidence of this earlier civilization? Could it be that traces of this prvious civilization was destroyed by a major catastrophy like a large flood?
Too much biblical history for science to take seriously I suppose.
More info here.
edit on 12/10/2012 by Devino because: (no reason given)