Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So even though you insist G1 was not built before
> 4000 B.C., your research has led you to believe
> that Baalbek, on the other hand, may go back to
> 10,000BC even though it arguably required more
> advanced technology to move those blocks in
> Baalbek which are 10 to 20 times more massive than
> anything in G1. I'm interested in how your
> research can account for such technology being in
> the hands of any known civilization.

We certainly seem to have quite a disconnect in communication. I am using "10,000BC" as an arbitrary cutoff point, to be polite really, because this is the magic date some wish to place these monuments beyond, not because I believe Baalbek could date this far back.

[snip]

> There is no civilization
> within the historical era that comes close to
> having the required tools and method.

What is it you are not getting? Yes, there is no "known" civilization yet this "unknown" civilization itself, of whose "fingerprints" are seen among these "known civilizations", resided within this same historical context. I can't say it any simpler than that. I am saying this "unknown" civilization used these "known" civilizations as the labor force and it was they who were the impetus for the rise of civilization as we know it in the first place. I've said this so many times in so many posts, unless your brain instantly shuts off when an actual solution is offered I do not understand how you could not have read any of this. These were the gods and civilizers spoken of by these "known civilizations" of whom they attribute their very civilizations to. Though there are very interesting clues, I do not know "exactly" who they were or "exactly" where they originally came from.

> But let's not forget that you specifically stated
> that the construction of G1 was no earlier than
> 4000BC.

I certainly won't. Of which I would put Baalbek sometime around this era as well. As I have said many times, at length, there was a series of catastrophes that rocked the greater Mediterranean world c. 6,000BC which I suggest was the inspiration for the original flood myth passed around the world by way of cultural diffusion. Though there are megalithic sites before this time, some acknowledged like Gobekli Tepe, some arguable like Malta, it is after this time civilization as we know it begins which leads to fine cut stone work first found in Egypt in what is attributed to the Dynastic Era. Given the complete lack of stonework of this type prior to this time there is no reason to believe Baalbek would somehow lie outside this historical purview further supported by the population and cultural growth of Byblos between 5,000-3,000BC in particular wholly congruent with the rise of the high civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Indus Valley.

> Regardless, neither the AE or
> Mesopotamians or Byblos had anything close to the
> technology to achieve the work you seem to be
> willing to attribute to them.

Again, where have I ever attributed the origin of this technology to these cultures? How often have I talked about Dynastic Egypt being formed by a Foreign Elite that brought the tools and knowledge with them? That this Foreign Elite was a progenitor to both Mesopotamia and Dynastic Egypt? And you wonder why it is so frustrating trying to have a conversation with you.

> No, it doesn't make any sense at all. That's what
> I've been saying. In fact, I'm not aware that the
> Romans stated it was an important site to them or
> that they heavily invested in it or held it in
> high regard.

Why do they have to "say it" when the ruins speak for themselves?




I really do not care if you think these are Roman or not as I am perfectly satisfied they are and have no interest in debating this with you. Have at it.

[snip]

> And while the Gilgamesh stuff is very interesting,
> we need to take that with a grain of salt, of
> course, because many of those older epics talk in
> terms that are contemporaneous with those
> storyteller and not necessarily in terms that are
> contemporaneous with the original story on which
> the legend is based.

I'm sorry, but you are almost impossible to communicate with. The point of noting the Epic of Gilgamesh is to show that the Mesopotamians of that time, thousands of years before the Romans, thought there to be structures of such a nature to be attributed to the Gods which Baalbek would certainly qualify. Is not the point of this conversation to show the possibility Baalbek predates the Romans? What is so confusing about this?

> It's reminiscent of the old
> mysteries such as "Did Ezekiel really ride in a
> flying chariot with tail pipes made of
> fire-breathing dragons?"


The story of Ezekiel does not refer to "tailpipes" "fire breathing dragons" or even a "flying chariot".

> or "Was it really
> a 'scroll' he ate that embued him with all that
> knowledge?"
,

Indeed-what "actually" is this "scroll"?

> and let's not forget those giants
> who were "heroes of old who mated with our
> daughters".
I don't think such legends can be
> taken too literally.

