The mystery of the stones at baalbeck and the pregnant stone - Page 3

pakeha · 10th November 2012, 03:06 AM

^
As far as I remember, it was the wiki entry on the baalbeck stones.
With extra cheese.

So, Zeuzzz, how about it?
Have you gotten round to the linked material I posted up earlier?

Castro · 10th November 2012, 09:14 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS5xle9cPjY
from 15'10" (in french...)

Zeuzzz · 10th November 2012, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Could someone point me to the webpage that Zeuzzz's OP plagiarised?

I'd like to know what claim he's afraid to claim he claimed.

It was written by me and posted on my own website. Some of the material may have other sources online.

I would link you to it but i'm not sure if that also counts as plagarizing myself.

Zeuzzz · 10th November 2012, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by pakeha

^
As far as I remember, it was the wiki entry on the baalbeck stones.
With extra cheese.

Nothing from it was from the wiki. If it was, it would be more a fact of wikipedia copying other sources than me copying wiki.

Quote:

So, Zeuzzz, how about it?
Have you gotten round to the linked material I posted up earlier?

You linked to a series of (email?) correspondenses from 1999 or so, which seemed vague and dismissive in the points made. Also you linked to a ridiculous article written in the context of Ancient Aliens. It has some good information in it, but nothing new and Ancient Aliens have nothing to do with this thread.
Could you excerpt the material you think applies to this thread directly please?

Zeuzzz · 10th November 2012, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Apply the weights needed in this situation and you are talking about every non smooth bump having many many orders of magnitude more friction than it would be subject to if not under considerable vertical force.

Originally Posted by dafydd

The math please.

This is hard for me to work out as no one has come up with an actual model for me to model so far. I will have to choose the values arbitrarily, I can only guess within reasonable bounds what variables to put in.

So assuming the stone to be stationary ontop of twenty rollers each of 20cm diameter and on a smooth level surface, we can take:

Fn as resultant force
F as frictional force
R as reactionary force
g as the weight of the stone

R = g
Fn = F

mass x gravity = 1.25x10¹² x 9.81 = 1.23x10¹³

Where u is the typical value for the coefficient of rolling resistance at 0.001

F = u*Fn + u_b

Assuming that the pressure from the block applies enough force to create a flat spot 1cm deep on each side of the logs, the horizontal force needed to overcome this extra resisitive force u_b is

PE = mgh

2*1.23x10¹³ = 2.46x10¹³ J

Resistance to motion:

0.001*1.23x10¹³ + 2.46x10¹³

Fmax = 2.46¹³

I don't have a calculator to work out the cross sectional area of the wood that impacts on on one face of the stone or to double check the above properly, but safe to say from a cursory guess the SA in contact is far less than the 1% Senor_Pointy suggested in his example.

Zeuzzz · 10th November 2012, 04:41 PM

I've muddled joules and newtons up there at the end, but the point is the force needed is titanic, and there is no evidence of such a smooth road between the structure and the quarry existing. Without a smooth concrete road expect to double or triple that frictional force.

When were smooth style concrete roads invented?

And are metal runners a possibility for pre roman times?

carlitos · 10th November 2012, 04:50 PM

Experimental archeologists have done lots of big stone moving with all of these techniques. Why does someone want to wallow in incredulity? The world is a fascinating place. Enjoy it!

GT/CS · 10th November 2012, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

It was written by me and posted on my own website. Some of the material may have other sources online.

I would link you to it but i'm not sure if that also counts as plagarizing myself.

Zeuzzz,
You know there is nothing wrong with posting links.

Zeuzzz · 10th November 2012, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Zeuzzz,
You know there is nothing wrong with posting links.

Here.

The formatting has since been ruined with facebooks new group formatting rules.

Zeuzzz · 10th November 2012, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

Experimental archeologists have done lots of big stone moving with all of these techniques. Why does someone want to wallow in incredulity? The world is a fascinating place. Enjoy it!

I am

I just prefer to have people answer questions I ask openly rather than saying they know the answer but it's so easy to conceive of it's pointless to post it online (heya Geemack!)

Zeuzzz · 10th November 2012, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

It would be interesting to know the details of this particular construction, sure. But we know how other cultures built stone structures, so it's just a question of which methods the builders of this particular monument used. We may never know.

It's not a mystery. Several of us seem to have a pretty good handle on how that stoneworking was done, or at the very least how it could have been done. Just because you don't understand the simple physics involved, does that mean we have some responsibility to educate you?

Seems to be a point of contention here. What do you say about this Geemack?

Pacal · 10th November 2012, 06:26 PM

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.

Of course you can't date the rocks by such methods, besides all that would show in most cases would be how many millions of years the old the stone was. No what they date is the artifacts associated with the stones using various methods related to stratigraphy etc. The result is that they can date when the monument was most likely built. AS mentioned Roman remains were found under the stones and along with the stones. Thus dating the erection of the stones to Roman times. Apparently no other remains associated with these stones have been found except for some Hellenistic stuff. So it appears the monument was built in Roman times. Also the quarry from which the stones were taken is less than a mile away from the monument.

