> Hi Ori,
> You posted:
> "Meanwhile, I'm still waiting
> for you to tell us why you think those
> megaliths up on that Baalbek hill are
> "still-to-be-used stones"
> from a "quarry", when it seems pretty clear (to
> me) that we're looking at a demolished
> I would love to see your
> evidence for this demolished infrastructure.
> Not your train of thought.
> Not your speculation.
> Not your conjecture.
> Your Evidence.
> Thank you in advance,
> and all the best,
> Brian #3
You're very welcome.
The evidence is sitting there for all to see:
- A 1000 ton block (PW) lying with a yaw that's in clear misregistration to the other rectangular hewing under it.
- Several similar blocks standing vertically.
- Evidence of larger "blocks" being hewn under PW before PW was removed.
- "Blocks" under PW spaced too closely to fit any reasonable quarry method or rigging.
- The lower elevation of this so-called "quarry" relative to the alleged construction site chosen 0.7km away at a higher elevation.
I'm curious how anyone sees any of that physical evidence as indicating that it's merely a "quarry". I believe the evidence far more likely supports the notion of a self-contained on-site infrastructure.
Meanwhile, I would like to see your evidence that it's a "quarry" whose purpose was to generate blocks for construction elsewhere.
Not the self-consistent contrivance that it's simply the "accepted view".
Not the "they're almost similar to the blocks 0.7km away at a higher elevation" extrapolation.
Not "It's just what's more likely" hand waving.
Thank you in advance.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?