An interesting story. I wonder who and what they were actually talking about. If you read it it says:
Quote

The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

The English translations interpret "Nephilim" as "giants" because of a later referral to such, but in reality the translation should mean to the effect "ones who have fallen". Yet even this is in doubt so no one is exactly sure what "Nephilim" actually means. Regardless, if you read it it says "The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that". [At a time when] "...the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown". It does not say these "Nephilim" are in fact the "sons of God" and actually just says they were there before and even after the time when the sons of God bore children with the daughters of men. Who were they?

Not that this has any bearing on this conversation, but what do these stories "really mean"? Many myths have a grain of truth with the challenge being to root it out.

But again, regardless, you miss the point as whether one wishes to accept the story of the EoG as meaning literal "gods" or a civilization so advanced to them to make the seem to them to be as "gods", it does not change the fact this is what they thought about the place which certainly means something. It seems an oxymoron that you have no interest in ancient tales of gods with fantastic technology, yet are all in on a "lost civilization" that for all intents and purposes would have seemed like "gods with fantastic technology" to these ancient peoples. I get the distinct impression from you that the last thing in the world you want is actual answers to these mysteries even those offered by the ancient peoples themselves as long as they do not support your beliefs.

> I'm confused about why you are quoting Sitchin.

Where did I quote Sitchin? I am quoting the Epic of Gilgamesh. I refer to Sitchin for exactly why I said in that he relates Baalbek to the EoG which regardless of his translations is interesting as they seem to be referring to structures there which they identify with the gods.

> I thought you didn't put much credence in his
> Anunnaki hypothesis. Sorry if I'm wrong about
> that.

I don't think I have ever said much either which way. I read all of Sitchin's books long ago. Even met him once at one of his lectures. Though in truth I was pretty enamoured with his ideas at the time, since then I have mostly abandoned his hypothesis though in principle I do support the idea of paleocontact. The ancient peoples seemed pretty convinced of such things and as of yet I have found no reason to doubt this possibility. Regardless, I owe Sitchin a debt of gratitude as his books at the time inspired me a great deal, as did Fingerprints of the Gods and David Hatcher Childress Lost Cities series in particular. That is where I started my journey, all in on alternative authors, but it was traveling the world to see these places with my own eyes and immersing myself in actual scholarship that I have come to a much different conclusion than what I started out with. I too once thought the pyramids and every large stone must belong to some antediluvian advanced civilization but I looked. Didn't find them and in fact I found something else far more compelling.

Regardless of Sitchin's translations, if one relies on the accepted versions of these Mesopotamian tales, and others, there is still quite a bit of interesting information to be had which still offer support for an earlier age of civilization and "gods". No Sitchin required.

> I still haven't a clue whether you believe the
> Mesopotamians or Byblos or any other known
> civilization could have achieved that stonework.

Other than the fact you seem to be willfully oblivious to any ideas that do not support your own beliefs, I have no idea why this is so confusing to you. It's kind of offensive actually.

> Rather, it almost sounds like you may be
> gravitating toward Sitchin's aliens at this point!

"Gravitating"? Regardless of Sitchin, I have stated my opinions plainly numerous times for years here regarding the arrival of the Ubaid in Mesopotamia and their worship of peculiar gods which directly coincides with the rise of civilization. This is who I attribute these "mysteries to". I see no reason to repeat myself here.

