It is currently Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:01 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 3 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
wow. absolutely, wow. PP, you out there? remember that whole thing i posted a while back about people's need te be right? re-read this thread with that in mind. marduk-uk is working incredibly hard to stay right. the closest thing to admitting error is, "i posted the wrong link". and the RIGHT link takes us to a site that discusses "ability to ERECT" structures with impressive weights, no doubt.
lifting or erecting. is that realy just an issue of semantics, or are they two different things?
in the past two weeks, i've read more about various types of cranes and lifting mechanisms than anyone with a language BA should have to! and can modern equipment lift 1000 tons, yes...just...and there are few pieces of euipment that can do so. can they easily manipulate said weight...no, not easily.
so far, and for the record, i'm still not trying to prove sitchin right (that's for him to do, not me)...i'm pointing out where those who are "correcting" him are using specious or downright wrong arguments. ...and probably wasting my time doing so. i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, and there are ...what... 4 of us, maybe 5, participating is this mire. yeesh. ok, marduk-uk. do your thing.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:00 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Howdy Rev

So you investigation have determined that Sitchin was wrong. Good on ya!

Here is what Zecharia says on his website

"Its ruins stand atop a platform that rose even higher by rows of perfectly shaped stone blocks weighing some 600 tons each. (Fig. 3); this is a weight that no existing modern equipment can lift.

So, can modern equipment do that? Yes they can - and compared to what the Romans and other ancients had to go thru to do it we can do it "EASIER", faster and safer.

So Rev can modern equipment lift 500+ tons? Yes or no?

There is nothing wrong with the argument

Sitchin is dead wrong.

Mr. P I find it so amusing that you think aliens made you. When you have time please explain, using evolution, how human like being would have arisen on a planet with a orbit of 3600 years - I look forward to being amazed by your logic. Here are a few items to ponder - why would they have eyes? Why would they have skin? Why would they have digestive tracks to handle plant life? Those few questions should keep you busy for a century or two


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
nibiru started its' life orbiting a star, much like our own, and life evolved on it...much like our own. with light on all spectrums, causing a need for eyes and skin. we are so similar becuase the comet borne building blocks that smashed into our primordial planets carried the same basic coded information for the growth of a "life machine" or perhaps a bio-sphere. through games of cosmic pinball, nibiru was whacked out of its' comfy orbit (but luckily it also had enough naturaly occuring nuclear reactions inside its' body to maintain sufficient heat to support the continuance of life on its' surface. *phew*) and eventualy shot into our neck of the woods...or arm of the spiral.

oh! and modern equipment as of the last decade, yes they can move 500+ tons of singular stone (i assume). how long ago was that made to be true? a decade ago? a decade and a half? is 1980 still modern? could 1980 modern equipment move 500 tons of singular stone? i'm gonna say no, until i've been proven wrong.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:58 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Howdy Reverend

Yep think battleship turrets. Man you are clinging to what Sitchin said with absolute desperation aren't you? The date of Mr. Sitchin's pronouncement 2005(backing up earlier announcements)....and yes we could move such weight since we developed steam power as a matter of fact we've had the power to move heavy stones since about 5000 years ago....despite Mr. Sitchin statement.

He is such a joke.

He is wrong Rev

Do a calculation about the amount of heat needed to keep the surface of a planet comfortable for human style life in a vacuum without sunlight. If that heat was there while it orbited the first sun then the planet would have been super heated, even so to stave of being frozen solid the planet would have been highly radioactive.

Both are highly implausible but you CAN do the numbers, what do they show?

I know Sitchin's story Rev, sheeer nonsense, here is a challenge for ya, show where he got this story from?

Answer: Not from any ancient manuscript, he made it up.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Portland
It seems as if modern technology's ability to lift 1000 tons equates into the Roman's being able to cut, lift and position 800 ton blocks with ease. We can lift that much, but we can't just move it around with ease. The Roman's wouldn't have done it either. They would have used two 400 ton blocks or several smaller blocks as that would have been just as easy.