You7 are aware that the Romans were able to transport huge obilisks to Rome from Egypt and that Catherine the Great was able to arrange to have a stone weighing over 1000 tons (apparently over 1500) moved from Finland to St. Petersburg to form the base for a statute of Peter the Great. According to contemporary records using a track they dragged the stone several miles to the sea and then shipped it to St. Petersburg. The crew was c. 400 men.

I suspect with a couple of thousand workers the Romans could have moved the stone.

Zeuzzz · 10th November 2012, 06:48 PM

The thunderstone is quite different, and being about 200 years ago is very different than over 4000 years old. The reasons why a date of over 4000 years is more than likely were outlined in the OP, or also found in the link above. Dragging something over ice is a slightly different situation than Baalbeck.

Any attempt to reconstruct the moving of an object up to 800 tonnes using wood rollers or pivots has always resulted in the wood breaking before any progress is made.

HotRodDeluxe · 10th November 2012, 07:20 PM

The stones were obviously moved into position and the technology was obviously capable of realising such a project. So, what is the point the OP is trying to make?

Harte · 10th November 2012, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by ShadowSot

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

Sure. But the real mystery is who's the father?

Not me. I was out of town for a whole month.

Harte

Zeuzzz · 10th November 2012, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe

The stones were obviously moved into position and the technology was obviously capable of realising such a project. So, what is the point the OP is trying to make?

The mystery is how they did it

No one has stated a way yet that holds up to scrutiny. Geemack has an ingenious one in his head using six people and spades, but he hasn't shared it yet.

pakeha · 10th November 2012, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Nothing from it was from the wiki. If it was, it would be more a fact of wikipedia copying other sources than me copying wiki.

My bad, sorry.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

You linked to a series of (email?) correspondenses from 1999 or so, which seemed vague and dismissive in the points made. Also you linked to a ridiculous article written in the context of Ancient Aliens. It has some good information in it, but nothing new and Ancient Aliens have nothing to do with this thread.
Could you excerpt the material you think applies to this thread directly please?

No problem!

Vague and dismissive?
Not my impression, Zeuzzz. I found it interesting there was a German excavtion at the site which found Roman remains underneath the stones.
It seems to me that helps dating the construction, don't you?
From the first link:

Quote:

A German expedition dug 1904/1905 through to the foundations of the temple. The temple platform is through and through of Roman origin. They found typical roman masonery, roman trash and so on, down to the bedrock. Nothing un-Roman was found! Btw: The temple platform was not built from massive stone, but typically roman honeycombed. Only the outer shell looks like a massive building.

Fourth: The trash you can read about the temple comes mostly from a book from 1864 ("Voyage autour de la mer morte" by Felicien ce Saulcy) and an article from a professor Modeste Agrest, who based his story on a book "published in Paris in 1898" - long befor any serious dig was done. These sources were used by authors like Daeniken and Sitchin. The first real investigation from 1904/1905, published 1921 (Wiegand, Ballbek, 3 bde, 1921-1925), is "forgotten" by these guys.

Read some real literature about the things you are phantasizing about.

Bye,
FD

And another article
Frank_Doernenburg@do2.maus.ruhr.de
(edited) says:

The stones in Baalbek are not as heavy as claimed by many authors. The three actually moved weigh just under 800 tons each, and only the not-moved block in the quarry weighs about 1000 tons.

The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length and about 15 meters *downhill*. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and the temple 145 meters. So it was easy to keep the stones on an even level to their final resting place and it was uneccesary to lift them about 7 meters as some authors claim.

As you might know, Rome is the city with the most obelisks outside of egypt. They stole the things by the dozen and took them home. The heaviest known obelisk weighs 510 tons, and it was transported some 1000's of *kilometers*. This transport was documented by the roman author Marcellinus Comes. The romans even left detailed paintings and reliefs about the ways to move such things : as on the bottom of the Theodosius-obelisk in Istanbul.

They used "Roman-patented" winches, in German called "Göpelwinden" which work with long lever ways. To move a 900 ton stone, they needed only 700 men. The transport was slow, about 30 meters a day, because they had to dismantle and rebuild the winches every few meters, to pull the obelisk with maximum torque. But in Baalbek, where they moved several blocks, maybe they built an alley of winches, where they passed the block from winch to winch.

But its irrelevant, because they needed only three weeks per block, and that's OK. Oh by the way, the Romans worked a few hundred years on the temple, until the project was finally canceled.

Bye,
FD

I suggest you actually read through the text of the second link. It's the transcript of a documentary debunking various programmes of Ancient Aliens, in particular, the Ancient Alien programme dealing with the mystery of the Baalbeck stones. How could you think that isn't relevant to the thread?

And from the second:

Quote:

AA: “Some have suggested that this stone alone weighs in excess of 1,200 tones. How was it moved there, because obviously it’s situated on top of these stone rows that we can find down here, which means that this stones had to be lifted and then set on top of these stones down here?”

So, did the Romans have the technology to move and lift such stones?

Well, all you have to do is look one country over to find out.

About the same time the Romans were beginning their 200 year project at Baalbek, another project of similar magnitude was beginning by the Roman “client king” Herod “the great” in 19BC.[10]

Herod, using Roman techniques, renovated the temple mount to earn favour with the Jews, who viewed him as a Roman proxy and not a Jew.

