> Alright already, some of us completely, neatly,
> sincerely, and not just merely do believe that the
> underlying megalithic foundation at the Baalbek
> sanctuary truly does predate the Roman Empire.
But why do "some of you" think this? What evidence can you present to support this claim? What-because you think the Romans were not capable? This may be good enough on a forum but not in the real world. I am curious-in your field of scientific endeavor is it good enough that you just "completely, neatly, sincerely, and not just merely do believe" something to be true or do you actually have to prove it with actual evidence? Why do you think history is any different?
> What's the point?
Is not the point stated in the title of the thread?
> Is it to try to convince people
> to believe it.
Believe what-that the archeology says there is an older megalithic component to Baalbek that predates the Romans? And that textual references seem to support this conclusion?
> Is it to ask for more evidence to
> support it.
> Or is it to criticize those who choose
> to add sidebar threads that are cognate to the
How are the dimensions of the cedar forest or veracity of the tale germaine to the fact the ancient Babylonians believed the cedar forest of Lebanon to be the home of the gods containing the dwellings of the Annunaki at least by 1800BC? What does the legitimacy of Solomon have to do with the fact megalithic structures are reported presumably at Baalbek C. 500BC? What does any of this have to do with the archeology that shows there to be an older megalithic component that predates the Romans? This thread is nothing but a "sidebar", through no fault of my own, which most remain oblivious to what was actually said or the point of the OP. And as far as who is "criticizing" who, from the get go there has been nothing but unwarranted negativity towards me just for even mentioning these things for reasons completely unrelated to the point of mentioning them in the first place. Yeesh.