The mystery of the stones at baalbeck and the pregnant stone

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I

He who laughs last laughs longest. And I haven't begun laughing yet.

Will you start laughing when you tell us how Baalbek was built?

''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.''

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

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I was the one that immediately pointed out I had muddled joules with newtons in the end calculation myself, no one else showed any error with anything I did. I in fact pointed out a mistake in Dancing David maths which he did not argue with after openly saying himself that he may have 'goofed up somewhere'.

He who laughs last laughs longest. And I haven't begun laughing yet.

And you never showed taht wooden rollers wouldn't have worked, despite false claims that they would be crushed.

[Zeuzzz]

Well we worked out that the elastic limit of red cedar would be ok if care was taken and the maximum numbers of rollers was used. The specifics of getting the stone onto the rollers so the pressure is uniformely applied across all logs simultaneously is another matter, but not one that cant be overcome with enough leverage and soil.

However this rolling theory requires a smooth road between the quarry and the temple, which there is no evidence of. I'm currently installing the contour map extension for Google Earth to attempt to verify the levelness of the ground between the quarry and the trilithon to see how likely a road that has simply disappeared over time is.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Will you start laughing when you tell us how Baalbek was built?

''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.''

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

I replied directly to that here.

Sometimes reading and seeing a post is different than paying attention and thinking about it.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Well we worked out that the elastic limit of red cedar would be ok if care was taken and the maximum numbers of rollers was used. The specifics of getting the stone onto the rollers so the pressure is uniformely applied across all logs simultaneously is another matter, but not one that cant be overcome with enough leverage and soil.

However this rolling theory requires a smooth road between the quarry and the temple, which there is no evidence of. I'm currently installing the contour map extension for Google Earth to attempt to verify the levelness of the ground between the quarry and the trilithon to see how likely a road that has simply disappeared over time is.

What is the alternative to the rolling theory?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I replied directly to that here.

Sometimes reading and seeing a post is different than paying attention and thinking about it.

Good advice, try following it.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by dafydd

What is the alternative to the rolling theory?

The main contenders are the "sliding theory" and the "who the heck can know anything about the past, it was so long ago and evidence was lost and everything is just conjecture" theory.

[Moss]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

That is the roman temple that was built on it's foundations. Unsurprising everything they found was roman. Are there pictures or more details of this expedition?

What is that "its" referring to? The temple of Jupiter? That wouldn't make much sense to me as in my current understanding there is no temple structure at this site before the Roman temple to Jupiter.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I have. The case of the main structure below the temple of Jupiter is not as straightforward as it first appears.

Which main structure exactly are you talking about? If I read the information on the site of the German Archeological Institute correctly the earliest monumental structure is the first strata of the Jupiter temple that dates to the last two decades before CE.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by marplots

The main contenders are the "sliding theory" and the "who the heck can know anything about the past, it was so long ago and evidence was lost and everything is just conjecture" theory.

They either slid or rolled the stones.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Moss

Which main structure exactly are you talking about? If I read the information on the site of the German Archeological Institute correctly the earliest monumental structure is the first strata of the Jupiter temple that dates to the last two decades before CE.

Don't read institutes. Take their views into consideration certainly. Read the accounts of people that have actually been there. Which is what I did and ended up with a very different picture than establishment views. All the text in the OP (or the link) is from people that have actually visited in person and studied it first hand. Avoid print bias at all costs and you can't go far wrong.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Don't read institutes. Take their views into consideration certainly. Read the accounts of people that have actually been there. Which is what I did and ended up with a very different picture than establishment views. All the text in the OP (or the link) is from people that have actually visited in person and studied it first hand. Avoid print bias at all costs and you can't go far wrong.

What is this different picture? Do you have an alternative to the rolling and sliding theories?

[Zeuzzz]

Crikey I need a translator for you Dafydd.

We are talking about the non roman origins of the foundation that the Romans later built the temple of Jupiter on. The part of the building with the huge 800-1000 tonne blocks in it.

No I don't have another theory for moving the blocks past what has been suggested.

Do you?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Crikey I need a translator for you Dafydd.

We are talking about the non roman origins of the foundation that the Romans later built the temple of Jupiter on. The part of the building with the huge 800-1000 tonne blocks in it.