The expanded version of the temple was double the size of the original, but in order to make this expansion, he had to incorporate part of the hill to the northeast, which meant that he had to construct a massive retaining wall in order to hold back the force of the earth in order to build the massive platform.

There is a portion of this retaining wall still standing today, and it contains the second largest set of single stones, next to Baalbek.

Just like Baalbek there are several of these stones lined up to form the wall and to provide the weight and size needed to hold back the earth. They call the four largest stones the “Master Course.”[11]...

HotRodDeluxe · 10th November 2012, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The mystery is how they did it

No one has stated a way yet that holds up to scrutiny.

They did do it and any of the methods posited could be attributed to the site. My query still stands: What's the point? I mean, a lack of evidence of building methods doesn't mean much. We don't leave tools and scaffolding laying around a building site upon completion of a project, so, why should any other civilisation? Why is the exact method such an issue?

If you are having trouble accepting any of the construction methods previously detailed, what alternatives do you posit?

HotRodDeluxe · 10th November 2012, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by pakeha

I suggest you actually read through the text of the second link. It's the transcript of a documentary debunking various programmes of Ancient Aliens, in particular, the Ancient Alien programme dealing with the mystery of the Baalbeck stones. How could you think that isn't relevant to the thread?

Ahhh....the key words. Thank you.

GeeMack · 10th November 2012, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The mystery is how they did it

No one has stated a way yet that holds up to ~~scrutiny~~ my incredulity. Geemack has an ingenious one in his head using six people and spades, but he hasn't shared it yet.

I fixed that for you.

As long as plausible methods exist, there is no mystery. And plausible methods do exist. Several have been mentioned in this thread already. Others have been linked. It would take an act of willful ignorance to miss it.

And the method I have for lifting that Stone of the Pregnant Woman 20 feet requires no more than the work advantage provided by the simplest of the simple machines. I learned the basics in fifth grade as I recall, maybe fourth. But then I was in some advanced classes, so it could be most kids weren't exposed to them for another couple of years.

Tomtomkent · 11th November 2012, 12:18 AM

So Zeuzz don't take this as a snide or trolling response, but who did you contact while researching that facebook post?

Did you try e-mailing EXARC the Experimental Archeaology group? exarc.net/
Or the sociecty of primitive technology www.primitive.org/ who has probably got articles relevant to your question in the peer review journal the Bulletin of Primitive Technology?
How about the British Museum, your local university, or even the visitor centre for a monolithic site like Stone Henge? All might have been able to point you towards the most recent and accurate research if you ask nicely, or offer recommended reading of entry level texts.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

This is hard for me to work out as no one has come up with an actual model for me to model so far. I will have to choose the values arbitrarily, I can only guess within reasonable bounds what variables to put in.

No dice. Your guess with arbitary values is worthless. Sorry, but incredulity does not allow you to pluck the numbers that best suit your preconceptions. If you don't know the figures you aren't allowed to assume there is some great mystery that negates the known, replicated methods of moving such large stones.

dafydd · 11th November 2012, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe

The stones were obviously moved into position and the technology was obviously capable of realising such a project. So, what is the point the OP is trying to make?

I have no idea.

Pixel42 · 11th November 2012, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Seems to be a point of contention here.

I see no contradiction between an acknowledgement that we can never know which particular technique was used for any particular construction and the observation that there are plausible techniques by which any such construction could be built.

Captain_Swoop · 11th November 2012, 02:58 AM

From above

Quote:

The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length and about 15 meters *downhill*. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and the temple 145 meters. So it was easy to keep the stones on an even level to their final resting place and it was uneccesary to lift them about 7 meters as some authors claim.

Why do ancient mystery proponents always miss out things like this?

Sledge · 11th November 2012, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

From above

Why do ancient mystery proponents always miss out things like this?

Alien mind control?

Dancing David · 11th November 2012, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The thunderstone is quite different, and being about 200 years ago is very different than over 4000 years old. The reasons why a date of over 4000 years is more than likely were outlined in the OP, or also found in the link above. Dragging something over ice is a slightly different situation than Baalbeck.

Any attempt to reconstruct the moving of an object up to 800 tonnes using wood rollers or pivots has always resulted in the wood breaking before any progress is made.

Where is that data exactly, who said that?

Dancing David · 11th November 2012, 04:18 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The mystery is how they did it

No one has stated a way yet that holds up to scrutiny. Geemack has an ingenious one in his head using six people and spades, but he hasn't shared it yet.

You have yet to show why wooden roller would crush, there were compression figures given before that would disagree with it as well.

Are you able to show us the exact source of why that happens?

Red cedar has a compressive strength of 6,020 psi. Some woods have more some have less.

here comes my quick calculations:
Surface area of the lower surface of the pregnant woman stone:
20.5 m x 4.2 m = 808 in x 165 in.

808 in x 165 in.= 133320 sq in

Weight of pregnant woman stone : 1,000.12 tonne = 2204264 lbs.

So flat psi: 2204264/133320 psi = 16.53 psi

So if the pregnant woman stone was resting on a solid red cedar platform you get 16.49 psi, but these are roller

Contact surface (top+bottom)
- 10% = 165 psi
- 1% = 1,650 psi
- 0.5% = 3,300 psi
- 0.01% =6,600 psi

So the compressive strength of the cedar will not fail until only 0.01% of the surface is in contact with the ground and the stone.

