Thursday, February 12, 2009

The Mystery of Baalbek



Could this be what Sonchis of Sais was referring to in Plato's Timaeus?

Are these the remains of Pelasgians who defeated the Atlanteans?

Did our ancestors have advanced technology?

Did the ancients surmise these stones lifted by Giants, Gigantes, Cyclopes, Titans, Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim?



Sacred Sites: Baalbek, Lebanon.

The great mystery of the ruins of Baalbek, and indeed one of the greatest mysteries of the ancient world, concerns the massive foundation stones beneath the Roman Temple of Jupiter. The courtyard of the Jupiter temple is situated upon a platform, called the Grand Terrace, which consists of a huge outer wall and a filling of massive stones. The lower courses of the outer wall are formed of huge, finely crafted and precisely positioned blocks. They range in size from thirty to thirty three feet in length, fourteen feet in height and ten feet in depth, and weigh approximately 450 tons each. Nine of these blocks are visible on the north side of the temple, nine on the south, and six on the west (others may exist but archaeological excavations have thus far not dug beneath all the sections of the Grand Terrace). Above the six blocks on the western side are three even larger stones, called the Trilithon, whose weight exceeds 1000 tons each. These great stones vary in size between sixty-three and sixty-five feet in length, with a height of fourteen feet six inches and a depth of twelve feet.

Another even larger stone lies in a limestone quarry a quarter of a mile from the Baalbek complex. Weighing an estimated 1200 tons, it is sixty-nine feet by sixteen feet by thirteen feet ten inches, making it the single largest piece of stonework ever crafted in the world. Called the Hajar el Gouble, the Stone of the South, or the Hajar el Hibla, the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, it lays at a raised angle with the lowest part of its base still attached to the quarry rock as though it were almost ready to be cut free and transported to its presumed location next to the other stones of the Trilithon.

Why these stones are such an enigma to contemporary scientists, both engineers and archaeologists alike, is that their method of quarrying, transportation and precision placement is beyond the technological ability of any known ancient or modern builders. Various ‘scholars’, uncomfortable with the notion that ancient cultures might have developed knowledge superior to modern science, have decided that the massive Baalbek stones were laboriously dragged from the nearby quarries to the temple site. While carved images in the temples of Egypt and Mesopotamia do indeed give evidence of this method of block transportation - using ropes, wooden rollers and thousands of laborers - the dragged blocks are known to have been only 1/10th the size and weight of the Baalbek stones and to have been moved along flat surfaces with wide movement paths. The route to the site of Baalbek, however, is up hill, over rough and winding terrain, and there is no evidence whatsoever of a flat hauling surface having been created in ancient times.

Next there is the problem of how the mammoth blocks, once they were brought to the site, were lifted and precisely placed in position. It has been theorized that the stones were raised using a complex array of scaffolding, ramps and pulleys which was powered by large numbers of humans and animals working in unison. An historical example of this method has been suggested as the solution for the Baalbek enigma. The Renaissance architect Domenico Fontana, when erecting a 327-ton Egyptian obelisk in front of St Peter's Basilica in Rome, used 40 huge pulleys, which necessitated a combined force of 800 men and 140 horses. The area where this obelisk was erected, however, was a great open space that could easily accommodate all the lifting apparatus and the men and horses pulling on the ropes. No such space is available in the spatial context of how the Baalbek stones were placed. Hills slope away from where lifting apparatus would need to have been placed and no evidence has been found of a flat and structurally firm surface having been constructed (and then mysteriously removed after the lifting was done). Furthermore, not just one obelisk was erected but rather a series of giant stones were precisely put in place side-by-side. Due to the positioning of these stones, there is simply no conceivable place where a huge pulley apparatus could have been stationed.

Archaeologists, unable to resolve the mysteries of the transportation and lifting of the great blocks, rarely have the intellectual honesty to admit their ignorance of the matter and therefore focus their attention solely on redundant measurements and discussions regarding the verifiable Roman-era temples at the site. Architects and construction engineers, however, not having any preconceived ideas of ancient history to uphold, will frankly state that there are no known lifting technologies even in current times that could raise and position the Baalbek stones given the amount of working space. The massive stones of the Grand Terrace of Baalbek are simply beyond the engineering abilities of any recognized ancient or contemporary builders.

There are several other matters about the Baalbek stones that further confound archaeologists and conventional theories of prehistoric civilization. There are no legends or folk tales from Roman times that link the Romans with the mammoth stones. There are absolutely no records in any Roman or other literary sources concerning the construction methods or the dates and names of the benefactors, designers, architects, engineers and builders of the Grand Terrace. The megalithic stones of the Trilithon bear no structural or ornamental resemblance to any of the Roman-era constructions above them, such as the previously described Temples of Jupiter, Bacchus or Venus. The limestone rocks of the Trilithon show extensive evidence of wind and sand erosion that is absent from the Roman temples, indicating that the megalithic construction dates from a far earlier age.
Guess what it would require to lift one of those Trilithon stones?

