Maybe this ramble will help.
Here is how they lifted the Alexander column:
Hmm. Milled lumber and cast iron winches and pulleys. Forged/cast iron and steel tools. Custom built milled lumber barges flanked by warships to stabilize it. Cast iron tracks and forged bronze ball bearing systems. So, if this is how the Russians did it in the 1700/1800's and they had iron and steel at their disposal then we are to take this to mean the Baalbek builders had the same methods and materials? Then does this not also mean the other megalithic builders of the ancient world like the AE should also have had the same methods and materials at their disposal? I wonder how far the Russians would have got using only ropes, pounders, copper tools, and scrapers....
> From Adam (1977):
> image source
RE:Baalbek, what the primary source Adams is suggesting is that the builders constructed a platform wall 26' high using blocks upwards of 300 tons, presumably using the same method as they went, then buried the entire structure effectively raising the surrounding landscape to the wall height which would have had to include an extended gently sloping ramp leading to the site where eventually they perfectly placed the 800 ton blocks. Adams suggests that at least 6 winch/pulley combo machines manned by 144 men would have been required to move one block at a time.
So, the questions are:
A) Do Adam's numbers even work out? How many cubic feet of earth would have been required to keep raising the landscape along with the wall? Where was it taken from and where was it dumped when the project was completed? Is there even any evidence a massive area surrounding the wall was buried on purpose, not by sediment, and then cleared?
B) Is there any evidence the Romans, Greeks, or Phoneticians ever used this revolutionary system before or after and if so why isn't classical times littered with 800-1200 ton stones? Why is there no record of them using this system to move the Egyptian obelisks? Certainly it would have come in handy especially given if it can easily move 800 ton blocks, 250 ton obelisks would have been a snap. But it wasn't for the Romans now was it?
C) Why only in this one spot did the Romans supposedly do this when such opportunities would have been available to them throughout the known world? This system would have revolutionized Roman construction all over the Roman Empire but it did not and what methods they did use are well known which this is not included.
D) And given the egos of succeeding emperors, wouldn't the impetus be to use this revolutionary system to move the same if not even bigger and bigger blocks?
E) The Romans make no mention anywhere of how they built this wall nor that they even constructed it in the first place. Surely such a magnificent feat-unique in all the ancient world, surpassing even the AE whom they so greatly admired, would have warranted some sort of dedication or acknowledgement. They did it for every other great accomplishment, like moving the obelisks, but not this? Surely such a wonderous deed would have been celebrated throughout the Roman Empire and revolutionized how heavy objects were moved inspiring the moving of many others, but instead they are uncharacteristically mute. Nothing. If the Romans were responsible, which they were not, how could this be?
F) If it were the Romans, regardless of the size, why did they use such a unique precision and style for this one wall at this one place, identical to those found thousands of years earlier like in Egypt, then never duplicate it again in all of the Roman empire? They didn't even come close to duplicating it for even anything they built right on top of it let alone anywhere else.
I am not suggesting the alternative is ancient aliens, but what is clear to me regardless is that the foundations in question at Baalbek were around long before the Romans and comparable Romanesque technology and materials. And even though the Russians of the 1700/1800's were able to devise ingenious methods using manpower, they did have at their disposal the relatively modern materials of forged/cast metals to make the tracks, ball bearings, winches, pulleys, sculpting tools and the like something that the AE for example did not have nor did the builders of the foundation of Baalbek if placed in their rightful historical context.
And while the blocks making up the Trilithion weigh approximately 800 tons, the ones still at the quarry were in the 1000-1200 ton range which the builders were able to quarry, precision cut and move their position at the quarry which stands to reason they were more than capable of moving them to the construction site and placing them with the same precision as well. Where is there any parallel to this in Roman history let alone after what is found in Egypt? And another thing, so what if the Romans moved pre-existing 250 ton Egyptian obelisks, most of the work was already done for them. Show me one example where the Romans cut, quarried, and constructed with blocks of this size, not the few random pillars mind you, let alone the larger 800-1200 ton blocks? And this says nothing about the precision the Baalbek stones were laid which is not found anywhere in the Roman world either. This is called context.
And yes, the the 'Apis bull' sarcophagi in the Serapeum is quite interesting and no doubt dates to a much earlier time that it is attributed to....
Post Edited (17-Nov-13 06:59)