I may have goofed up somewhere

But here is a prior post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...7&postcount=25

Originally Posted by 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"?

So my figures are within the same ball park.

Lukraak_Sisser · 11th November 2012, 06:16 AM

We *know* you can move heavy stuff on logs, and we know ancient civilisations knew that too.
I'd say experience, manpower and possibly external expertise were used.
And with external expertise I mean that any group wanting to build something impressive would send off for a well known architect at the time. Even during the bronze age trade networks spanning europe and beyond existed.

Personally I'd say the main problem is that the OP seems to either not or misunderstand physics and engineering, thus dismissing all the well known techniques.

I Ratant · 11th November 2012, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Harte

Sure. But the real mystery is who's the father?

Not me. I was out of town for a whole month.

Harte

.
I was told it was hard as a rock, but not way back when... or even recently... Sob!

dafydd · 11th November 2012, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Any attempt to reconstruct the moving of an object up to 800 tonnes using wood rollers or pivots has always resulted in the wood breaking before any progress is made.

No doubt you can provide links to scientific studies.

Pacal · 11th November 2012, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The thunderstone is quite different, and being about 200 years ago is very different than over 4000 years old. The reasons why a date of over 4000 years is more than likely were outlined in the OP, or also found in the link above. Dragging something over ice is a slightly different situation than Baalbeck.

Any attempt to reconstruct the moving of an object up to 800 tonnes using wood rollers or pivots has always resulted in the wood breaking before any progress is made.

Thanks for providing me with a reason to dismiss anything you say out of hand. Oh and the stones were moved c. 800 meters (2600 feet) from the quarry. The c. 400 men moving the thunderstone (c. 1400 tons) were able to move the much heavier stone c. 150 meters per day and the total distance was much much longer.

godless dave · 12th November 2012, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The mystery is how they did it

No one has stated a way yet that holds up to scrutiny.

On the contrary, they've stated several.

Rollers.

Cranes.

Aepervius · 12th November 2012, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The mystery is how they did it

No one has stated a way yet that holds up to scrutiny. Geemack has an ingenious one in his head using six people and spades, but he hasn't shared it yet.

If you are expecting precise plan , blue pause, and researched white paper from the roman on how to do it, with all the tool, then you are asking for the impossible and by that standard the wooden loo at my grandma house back in the garden was also built thru a mistery.

What we have is pretty good insight and test on how to build and move such monolithe with instrument tools trace and some even half built.

They do hold up to scrutinity, no matter your disbelief.

Spektator · 12th November 2012, 07:05 AM

I don't know GeeMack, nor the details of what he has in mind, but with a little thought it's not that hard to envision a method to move and place stones by using spades and ingenuity.

pakeha · 12th November 2012, 07:16 AM

Hey, don't forget I posted up another method:

Originally Posted by pakeha

..

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/baalbek.html

Quote:

.As you might know, Rome is the city with the most obelisks outside of egypt. They stole the things by the dozen and took them home. The heaviest known obelisk weighs 510 tons, and it was transported some 1000's of *kilometers*. This transport was documented by the roman author Marcellinus Comes. The romans even left detailed paintings and reliefs about the ways to move such things : as on the bottom of the Theodosius-obelisk in Istanbul.

They used "Roman-patented" winches, in German called "Göpelwinden" which work with long lever ways. To move a 900 ton stone, they needed only 700 men. The transport was slow, about 30 meters a day, because they had to dismantle and rebuild the winches every few meters, to pull the obelisk with maximum torque. But in Baalbek, where they moved several blocks, maybe they built an alley of winches, where they passed the block from winch to winch.

...

Captain_Swoop · 12th November 2012, 07:32 AM

As for using grease to slide them.

When a ship is launched it slides down greased 'ways' into the water. No rollers, just the bottom of the dock with metal plates sliding over it. They pack plenty of grease on to them and away they go. Ships can way hundreds of thousands of tons.
Why is it so hard to think a big stone can't be slid down a greased track to it's final resting place?

marplots · 12th November 2012, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

As for using grease to slide them.

When a ship is launched it slides down greased 'ways' into the water. No rollers, just the bottom of the dock with metal plates sliding over it. They pack plenty of grease on to them and away they go. Ships can way hundreds of thousands of tons.
Why is it so hard to think a big stone can't be slid down a greased track to it's final resting place?

I think the flaw in that explanation is that no one has been able to accurately date the gravity in that location to Roman times.

Besides, simple answers just won't do. A workable answer has to be complex enough so that I can say, "Sure, humans might have done it, but the aliens had to teach them the technique." Sliding down a hill just doesn't meet that requirement.

fuelair · 12th November 2012, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by ShadowSot

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

I suspect Zeuzz does not read a lot (or watch the way slowwww specials on NG, Discover, History, etc. ) on the topics of the physics used by older peoples to move large things without gasoline/heavy electrical machines.