9 comments:

OilIsMastery said...

I am having problems spelling these past couple days lol.

Are people afraid to post comments because these posts are too weird for them?

Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

No, I've been preparing to comment on these posts. And certainly, this post isn't controverial or weird at all.

It raises interesting questions that are hard to answer. I've been interested in ancient civilization for a long time, particularly 'unsolved mysteries'.

This is one of those unexplained questions. And this is one I had never heard of before your post. I appreciate you're bringing it to my attention.

What does it say when modern technology can't accomplish something done at the dawn of history?

Is it possible that ancient stone moving technology was more advanced than anything seen today.

It would appear so.

This might be a subject were I would be inclined to offer more in the way of speculation than on the other ones because the fact is science just doesn't know.

It's fair game for everybody to offer their hypothesis on how it was done and whether this means there were 'lost' civilizations that rival our own.

It's a free fire zone.

Esfand Nafisi said...

OIM, It's not that I'm too afraid to post; it's that your posts are transparent. I'm unsubscribing. Good luck.

OilIsMastery said...

Hi Esfand,

I'm aware my posts are transparent.

If you're looking for the opaque and the occult I suggest you try one of the mainstream blogs that ignore observation, the scientific method, history, and the empirical lessons of a posteriori
human experience.

Good luck.

Anaconda said...

SCIENCE CAN BE FUN

@ Esfand Nafisi:

Why the harsh tone? Science can be fun and exploring questions of historical and scientfic interest can be a release from the burdens of the day.

Sure, OilIsMastery is promoting ideas proposed by Velikovsky, what is the harm with that?

(Hopefully, you have read some of my comments, here, on this website, as I've previously stated, I'm not a Velikovsian, I'm convinced of Plasma Cosmology not because of Velikovsky, but because scientific observation & measurement supports its conclusions about the physical nature of the Universe.)

Although, it must be pointed out that this post has nothing to do with Velikovsky, other than it sheds light on a mystery of ancient civilization, many have raised questions about ancient civilization.

I take my scientific positions seriously, but that does not exclude general interest and curiousity.

Esfand, I'm sure you're not "afraid" to comment, on the other hand, this is the first time I remember seeing you place a comment.

Rather than make a disparaging implied reference to Velikovsky, why don't you state why you disagree with his ideas.

Are Velikovsky's ideas provocative?

No doubt.

Is there evidence that has at least a tendency to support his ideas?

It seems like it.

Are his ideas relevant to Plasma Cosmology?

Yes, and many supporters of Plasma Cosmology have come their conclusions after being aquainted with Velikovsky's ideas.

Did Velikovsky enrage the astrophysical establishment?

Yes, and it almost can be argued that the great resistence to Plasma Cosmology can be traced to the violent reaction against Velikovsky, although, in truth the resistence to electromagnetism in astrophysical circles can be traced back even further than Velikovsky's book.

But how many other's imaginations were sparked by Velikovsky's ideas and subsequent research confirmed their conviction of the validity of Plasma Cosmology?

Certainly, Velikovsky's research into ancient myth explored a topic in a way that hadn't been done before, relating possible world-wide astrophysical events to common world-wide myths that transcend culture and location.

Everybody is free to agree or disagree with his conclusions.

Louis Hissink said...

OiM

I have to find time to read your posts, LOL, but here is another intellectual hand grenade for you.

Megalithic structures of a magnitude too large for us to manipulate, make more sense for larger sized humans.

Life in general during the Jurassic was giant sized - I suspect that these megalithic monuments date to that period menaing that there were Jurassic humans of giant size.

This sort of torpedoes Darwin, admittedly, but so what?

OilIsMastery said...

I'm starting to believe in giants but I'm afraid to admit it...haha.

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "Rather than make a disparaging implied reference to Velikovsky, why don't you state why you disagree with his ideas."

Well, in a nutshell Velikovsky tells us that when we find widespread and consistent legends concerning catastrophes that we are obliged to believe them. But as the late sci fi writer Isaac Asimov pointed out, just about every culture on the planet has myths about talking animals of one sort or another. So perhaps I might put the shoe on the other foot and ask you and OIM why you don't believe that animals could talk with human beings in the remote past? (Assuming you don't believe this - which may be a bit of a stretch :) )

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/vlkovsky.htm

anywhere_Smile said...

This set of unspoken pandora jewerly rules went unchallenged it's not pandora bead and this extra weight, almost magically, pandora charms bracelets everything changed.Brings about acne could Pandora beads find out how traditions evolve, they simply do. To discount pandora the creative mind, images of a wizened pandora sale old wizard sitting atop a stone tower towards discount pandora charms the top of by far the largest mountain pop into your head. He sits Pandora beads 2010 in his white robe stroking his long a few facial beard pandora beads charms coupled with surveys the earth's weddings to be which buy pandora charm has a look of greatly consternation.