Happy Holidays to all. I will be signing off for a while.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 24-Nov-15 07:33 by Thanos5150.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 2864 loveritas 17-Nov-15 00:50
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 818 Audrey 17-Nov-15 01:09
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 840 Jon Ellison 17-Nov-15 01:49
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 747 Audrey 17-Nov-15 03:32
OP faked evidence 659 Audrey 17-Nov-15 07:16
Re: OP faked evidence 671 Jon Ellison 17-Nov-15 09:41
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 774 Archae Solenhofen 17-Nov-15 03:25
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 686 Origyptian 17-Nov-15 20:38
fyi...Archae is a Hancock/basher... 694 Ratcho 18-Nov-15 04:00
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 900 Archae Solenhofen 18-Nov-15 04:32
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 625 Jon Ellison 18-Nov-15 05:13
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 651 Archae Solenhofen 18-Nov-15 05:44
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 657 Jon Ellison 18-Nov-15 05:54
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 602 Archae Solenhofen 18-Nov-15 06:25
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 604 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 06:37
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 659 Archae Solenhofen 18-Nov-15 16:17
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 669 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 16:51
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 591 Archae Solenhofen 18-Nov-15 19:46
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 711 Jon Ellison 18-Nov-15 20:34
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 698 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 21:23
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 524 Archae Solenhofen 18-Nov-15 21:26
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 679 Jon Ellison 18-Nov-15 21:37
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 637 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 22:01
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 491 Archae Solenhofen 18-Nov-15 23:22
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 631 Jon Ellison 18-Nov-15 23:39
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 599 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 23:59
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 623 Mike D 26-Nov-15 17:52
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 557 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 21:43
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 581 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 21:46
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 628 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 21:12
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 574 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 06:46
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 633 Archae Solenhofen 18-Nov-15 16:22
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 654 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 16:41
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 488 Archae Solenhofen 18-Nov-15 23:57
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 509 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 00:03
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 573 Archae Solenhofen 19-Nov-15 00:19
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 532 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 00:35
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 546 Archae Solenhofen 19-Nov-15 04:32
Gee I wonder which of these 2 is the older image! 836 Archae Solenhofen 19-Nov-15 06:28
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 518 Audrey 19-Nov-15 07:04
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 548 Archae Solenhofen 19-Nov-15 07:37
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 629 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 16:23
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 618 Archae Solenhofen 19-Nov-15 17:42
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 541 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 18:07
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 597 Jon Ellison 19-Nov-15 18:23
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 606 Archae Solenhofen 19-Nov-15 20:31
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 581 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 20:46
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 675 Archae Solenhofen 20-Nov-15 17:46
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 557 Origyptian 20-Nov-15 18:02
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 551 Archae Solenhofen 20-Nov-15 19:38
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 613 Audrey 21-Nov-15 03:46
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 575 Jon Ellison 21-Nov-15 03:49
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 566 Audrey 21-Nov-15 04:50
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 633 Archae Solenhofen 21-Nov-15 06:42
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 648 Origyptian 21-Nov-15 06:52
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 599 Archae Solenhofen 21-Nov-15 07:38
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 596 Origyptian 21-Nov-15 23:15
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 628 Jon Ellison 21-Nov-15 08:20
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 715 Origyptian 21-Nov-15 23:11
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 694 Thanos5150 22-Nov-15 01:08
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 668 Origyptian 23-Nov-15 16:50
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 664 Thanos5150 23-Nov-15 22:27
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 563 Origyptian 23-Nov-15 22:45
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 506 Thanos5150 24-Nov-15 01:53
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 798 Origyptian 24-Nov-15 04:16
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 562 Thanos5150 24-Nov-15 07:31
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 577 Jon Ellison 24-Nov-15 12:12
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 518 MJT 27-Nov-15 09:44
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 558 Origyptian 27-Nov-15 15:52
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 570 MJT 27-Nov-15 19:48
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 516 Audrey 24-Nov-15 02:01
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 597 Thanos5150 24-Nov-15 02:12
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 591 sfbey 27-Nov-15 04:31
More Megaliths From Lebanon 641 Thanos5150 01-Dec-15 07:17
Re: More Megaliths From Lebanon 542 Audrey 01-Dec-15 16:25
Re: More Megaliths From Lebanon 509 Jon Ellison 01-Dec-15 17:19
Re: More Megaliths From Lebanon 749 DUNE 01-Dec-15 17:22
Re: More Megaliths From Lebanon 987 Thanos5150 02-Dec-15 05:38
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 555 Audrey 22-Nov-15 00:45
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 586 Jon Ellison 20-Nov-15 18:33