Consider this: wood was a commonly used material for construction and movement of materials for construction. As the source of wood, we have trees, trees have rings, Way back in the 1900s scientist's realized that you could use tree rings for dating - especially if you had ways of measuring the climate (especially aspects of microclimate) and they started doing this - a lot in the American southwest (from whence my knowledge cometh: Read thou of Earl Morris and his lovely wife Ann Axtell Morris for applications of this.). http://www.amazon.com/Digging-Southw...rds=Ann+Morris

fuelair · 12th November 2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

Experimental archeologists have done lots of big stone moving with all of these techniques. Why does someone want to wallow in incredulity? The world is a fascinating place. Enjoy it!

I believe this qualifies as disbelief through incredulity.

Moss · 12th November 2012, 09:44 PM

Just to be a bit of an asinus ager : Vitruvius and his de architectura. Book ten specifically. People underestimate Roman engineering a lot.

10th November 2012, 03:06 AM	#81
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,972	^ As far as I remember, it was the wiki entry on the baalbeck stones. With extra cheese. So, Zeuzzz, how about it? Have you gotten round to the linked material I posted up earlier?
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,972

10th November 2012, 09:14 AM	#82
Castro Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 290	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS5xle9cPjY from 15'10" (in french...)
Castro Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 290

10th November 2012, 03:56 PM	#83
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay Could someone point me to the webpage that Zeuzzz's OP plagiarised? I'd like to know what claim he's afraid to claim he claimed. It was written by me and posted on my own website. Some of the material may have other sources online. I would link you to it but i'm not sure if that also counts as plagarizing myself.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

10th November 2012, 04:00 PM	#84
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by pakeha ^ As far as I remember, it was the wiki entry on the baalbeck stones. With extra cheese. Nothing from it was from the wiki. If it was, it would be more a fact of wikipedia copying other sources than me copying wiki. Quote: So, Zeuzzz, how about it? Have you gotten round to the linked material I posted up earlier? You linked to a series of (email?) correspondenses from 1999 or so, which seemed vague and dismissive in the points made. Also you linked to a ridiculous article written in the context of Ancient Aliens. It has some good information in it, but nothing new and Ancient Aliens have nothing to do with this thread. Could you excerpt the material you think applies to this thread directly please?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 10th November 2012 at 04:52 PM.

10th November 2012, 04:11 PM	#85
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Quote: Apply the weights needed in this situation and you are talking about every non smooth bump having many many orders of magnitude more friction than it would be subject to if not under considerable vertical force. Originally Posted by dafydd The math please. This is hard for me to work out as no one has come up with an actual model for me to model so far. I will have to choose the values arbitrarily, I can only guess within reasonable bounds what variables to put in. So assuming the stone to be stationary ontop of twenty rollers each of 20cm diameter and on a smooth level surface, we can take: Fn as resultant force F as frictional force R as reactionary force g as the weight of the stone R = g Fn = F mass x gravity = 1.25x10¹² x 9.81 = 1.23x10¹³ Where u is the typical value for the coefficient of rolling resistance at 0.001 F = uFn + u_b Assuming that the pressure from the block applies enough force to create a flat spot 1cm deep on each side of the logs, the horizontal force needed to overcome this extra resisitive force u_b is PE = mgh 21.23x10¹³ = 2.46x10¹³ J Resistance to motion: 0.001*1.23x10¹³ + 2.46x10¹³ Fmax = 2.46¹³ I don't have a calculator to work out the cross sectional area of the wood that impacts on on one face of the stone or to double check the above properly, but safe to say from a cursory guess the SA in contact is far less than the 1% Senor_Pointy suggested in his example.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 10th November 2012 at 05:22 PM.

10th November 2012, 04:41 PM	#86
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	I've muddled joules and newtons up there at the end, but the point is the force needed is titanic, and there is no evidence of such a smooth road between the structure and the quarry existing. Without a smooth concrete road expect to double or triple that frictional force. When were smooth style concrete roads invented? And are metal runners a possibility for pre roman times?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

10th November 2012, 04:50 PM	#87
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,474	Experimental archeologists have done lots of big stone moving with all of these techniques. Why does someone want to wallow in incredulity? The world is a fascinating place. Enjoy it!

10th November 2012, 04:51 PM	#88
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,591	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz It was written by me and posted on my own website. Some of the material may have other sources online. I would link you to it but i'm not sure if that also counts as plagarizing myself. Zeuzzz, You know there is nothing wrong with posting links.
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,591	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

10th November 2012, 05:02 PM	#89
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by GT/CS Zeuzzz, You know there is nothing wrong with posting links. Here. The formatting has since been ruined with facebooks new group formatting rules.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

10th November 2012, 05:04 PM	#90
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by carlitos Experimental archeologists have done lots of big stone moving with all of these techniques. Why does someone want to wallow in incredulity? The world is a fascinating place. Enjoy it! I am I just prefer to have people answer questions I ask openly rather than saying they know the answer but it's so easy to conceive of it's pointless to post it online (heya Geemack!)
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

10th November 2012, 05:13 PM	#91
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by godless dave It would be interesting to know the details of this particular construction, sure. But we know how other cultures built stone structures, so it's just a question of which methods the builders of this particular monument used. We may never know. Next post: Originally Posted by GeeMack It's not a mystery. Several of us seem to have a pretty good handle on how that stoneworking was done, or at the very least how it could have been done. Just because you don't understand the simple physics involved, does that mean we have some responsibility to educate you? Seems to be a point of contention here. What do you say about this Geemack?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

10th November 2012, 06:26 PM	#92
Pacal Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Toronto Posts: 448	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. Of course you can't date the rocks by such methods, besides all that would show in most cases would be how many millions of years the old the stone was. No what they date is the artifacts associated with the stones using various methods related to stratigraphy etc. The result is that they can date when the monument was most likely built. AS mentioned Roman remains were found under the stones and along with the stones. Thus dating the erection of the stones to Roman times. Apparently no other remains associated with these stones have been found except for some Hellenistic stuff. So it appears the monument was built in Roman times. Also the quarry from which the stones were taken is less than a mile away from the monument. You7 are aware that the Romans were able to transport huge obilisks to Rome from Egypt and that Catherine the Great was able to arrange to have a stone weighing over 1000 tons (apparently over 1500) moved from Finland to St. Petersburg to form the base for a statute of Peter the Great. According to contemporary records using a track they dragged the stone several miles to the sea and then shipped it to St. Petersburg. The crew was c. 400 men. I suspect with a couple of thousand workers the Romans could have moved the stone.

10th November 2012, 06:48 PM	#93
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	The thunderstone is quite different, and being about 200 years ago is very different than over 4000 years old. The reasons why a date of over 4000 years is more than likely were outlined in the OP, or also found in the link above. Dragging something over ice is a slightly different situation than Baalbeck. Any attempt to reconstruct the moving of an object up to 800 tonnes using wood rollers or pivots has always resulted in the wood breaking before any progress is made.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

10th November 2012, 07:20 PM	#94
HotRodDeluxe Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Location: WTC7 Posts: 141	The stones were obviously moved into position and the technology was obviously capable of realising such a project. So, what is the point the OP is trying to make?

10th November 2012, 07:58 PM	#95
Harte Scholar Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 62	Originally Posted by ShadowSot Don't get the mystery of the stone of the pregnant woman. While it was carved out, it still sits in the quarry. Sure. But the real mystery is who's the father? Not me. I was out of town for a whole month. Harte
Harte Scholar Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 62

10th November 2012, 08:08 PM	#96
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe The stones were obviously moved into position and the technology was obviously capable of realising such a project. So, what is the point the OP is trying to make? The mystery is how they did it No one has stated a way yet that holds up to scrutiny. Geemack has an ingenious one in his head using six people and spades, but he hasn't shared it yet.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

10th November 2012, 08:48 PM	#97
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,972	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Nothing from it was from the wiki. If it was, it would be more a fact of wikipedia copying other sources than me copying wiki. My bad, sorry. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz You linked to a series of (email?) correspondenses from 1999 or so, which seemed vague and dismissive in the points made. Also you linked to a ridiculous article written in the context of Ancient Aliens. It has some good information in it, but nothing new and Ancient Aliens have nothing to do with this thread. Could you excerpt the material you think applies to this thread directly please? No problem! Vague and dismissive? Not my impression, Zeuzzz. I found it interesting there was a German excavtion at the site which found Roman remains underneath the stones. It seems to me that helps dating the construction, don't you? From the first link: Quote: A German expedition dug 1904/1905 through to the foundations of the temple. The temple platform is through and through of Roman origin. They found typical roman masonery, roman trash and so on, down to the bedrock. Nothing un-Roman was found! Btw: The temple platform was not built from massive stone, but typically roman honeycombed. Only the outer shell looks like a massive building. Fourth: The trash you can read about the temple comes mostly from a book from 1864 ("Voyage autour de la mer morte" by Felicien ce Saulcy) and an article from a professor Modeste Agrest, who based his story on a book "published in Paris in 1898" - long befor any serious dig was done. These sources were used by authors like Daeniken and Sitchin. The first real investigation from 1904/1905, published 1921 (Wiegand, Ballbek, 3 bde, 1921-1925), is "forgotten" by these guys. Read some real literature about the things you are phantasizing about. Bye, FD And another article Frank_Doernenburg@do2.maus.ruhr.de (edited) says: The stones in Baalbek are not as heavy as claimed by many authors. The three actually moved weigh just under 800 tons each, and only the not-moved block in the quarry weighs about 1000 tons. The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length and about 15 meters downhill. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and the temple 145 meters. So it was easy to keep the stones on an even level to their final resting place and it was uneccesary to lift them about 7 meters as some authors claim. As you might know, Rome is the city with the most obelisks outside of egypt. They stole the things by the dozen and took them home. The heaviest known obelisk weighs 510 tons, and it was transported some 1000's of kilometers. This transport was documented by the roman author Marcellinus Comes. The romans even left detailed paintings and reliefs about the ways to move such things : as on the bottom of the Theodosius-obelisk in Istanbul. They used "Roman-patented" winches, in German called "Göpelwinden" which work with long lever ways. To move a 900 ton stone, they needed only 700 men. The transport was slow, about 30 meters a day, because they had to dismantle and rebuild the winches every few meters, to pull the obelisk with maximum torque. But in Baalbek, where they moved several blocks, maybe they built an alley of winches, where they passed the block from winch to winch. But its irrelevant, because they needed only three weeks per block, and that's OK. Oh by the way, the Romans worked a few hundred years on the temple, until the project was finally canceled. Bye, FD I suggest you actually read through the text of the second link. It's the transcript of a documentary debunking various programmes of Ancient Aliens, in particular, the Ancient Alien programme dealing with the mystery of the Baalbeck stones. How could you think that isn't relevant to the thread? And from the second: Quote: AA: “Some have suggested that this stone alone weighs in excess of 1,200 tones. How was it moved there, because obviously it’s situated on top of these stone rows that we can find down here, which means that this stones had to be lifted and then set on top of these stones down here?” So, did the Romans have the technology to move and lift such stones? Well, all you have to do is look one country over to find out. About the same time the Romans were beginning their 200 year project at Baalbek, another project of similar magnitude was beginning by the Roman “client king” Herod “the great” in 19BC.[10] Herod, using Roman techniques, renovated the temple mount to earn favour with the Jews, who viewed him as a Roman proxy and not a Jew. The expanded version of the temple was double the size of the original, but in order to make this expansion, he had to incorporate part of the hill to the northeast, which meant that he had to construct a massive retaining wall in order to hold back the force of the earth in order to build the massive platform. There is a portion of this retaining wall still standing today, and it contains the second largest set of single stones, next to Baalbek. Just like Baalbek there are several of these stones lined up to form the wall and to provide the weight and size needed to hold back the earth. They call the four largest stones the “Master Course.”[11]...
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,972

10th November 2012, 08:52 PM	#98
HotRodDeluxe Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Location: WTC7 Posts: 141	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz The mystery is how they did it No one has stated a way yet that holds up to scrutiny. They did do it and any of the methods posited could be attributed to the site. My query still stands: What's the point? I mean, a lack of evidence of building methods doesn't mean much. We don't leave tools and scaffolding laying around a building site upon completion of a project, so, why should any other civilisation? Why is the exact method such an issue? If you are having trouble accepting any of the construction methods previously detailed, what alternatives do you posit?

10th November 2012, 09:07 PM	#99
HotRodDeluxe Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Location: WTC7 Posts: 141	Originally Posted by pakeha I suggest you actually read through the text of the second link. It's the transcript of a documentary debunking various programmes of Ancient Aliens, in particular, the Ancient Alien programme dealing with the mystery of the Baalbeck stones. How could you think that isn't relevant to the thread? Ahhh....the key words. Thank you.

10th November 2012, 09:25 PM	#100
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,172	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz The mystery is how they did it No one has stated a way yet that holds up to ~~scrutiny~~ my incredulity. Geemack has an ingenious one in his head using six people and spades, but he hasn't shared it yet. I fixed that for you. As long as plausible methods exist, there is no mystery. And plausible methods do exist. Several have been mentioned in this thread already. Others have been linked. It would take an act of willful ignorance to miss it. And the method I have for lifting that Stone of the Pregnant Woman 20 feet requires no more than the work advantage provided by the simplest of the simple machines. I learned the basics in fifth grade as I recall, maybe fourth. But then I was in some advanced classes, so it could be most kids weren't exposed to them for another couple of years.
	Last edited by GeeMack; 10th November 2012 at 09:49 PM. Reason: Spelling.

11th November 2012, 12:18 AM	#101
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,203	So Zeuzz don't take this as a snide or trolling response, but who did you contact while researching that facebook post? Did you try e-mailing EXARC the Experimental Archeaology group? exarc.net/ Or the sociecty of primitive technology www.primitive.org/ who has probably got articles relevant to your question in the peer review journal the Bulletin of Primitive Technology? How about the British Museum, your local university, or even the visitor centre for a monolithic site like Stone Henge? All might have been able to point you towards the most recent and accurate research if you ask nicely, or offer recommended reading of entry level texts. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz This is hard for me to work out as no one has come up with an actual model for me to model so far. I will have to choose the values arbitrarily, I can only guess within reasonable bounds what variables to put in. No dice. Your guess with arbitary values is worthless. Sorry, but incredulity does not allow you to pluck the numbers that best suit your preconceptions. If you don't know the figures you aren't allowed to assume there is some great mystery that negates the known, replicated methods of moving such large stones.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

11th November 2012, 02:09 AM	#102
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe The stones were obviously moved into position and the technology was obviously capable of realising such a project. So, what is the point the OP is trying to make? I have no idea.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

11th November 2012, 02:39 AM	#103
Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 4,229	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Seems to be a point of contention here. I see no contradiction between an acknowledgement that we can never know which particular technique was used for any particular construction and the observation that there are plausible techniques by which any such construction could be built.
	__________________ "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.

11th November 2012, 02:58 AM	#104
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,910	From above Quote: The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length and about 15 meters downhill. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and the temple 145 meters. So it was easy to keep the stones on an even level to their final resting place and it was uneccesary to lift them about 7 meters as some authors claim. Why do ancient mystery proponents always miss out things like this?

