The mystery of the stones at baalbeck and the pregnant stone - Page 8

pakeha · 16th November 2012, 02:58 AM

I've just reread your FFB entry, Zeuzzz, and couldn't help noticing this:

Quote:

...There is tantalising evidence to show that some of the earliest archaeologists and European travellers to visit Baalbek came away believing that the Great Platform was much older than the nearby Roman temples.

For instance, the French scholar, Louis F licien de Saulcy, stayed at Baalbek from 16 to 18 March 1851 ... French archaeologist Ernest Renan, who was allowed archaeological exploration of the site by the French army during the mid nineteenth century.(40)

You rely on 19th century witnesses here.
Even that description by Michel Alouf comes from 1900
http://archive.org/details/geschichtevonba00alougoog
Why not look to more recent sources?

Apart from http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=200342

dafydd · 16th November 2012, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by pakeha

Apart from http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=200342

Pouring!

Zeuzzz · 16th November 2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by pakeha

Apart from http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=200342

That was me. I was banned shortly after. It was hilarious. No freedom of speech or freedom of opinion if you disagree with a moderator on that forum. There is a moderator from there that posts here too, she finds the freedom of speech here highly annoying and constantly rants about it. Doubly amusing.

Zeuzzz · 16th November 2012, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by pakeha

Why not look to more recent sources?

Less cultural bias I find. If you visit something already 'knowing' the Romans built it what sort of conclusions do you think you are most likely to draw about who its architects were?

Captain_Swoop · 16th November 2012, 01:53 PM

Because those more recent that 'know' it have found the evidence to support what they 'know' rather than guessing or making it up to suit their own preconceptions.

GeeMack · 16th November 2012, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

That was me. I was banned shortly after. It was hilarious. No freedom of speech or freedom of opinion if you disagree with a moderator on that forum. There is a moderator from there that posts here too, she finds the freedom of speech here highly annoying and constantly rants about it. Doubly amusing.

Yeah. Persecution and censorship. Wahhh.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Less cultural bias I find. If you visit something already 'knowing' the Romans built it what sort of conclusions do you think you are most likely to draw about who its architects were?

Have you been to the temple at Baalbek, observed it with your own eyes, done a hands-on, in person study of it? Or is everything you've written about it filtered through, let's see, how'd you word that?...

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

[...] the inherent print bias that is endemic in a lot of history books or educational systems.

Zeuzzz · 16th November 2012, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Have you been to the temple at Baalbek, observed it with your own eyes, done a hands-on, in person study of it? Or is everything you've written about it filtered through, let's see, how'd you word that?...

In case you memory is really as bad as it appears, I will quote my previous reply to you, as it relates to print bias and forums.

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.

GeeMack · 16th November 2012, 03:10 PM

So the reply to this question...

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Have you been to the temple at Baalbek, observed it with your own eyes, done a hands-on, in person study of it?

... is this...

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

No I am engaging in print bias myself here, [...]

And as pakeha noted...

Originally Posted by pakeha

You rely on 19th century witnesses here.
Even that description by Michel Alouf comes from 1900
http://archive.org/details/geschichtevonba00alougoog
Why not look to more recent sources?

You've written from sources with an inherent print bias. You admit to adding another layer of print bias on top of that. And there's over 100 years of advances in the sciences of archaeology and geology, and 100 years of historical data gathering and research since some of your sources wrote their print biased material.

Other than expressing incredulity and curiosity, is there any actual point to your pursuing this thread?

pakeha · 16th November 2012, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Less cultural bias I find. If you visit something already 'knowing' the Romans built it what sort of conclusions do you think you are most likely to draw about who its architects were?

Are you saying the excavations realised at Baalbeck in the last 112 years are culturally biased and therefor worthless?

