- Aug 7, 2003
- 7,823
http://www.middleeast.com/baalbeck.htm
"Baalbeck's temples were built on an ancient tell that goes back at least to the end of the third millennium B.C"
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Mysterious Disney Documentary about UFOs
- Thread starter dingodan
- Start date
http://www.middleeast.com/baalbeck.htm
"Baalbeck's temples were built on an ancient tell that goes back at least to the end of the third millennium B.C"
Nibble
New member
- Jan 3, 2007
- 19,238
I don't want to get in an argument over this as I too have a great interest in archaeology and am not and never have been a CP, but the fact is that our ancient predecessors possessed technologies that have been lost over the ages. Forget the moving of massive blocks of stone to sites over 5000 years ago that would daunt any construction company in existence today. I was only singling out Baalbek where the average size 800 ton block weighed as much as 12,500 men. If you can give me a reasoned explanation of the method and logistics of lifting one of these blocks and placing it perfectly into a wall, and then lifting further, similarly massive blocks on top of it, I would be very interested.
The Egyptian tri-lobed disk. Egyptologists reckon it could be an incense burner, but this was carved from a single piece of schist. There were not just a few of these. Apparently there were thousands found in and around the Step pyramid
Stoneware such as this has not been found from any later era in Egyptian history - it seems that the skills necessary were lost
Other pieces turned out of granite, porphory or basalt are fully hollowed with narrow undercut flared openings, and some even have long necks. Since we have yet to reproduce such pieces it is safe to say that the techniques or machinery they employed to produce these bowls has yet to be replicated.
No aliens, no mystics, just very ancient technologies that we can make a guess at but are yet to replicate.
It's clear we are from two different schools of archaeological thought. I am just not interested in bizarre theories. It's interesting but it's all a bit fantastical, "lost" technologies etc. I'm not arguing, we are just looking at it from different perspectives. I find it a rather lazy method to just write stuff off as "lost technology". It is fascinating but I don't subscribe to it. Unfortunately, many of these things have been proven to be very workaday. Brilliant subject though.
- Aug 7, 2003
- 7,823
Transported up inclined rough terrain and lifted one on top of the other with only ropes and levers?
Leighgull
New member
- Dec 27, 2012
- 2,377
I've read back very carefully and no one on this thread has claimed that aliens built the massive, and I mean truly massive blocks on top of mountains. What is being suggested, I think by reasonable people, is that there needs to be a single one of you naysayers who can posit a reasonable explanation for HOW these blocks weighing hundreds of tons were positioned on top of each other so precisely or interlocked so beautifully by people who then went on to build later structures, with more resource and manpower, of far inferior quality. Why did they start going backwards?
Where are the tools that these people used...there is no evidence of tools in some of these sites...why were the deities in South America described as blonde, depicted as bearded (south American Indians don't grow beards and aren't blonde...these structures are C14 dated as either very ancient or heavily contaminated by modern, inferior, stonework placed on top of the massive megaliths that, obviously, were there first.
Survivors of the floods at the end of the last ice age is my bet. A very old, and very great civilisation.
Nibble
New member
- Jan 3, 2007
- 19,238
The point is the did do it though, It's there. I'm struggling to see what point you are trying to make?
symyjym
Banned
They reckon the Christmas Islands statues were walked upright to their destination by rocking them.
symyjym
Banned
This is an example of rolling the stones as opposed to dragging them that I was talking about earlier. I thought about this years ago before I found out that it has actually become a theory, so if I can have a light bulb moment and think outside the box, it isn't such a leap of faith that people thought of this thousands of years ago because it only follows simple logic.
More on it here: http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabb...tones-baalbek-applied-physics-ancient-aliens/
More on it here: http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabb...tones-baalbek-applied-physics-ancient-aliens/
- Aug 7, 2003
- 7,823
I don't think that there is anything bizzare in modern day man wanting to replicate what our ancestors did thousands of years ago. For example I own a "Diamond Drilling" company and although we own all the latest equipment that can cut through reinforced conrete, brick, stone and metal with ease, we would find it very difficult to replicate the method used to hollow out the granite "sarcophagus" in the Kings Chamber of the Great Pyramid at Giza. Perfect internal right angles, no overcutting and an exact uniform thickess of granite that was supposedly achieved using brass tools. Our tools are all diamond segmented electric / hydraulic and the big saws need a 3 phase electric supply, so naturally I'm curious as to how it was done.
