The

Abydos Helicopter & the Golden    NAZCA

LINES Stone-Age 
Horsemen Top
Section 
    Great
Giza Pyramids - Explanation & Recreation of the
exact OSIRIS
Numbers 14,000 The
Basic
Geometry of the Seal of
Layout BP Atlantis
The
Abydos
Helicopter & the Golden Section  Giza
Pyramid
Temples & the Golden Section Hesire's
Tomb Door

Jupiter's
Temple,
Baalbek,
Lebanon
&

Are
the  World's Biggest
Building
Blocks Prehistoric?

 
    In 27 BC, the Roman emperor
Augustus supposedly
took the
unfathomable
decision to build in the
middle of nowhere the grandest
and
mightiest temple of
antiquity, the Temple
of Jupiter, whose
platform, and big
courtyard are retained by
three walls
containing 
twenty-seven limestone
blocks, unequaled in size  anywhere
in the world, as they all
weigh in
excess of 300 metric tons. Three of the
blocks,
however, weigh
more than 800 tons
each. This block trio is world-renowned as
the
"Trilithon".
  If we think within the official
academic framework of
history,
Augustus had no
obvious reasons for
selecting Baalbek as the temple's
building
site. Supposedly,
Baalbek was just a small
city on a trading
route to
Damascus through the Bekaa 
valley in
Lebanese mountains,
about
sixty kilometers from the
Mediterranean
coast 
  (34º lat.,
36º long.) At
that time, it  was of no
special
religious significance, apart
from being
in the centre of a burial
region, in the midst of of thousands of
rock cut
tombs.
But, lavishing great architecture on
Baalbek then seems totally
out of character for
the undeniably
selfish Rome, which had at the very
same time
been stealing historic
treasures from
other countries, such as the
obelisks from Egypt. It makes more
sense
that Baalbek had something no
other place
could offer, not even the city of
Rome,
the heart of the empire. This
something may also be the reason
why so many
people wished  to be buried there.
Indeed, it has been noted
that
the blocks in
the
retaining wall  (enclosure) of
the Baalbek temple site
clearly
look a lot more
eroded
than the bona fide Roman ruins of
the Temple of 
Jupiter,
as well as those of the
other two Roman
temples also on the site.
Therefore, the heavily eroded blocks
should be much
older. 
This fact naturally gives rise to a
different scenario:  At
Baalbek Rome had found a 
fabulous
ready made foundation, a
mighty
platform to add a
suitably majestic
structure to, stamping
the Roman eagle upon the
whole for the perception
of future
generations.

    
 
 
Bonfils, ca. 1870.
Negative
inscribed "468. Mur Cyclopeen
a Balbek." Albumen. Unmounted. 11 x 9
inches.
 
© 1996 Middle East
Section. Joseph Regenstein Library.
The University of Chicago 
The panoramic
view does not even span the
Trilithon, the three blocks
of stone in a
row on the
west-side of the Baalbek
Terrace. They are in
a class of their own, by
far
the heaviest stones ever
transported
on this Earth
- Super-cyclopean,
Hyper-
colossal, Über-duper,
or a term of
your own, take
a pick. 
   Material
Evidence
The much greater erosion of the big
Baalbek blocks qualifies as
material proof  of 
their much
greater age. The issue
really
seems rather
simple. This is how the stone
looks (see
below) when it is
almost
like new after having
been recently sanded. 
However,
sanding did not get rid of
the deep pits, signs of either
considerable
previous erosion, or the
product of drilling, if not both.

    

This is how the giant stones look when

old. The
stone's surface is pitted and
cracked.     

   

           
       
     Circumstantial
Evidence

  One also finds plenty of

circumstantial evidence
undermining  the official version
of
Trilithon's origins:

  a) Absence of Baalbek records

 
Above all,  Rome records no claim to
the incredible
retaining wall.
  
   b) Presence of other
records of actual
Roman transport
capabilities

Elsewhere in the Roman empire, just a

little over 300 metric
tons seemed to be the
limit for the
transport of big blocks, achievable
only
with the greatest difficulty.
Transport of
the 323 ton Laterano obelisk
to Rome
spanned the reigns of three
emperors.
Clearly, the record setting
engineers
from Baalbek,  had they existed,
could have also managed the
task
of
transporting the relatively light Lateran
Obelisk.
The fact that they were nowhere to be
found, no matter, how
crucial the task,
indicates that they
simply did not exist.

  c)  Baalbek was an
important holy place

  The Ptolemys conferred the title of

Heliopolis upon Baalbek.
Therefore, like the
other Heliopolis (Sun
City) under Ptolemys' domain
in Egypt,
it had to be an ancient
holy place, it
must have had some notable
architecture, and the two places had to
have some connection. I suggest
it was the titanic
blocks that awed everybody. In
Phoenician
times, 
Baalbek had supposedly been a religious
centre devoted to Baal.
Local
Arab legends place the
cyclopean walls (the Baalbek Terrace) into
the time of
Cain and Abel.
 