Then why are you making contour maps? is the name of the people who made the foundation etched into the hill?

[Moss]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Don't read institutes. Take their views into consideration certainly. Read the accounts of people that have actually been there. Which is what I did and ended up with a very different picture than establishment views. All the text in the OP (or the link) is from people that have actually visited in person and studied it first hand. Avoid print bias at all costs and you can't go far wrong.

You do realize that that institute has been involved with the excavations in the last years? And that you failed to answer my questions?

ETA: To be specific Margarete van Ess who is one of the leading figures of the DAI has led ecavations in Baalbek. She has been there. Should I not trust here because she is a member of the governing body of the institute?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Then why are you making contour maps? is the name of the people who made the foundation etched into the hill?

Three lines of argument at once. If you hadn't noticed, there are three separate lines of argument going on here and I'm in all three a) The science of moving the megaliths b) The history and properties of the blocks and c) The fact they are likely not of roman origin.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Don't read institutes. Take their views into consideration certainly. Read the accounts of people that have actually been there.

Have you ever been there?

Quote:

Which is what I did and ended up with a very different picture than establishment views. All the text in the OP (or the link) is from people that have actually visited in person and studied it first hand.

All the text in the OP was from you. Have you ever actually visited in person and studied it first hand?

Quote:

Avoid print bias at all costs and you can't go far wrong.

So, have you ever been there?

[marplots]

I'm here right now, what do you want to know?

[Zeuzzz]

How many stones?

And I'm not claiming to be an authority on it only sharing other peoples accounts that have been there

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

How many stones?

And I'm not claiming to be an authority on it only sharing other peoples accounts that have been there

But have you ever been there? It has been suggested that people who haven't actually been there in person and studied it first hand should be suspected of engaging in print bias. So that brings us to the question, have you been there in person and studied it first hand?

[Edx]

Did anyone reference the Chris White Ancient Aliens debunking video yet?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

But have you ever been there? It has been suggested that people who haven't actually been there in person and studied it first hand should be suspected of engaging in print bias. So that brings us to the question, have you been there in person and studied it first hand?

No I am engaging in print bias myself here, but this is a forum not a historical record, I however am not contributing to print bias even if I am engaging in it, as I have selected only grassroot people that have not learn it only from books via print bias as my primary references.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

How many stones?

Only three left out of the original band.

[dafydd]

I wonder how theses grassroots people can see who moved the stones merely by looking at them in situ.

[anazgnos]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Well we worked out that the elastic limit of red cedar would be ok if care was taken and the maximum numbers of rollers was used. The specifics of getting the stone onto the rollers so the pressure is uniformely applied across all logs simultaneously is another matter, but not one that cant be overcome with enough leverage and soil.

However this rolling theory requires a smooth road between the quarry and the temple, which there is no evidence of. I'm currently installing the contour map extension for Google Earth to attempt to verify the levelness of the ground between the quarry and the trilithon to see how likely a road that has simply disappeared over time is.

The ground level now, or evidence of "roads" seems immaterial. Temporary structures that were erected explicitly to aid construction like roads, scaffolds, levers, cranes, tracks, dirt embankments, earthen ramps or whatever else would have been deliberately removed afterwards; who knows what archaeological evidence would be left over. You're acting like every construction aid must still be in evidence, but unless the job was abandoned in progress and society collapsed around them before they got the chance, all that stuff would have been deliberately removed.

You don't boggle that there's no way a skyscraper could have been built because you don't see any remains of a scaffolding.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

No I am engaging in print bias myself here, but this is a forum not a historical record, I however am not contributing to print bias even if I am engaging in it, as I have selected only grassroot people that have not learn it only from books via print bias as my primary references.

So those people whose writing you're reading, who were actually there, when they were watching the ancients quarry and move those giant stones, why didn't they take better notes? Or will you now claim they weren't actually there in person to study it first hand?

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

How many stones?

And I'm not claiming to be an authority on it only sharing other peoples accounts that have been there

And once again: Why only people who have been there? Why not the research of people who specialise in how ancient cultures moved stones?

There is absolutely no reason for your strange belief that people who have not set foot on that particular are denied some great insight. People can go there and be totally unaware of how ancient civilisations moved megaliths.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Don't read institutes. Take their views into consideration certainly. Read the accounts of people that have actually been there. Which is what I did and ended up with a very different picture than establishment views. All the text in the OP (or the link) is from people that have actually visited in person and studied it first hand. Avoid print bias at all costs and you can't go far wrong.

Riiiiiiight. So being there first hand is actually a measure of training and knowledge because...?


Zeuzzz, have you, per chance, ever read an archeaological survey? Have you looked at the diagrams taken of a dig? I will assume you have. Do you think, that an archeaologist with knowledge in a particular field can look at such diagrams and deduce if the information contained is relevant to their specialty? Do you think that an archeaologist not skilled in a speciality can substitute their lack of specific knowledge by some other means? Exactly what information do you think being at a location grants that can not be obtained elsewhere?


And have you ever listed which groups or individuals you contacted in researching your web page? I can't see it here.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Don't read institutes. Take their views into consideration certainly. Read the accounts of people that have actually been there. Which is what I did and ended up with a very different picture than establishment views. All the text in the OP (or the link) is from people that have actually visited in person and studied it first hand. Avoid print bias at all costs and you can't go far wrong.

Erm, the people that excavated the site and found Roman all the way to the bottom visited the site in person.

I could visit the site but that wouldn't make me qualified to say who built it.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Well we worked out that the elastic limit of red cedar would be ok if care was taken and the maximum numbers of rollers was used. The specifics of getting the stone onto the rollers so the pressure is uniformely applied across all logs simultaneously is another matter, but not one that cant be overcome with enough leverage and soil.

However this rolling theory requires a smooth road between the quarry and the temple, which there is no evidence of. I'm currently installing the contour map extension for Google Earth to attempt to verify the levelness of the ground between the quarry and the trilithon to see how likely a road that has simply disappeared over time is.

Why would you see a road after 500 years much less 2000 or more, a smoothed earth road is all that is needed. You are not going to find that after even a hundred years, much less however many it was. Now henges and mounds, do take longer to fill in or erode, but a road can disappear very quicly.

You don't have to get the stone onto the rollers at once, if you loose a few rollers it is no big deal, you can even use blacks BLOCKS to tranfer teh stone and place teh rollers underneath if you wish. the contact area of a roller is going to be upward of 15% so well withing the tolerance of the wood.

ETA: typoe!

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I replied directly to that here.

Sometimes reading and seeing a post is different than paying attention and thinking about it.

Your reply provides no substance as to why the room under the ruins was not roman. Or at least contained roman artifacts.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

you can even use blacks to tranfer teh stone and place teh rollers underneath if you wish.

Dude.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Don't read institutes. Take their views into consideration certainly. Read the accounts of people that have actually been there. Which is what I did and ended up with a very different picture than establishment views. All the text in the OP (or the link) is from people that have actually visited in person and studied it first hand. Avoid print bias at all costs and you can't go far wrong.

Cite teha ctual finds and data, not just the impression, are the stone mark current with roman tools or not?

It is the data that matters. So present the actual data if you will, what data actually says that they are not roman, in specific.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by robotimbo

dude.

roflmao!

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Crikey I need a translator for you Dafydd.

We are talking about the non roman origins of the foundation that the Romans later built the temple of Jupiter on. The part of the building with the huge 800-1000 tonne blocks in it.

No I don't have another theory for moving the blocks past what has been suggested.

Do you?

And the data for something other than the romans is....

What materials, what objects, what records?

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Well we worked out that the elastic limit of red cedar would be ok if care was taken and the maximum numbers of rollers was used. The specifics of getting the stone onto the rollers so the pressure is uniformely applied across all logs simultaneously is another matter, but not one that cant be overcome with enough leverage and soil.

However this rolling theory requires a smooth road between the quarry and the temple, which there is no evidence of. I'm currently installing the contour map extension for Google Earth to attempt to verify the levelness of the ground between the quarry and the trilithon to see how likely a road that has simply disappeared over time is.

Is there some reason why the rollers have to be softwood? If it was me I would be looking for hardwood logs to do the job.

There has been plenty of time for a temporary road to disappear.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Is there some reason why the rollers have to be softwood? If it was me I would be looking for hardwood logs to do the job.

There has been plenty of time for a temporary road to disappear.

They only had cedar trees in the Lebanon.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Edx

Did anyone reference the Chris White Ancient Aliens debunking video yet?

Yes.

Originally Posted by pakeha

...http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/ref...ripts/baalbek/

Originally Posted by MikeG

Retaining wall, not maintaining. I noticed this has been used more than once in error.

Mike

Thanks for the heads-up!

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

...I am finding it hard to tie this quote down to the large megaliths underneath the temple of Jupiter. It seems far too general. No one is disputing the Romans made large rock structures and constructions; it's evidence for them saying they made the foundations for the temple of Jupiter and how that is lacking. You can clearly tell the difference in architecture and design between the temple of Jupiter built on top of the triliton, the clearest difference as your quote said the Roman stones and buildings are far more white, and of a totally different architecture.

That website is about Roman architecture and the Temple of Jupiter. Not the trilithon, which I found information about very lacking.

The point is that both constructions are part of retaining walls.
That's discussed here:
http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/ref...ripts/baalbek/

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

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

Sorry, not everyone is anxious to answer things when the essential statement is it can be done/has been done - but it's impossible for x to have done it. Some of us can figure out how X could have done it but are not that concerned - we know X did so we are not worried about how. Some of us take it as a problem and figure out one or more ways it could have been done. Some will tell you, some won't (gloaters) BUT it won't be sufficient if you want to know expressly how it was done. Some of us with more historical/engineering know exactly or approximately how it was done. Some may eventually tell you, some will make you look it up yourself (and might or might not tell you where and so on. If you are interested enough that latter is what you should be doing. The internet (though I am not fond of Gooble) is your friend if you use it well and learn how it works. However, complaining when we do not just tell you is pointless. That is not our job......

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Why would you see a road after 500 years much less 2000 or more, a smoothed earth road is all that is needed. You are not going to find that after even a hundred years, much less however many it was. Now henges and mounds, do take longer to fill in or erode, but a road can disappear very quicly.

Especially since, crossing smack bang in the middle of the 600m or so distance between the quarry and the site, is a tarmacced road, which would have, just by itself, erased a fair chunk of anything that may have been left.

Indeed it's quite likely that road follows most of whatever route a temporary road would have taken. Just look on Google Maps and it's pretty clear.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Moss

You do realize that that institute has been involved with the excavations in the last years? And that you failed to answer my questions?

ETA: To be specific Margarete van Ess who is one of the leading figures of the DAI has led ecavations in Baalbek. She has been there. Should I not trust here because she is a member of the governing body of the institute?

Thanks for the lead, Moss.

Zeuzzz, have you been in touch with these people?
http://www.dainst.org/en/project/baalbek-museum?ft=8

Quote:

The museum is located in the substructions of the sanctuary of Jupiter as well as in the south tower of the fortress.
The permanent exhibition informs about the long history of the town and the re-discovery and excavation of the Roman sanctuary.

These may interest you as well:
http://cipa.icomos.org/fileadmin/tem.../TURIN/849.pdf

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search...pe=text%2fhtml

Quote:

The famous trilithon with blocks so large that a mere three courses would have been sufficient to reach the required height of 12 m was correctly attributed to the Julio-Claudian phase by von Gerkan (1937, 56). Although it consists of a separate ring at some distance from the core podium, it should belong to this redesign, as it maintains a constant distance to the awkwardly placed colonnades at the edge of the core podium. The trilithon is generally considered unfinished (Wiegand 1921, 53). However, traces on the northern façade show that the podium was built up all the way to the floor level of the temple, though it was not entirely completed, as shown by the uneven and unfinished floor surface.

http://www.daniellohmann.net/dox/lohmann_ch2009.pdf


http://www.daniellohmann.net/dox/lohmann_aiac2008.pdf

Quote:

Apparently challenged by the already huge pre-Roman construction, the early imperial Jupiter sanctuary shows both an architectural megalomaniac design and construction technique in the first half of the first century AD. The most famous example may be the trilithon forming the middle layer of the western temple podium by three blocks of 4 by 4 by 20 meters size.