It should be remembered that "lost" knowledge was "rediscovered" in the Renaissance. Who knows how much knowledge was lost in the destruction of the Library of Alexandria and how much may have eventually found it's way into the Vatican vaults for "safe keeping"
Last edited:
- Aug 7, 2003
- 7,823
Simply how they did it. The largest upright sarsen stones at Stonehenge weigh 50 tons. The Baalbek stones were a minimum 800 tons and were lifted on top of each other and placed with exact precision. Stonehenge I can understand, Baalbek I can't. Just because it's there doesn't mean I say "Oh well, they did it, so what?" I think that it is an amazing achievement, comparable to any other structure on earth, but I would love to know how it was achieved by a so called primitive people.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
So around 1 in 7 of the worlds population worship the blue god Shiva ? There's 14 people in my office today, so by your reckoning, there's a good chance that 2 of them are Shiva-ists. Wow, and I had them all down as being pretty normal.
Mind you, I did see Susie from HR alone in a meeting room last week, hugging her knees and staring into space whilst rocking herself gently back and forth in what appeared to be a trance-like state. But I just put it down to the slightly out-of-date Muller Light Kiwi Frutopolis multipack I'd noticed she was ploughing her way through, and left it at that.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
- Thread starter
- #132
I think what is tantalizing for us today is that we have developed an understanding of physics which does allow for moving huge objects in ways that are far more efficient than just using classical physics.
We know it can be done, in theory. We haven't mastered the technological and scientific no-how to build anything meaningful using acoustic levitation, but the possibility exists.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/acoustic-levitation2.htm
So when we see something that makes no sense, like a primitive culture building a very sophisticated structure, if we just go back and re-examine our assumptions, it can make sense.
I guess what I am saying is, for example, it is more likely that a structure composed of 100+ tonne blocks was erected using acoustic levitation, than using "man-power".
Because to argue that it was done using "man-power" forces us to defy logic and reason. Whereas to consider acoustic levitation would only require us to re-examine our assumptions.
I am not saying acoustic levitation is the method used. I am just saying those of us who don't accept the "man-power" theory are not the ones proclaiming the impossible. We actually think that there are far more possible ideas, but again it comes down to the assumptions that you start with.
We know it can be done, in theory. We haven't mastered the technological and scientific no-how to build anything meaningful using acoustic levitation, but the possibility exists.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/acoustic-levitation2.htm
So when we see something that makes no sense, like a primitive culture building a very sophisticated structure, if we just go back and re-examine our assumptions, it can make sense.
I guess what I am saying is, for example, it is more likely that a structure composed of 100+ tonne blocks was erected using acoustic levitation, than using "man-power".
Because to argue that it was done using "man-power" forces us to defy logic and reason. Whereas to consider acoustic levitation would only require us to re-examine our assumptions.
I am not saying acoustic levitation is the method used. I am just saying those of us who don't accept the "man-power" theory are not the ones proclaiming the impossible. We actually think that there are far more possible ideas, but again it comes down to the assumptions that you start with.
Nibble
New member
- Jan 3, 2007
- 19,238
Jesus ****ing wept. This websit you have linked to has a bar at the top saying "More Stuff like this" The first story is entitled "5 worst teleporter accidents". I despair, I really do.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
I just started to reply and then you posted this:
And I've changed my mind. No offence but I can't have a sensible discussion with someone who comes out with that.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
- Thread starter
- #135
Good spot.
I thought it was a science website, thanks for saving me and everyone else from a major brainwashing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_levitation
- Aug 7, 2003
- 7,823
How can it possibly see where it's going when they've blindfolded it?
- Aug 7, 2003
- 7,823
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
- Thread starter
- #138
That's kind of my point. Acoustic levitation is science. Man moving 800 tonne blocks is pseudo-science.
What I am suggesting is not problematic on scientific grounds, it is problematic on historical grounds.
I think that in this context we are more likely to find that we have our history wrong, than our science.
Nibble
New member
- Jan 3, 2007
- 19,238
Good spot.
I thought it was a science website, thanks for saving me and everyone else from a major brainwashing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_levitation
I know it's possible to move very light objects using sound vibrations but really, lifting 800 tonnes with noise? Perhaps the sound of people laughing at this utter tripe might be enough.
symyjym
Banned
Ah! The old Blue Peter cotton reel, rubber band, candle and matchstick method.
Not quite, I don't think they had rubberbands in those days. It says they could have used oxen, and a block of 800,000 kg would have taken 800 of them.