d) Roman and Megalithic styles of
building

  Orthodox scholars of today scoff at

all suggestions
that Romans had not brought the
great
blocks to the temple site,
despite the fact that
building
with megalithic blocks
was not at all in
the Roman style, and was no
longer
practised in those days.Romans
knew and
used concrete. The Colosseum
still standing in
Rome is a good example of
a classic Roman
concrete structure.
The sad truth is that regarding the
Trilithon, some scholars
have mental blocks its
own size.
Admissions that blocks weighing over a
1000 metric
tons were quarried
and transported in
prehistoric times would invite
uncomfortable
questions on what
technology had made it
all possible. Regardless of
such touchy issues,  I have several
personal observations,
which
support dating of Baalbek's megalithic
walls to the
megalithic era.
Have a look at this nice
northwestern view of the wall as it was
circa
1870.

     
http://www.biblemysteries.com/images/baalbek1.jpg

  The wall has two distinctly

contrasting
parts: 

One  forms the bulk of the

wall,  five layers of
considerably
eroded blocks. Several
such blocks also
survive in the sixth
layer.  Sizes
of these blocks vary from big to
unbelievably big, the largest building
blocks
anywhere. The bottom three
layers are
composed from
small
blocks. In this earthquake-prone
region, this is
probably
a measure to safeguard the big
blocks. During strong
earthquakes, the mass of
smaller
blocks moves like
jelly,
relatively speaking, and absorbs most of
the quake's
destructive force.

The second part is a later Arab

addition. Its blocks differ
by being: 

   1) Uneroded, of a
different
color and
texture 
   2) Much smaller 
   3) Uniform 

  The Arabs had a fortress

here. It was devastated by wars and
finally by a major
earthquake
several centuries ago. The Romans must
have left the old sacred
enclosure walls
as they were, and concentrated
on
building the temples. They had
no need
for defensive walls like the
Arabs.

The
top
corner
of the northern block of  
the
Trilithon is
well rounded by
erosion, 
and
human abrasion. One
of the
newer, small blocks
rests directly 
on this
eroded, round
spot. So, when
it was 
lain
into this position, the damage
was much 
like
it
is today.
It is evident that one block
is 
a lot
older than the others, as
the
position of 
the
newer blocks marks the extent
of
erosion  
in the older
blocks at the time

 If the big blocks were to be

Roman
then
the newer Arab blocks would  mark
the
erosion of the older
Roman
blocks as it was after the first six or
seven-hundred
years. But,
how could this erosion be a lot
greater than the subsequent erosion
of
both the old and the new blocks in
twice as much time? 
This
contrast is made
bolder by the fact that
earth' atmosphere has since
become ever more corrosive.
                                               
*
 In the details below, we can see
that whoever had added the
smaller blocks
(presumably
also limestone,
and coming
from the same quarry,  the
nearest one to
the  temple),  had
made adjustments
for erosion in the old ruin, which are
visible as steps, or
notches
in the elsewhere straight line
of the newer blocks. The eroded  
blocks seem to have
been
hewn
flat
on top to facilitate the laying of
additional 
blocks. 
      
Of
the
four blocks atop the
eroded blocks, each is at a different
horizontal level

Time to
Draw the
Line

A horizontal line was cut into the

older
block. It seems to continue the bottom
line of
the neighboring newer
block quite exactly.
The red  line you see is there to
show this
fact. 
I believe that the cut line was made
just before the placement of the
newer blocks. It
had marked the top
portion of the
older block, which was to be cut away,
so that the
newer blocks
could be
set level. Thankfully, the plan was not
carried out for some
reason,
perhaps, out of reverence for
antedeluvial ruins.
Consequently, we have a
clear clue to
what had happened here. 
Because the line in the eroded block
survives
about as well
as the newer blocks,
the two materials
must be similarly durable.
It then follows that by the
apparent rate of aging,  the
heavily eroded blocks should
be
at
least several millenia older than the
newer blocks. Ergo, the older
part
of the
wall cannot be Roman.