I don't know anyone who is interested in Sitchin who believes everything Zechariah says is absolutely correct. He makes some claims that are way out of line. So do we toss the baby out with the bath water? No. Some of what he says makes a lot of sense. What most of us want to do is to separate the wheat from the chaff. If having one fact wrong makes all of Sitchin wrong, then I feel sorry for Christians as the Bible has many inaccuracies, which would make the entire Bible wrong. Hmmm.... I personally find a lot of the Bible correct and am not ready to throw it out.

Wow, Lune read the appendices of a report!!! This makes him and the report infallible. What an amazing discovery!! Why, so what if the appendices have nothing at all to do with proving his point. Doesn't matter. Lunatic doesn't have the gray matter to understand that concept.

Note, somewhere, those who have less astute intellectual capacities determined I believe in aliens placing the stones at Baalbek. Please show me where I said this. Perhaps they did. Perhaps someone else did. The point is to try to figure out who did place them because right now, we don't know who placed them. Roman garbage doesn't prove anything except the Roman's came along and built on top of what they already found.

For those who wish to learn more about why the Roman's did not put the Trilithon in place, please read this web site:
http://www.vejprty.com/baalbek.htm


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Portland
Speculations on Niburu are always fun. Traditional cosmology doesn't seem to fit very well. We have the nuclear core theory and the preheated core that is cooling down theory and probably some others that are more traditional but I have missed. I like the Niburu as a moon of a dwarf star theory and I like the electric universe theory where Niburu heats itself much as the sun does.

Supposedly the Anunnaki were looking for gold to keep their atmosphere from failing or some such thing. I've always wondered if that was just a cover story for greed. What they told the Sumerians and what the truth is could be very far apart. If the truth was that their atmosphere had a problem, they may have already passed on.

This thread was about Ancient Monuments and particularly Baalbek so this post is off topic, but I wanted to add some possibilities to the concept of Niburu's long term survival.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Portland
So I'm an Atlantean who washes ashore in primitive tribal Sumer, tells the locals I'm a god and to go bring me all their gold. haha. Well, it could be.

Lune and John Wayne and Hans. Same narrow vision and same M.O.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Narrow vision - so stating the truth means narrow vision huh, LOL

Arnik (you will note I don't distort either yours or Mr. Ps names- shows a bit of maturity - lacking in others here)

So have you read the two reports? I guess not but you are willing, unseen, to reject them. That my friend is the highest form of closed mindedness.

The reports by the way are very clear, they excavated the temples down to the bedrock in more than one place-ROMAN ALL THE WAY DOWN. It wasn't built on top of another structure. That my friend is a fact, state otherwise and you are doing a Sitchin- making stuff up.

I challenge the readers here to come up with a single thing Sitchin has been right about and that is provable - so what is it? Science says Sitchin has no standing at all not 20% wrong. I would suspect in all the writing he must have gotten something right, gosh the odds against being all wrong about everything are very impressive - so what did he get right?

So it looks like we come to agreement. Sitchin in wrong to state that 600 stones cannot be moved by modern humans. We of course can move them around with an ease that would amaze the Romans.

So Arnik what evidence do we have that the Roman's didn't do it? List them out - however they should be cited from primary sources, not Sitchin who is not considered a valid researcher.

Do you ever feel embarrassed about not having read the basic research materials on Baalbek and then rejecting it publicly - not having a clue as to what it says? How do you justify it? Its kinda like rejecting Sitchin without actually reading his books- wouldn't you agree?

What exactly does making a public fool out of one's self feel like? Please explain.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Portland
Lunatard,
Your German papers didn't link the Trilithon with the Romans. No where did they find any evidence that the Romans cut, moved or positioned the Trilithon. They found Roman garbage around an already standing structure and have absolutely zero connecting Romans to the big stones. They found no notes, no stories, no nothing that even hints the Romans had anything to do with the Trilithon and the Romans would have let everyone know about it. You obviously didn't read the URL as you presented nothing to refute the statements made there, other than you attempt to ridicule and stamp your feet and prove your point by repeating your illogical points.

