Comments by "Graeme Peters" (@graemepeters5717) on "World of Antiquity" channel.

The narrator defeats his own arguments. If the Romans just put smaller blocks at the top of the tunnel and larger blocks at the bottom, why did they only put a flat finish on the small stones? If the Romans wrote at length about the feat of moving a 240 ton obelisk, wouldn't they have at least recorded moving 800 ton blocks? Why would moving a 240 ton object be a great feat if they could move 800 ton ones? If those were holes for the lifting tackle, wouldn't they be on the tops not the sides?
1
@WorldofAntiquity If the Romans put all the stone blocks around that tunnel, why the different finishes? Erosion/weathering of the lower stones would only happen if the upper blocks weren't there. Where did the Romans write about moving 800 ton blocks?
1
@WorldofAntiquity Oh dear! So the different finishes are down to how the blocks were supplied, and people would see the ceiling not the walls. That tunnel says otherwise! If Foerster were to say the Romans wrote about it in documents which have not survived, you'd tear him a new one! Aren't you even curious why, if the Romans had the ability to move 800 ton blocks, they only did it at Baalbek - and no-one ever used the Roman technology to move 800 ton blocks anywhere since? Even the Russians devised their own method to move the Thunderstone.
1