                       

 
   
           
       
     

     
     
 
           
   

     Hadjar
el Gouble (the Stone of the South)
 1,170 metric tons

In a quarry about half a mile away from

the Trilithon
is an even bigger block  It
 measures 69 x 16 x
13 
feet, ten inches, and weighs
about 1,170 metric tons. There is
a
belief, the block was slated for
the retaining wall,
but was later found to be too big.
Thus,
it was abandoned in the
quarrry while still
joined to the bedrock at one end.
The important question is, was
it
younger, or was it older than
the three
Trilithon blocks? It
seems that it had to be
made
later than
the
Trilithon. If it was
made first, and then
deemed to be too big, it
would have still
been utilized. Rather
than quarrying a new
block, the Romans would
have simply whittled the big block
down to
a more manageable size. We
would not see it in the quarry
today. 
On the other hand, despite their brilliant
ability to move about
burdens as
unprecedented as the Trilithon,
the unknown architects lost
their
nerve at the very
end,  the big block
looming almost ready.
There
was no attempt to move the
practically
finished block despite the recent
brilliant successes with transporting
the
other blocks. This just does not
behoove the solid Roman
engineers, especially  the
creme de
la creme entrusted with
the
task by the Emperor himself. Why did they
leave behind a 
monument
to their engineering limits and human
weaknesses,
and
by
extrapolation -  Roman emperor's
limitations?
Again, rather than abandoning  the
block, the Romans would
have simply whittled
the big block down to
a more manageable size. We
would not see it in the quarry
today. The
situation seems absurd and
very un-Roman, and even more so in view of
what the same Roman
engineers saw at Aswan, when planning the
entire project
since the
fifty-four
enormous granite columns of 
Jupiter's temple actually came
from
Aswan!
There the
Roman
engineers could not  have missed
witnessing the
abandoned
1,170
ton
obelisk, which the Egyptians had obviously
intended to move,
prior to
discovering that it was cracked, a fatal
flaw.
Did the obelisk somehow inspire
Romans to quarry a block of the same
weight
(albeit not proportion) at
Baalbek, and then abandon it, when almost
complete,
mimicking the
Egyptians ad absurdum, every inch of the
way?  Monkey see,
monkey
do?  Is this not insane?
Despite all that it is a fact that the big
block still in the quarry
seems to weigh about
the same as the
famous abandoned
obelisk at Aswan, Egypt. Here, the
question begs
itself if this really
is by chance.

                                                
Challenge

But, similar reasoning applies to the pre

Roman builders as well. If
they could move
the other blocks  _
why abandon Hadjar el
Gouble
on the very
last step?
_ 
Having
eliminated some other 
possibilities,  one
possibility
looms  very  large  _ 
the block
in
the quarry was
left us as a challenge. Go ahead,
skeptics, move the block by the
same
means you allow your imaginary Roman
movers.

Another theory holds that work on the

block stopped, when Rome
suddenly became
Christian, and stopped all
construction on the site.
That is of
course impossible,
because the retaining
wall with the big blocks was
long complete
by then, and
where else would the big
block go, other then the
retaining wall? So, none of the
explanations
make sense

Then there is that utter lack of

documentation for these
stunning exploits, which
should have been
proudly noted by Roman
historians, politicians,
and so on. It's a
little like if American
history books skipped the
fact
that America went to the Moon.
Meanwhile,
local legends ascribe the
stones to the
time of Genesis. The big blocks
were part
of a fortress built there by
Cain.
 
So, did Romans move the Trilithon blocks?
_ Absolutely not! Romans had
no desire
to move such weights,
because they  knew just as well as we
do that they could not
move
even
substantially smaller blocks. History
supports our notion with solid
evidence from the
same time period.
                                             

           
       
          Roman
Limitations

When Augustus, emperor of Rome

had conquered the region in 27 BC, he
ordered
that the massive obelisk
towering above others at the
Karnak temple in Egypt be
brought to Rome,
but the effort was aborted,
when the trophy
proved too heavy.
Sources give varying
estimates of its
weight, 
from
323 tons to 455 tons.
The discrepancy must stem from the fact
that the original
obelisk was 36 meters
long, and had
weighed 455 tons. Now that it is 4
meters shorter
at the base, it must
be correspondingly
lighter, and because obelisks
are
always considerably thicker at
the base
than higher up, the loss of a
hundred
tons would be realistic. So, the
discrepancy is self-explanatory.
 
It seems to suggest a reason to why some
300 years later,
 emperor Constantine I 
(reigned
A.D. 306-337) had
succeeded
where Augustus had failed,
namely, in taking
the obelisk out of
Egypt. But, in the process, the
pedestal and a
large part of its base
were destroyed.
Well, since we are talking about
the otherwise indestructible
Aswan
granite, we have to deem the
obliteration of the thickest,
strongest part
of the
obelisk deliberate.
Unable as they were to move the whole
obelisk, the Romans
had taken only as much
as they could
carry. After all, Constantine's
workers
had similar troubles  with the
obelisk of Tuthmoses III now
standing in  Istanbul. Here is a
quote I  found at
Andrew
Finkel's site:        
 
           
       