You are so certain the Romans moved the Trilithon, please show us how they did it and cite your sources and the Roman sources that prove they moved those stones. Put your proof where your mouth is. You can't.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
So Mr. P believing that modern man can move 600 tons and that Sitchin is wrong makes me a fool - sounds like some bitter closed-minded people reacting to having their comfort zones violated!

Your German papers didn't link the Trilithon with the Romans.

Lune: Not my papers, papers and reports from the two German expeditions.

No where did they find any evidence that the Romans cut, moved or positioned the Trilithon.

Lune: How do you know-you didn't read them did you? They found a great deal of evidence-why don't you read about it before rejecting it?

They found Roman garbage around an already standing structure

Lune: AGAIN, you are incorrect if you would read the original reports or abstracts from them OR listen to people who have read them and studied the area you might learn something. The structures were built by Roman engineers from the bedrock up, in the fill of the typical Roman honeycomb structure (stone wall with rubble inbetween they found Roman era garbbage, shards etc). There was no existing structure - is that clear? Do you understand? You've been told that what, a dozen times? Has it sunk in yet? LOL

and have absolutely zero connecting Romans to the big stones.

Lune: besides being part of a purely roman structure and having been cut out of quarry that the rest of the stones came from - and from the layering they weren't the first - but then you haven't read the materials have you - blind rejection of what you don't know tsk tsk.

They found no notes, no stories, no nothing that even hints the Romans had anything to do with the Trilithon and the Romans would have let everyone know about it.

Lune: If they found them why didn't the natural philsophers mention it? They were very interested in such things, they were much less interested in things the Roman's themselves built?

You obviously didn't read the URL as you presented nothing to refute the statements made there, other than you attempt to ridicule and stamp your feet and prove your point by repeating your illogical points.

Lune: Do you mean the Zecharia Sitchin website - I read the entire thing, I've read it before too Its nonsense as we shall be pointing out.

You are so certain the Romans moved the Trilithon, please show us how they did it and cite your sources and the Roman sources that prove they moved those stones.

Lune: Sorry dude that is up to you to prove these stones were moved by someone other than the Romans, we have multiple reports by experts who studied the site for decades - I'll go with their expertise. But please show why you think they are wrong - of course it would help if you'd actually read their reports BEFORE you rejected them. That is what normal people do.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Portland
But you haven't read their reports either. You don't speak German. They say there is evidence the Romans infilled with their typical honeycombed shard bit, but no where do they say the Romans built the Trilithon. Read your own sources dimwit. Please quote me the line where they say the Romans placed the Trilithon and the proof they have for it. If your Germans could do that, they would have, but they can't.

The URL I mentioned was in my previous post. You didn't read it. You didn't look. You still haven't refuted anything it says. You continue to mislead people with your ignorance and poor logic. Go back to school, not that it would help someone like you, but at least you would be occupied.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Two errors

One I can read German and I read the entire first report and twenty five years ago, for the second report I only read the abstract.

As Trilithon is part of a structure built by the Romans I'd say they did it. However if you'd check the reports they may delve into the question in more detail.

I have read the sources they make no issue at all about the Trilithon being non-roman - it would have been big news back then but not a peep.

I don't have the report, nor is it available on-line only a major library would they have - such Libraries are sadly lacking in the UAE. You'll have to look it up yourself I'm afraid (remember it was printed in at the start of the last century) You could also get the new report, it may refer to trilithon.

Oh sorry I thought you were speaking of the Sitchin link. Yes I've been to that website before, remember we've had this conversation elsewhere

Limestone erodes at different speeds depending on how it was formed and how much salt is in it. The mismatch of stones was caused by the temple being damaged then rebuilt. The stones being compared are from different levels of the quarries - you can see the effect of different types of limestone in uneven weathering of the Sphinx.

Unfortunately the writer of that website has a definite agenda and provides no evidence at all to explain who DID move the stones. He/she just whines.

I recommend you stop wasting people's time and read the two reports, once you do that you'll be in a position to actually discuss the situation.

