The mystery of the stones at baalbeck and the pregnant stone

[Zeuzzz]

Breach of rule 4 removed.

Posted By:Cuddles

More images here in this album.

I am not too comfortable with posting this in the paranormal section of the forum as all this is is a matter of historical record and archeology more than paranormal theories, but did not know where else to put it.

[dafydd]

What makes you think that we've never heard about this before?

[Zeuzzz]

I did not think that. Link me to previous discussions if you want, or critique and pick apart any of the information in the OP.

[dafydd]

Our ancestors were smart. What's new? Aliens?

[ShadowSot]

Don't get the mystery of the stone of the pregnant woman. While it was carved out, it still sits in the quarry.

Quote:

* Some historians think they were made back around the time of the egyptians, or even earlier, but the Romans confused the matter by later building the temple of jupiter on the old Baalbeck structure.

The trilition is of Roman build, materials retrieved in excavation around and under the rocks date to Roman time and are of Roman origin.

[Bikewer]

The line about "transporting it in this kind of terrain..." One of the things modern archaologists are at pains to point out is that it's important to visualize what isn't there any more.
Whether the stones at Stonehenge or any other megalithic structure, our ancestors were quite capable of building a nice, level surface to move the materials with and then remove it subsequently.
We know the pyramids had extensive ramps and inclined planes which were simply hauled off after construction.

[StankApe]

This crane can pick up 20,000 tons. 1250 tons is not problem for many many different type of lifting devices.

http://gcaptain.com/building-the-worlds-largest-crane/

[fuelair]

And, there goes another artificial myth blown to smithereeens. And, say, why do they ever have the gall to think we won't find the info they neglect to look up?

[StankApe]

I think when stuff like "no modern crane could lift this and transport on similar terrain" gets written. The authors think about it like a crane picks up something and then carries it to the destination where it then drops it. Which isn't what most mobile cranes do.

Rather, they pick up something heavy, pivot, then drop it, they then move the crane where it picks up said heavy again,pivots again, drops it again...rinse,wash repeat. (IF the thing being moved is too heavy to placed on a vehicle for transport)

So, it's not unreasonable to think that the ancients ,being equally as smart as we are today, would have followed a similar method.

I think that what catches some people too is that they think of construction projects on a modern timescale. We can build a skyscraper in a few years. They might have built that temple (or pyramid,whatever) in 50-100 years.

[Tiktaalik]

And, once again, I point to:

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/

Moving big chunks of rock is not that big a problem.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by Tiktaalik

And, once again, I point to:

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/

Moving big chunks of rock is not that big a problem.

Is this the former contractor building stonehenge in his backyard pretty much by himself (with the odd helper) using nothing but ancient tech?

I saw a little byte on that guy a few years back.Moving big stones by himself with only a single pebble as a pivot. neat stuff!!!


ETA: Yep!! It's that guy!

[Zeuzzz]

I don't think that stonehenge can be compared to such big megaliths. And the technology linked to above using wood would be totally redundant on such big stones, the wood would splint and literally be crushed. How were they raised over twenty foot and placed where they were so many centuries before the Romans came and built on their foundations with the temple of jupiter?

And that crane linked to is an extremely specialized piece of equipment for sea bound lifting, I challenge anyone to link to a piece of technology that would be able to transport stones of this size from the quarry to the end structure.

And please don't bring up aliens, I have never understood the reaction of people here that bring that up as if it's a viable alternative. All it does is belittle the reality and intelligence of ancient human civilizations.

[lionking]

Do you have any theories Zeuzzz? This is a serious question.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by ShadowSot

The trilition is of Roman build, materials retrieved in excavation around and under the rocks date to Roman time and are of Roman origin.

How can you date rocks used in structures? It is nearly impossible to date rocks used in construction and get anything meaningful from them, the rocks have likely been there for millions of years before they were used.

Dates of items in the quarry are not evidence for the date of the trilition.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by lionking

Do you have any theories Zeuzzz? This is a serious question.

Nope, all I can see is the evidence in the OP that the trilition were not of Roman origin and may predate the Romans by thousands of years.

[GeeMack]

I looked at the photo of that "Pregnant Stone" and thought for a moment about how I would get something like that let's say 20 feet off the ground and straddling a couple of upright stones one at each end. It took me about a minute to figure out a way to do it with a crew of a half dozen people and a couple of shovels. Period. No ropes, no timbers, no oxen, no rollers, and no magic or aliens required.

[Zeuzzz]

Explain.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Explain.

Call it a puzzle. Let's see if you can do it. The only tools needed are shovels. Six people could do it, but of course a high school football team could do it way faster. Gravity is the property of physics that does most of the work. Like I said, it took me a minute. If you're, say, 1/100 as smart as me you should be able to figure it out in less than 2 hours.

[Zeuzzz]

Explain. I'm not a mind reader.

If your idea holds any weight (literally) we can discuss it here.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I don't think that stonehenge can be compared to such big megaliths. And the technology linked to above using wood would be totally redundant on such big stones, the wood would splint and literally be crushed. How were they raised over twenty foot and placed where they were so many centuries before the Romans came and built on their foundations with the temple of jupiter?

And that crane linked to is an extremely specialized piece of equipment for sea bound lifting, I challenge anyone to link to a piece of technology that would be able to transport stones of this size from the quarry to the end structure.

And please don't bring up aliens, I have never understood the reaction of people here that bring that up as if it's a viable alternative. All it does is belittle the reality and intelligence of ancient human civilizations.

okay, here's a tracked "crawler crane" with a 3000 ton capacity

http://www.liebherr.com/CR/en-GB/pro...measure-metric

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Explain. I'm not a mind reader.

If your idea holds any weight we can discuss it here.

I'm not asking you to read minds. That would be magic. Figure it out. I did.

[Zeuzzz]

So you made up a solution and wont share it? Well, isn't this turning into a fruitful dialogue.

[StankApe]

it seems to me the easiest way to raise it up would be to never let it lie flat like in the pic in the first place.

You cut it on the vertical, then using a wooden crane, you lift it up til it's mid point against the side of the quarry then using the side as a fulcrum lower it onto a set of rollers.

[ShadowSot]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

How can you date rocks used in structures? It is nearly impossible to date rocks used in construction and get anything meaningful from them, the rocks have likely been there for millions of years before they were used.

Dates of items in the quarry are not evidence for the date of the trilition.

Which is why I said trash taken from excavations around and under the trilithion themselves from trenches dug alongside.

[Senor_Pointy]

I'll admit in advance that I'm totally spitballing this and would love to know how far I'm off.

The stone's mass is about 1,000,000 kg, and it measures (approximately) 20 x 4 meters.
Under gravity, it's exerting a pressure of ~9.8 million Newtons on a surface area of 80 m^2, or 122,500 N/m^2.
Converting to US measurements this is ~18psi.
The weakest type of wood I can find numbers for, white cedar, has a compressive strength of ~3900 psi. Even if only 1% of the surface area is bearing the load, this is still only 1800psi.
Would wooden rollers really "literally be crushed"?

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

So you made up a solution and wont share it? Well, isn't this turning into a fruitful dialogue.

He is not being cruel. If his method is the established one i think he has identified then lookining in to it will put a lot of cogs in place in your head where a lot of the mystery vanishes, but is replaced by a respect for what our ancestors could do.

There was a bunch of experimental archaeologists about a decade ago, who gave us the most likely method of how the Egyptians raised their needles.… see if you can find that and spot something that apply here.

[Soapy Sam]

Or you could Google "How to move Baalbek stones"

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+move+Baalbek+stones

[Captain_Swoop]

Why would wood be crushed?

A Crane wouldn't even need to pivot the stone to a new position. All it needs to do is lift it far enough to get the rollers under it then back out at the other end. a Sheerlegs or Derrick would be the thing to use, constructed around the stone.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Or you could Google "How to move Baalbek stones"

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+move+Baalbek+stones

[pakeha]

A Roman origin for the Baalbeck Stones?

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/baalbek.html
http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/ref...ripts/baalbek/

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I did not think that. Link me to previous discussions if you want, or critique and pick apart any of the information in the OP.

You cite wiki how about you cite the actual "that historical and archaelogical experts simply can not agree on.", so if you are using ramped earth works and sledges and roller, what is the pull to move the stones?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I don't think that stonehenge can be compared to such big megaliths.

I don't think you gave an actual citation for why ancient technology could not have moved it. Why is that?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Nope, all I can see is the evidence in the OP that the trilition were not of Roman origin and may predate the Romans by thousands of years.

You cited one source Zuezzz, so the burden is on you. What exactly is teh evidence you are saying exists?


Quarry stones are dated using a number of techniques, depending on the site and the quarry

-historical records and accounts
-structures that contain stones from the same quarry and dates for those structures
-quarry marks and tools marks, apparent history of the quarry

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I don't think you gave an actual citation for why ancient technology could not have moved it. Why is that?

Because everything in the literature or in the library assumes they were of Roman origin, despite the evidence to the contrary that I supplied in the OP.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Because everything in the literature or in the library assumes they were of Roman origin, despite the evidence to the contrary that I supplied in the OP.

Except you did not give the citations for the vast majority of your post Zeuzzz, you asserted things like 'they do not look like' which is not really the same as saying 'the tool marks and smoothing techniques are different', the 'structure seem to vary along the following 20 points of constructions, placement of the atrium and side rooms, joints between stones, brick and other wooden materials, surface decorations going to the original surface...'

It could be that they predate the romans, but you would need multiple convergent lines of data, which I haven't seen yet.



Seriously I am not hacking on you, I am suggesting that you need to put a foundation under your assertions.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

So you made up a solution and wont share it? Well, isn't this turning into a fruitful dialogue.

Dig a hole, slide the stone into the hole. Will require considerably more than six people.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by ShadowSot

Which is why I said trash taken from excavations around and under the trilithion themselves from trenches dug alongside.

Yes, more convergent data, the strata of excavation of the quarry might help. if you can find a midden that is near the thing that helps.

The real problem is in the size of the excavation, near the stone might help but a lot of random pits random the stone are likely to turn up the associated work areas.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Dig a hole, slide the stone into the hole. Will require considerably more than six people.

They were on level ground, the construction site and the quarry are level to the nearest meter.

This opens the possibility of a canal being used, but the mechanics of the size of water needed to be displaced with air plus the weight of the stone severely constrains this possibility.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Because everything in the literature or in the library assumes they were of Roman origin, despite the evidence to the contrary that I supplied in the OP.

Hi Zeuzzz.
Have you gone over the linked material I provided?

[Tolls]

Has anyone mentioned the Thunder Stone yet?
That's 250 tons heavier than this thing, all shifted by muscle power alone.