 
   
           
      http://www.turkeyupdate.com/obelisk.htm

  "The decision to import

the structure was taken by Constantine
himself. Rome
had a
dozen
obelisks.
His city, Constantinople or the "New
Rome" had to have at
least one.The
Byzantines succeeded in fetching the
monument from Deir el Bahri
near
Thebes, although in a sawn-off
form. The original
shaft was
probably a great
deal
longer. Yet  having brought it to
the harbour on the Sea of
Marmara side of
the
city, no one could figure out
for an entire century how
to get
it up
the hill"

At the same time the big 323 ton

Lateran
obelisk from Karnak was still in
Alexandria,  remaining there
until after Constantine's death.
 His son, 
Constantius
II  [reigned A.D. 337-340] 
had then taken it to Rome
instead. However, it did not get
to
Rome's Circus
Maximus  until A.D. 357,
 seventeen years after the
death of
Constantius II. Finishing the centuries
old project took almost
fifty years..

Knowing all these facts then bears heavily

on our judgement of
what the Romans
could, or could not do at
Baalbek.
 a)  Roman engineers had failed to
even budge the 455 ton
Thutmoses' obelisk
at
Karnak for emperor Augustus.
b)  But, allegedly, the same Roman
engineers had successfully
transported the three
Trilithon blocks
weighing twice as much, plus,
twenty-four more
blocks weighing
pretty well
as much,  i.e.,
 300
-  400 tons, all of
which we see in the enclosure wall of
the
Baalbek temple terrace.
Moreover, the transport of the Trilithon
blocks would have had been incredibly
rapid, because the retaining
walls should be in
place prior to the construction of 
the
temple itself, as
logic
would seem to dictate
  
Unable to move the 455 ton Karnak obelisk,
Augustus took two other
obelisks from
the Sun Temple  in
Heliopolis, instead. It was
the
first transport of obelisks to Rome.
The
obelisks are
now  in the Piazza
del
Popolo  (235 tons),  and
the Piazza
di
Montecitorio (230 tons). Funny, 235
+ 230 = 465. So,
Augustus
got his 455 tons, plus
change, but it was
in two parts. These are
solid indications of the then Roman
capacity in moving heavy objects.

©Jiri
Mruzek
 
June, 2000

       
Bonfils,
ca. 1870. 
 The site
changes a lot
from one  The
block has a healthy sheen
   of
high quality limestone.
picture to
another.
Here,  we cannot
tell which image is older
from the Polished, it should   resist
 Click
on
icons for bigger
images erosion
admirably.
  block's erosion,  which
looks rather
unchanged.

 
 

  In this older photo 

Hadjar's
top
shows 
most wear by
time and   Left
alone, would Hadjar el
tear by
man.  But
the  Gouble/Hibla look as  eroded
as
worst lay  ahead.  the Trilithon,  or
cut rockfaces
Then it was resanded. in the quarry?
Recently, the block 
Now two big
pieces of
 seemed cleaned
up.
the block are gone. 
 

 The
Trilithon is in the upper
left corner in this
southwest
view.
It
reaches past the south wall
of
Jupiter's
temple. The
nine giant
blocks  just below
and to the south
of  the Jupiter's
temple continue
from the six  support
blocks 
under 
the
Trilithon,
and  are like the
nine  blocks
on  the north
side

 
Northern view -
nine more 400 ton
blocks A View from the
south         
Trilithon
 Trilithon - NW
view

 Why
did
Romans pick the remote Baalbek? Did they do
it for practical
reasons,
utilizing older
structures, and perhaps plentiful building
materials already onsite?
Even the fifty-four enormous yet typically
Roman columns from
Aswan  granite,
which had once
surrounded the courtyard, of
which
six
are still  standing, may be
pre-Roman,
but later recarved in
the
Roman
style. Despite being as magnificient as
they
are, the spectacular
and unprecedented construction achievements
at Baalbek
were not
heralded
to the world as its own by the proud and
glory hungry Rome.
Why
not?
Making such a claim would have been
impossible, if the world
already knew about
the awesome Baalbek
ruins, of
course.

The
Basic
Geometry of the Seal of
TOP PAGE NAZCA
LINES Stone-Age 
Horsemen
Atlantis

Exact
recreation of the layout of the Giza
Pyramids from a line
segment   
U
of Chicago Old Baalbek OSIRIS
NUMBERS, 14,000
photos BP The
Abydos Helicopter &
the  
 NAZCA
LINES Stone-Age 
Horsemen Top
Golden Section 

The
Abydos Helicopter & the Golden    NAZCA
LINES Stone-Age 
Horsemen Top
Section 
      Exact
Recreation of the layout of the Giza Pyramids from
a OSIRIS
Numbers The
Basic
Geometry of the Seal of
line
segment 14,000 BP Atlantis