Moss · 17th November 2012, 02:33 AM

I suppose he doesn't like it when the advances made by German and French archeology in the Middle East and Mediterranean result in less grandiose mystery.
Why am I so sarcastic on that point? Because among other institutions the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut and the relevant universities with their archeology departments (Among them Freiburg, Tübingen, Heidelberg, Leipzig and probably a lot of others I just haven't had that much contact with.) are not just going by book. They are both sponsors and participants of the excavations in the Middle East and the Mediterranean.
There are rarely any excavations in Iraq, Turkey, Libanon or Egypt going on that do not involve at least some of their archeologists.
Many advancements in dating technologies and stratigraphy are due to this involvement. Because they blend theory and practical application of theory.
I'm sorry, but I take their relevant authority over grassroots people any day of the week because I know what they do.
Disclosure: the latter is partially due to me being friends with some of the students and teachers of the aforementioned universities. I'll be honest on that.

pakeha · 17th November 2012, 11:22 AM

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.

I have the impression what you've read are quotations of those 19th century writers cited in modern works.

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.

Again, are you quoting the writing of those people or citing references to them via Colin Wilson's work?

pakeha · 20th November 2012, 12:08 AM

Zeuzzz?

catsmate1 · 20th November 2012, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by pakeha

Are you saying the excavations realised at Baalbeck in the last 112 years are culturally biased and therefor worthless?

Perhaps they can't be distorted to suit his beliefs?

Zeuzzz · 20th November 2012, 07:07 AM

I have no beliefs. I've changed my opinion in this thread as soon as i'm presented with adequate evidence to the contrary.

What was the question?

carlitos · 20th November 2012, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

What was the question?

Why you insist there are "mysteries" while you ignore the historical and archaeological record, instead focusing on crackpots who have "been there."

Zeuzzz · 20th November 2012, 07:17 AM

Which "historical and archaeological record", from who and when, and with links to sources if you be so kind.

tsig · 20th November 2012, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by carlitos

Why you insist there are "mysteries" while you ignore the historical and archaeological record, instead focusing on crackpots who have "been there."

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Which "historical and archaeological record", from who and when, and with links to sources if you be so kind.

Dodge.

You were asked about mysteries and instead of answering you ask about records.

Until you tell us what the mysteries are no one can show you any records about them.

Zeuzzz · 20th November 2012, 07:47 AM

Nope, you seem so sure of your views you should be backing up your thought processes with the hard evidence you based it on in the first place.

You can't shift the burden of proof to the person asking questions.

carlitos · 20th November 2012, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Nope, you seem so sure of your views you should be backing up your thought processes with the hard evidence you based it on in the first place.

You can't shift the burden of proof to the person asking questions.

No. First what are the mysteries? It's your thread title. You've ignored every historical and archaeological cite in the thread, so I'm not wasting time there.

Zeuzzz · 20th November 2012, 07:58 AM

Have a nice day.

The mystery is who built the huge stones that the Romans later built the temple of Jupiter on.

Tomtomkent · 20th November 2012, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Have a nice day.

The mystery is who built the huge stones that the Romans later built the temple of Jupiter on.

The Romans, unless you offer substantial evidence they did not or could not have laid the foundation.

Again, this thread is effectigvely hamstrung by your seeming reluctance to move beyond your bias and learn about the methods of stone cutting and moving methods of various cultures to see which is the best fit for an object. Instead you have your object and steadfastly insist there is a mystery because of your cherry picked sources.

Zeuzzz · 20th November 2012, 08:03 AM

Evidence of me ignoring evidence please.

Maybe I missed it but I believe I have addressed each plausible piece of information people have posted.

carlitos · 20th November 2012, 08:03 AM

I never thought of stones as being "built." Am I missing something?

Zeuzzz · 20th November 2012, 08:10 AM

The mined stones were built into a large structure.

carlitos · 20th November 2012, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The mined stones were built into a large structure.

OK. So your mystery is who mined (?), moved and laid the stones there? Specifically the foundation? How about a diagram or photo with an arrow indicating which stones are mysterious?

phiwum · 20th November 2012, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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

That's a pretty crappy way to respond. He's said he couldn't figure it out. Intellectual honesty suggests that you should either explain your answer or stop claiming that you know how it was done.

Tomtomkent · 20th November 2012, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Evidence of me ignoring evidence please.

