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.
originally posted by: Maroboduus
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: Harte
Thanks for sharing, but The Thunder Stone was moved in 1770's when they had materials, technology like ball bearings, and the math to pull this off - I don't think you can compare that great accomplishment with what would have been possible to pull off 2,000 years earlier at Baalbek. Also, the Baalbek cut stones may be as much as 3 times heavier than the Thunder Stone.
-MM
good job completely ignoring the part of his post where he explains that the Romans often moved stones of comparable size. I mean, why acknowledge something that doesn't fit your uninformed ore-conceived opinion, right?
Learn some history. Research ancient romantic construction techniques. inform yourself instead of latching onto silly theories.
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
You've probably already heard of the mysterious 1,000 ton Baalbek stone in the (so-called) quarry. However, recent archeology digs at the site have revealed that the 1,000 tone stone is just the top of the iceberg - beneath it are even larger stones, perhaps even as heavy as 3,000 tons in my estimation based on these recent pictures.
So much for it being a quarry - it seems that beneath Baalbek there is burried something unimaginable HUGE, perhaps an ancient megalithic wall or a building of some kind. We're living in exciting times.
Edit:
The only reason that mainstream archeology still calls this a "quarry" is because they have no explanation how the ancient people could move such huge blocks back then, and therefore they must call it a quarry as calling it something else would invalidate their current theories of how human civilization has evolved from ancient times. By calling it something other than a quarry, they would at the same time admit their current theories are wrong. IMO, this is the smoking gun, ladies and gentlemen...
Also, notice that we see four megalithic cut stones, all at a 30 degree angle, while the rest of Baalbek from Roman times has a flat layout. One would imagine that these cut stones also had a flat layout once, but how far back in time are we talking about? Has the tectonic plate that Baalbek is on moved 30 degrees upwars after they were cut, and is this proof that the cut stones is way more ancient than the Roman palace there?
-MM
originally posted by: Harte
The "Thunderstone," a granites megalith, is the heaviest stone ever moved by human beings. It weighs 1500 tonnes (one tonne equals about 1.1 ton, I just decided to find out.)
I had never heard of these stones, so i am glad they posted a thread about it!
originally posted by: humanoidlord
old news, we know of the huge buried stones since,at least just a bit after the discovery of the big one
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: Harte
Thanks for sharing, but The Thunder Stone was moved in 1770's when they had materials, technology like ball bearings, and the math to pull this off - I don't think you can compare that great accomplishment with what would have been possible to pull off 2,000 years earlier at Baalbek. Also, the Baalbek cut stones may be as much as 3 times heavier than the Thunder Stone.
-MM
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: Harte
Thanks for sharing, but The Thunder Stone was moved in 1770's when they had materials, technology like ball bearings, and the math to pull this off - I don't think you can compare that great accomplishment with what would have been possible to pull off 2,000 years earlier at Baalbek.
-MM
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
Also, the Baalbek cut stones may be as much as 3 times heavier than the Thunder Stone.
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Harte
1m x 1m x 1m (1 cubic meter) of fresh water = 1000kgs = 1 ton (tonne)