--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Largest stone blocks in the world, perfecttly fitted in wall -- not > > > > Roman as claimed? > > > > > > > > This ia interesting: > > > > http://www.vejprty.com/baalbek.htm > > > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > > Heavens! That seems to be about 20X larger than the Stonehenge blocks? > > >> > > > > I don't know how much bigger, but much bigger yes - incredible eh. > > The temple is claimed to have been built by the Romans (although the > > Romans did not record this great feat of engineering, and the > > foundation blocks are way more eroded than the Roman building, and it > > looks like the Romans built on top of it. The Romans could not move > > blocks like that around when they tried in Egypt. They are also as > > tightly fitted as the ancient Inca and Peruvian walls - but much bigger > > blocks. > > I am a sucker for that sort of thing! > > I guess you saw that stuff on the Sphinx a while back? There was a > highly respected geologist who was asserting that it must be way older > than the archaeologists thought (he considered the latter to be > geologically illiterate). His thinking was that the erosion signature > implied a wetter climate, which means an age of 10000 years or more. > I haven't seen any more on that. In fact, come to think of it, where's > that Graham Hancock fellah these days? >
I'm pretty sure I've read that that the Sphinx is built around an older statue... Lawson