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 620 Archae Solenhofen 20-Nov-15 19:59
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 783 Origyptian 20-Nov-15 20:25
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 585 Jon Ellison 21-Nov-15 00:53
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 585 Thanos5150 21-Nov-15 03:13
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 613 Audrey 21-Nov-15 03:39
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 621 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 07:23
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 618 Archae Solenhofen 19-Nov-15 08:31
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 564 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 15:48
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 568 Archae Solenhofen 19-Nov-15 17:08
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 536 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 17:40
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 547 Jon Ellison 19-Nov-15 17:50
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 610 Archae Solenhofen 19-Nov-15 18:29
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 477 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 18:35
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 485 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 18:44
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 598 Jon Ellison 19-Nov-15 18:52
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 762 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 16:26
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 577 Archae Solenhofen 19-Nov-15 17:04
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 511 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 17:38
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 572 Archae Solenhofen 19-Nov-15 20:37
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 563 Origyptian 19-Nov-15 20:58
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 499 Jon Ellison 19-Nov-15 22:33
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 564 Thanos5150 20-Nov-15 00:46
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 567 Origyptian 20-Nov-15 03:08
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 523 Thanos5150 20-Nov-15 05:42
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 521 Jon Ellison 20-Nov-15 13:38
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 678 Mike D 19-Nov-15 17:51
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 577 Mike D 26-Nov-15 17:46
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 541 Archae Solenhofen 27-Nov-15 21:43
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 549 Jon Ellison 27-Nov-15 22:29
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 555 Archae Solenhofen 27-Nov-15 23:31
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 608 Jon Ellison 28-Nov-15 00:02
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 714 Archae Solenhofen 28-Nov-15 00:33
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 644 Audrey 28-Nov-15 00:49
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 558 Archae Solenhofen 28-Nov-15 01:49
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 816 Audrey 28-Nov-15 03:49
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 798 Origyptian 28-Nov-15 06:37
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 640 Mike D 30-Nov-15 14:51
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 536 Origyptian 30-Nov-15 15:12
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 616 Jon Ellison 30-Nov-15 18:32
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 476 Origyptian 01-Dec-15 04:51
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 569 Jon Ellison 01-Dec-15 05:31
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 559 Jon Ellison 28-Nov-15 02:21
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 573 Archae Solenhofen 28-Nov-15 03:58
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 570 Jon Ellison 28-Nov-15 04:30
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 649 Audrey 28-Nov-15 06:01
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 632 Origyptian 28-Nov-15 06:05
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 610 Mike D 28-Nov-15 09:41
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 670 Jon Ellison 28-Nov-15 13:23
Re: Baalbek : recycled? 777 Thunderbird 17-Nov-15 05:26
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 697 Mike D 17-Nov-15 10:34
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 778 Jon Ellison 17-Nov-15 11:34
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 669 Mike D 17-Nov-15 16:47
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 557 Jon Ellison 18-Nov-15 06:14
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 597 Origyptian 17-Nov-15 15:13
Re: Baalbek -- Evidence of Infrastructure, not just a quarry 729 Origyptian 17-Nov-15 17:00
"You cudda been a contender" 548 drrayeye 17-Nov-15 19:48
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 655 Origyptian 17-Nov-15 20:08
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 554 drrayeye 17-Nov-15 21:02
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 547 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 00:11
on and on and on 495 drrayeye 18-Nov-15 00:45
Re: on and on and on 510 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 01:04
Re: on and on and on 615 Martin Stower 24-Nov-15 17:20
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 658 thirdpal 17-Nov-15 21:17
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 462 Martin Stower 18-Nov-15 01:21
Mod response 569 Loki74 18-Nov-15 13:40
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 642 MJT 18-Nov-15 18:52
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 491 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 19:31
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 524 MJT 19-Nov-15 02:14
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 648 Martin Stower 20-Nov-15 03:24
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 645 Origyptian 20-Nov-15 03:42
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 584 Martin Stower 21-Nov-15 01:40
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 581 Thanos5150 21-Nov-15 03:03
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 601 Martin Stower 22-Nov-15 01:39
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 546 Origyptian 21-Nov-15 06:48
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 543 Martin Stower 24-Nov-15 16:12
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 582 Origyptian 24-Nov-15 17:11
Re: "You cudda been a contender" 649 Martin Stower 24-Nov-15 17:31
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 702 Nick Knight 18-Nov-15 18:24
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 496 Origyptian 18-Nov-15 18:56
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 618 Nick Knight 18-Nov-15 22:32
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 701 Jon Ellison 18-Nov-15 19:05
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 600 Audrey 19-Nov-15 01:31
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 639 Luminescence 19-Nov-15 02:03
Re: Baalbek : Fake Evidence? 581 Audrey 19-Nov-15 21:25


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.