Your statement that you only accept the evidence of writers who have been on site, which by necessity means you have not contacted any specialist in the mining of, or moving of, building materials in the Roman or Pre-Roman era who will likely be more familiar with the methodology of building and mining than those who are studying, and presumably specialised, in temples.

pakeha · 20th November 2012, 12:52 PM

Well, Zeuzzz, you have yet to show those mysterious stones are actually pre-Roman.

Several things you've neither answered yet nor commented on:

Originally Posted by pakeha

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

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

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

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

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

You've also ignored my point here:

Originally Posted by pakeha

I've just reread your FB entry, Zeuzzz, and couldn't help noticing this:

You rely on 19th century witnesses here.
Even that description by Michel Alouf comes from 1900
http://archive.org/details/geschichtevonba00alougoog
Why not look to more recent sources? ...

Originally Posted by pakeha

I have the impression what you've read are quotations of those 19th century writers cited in modern works. ...
Again, are you quoting the writing of those people or citing references to them via Colin Wilson's work?

carlitos · 20th November 2012, 12:55 PM

FYI, that ingentaconnect link has a session ID, so doesn't work anymore.

pakeha · 20th November 2012, 01:03 PM

^
Thanks for the heads up!
here's a working link:
http://www.academia.edu/1154782/Mast...ose_buildings_

Harte · 20th November 2012, 01:04 PM

Some things are harder to find than others:
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home..._num_54_1_6623

https://play.google.com/books/reader...thuser=0&hl=en

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00003

Have fun reading.

Harte

GeeMack · 20th November 2012, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

That's a pretty crappy way to respond. He's said he couldn't figure it out. Intellectual honesty suggests that you should either explain your answer or stop claiming that you know how it was done.

Intellectual honesty suggests that you actually understand what has been discussed before you jump in with criticisms like that which are unfounded.

Captain_Swoop · 20th November 2012, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Have a nice day.

The mystery is who built the huge stones that the Romans later built the temple of Jupiter on.

But the evidence shows Roman artifacts and methods all the way down. What stones are you talking about?

tsig · 20th November 2012, 04:19 PM

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?

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

But the evidence shows Roman artifacts and methods all the way down. What stones are you talking about?

phiwum · 20th November 2012, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Intellectual honesty suggests that you actually understand what has been discussed before you jump in with criticisms like that which are unfounded.

Well, no problem, then. I understood well enough to know that your response was horsepuckey.

Honestly, if you can't see anything wrong with repeating (at least thrice) that you know how they did it and he should figure it out and no, you won't tell him, then I guess I'm not sure what to say. From where I sit, that's not the response of an honest and forthright correspondent.

It's a perfectly childish tactic. Honestly, it is.

carlitos · 20th November 2012, 05:00 PM

To be fair, he's just trying to get Zeuzzz to think. This seems to be an admirable goal.

Zeuzzz · 20th November 2012, 05:24 PM

Well I'm stumped as I've continually said, and I need a long awaited hand.

If the solution remains top secret then Geemack will have to go on ignore for not contributing anything educational on an educational forum.

Thanks for the above links, I'm looking into them.

Kid Eager · 20th November 2012, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Well, no problem, then. I understood well enough to know that your response was horsepuckey.

Honestly, if you can't see anything wrong with repeating (at least thrice) that you know how they did it and he should figure it out and no, you won't tell him, then I guess I'm not sure what to say. From where I sit, that's not the response of an honest and forthright correspondent.

It's a perfectly childish tactic. Honestly, it is.

One should perhaps avoid using the word "horsepucky" in a post accusing somebody of a childish tactic....

GeeMack · 20th November 2012, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Well, no problem, then. I understood well enough to know that your response was horsepuckey.

Honestly, if you can't see anything wrong with repeating (at least thrice) that you know how they did it [...]

There's a word that describes an untrue comment like the one you made there.

Quote:

[...] and he should figure it out and no, you won't tell him, then I guess I'm not sure what to say. From where I sit, that's not the response of an honest and forthright correspondent.

The lack of honesty is in your misrepresenting what I've said.

Quote:

It's a perfectly childish tactic. Honestly, it is.

Honestly? It seems your notion of what constitutes honesty is somewhat different than that of the other participants here. Here's some helpful advice: Go re-read the thread, most particularly all my comments, before posting again here. Your persistent misrepresentation of what I've written is not an honest way to engage in a dialog, and frankly it looks pretty foolish.