So who did move them if the roman did and why would they build a retaining wall in the middle of now where?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Portland
You admit you have no evidence from your highly touted reports that proves the Romans built the Trilithon. We are making progress. That is the point of the argument in case you didn't understand. There is no proof the Romans built the Trilithon. You seem to think there must be an answer and respond by saying, if not the Romans, then who? Well that is the question isn't it? Perhaps at this time there is no answer. We may not know the builders of of every ancient monument. This thread is about gathering information that might help us determine who that might have been or who it wasn't.

You deflect the arguments presented in the URL by saying we have had this discussion before. Yes, and you lost very badly then too. If you can't win an argument, just ignore it, that is a nice tactic. There are so many reasons that argue against the Romans building the Trilithon that it is ludicrous to even attempt to state they built it. They took advantage of it, no one doubts that.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Sorry the response was clear. The people who actually have done work at Baalbek consider the site to be Roman, nothing more nothing less. The wall is considered part of the structure. I cannot quote from a report that I do not have. However all evidence in those reports as cited points to the Romans building the temples at Baalbek. So the written sources confirm. No paper or report of any kind shows any evidence for any other conclusion - can you cite such a paper?

Again if you doubt that look up the sources yourself.

Care to cite the page where they state the stone were not put there by the Romans?

How could I lose an argument where all the facts are on my side? You do seem delusional Arnik and a liar - but then for a guy who is foolish enough to dismiss all written material on a site without actually reading it, being a complete fool seems to be your forte in life.

"They took advantage of it, no one doubts that." Actually everyone whoever studied the Baalbek temple doubts that. Again you demonstrate you are a fool and again I counter your demonstrated foolish by saying, READ THE SOURCES. I wonder how many times you'll have to be told that? LOL

Arnik I'm not ignoring it, we went thru this before. Since I don't have the sources available to me while I'm in the ME and you haven't read them the discussion is kinda moot.

However you seem to like to flap your jaws so here is what we can do. I'm kinda interested in seeing how many more howlers you're going to come up while playing the fool.

Okay pick 3 of the questions raised on that website and we will then (again) go thru the answering them. You of course will reject everything that is presented, I can say that with 100% certainity.

You however will answer the following three questions before I begin.

What is the erosional difference between different types of limestone? Secondily describe the types of stone used in the Trililithon and the level of quarries they came from.

Explain in detail why you feel the Trilithons are not made in a Roman way, cite sources noting the differences in style and construction detail. Sitchin is not a sources. State which cultural style was used if not Roman.

Show by comparative study the maximum weight Roman technology could move. Since you have already told us they couldn't move 600/800 tons tell us - and prove it- what there maximun limit was.

Oh by the way, you do know of course that Baalbek was badly damaged by war and earthquake and has been reconstructed in different styles for different purposes. Since you refuse to learn anything about the site before asking foolish quesitons YES the stones have been moved around, it didn't look that way during the original construction.

Let me know when you have researched that and done your homework.

(Edited by Lune at 10:55 am on Feb. 24, 2007)


(Edited by Lune at 11:00 am on Feb. 24, 2007)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
I kept very careful track of who started the insults - wanna guess who started it - remember who noted who was making fun of names? Hmmm remember Mr. P? LOL

Yep somebody should get banned - the one who STARTED it which was who Mr. P?

Shall I do some quote from earlier in the thread for you MR. P? Shall I?


Is Arnik Delusional? Why yes he is. Either that or he's terribly lacking in the ability to comprehend logic. In Arnik's world my inability to state a page number from a report he knows I don't have access to about the Roman's making the tril means that it proves they didn't - - - - that my friend is delusional.

Fool? Yes Arnik is a fool, only a fool would publicly reject all evidence about a site WITHOUT ACTUALLY READING THE EVIDENCE about the at site. That my friend is a fool.



(Edited by Lune at 3:45 am on Feb. 25, 2007)


(Edited by Lune at 3:48 am on Feb. 25, 2007)


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 3 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: