Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients

by David Hatcher Childress

  One stone in the interior staircase at Ba‘albek.

  It is an amazing feat of construction, for the blocks have been raised more than 20 feet in order to lie on top of smaller blocks. The colossal stones are fitted together perfectly, and not even a knife blade can be fitted between them.32 Even the blocks on the level below the Trilithons are incredibly heavy. At 13 feet in length, they probably weigh about 50 tons each, an extremely large-sized bunch of stones by any other estimate, except when compared to the Trilithons. Yet, even the Trilithons are not the largest of the stones!

  The largest hewn block, 13 feet by 14 feet and nearly 70 feet long and weighing at least 1,000 tons (both Noorbergen and Berlitz give the weight of this stone at 2,000 tons32), lies in the nearby quarry which is half a mile away. 1,000 tons is an incredible two million pounds! The stone is called Hadjar el Gouble, Arabic for “Stone of the South.” Noorbergen is correct in saying that there is no crane in the world that could lift any of these stones, no matter what their actual weight is. The largest cranes in the world are stationary cranes constructed at dams to lift huge concrete blocks into place. They can typically lift weights up to several hundred tons. 1,000 tons, and God forbid, 2,000 tons are far beyond their capacity. How these blocks were moved and raised into position is beyond the comprehension of engineers.

  Large numbers of pilgrims came from Mesopotamia as well as the Nile Valley to the Temple of Ba‘al-Astarte. The site is mentioned in the Bible in the Book of Kings. There is a vast underground network of passages beneath the acropolis. Their function is unknown, but they were possibly used to shelter pilgrims, probably at a later period.

  Who built the massive platform of Ba‘albek? How did they do it? According to ancient Arab writings, the first Ba’al-Astarte temple, including the massive stone blocks, was built a short time after the Flood, at the order of the legendary King Nimrod, by a “tribe of giants.”32

  But, it could be older, because history shows that some rulers liked to claim monuments that were built by others. The mythical king Nimrod, a figure so old in history that he is lost to us, may have been laying claim to the stones of Ba‘albek circa 6000 BC, when the building itself had been constructed in 12000 BC or more, before the flood.

  Ancient astronaut theorists have frequently suggested that Ba‘albek was built by extraterrestrials. Charles Berlitz says that a Soviet scientist named Dr. Agrest suggests that the stones were originally part of a landing and takeoff platform for extraterrestrial spacecraft.3 Author and Sumerian scholar Zechariah Sitchin believes, in a like manner, that Ba’albek is a launching pad for rockets.

  Like Buddha seeking the “middle path,” I seek a middle ground in this intriguing mystery of the past. While ancient astronauts may well have visited earth in the past, it seems unlikely that they would have arrived here in rockets. They would have mastered the art of anti-gravity and their spaceships would be electric solid-state models, at the very least. Such aircraft could land and take off in a pleasant grassy field, and would not need a gigantic platform.

  What then was Ba‘albek and who built it? The theory of Ba’albek being some remnant of the Osirian Empire, along with some of the other megalithic sites in the Mediterranean, fits in well with the Arab legend mentioned previously: that the massive stone blocks were built a short time after the Flood, at the order of King Nimrod.94

  Yet, even if Ba‘albek is a remnant from the Osirian civilization, how were such huge blocks transported and lifted? One clue is the massive block that still remains at the quarry a half mile away. This stone was ap-parently meant to take its place on the platform with the other stones, but for some reason never made it to the site. According to the INFO article,32 the largest stones used in the Great Pyramid of Egypt only weigh about 400,000 pounds (these are several large granite blocks in the interior of the pyramid). The authors point out that until NASA moved the gigantic Saturn V rocket to its launch pad on a huge tracked vehicle, no man had transported such a weight as the blocks at Ba’albek.

  The largest stones of Ba‘albek.

  In his book Baalbek154archaeologist Friedrich Ragette attempts to explain how Ba‘albek was built and how the stones were moved into place. Explaining Ba’albek is no easy task, Ragette admits, but he does his best.

  Ragette first explains that there are two quarries, one about 2 km. north of Ba‘albek and a closer quarry where the largest stone block in the world still lies. He then makes this interesting remark about the quarries: “After the block was separated on its vertical side, a groove was cut along its outer base and the piece was felled like a tree on to a layer of earth by means of wedging action from behind. It seems that the Romans also employed a sort of quarrying machine. This we can deduce from the pattern of concentric circular blows shown on some blocks. They are bigger than any man could have produced manually, and we can assume that the cutting tool was fixed to an adjustable lever which would hit the block with great force. Swinging radii of up to 4 m (13 ft) have been observed.”154

  Ragette goes on to theorize that moving an 800-ton stone on rollers would be possible: “[I]f we assume that the block rested on neatly cut cylindrical timber rollers of 30 cm (12 in) diameter at half-metre distances, each roller would carry 20 tons. If the contact surface of the roller with the ground were 10 cm (4 in) wide, the pressure would be 5 kg/cm2 (71 lbs/in2), which requires a solid stone paving on the ramp. The theoretical force necessary to move that block horizontally would be 80 tons. Another possibility is that the whole block was encased in a cylindrical wrapping of timber and iron braces.” Ragette dismisses this second idea as unlikely and cumbersome. “Also there remains the question of how the block would have been unwrapped and put in place, which brings us to the even more perplexing problem of lifting great weights.”154

  There is, however, no evidence of an ancient road, which would have to have been paved, says Ragette. According to the INFO article, “one sees no evidence of a road connecting the quarry and Temple. Even if a road existed, logs employed as rollers would have been crushed to a pulp. But, obviously, someone way back then knew how to transport million-pound stones.”32

  “Lewis” stone cuts & pieces.

  There is not a contractor today that would attempt to move or lift these stones. It is simply beyond our modern machine technology. I find it interesting that there is no discernible road between the quarry and the massive Sun Temple. This indicates one or both of two possibilities: the building of the lower platform occurred at such an ancient time in antiquity that the road is long gone, or a road was never needed for transporting the block. As the INFO article points out, a road would have been of little use anyway.

  Erecting an obelisk during Roman times.

  Ragette cannot solve the problem of lifting such a block into place, saying that it is impossible to lift a huge block such as this completely off the ground by the use of levers. He says that we know that the stone had to be lifted so that the log rollers could be removed from underneath the block and then the block lowered into place. In order to fit perfectly, the stone probably had to be lifted and lowered into place several times at least.

  His suggestion is that a giant lifting frame was built around the block and then at least 160 “Lewis” stones—wedge-shaped keystones with metal loops—were inserted into the top of the block. Then a system of pulleys and tackles were used with thousands of manual workers to raise and lower the gigantic blocks a few inches.

  Ragette makes no suggestion as to why the Romans, or anyone else, would go to such immense trouble, attempting a virtually impossible engineering feat, in order to lay the foundation for a temple to Jupiter. If they had cut the stone into, say, 100 pieces, they would still be of unusually large size, larger than a man, but at least could have been stacked into a wall much more easily. One is left with the unsettling thought that the reason they used these huge stones was because they could use them—and do it relatively easily, though today we have no idea how.

  Ragette makes one final inter
esting comment on Ba‘albek: “The real mystery of Baalbek is the total absence of written records on its construction. Which emperor would not have wanted to share the fame of its creation? Which architect would not have thought of proudly inscribing his name in one of the countless blocks of stone? Yet, nobody lays claim to the temples. It is as if Heliopolitan Jupiter alone takes all the credit.”154

  Osirian Remains in Egypt

  Other vestiges of Osiris still exist in the eastern Mediterranean. The foundation ashlars of the Wailing Wall at Jerusalem are also gigantic blocks said to be similar to those at Ba‘albek. Megalithic ruins found under water at Alexandria, Egypt are also believed to predate the dynastic Egypt of the Pharaohs. It is from the legend of Osiris and the many “tombs of Osiris” that we get the name for this lost civilization from the time of Atlantis.

  The submerged megalithic ruins at Alexandria are another clue to ancient Osiris. Alexandria is not really an Egyptian city, it is Greek. As one might easily guess, Alexandria is named after Alexander the Great, the Macedonian king who first conquered the city-states of Greece in the 3rd century BC and then set out to conquer the rest of the world, starting with Persia. Persia was Egypt’s traditional enemy, and so Egypt fell willingly into Alexander’s hands. He went to Memphis near modern-day Cairo and then descended the Nile to the small Egyptian town of Rhakotis. Here he ordered his architects to build a great port city, what was to be Alexandria.

  Alexander then went to the temple of Ammon in the Siwa Oasis where he was hailed as the reincarnation of a god, which is to say, some great figure from ancient Osiris or Atlantis. Which god, we do not know. He hurried on to conquer the rest of Persia and then India. Eight years after leaving Alexandria, he returned to it, in a coffin. He never saw the city, though his bones are said to rest there to this day (though no one has ever found the tomb).

  Of all the mysteries of Alexandria, however, none is more intriguing than the megalithic ruins which lie to the west of the Pharos lighthouse near the promontory of Ras El Tin. Discovered at the turn of the last century by the French archaeologist M. Jondet and discussed in his paper “Les Ports submerges de l‘ancienne Isle de Pharos,”152 the prehistoric port is a large section of massive stones that today is completely submerged. Near it was the legendary Temple of Poseidon, a building now lost, but known to us in literature.152

  a sphinx

  The Theosophical Society, upon learning of the submerged harbor of megaliths, quickly ascribed it to Atlantis. M. Jondet theorized that it might be of Minoan origin, part of a port for Cretan ships. E.M. Forster theorizes, in his excellent guide to Alexandria,152 that it may be of ancient Egyptian origin, built by Ramses II circa 1300 BC. Most of it lies in 4 to 25 feet of water and stretches for 70 yards from east to west, curving slightly to the south.

  Probably the true origin of the massive, submerged harbor, which was definitely at least partially above water at one time, is a blend of M. Jondet’s theory of Minoan builders and the Theosophical Society’s belief that it is from Atlantis.

  In theory, with the Mediterranean slowly filling up with water, the sea would have stabilized after a few hundred years, and then the remnants of the Osirians, using a technology and science similar to that of Atlantis, built what structures and ports they could. Later, in another tectonic shift, the port area (probably used by pre-dynastic Egyptians) was submerged, and was then essentially useless.

  It is interesting to note, with regard to this theory, that a temple to Poseidon was located at the tip of Ras El Tin. Atlantis was known to the ancients as Poseid, and “Poseidonis” or “Poseidon” was a legendary king of Atlantis. Similarly, Poseidonis and Osiris are thought to be the same person. The main temple at Rhakotis, the Egyptian town which Alexander found at the ancient harbor, was naturally dedicated to Osiris.

  What we are learning about the megalithic masterminds is that their buildings occur all over the world, and many of them are underwater and difficult to reach!

  The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of profound truth may be another profound truth.

  —Niels Bohr

  The Sunken Temples of Carnac

  Located on the south coast of Brittany, France, the site of Carnac holds the greatest concentration of megaliths in the world. Conservative estimates claim that megaliths were being erected here by 5000 BC, nearly seven thousand years ago. They may be much older.

  The Grand Menhir Brisé at Er Grah, Brittany, is said to be the largest menhir in the world and is situated on a promontory near the water. The problems of moving such a huge stone are illustrated in an article published in the Journal for the History of Astronomy (No. 2, pages 147-160, 1971) entitled “The Astronomical Significance of the Large Carnac Menhirs. ”The astronomers, Mr. and Mrs. Thom, maintain that the megalith was a lunar sighting stone. They write:Er Grah, or The Stone of the Fairies, sometimes known as Le Grand Menhir Brisé, is now broken in four pieces which when measured show that the total length must have been at least 67 ft. From its cubic content it is estimated to weigh over 340 tons.

  Hulle thinks it came from the Cote Sauvage on the west coast of the Quiberon Peninsula. His suggestion that it was brought round by sea takes no account of the fact that the sea level relative to this coast was definitely lower in Megalithic times; neither does he take account of the fact that a raft of solid timber about 100 x 50 x 4 ft. would be necessary—with the menhir submerged. It is not clear how such a raft could be controlled or indeed moved in the tidal waters round the Peninsula.

  Assuming that the stone came by land, a prepared track (? of timber) must have been made for the large rollers necessary and a pull of perhaps 50 tons applied (how?) on the level, unless indeed the rollers were rotated by levers. It took perhaps decades of work and yet there it lies, a mute reminder of the skill, energy and determination of the engineers who erected it more than three thousand years ago.

  In Britain we find that the tallest stones are usually lunar backsights, but there seems no need to use a stone of this size as a backsight. If, on the other hand, it was a foresight, the reason for its position and height becomes clear, especially if it was intended as a universal foresight to be used from several directions. There are eight main values to consider, corresponding to the rising and setting of the Moon at the standstills when the declination was plus or minus....It has now been shown that there is at least one site on each of the eight lines which has the necessary room for side movement.

  An old print of an inspection of Carnac.

  We must now try to think of how a position was found for Er Grah which would have satisfied the requirements. Increasingly careful observations of the Moon had probably been made for hundreds of years. These would have revealed unexplained anomalies due to variations in parallax and refraction, and so it may have been considered necessary to observe at the major and minor standstills at both rising and setting. At each standstill there were 10 or 12 luna tions when the monthly declination maximum and minimum could be used. At each maximum or minimum, parties would be out at all possible places trying to see the Moon rise or set behind high trial poles. At night these poles would have needed torches at the tops because any other marks would not be visible until actually silhouetted on the Moon’s disc. Meantime some earlier existing observatory must have been in use so that erectors could be kept informed about the kind of maximum which was being observed; they would need to know the state of the perturbation.

  Then there would ensue the nine years of waiting till the next standstill when the other four sites were being sought. The magnitude of the task was enhanced by the decision to make the same foresight serve both standstills. We can understand why this was considered necessary when we think of the decades of work involved in cutting, shaping, transporting and erecting one suitable foresight. It is evident that whereas some of the sites, such as Quiberon, used the top of the foresight of Er Grah, others, such as Kerran, used the lower portion. This probably militated against the use of a
mound with a smaller menhir on the top. Much has rightly been written about the labour of putting Er Grah in position, but a full consideration of the labour of finding the site shows that this may have been a comparable task.

  We now know that for a stone 60 ft. high the sighting is perfect. We do not know that all the backsights were completed. But the fact that we have not yet found any trace of a sector to the east does not prove that the eastern sites were not used because the stones may have been removed. Perhaps the extrapolation was done by the simpler triangle method or perhaps it was done at a central site like Petit Menec.17

  Francis Hitching in Earth Magic244also agrees that this was a central sighting megalith for sighting moonrises and moonsets.

  Much of this gigantic astronomical observatory is probably under water. Many of the megaliths along the Brittany coast are apparently submerged. Many famous sites actually lead into the water, and some megaliths can be seen at low tide when they are barely above the surface.

  Many of the long lines of standing stones at Carnac and around the Morbihan Gulf were apparently built when the geography of Brittany was quite different.