GeeMack · 20th November 2012, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Well I'm stumped as I've continually said, and I need a long awaited hand.

Are you familiar with the work advantage we can get from using simple machines? It's physics. I think I mentioned how I learned about them sometime around 5th grade, but then the science classes I was in might have been slightly advanced.

Quote:

If the solution remains top secret then Geemack will have to go on ignore for not contributing anything educational on an educational forum.

Education has little to do with feeding people answers and much to do with helping them learn how to think.

16th November 2012, 02:58 AM	#281
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,993	I've just reread your FFB entry, Zeuzzz, and couldn't help noticing this: Quote: ...There is tantalising evidence to show that some of the earliest archaeologists and European travellers to visit Baalbek came away believing that the Great Platform was much older than the nearby Roman temples. For instance, the French scholar, Louis F licien de Saulcy, stayed at Baalbek from 16 to 18 March 1851 ... French archaeologist Ernest Renan, who was allowed archaeological exploration of the site by the French army during the mid nineteenth century.(40) You rely on 19th century witnesses here. Even that description by Michel Alouf comes from 1900 http://archive.org/details/geschichtevonba00alougoog Why not look to more recent sources? Apart from http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=200342
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,993

16th November 2012, 11:37 AM	#282
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	Originally Posted by pakeha Apart from http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=200342 Pouring!
	__________________ 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.

16th November 2012, 01:13 PM	#283
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by pakeha Apart from http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=200342 That was me. I was banned shortly after. It was hilarious. No freedom of speech or freedom of opinion if you disagree with a moderator on that forum. There is a moderator from there that posts here too, she finds the freedom of speech here highly annoying and constantly rants about it. Doubly amusing.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

16th November 2012, 01:16 PM	#284
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by pakeha Why not look to more recent sources? Less cultural bias I find. If you visit something already 'knowing' the Romans built it what sort of conclusions do you think you are most likely to draw about who its architects were?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

16th November 2012, 02:45 PM	#286
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,177	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz That was me. I was banned shortly after. It was hilarious. No freedom of speech or freedom of opinion if you disagree with a moderator on that forum. There is a moderator from there that posts here too, she finds the freedom of speech here highly annoying and constantly rants about it. Doubly amusing. Yeah. Persecution and censorship. Wahhh. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Less cultural bias I find. If you visit something already 'knowing' the Romans built it what sort of conclusions do you think you are most likely to draw about who its architects were? Have you been to the temple at Baalbek, observed it with your own eyes, done a hands-on, in person study of it? Or is everything you've written about it filtered through, let's see, how'd you word that?... Originally Posted by Zeuzzz [...] the inherent print bias that is endemic in a lot of history books or educational systems.

16th November 2012, 01:53 PM	#285
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,917	Because those more recent that 'know' it have found the evidence to support what they 'know' rather than guessing or making it up to suit their own preconceptions.

16th November 2012, 02:49 PM	#287
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by GeeMack Have you been to the temple at Baalbek, observed it with your own eyes, done a hands-on, in person study of it? Or is everything you've written about it filtered through, let's see, how'd you word that?... In case you memory is really as bad as it appears, I will quote my previous reply to you, as it relates to print bias and forums. 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.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

16th November 2012, 03:10 PM	#288
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,177	So the reply to this question... Originally Posted by GeeMack Have you been to the temple at Baalbek, observed it with your own eyes, done a hands-on, in person study of it? ... is this... Originally Posted by Zeuzzz No I am engaging in print bias myself here, [...] And as pakeha noted... Originally Posted by pakeha You rely on 19th century witnesses here. Even that description by Michel Alouf comes from 1900 http://archive.org/details/geschichtevonba00alougoog Why not look to more recent sources? You've written from sources with an inherent print bias. You admit to adding another layer of print bias on top of that. And there's over 100 years of advances in the sciences of archaeology and geology, and 100 years of historical data gathering and research since some of your sources wrote their print biased material. Other than expressing incredulity and curiosity, is there any actual point to your pursuing this thread?

16th November 2012, 03:22 PM	#289
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,993	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Less cultural bias I find. If you visit something already 'knowing' the Romans built it what sort of conclusions do you think you are most likely to draw about who its architects were? Are you saying the excavations realised at Baalbeck in the last 112 years are culturally biased and therefor worthless?
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,993

17th November 2012, 02:33 AM	#290
Moss Dramatocrat Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Heiligsblechle country Posts: 3,229	I suppose he doesn't like it when the advances made by German and French archeology in the Middle East and Mediterranean result in less grandiose mystery. Why am I so sarcastic on that point? Because among other institutions the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut and the relevant universities with their archeology departments (Among them Freiburg, Tübingen, Heidelberg, Leipzig and probably a lot of others I just haven't had that much contact with.) are not just going by book. They are both sponsors and participants of the excavations in the Middle East and the Mediterranean. There are rarely any excavations in Iraq, Turkey, Libanon or Egypt going on that do not involve at least some of their archeologists. Many advancements in dating technologies and stratigraphy are due to this involvement. Because they blend theory and practical application of theory. I'm sorry, but I take their relevant authority over grassroots people any day of the week because I know what they do. Disclosure: the latter is partially due to me being friends with some of the students and teachers of the aforementioned universities. I'll be honest on that.

17th November 2012, 11:22 AM	#291
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,993	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. I have the impression what you've read are quotations of those 19th century writers cited in modern works. 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. Again, are you quoting the writing of those people or citing references to them via Colin Wilson's work?
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,993

20th November 2012, 12:08 AM	#292
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,993	Zeuzzz?
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,993

20th November 2012, 03:19 AM	#293
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,122	Originally Posted by pakeha Are you saying the excavations realised at Baalbeck in the last 112 years are culturally biased and therefor worthless? Perhaps they can't be distorted to suit his beliefs?
	__________________ Yes I gave in and configured an avatar.

20th November 2012, 07:07 AM	#294
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	I have no beliefs. I've changed my opinion in this thread as soon as i'm presented with adequate evidence to the contrary. What was the question?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

20th November 2012, 07:12 AM	#295
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,537	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz What was the question? Why you insist there are "mysteries" while you ignore the historical and archaeological record, instead focusing on crackpots who have "been there."

20th November 2012, 07:17 AM	#296
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Which "historical and archaeological record", from who and when, and with links to sources if you be so kind.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

20th November 2012, 07:34 AM	#297
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,767	Originally Posted by carlitos Why you insist there are "mysteries" while you ignore the historical and archaeological record, instead focusing on crackpots who have "been there." Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Which "historical and archaeological record", from who and when, and with links to sources if you be so kind. Dodge. You were asked about mysteries and instead of answering you ask about records. Until you tell us what the mysteries are no one can show you any records about them.

20th November 2012, 07:47 AM	#298
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Nope, you seem so sure of your views you should be backing up your thought processes with the hard evidence you based it on in the first place. You can't shift the burden of proof to the person asking questions.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

20th November 2012, 07:49 AM	#299
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,537	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Nope, you seem so sure of your views you should be backing up your thought processes with the hard evidence you based it on in the first place. You can't shift the burden of proof to the person asking questions. No. First what are the mysteries? It's your thread title. You've ignored every historical and archaeological cite in the thread, so I'm not wasting time there.

20th November 2012, 07:58 AM	#300
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Have a nice day. The mystery is who built the huge stones that the Romans later built the temple of Jupiter on.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

20th November 2012, 08:01 AM	#301
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,218	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Have a nice day. The mystery is who built the huge stones that the Romans later built the temple of Jupiter on. The Romans, unless you offer substantial evidence they did not or could not have laid the foundation. Again, this thread is effectigvely hamstrung by your seeming reluctance to move beyond your bias and learn about the methods of stone cutting and moving methods of various cultures to see which is the best fit for an object. Instead you have your object and steadfastly insist there is a mystery because of your cherry picked sources.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

20th November 2012, 08:03 AM	#302
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Evidence of me ignoring evidence please. Maybe I missed it but I believe I have addressed each plausible piece of information people have posted.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

20th November 2012, 08:03 AM	#303
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,537	I never thought of stones as being "built." Am I missing something?