11th November 2012, 04:05 AM	#105
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop From above Why do ancient mystery proponents always miss out things like this? Alien mind control?
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

11th November 2012, 04:15 AM	#106
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,701	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz The thunderstone is quite different, and being about 200 years ago is very different than over 4000 years old. The reasons why a date of over 4000 years is more than likely were outlined in the OP, or also found in the link above. Dragging something over ice is a slightly different situation than Baalbeck. Any attempt to reconstruct the moving of an object up to 800 tonnes using wood rollers or pivots has always resulted in the wood breaking before any progress is made. Where is that data exactly, who said that?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

11th November 2012, 04:18 AM	#107
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,701	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz The mystery is how they did it No one has stated a way yet that holds up to scrutiny. Geemack has an ingenious one in his head using six people and spades, but he hasn't shared it yet. You have yet to show why wooden roller would crush, there were compression figures given before that would disagree with it as well. Are you able to show us the exact source of why that happens? Red cedar has a compressive strength of 6,020 psi. Some woods have more some have less. here comes my quick calculations: Surface area of the lower surface of the pregnant woman stone: 20.5 m x 4.2 m = 808 in x 165 in. 808 in x 165 in.= 133320 sq in Weight of pregnant woman stone : 1,000.12 tonne = 2204264 lbs. So flat psi: 2204264/133320 psi = 16.53 psi So if the pregnant woman stone was resting on a solid red cedar platform you get 16.49 psi, but these are roller Contact surface (top+bottom) - 10% = 165 psi - 1% = 1,650 psi - 0.5% = 3,300 psi - 0.01% =6,600 psi So the compressive strength of the cedar will not fail until only 0.01% of the surface is in contact with the ground and the stone. I may have goofed up somewhere But here is a prior post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...7&postcount=25 Originally Posted by 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"? So my figures are within the same ball park.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Last edited by Dancing David; 11th November 2012 at 04:51 AM.

11th November 2012, 06:16 AM	#108
Lukraak_Sisser Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,618	We know you can move heavy stuff on logs, and we know ancient civilisations knew that too. I'd say experience, manpower and possibly external expertise were used. And with external expertise I mean that any group wanting to build something impressive would send off for a well known architect at the time. Even during the bronze age trade networks spanning europe and beyond existed. Personally I'd say the main problem is that the OP seems to either not or misunderstand physics and engineering, thus dismissing all the well known techniques.

11th November 2012, 09:31 AM	#109
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Harte Sure. But the real mystery is who's the father? Not me. I was out of town for a whole month. Harte . I was told it was hard as a rock, but not way back when... or even recently... Sob!

11th November 2012, 01:07 PM	#110
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Any attempt to reconstruct the moving of an object up to 800 tonnes using wood rollers or pivots has always resulted in the wood breaking before any progress is made. No doubt you can provide links to scientific studies.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

11th November 2012, 06:46 PM	#111
Pacal Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Toronto Posts: 448	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz The thunderstone is quite different, and being about 200 years ago is very different than over 4000 years old. The reasons why a date of over 4000 years is more than likely were outlined in the OP, or also found in the link above. Dragging something over ice is a slightly different situation than Baalbeck. Any attempt to reconstruct the moving of an object up to 800 tonnes using wood rollers or pivots has always resulted in the wood breaking before any progress is made. Thanks for providing me with a reason to dismiss anything you say out of hand. Oh and the stones were moved c. 800 meters (2600 feet) from the quarry. The c. 400 men moving the thunderstone (c. 1400 tons) were able to move the much heavier stone c. 150 meters per day and the total distance was much much longer.
	Last edited by Pacal; 11th November 2012 at 06:58 PM.

12th November 2012, 06:15 AM	#112
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,126	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz The mystery is how they did it No one has stated a way yet that holds up to scrutiny. On the contrary, they've stated several. Rollers. Cranes.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

12th November 2012, 06:54 AM	#113
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,739	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz The mystery is how they did it No one has stated a way yet that holds up to scrutiny. Geemack has an ingenious one in his head using six people and spades, but he hasn't shared it yet. If you are expecting precise plan , blue pause, and researched white paper from the roman on how to do it, with all the tool, then you are asking for the impossible and by that standard the wooden loo at my grandma house back in the garden was also built thru a mistery. What we have is pretty good insight and test on how to build and move such monolithe with instrument tools trace and some even half built. They do hold up to scrutinity, no matter your disbelief.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

12th November 2012, 07:05 AM	#114
Spektator Dog Who Laughs Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,319	I don't know GeeMack, nor the details of what he has in mind, but with a little thought it's not that hard to envision a method to move and place stones by using spades and ingenuity.
	__________________ Anyone who is telling the truth does not type complete sentences all in capital letters.

12th November 2012, 07:16 AM	#115
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,972	Hey, don't forget I posted up another method: Originally Posted by pakeha .. http://www.ramtops.co.uk/baalbek.html Quote: .As you might know, Rome is the city with the most obelisks outside of egypt. They stole the things by the dozen and took them home. The heaviest known obelisk weighs 510 tons, and it was transported some 1000's of kilometers. This transport was documented by the roman author Marcellinus Comes. The romans even left detailed paintings and reliefs about the ways to move such things : as on the bottom of the Theodosius-obelisk in Istanbul. They used "Roman-patented" winches, in German called "Göpelwinden" which work with long lever ways. To move a 900 ton stone, they needed only 700 men. The transport was slow, about 30 meters a day, because they had to dismantle and rebuild the winches every few meters, to pull the obelisk with maximum torque. But in Baalbek, where they moved several blocks, maybe they built an alley of winches, where they passed the block from winch to winch. ...
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,972	Last edited by pakeha; 12th November 2012 at 07:19 AM. Reason: sourcing the Roman winch