20th November 2012, 08:10 AM	#304
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	The mined stones were built into a large structure.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

20th November 2012, 08:16 AM	#305
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,537	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz The mined stones were built into a large structure. OK. So your mystery is who mined (?), moved and laid the stones there? Specifically the foundation? How about a diagram or photo with an arrow indicating which stones are mysterious?

20th November 2012, 11:09 AM	#306
phiwum Muse Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Boston area Posts: 562	Originally Posted by GeeMack I'm not asking you to read minds. That would be magic. Figure it out. I did. That's a pretty crappy way to respond. He's said he couldn't figure it out. Intellectual honesty suggests that you should either explain your answer or stop claiming that you know how it was done.

20th November 2012, 11:44 AM	#307
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,218	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Evidence of me ignoring evidence please. Your statement that you only accept the evidence of writers who have been on site, which by necessity means you have not contacted any specialist in the mining of, or moving of, building materials in the Roman or Pre-Roman era who will likely be more familiar with the methodology of building and mining than those who are studying, and presumably specialised, in temples.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

20th November 2012, 12:52 PM	#308
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,993	Well, Zeuzzz, you have yet to show those mysterious stones are actually pre-Roman. Several things you've neither answered yet nor commented on: Originally Posted by pakeha ... Zeuzzz, have you been in touch with these people? http://www.dainst.org/en/project/baalbek-museum?ft=8 These may interest you as well: http://cipa.icomos.org/fileadmin/tem.../TURIN/849.pdf http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search...pe=text%2fhtml http://www.daniellohmann.net/dox/lohmann_ch2009.pdf http://www.daniellohmann.net/dox/lohmann_aiac2008.pdf You've also ignored my point here: Originally Posted by pakeha I've just reread your FB entry, Zeuzzz, and couldn't help noticing this: You rely on 19th century witnesses here. Even that description by Michel Alouf comes from 1900 http://archive.org/details/geschichtevonba00alougoog Why not look to more recent sources? ... Originally Posted by pakeha I have the impression what you've read are quotations of those 19th century writers cited in modern works. ... Again, are you quoting the writing of those people or citing references to them via Colin Wilson's work?
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,993

20th November 2012, 12:55 PM	#309
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,537	FYI, that ingentaconnect link has a session ID, so doesn't work anymore.

20th November 2012, 01:03 PM	#310
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,993	^ Thanks for the heads up! here's a working link: http://www.academia.edu/1154782/Mast...ose_buildings_
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,993

20th November 2012, 01:04 PM	#311
Harte Scholar Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 62	Some things are harder to find than others: http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home..._num_54_1_6623 https://play.google.com/books/reader...thuser=0&hl=en http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00003 Have fun reading. Harte
Harte Scholar Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 62	Last edited by Harte; 20th November 2012 at 01:08 PM.

20th November 2012, 02:27 PM	#312
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,177	Originally Posted by phiwum That's a pretty crappy way to respond. He's said he couldn't figure it out. Intellectual honesty suggests that you should either explain your answer or stop claiming that you know how it was done. Intellectual honesty suggests that you actually understand what has been discussed before you jump in with criticisms like that which are unfounded.

20th November 2012, 04:01 PM	#313
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,917	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Have a nice day. The mystery is who built the huge stones that the Romans later built the temple of Jupiter on. But the evidence shows Roman artifacts and methods all the way down. What stones are you talking about?

20th November 2012, 04:19 PM	#314
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,767	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? Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop But the evidence shows Roman artifacts and methods all the way down. What stones are you talking about?

20th November 2012, 04:34 PM	#315
phiwum Muse Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Boston area Posts: 562	Originally Posted by GeeMack Intellectual honesty suggests that you actually understand what has been discussed before you jump in with criticisms like that which are unfounded. Well, no problem, then. I understood well enough to know that your response was horsepuckey. Honestly, if you can't see anything wrong with repeating (at least thrice) that you know how they did it and he should figure it out and no, you won't tell him, then I guess I'm not sure what to say. From where I sit, that's not the response of an honest and forthright correspondent. It's a perfectly childish tactic. Honestly, it is.