Sklyarov is indignant. Laboratory for an Alternative History of the width of the rear end of the southern stone in Baalbek

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Unfortunately, megalomania often devours talented people and leads to madness and open rudeness to the one who is smarter and more decent, and close sycophants accelerate the process of personality decay.

I'll tell you right away - it's the same in Cosmopoisk

Dear our master and teacher Andrei Yuryevich Sklyarov - he is "Mister banned!"

Founder of the "Laboratory of Alternative History" project - the world's largest network resource dedicated to the secrets and mysteries of ancient history. Winner of the international prize "The Golden Pen of Russia", the title "The best author of the new millennium." Creator of a series of popular science documentaries.

He was born very successfully - in April 1961, but not on April 12. Moreover, according to rumors, he was born a second time and again from a virgin and Baal. Therefore, it is never wrong. And if he is mistaken, then, no more than a meter and a half.

1978-1984 - Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Faculty of Aerophysics and Space Research.

Have worked:

1984-1989 - Central Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering (TsNIIMASH) - space industry.

1989-1990 - Personnel Department of the USSR Ministry of General Machine Building.

1990 - Head of the Production Department of the Central Office of the Youth Aerospace Society "Soyuz".

1990-1991 - Vice-President of the International Youth Aerospace Society "Vzlyot".

1991-present - independent commercial activity.

(since 2001 - Managing Director of the Science Development Fund "III Millennium").

Many people think that the famous South Stone at Baalbek is a parallelepiped with at least the back and front sides of approximately the same width. But this is not the case.

(Its other name is "The Stone of a Pregnant Woman". In Arabic "Hazher Hable". The Stone of the Pregnant Woman (Arabic: Hadjar el Hibla) or Stone of the South. The new name is "Stone of the back end named after Sklyarov").

It began with the fact that somewhere I came across information that this brick has one side wider by more than a meter than the other. 5 m against 4. I was very surprised, because I was always sure that it was an even rectangular block. And I just asked on Sklyarov's forum an innocent question about this here Nobody answered and after 16 days I repeated it

From the second push, Sklyarov himself answered:

Well, not wider - a parallelepiped is

I then asked

Did you or someone else measure it? Or are you talking purely about a visual impression?

Sklyarov's associate flight, a participant of the LAI seminar, joined the conversation.

"A million visitors, thousands of measurements, someone would notice the difference optically. If there is a difference, then it fits into the measurement error, centimeter plus / minus."

Then in response to them, I found the exact quote and source:

This is a quote from the book by Nikolai Nepomniachtchi "One Hundred Great Mysteries of History"

There is no article on this megalith in Russian on Wikipedia yet. But, in English, French and German there is. And everywhere the same generally accepted data are indicated - one end of the megalith is a quarter larger than the other.

Wikipedia cites 1977 and 1999 prints. One book in French, another in German:

• À propos du trilithon de Baalbek: le transport et la mise en œuvre des mégalithes, Jean-Pierre Adam, 31-63, 1977
• (de) Ruprechtsberger, "Vom Steinbruch zum Jupitertempel von Heliopolis / Baalbek (Libanon)", Linzer Archäologische Forschungen, vol. 30, 1999, p. 7-56

In the first book on page 52, only the width of the narrow end is given. The width of both ends is indicated, apparently, only in the second book in German. I did not find an electronic version of it on the Internet, so I can quote an exact quote directly from the book. But, on German and English-language sites, the same quote is given with measurements of both ends, where it is reported that the measurements were carried out by Austrian surveyors from the city of Linz in 1996 and at the end there is a link to the same book compiled by surveyors of Linz:

width at the top 5.3 m, bottom width 5.6 m

top width 4.06 m, bottom width 3.99 m.

So, 3: 0 in my favor. I asked her to send me fresh photos, and I will post them on the forum. Soon Anastasia sent them to me and I posted them. And then it began …

Sklyarov:

Anastasia herself answers him:

We are in Baalbek with close relatives, we measured it with a five-meter tape measure, so the error can be plus or minus a couple of centimeters.

That is, there cannot be an error of 1 meter 25 cm under any circumstances, even if the sky falls to the ground. One edge of the megalith is 30 cm wider than the tape measure, and the other edge is a full meter narrower than the tape measure. In one case, the tape is nearly one elbow short, and in the second case, the tape hangs over the edge by a full meter. It's time for Sklyarov to admit that he was wrong. In addition, I posted on the forum photographs of the process of measuring the megalith with the participation of Anastasia herself and her drawing with the results obtained.

As you can see, the drawing is photographed at an angle and not straight, so the parallel lines appear to converge. But the main thing is the numbers. The numbers are in favor of my version.

I asked Sklyarov to provide the results of their (LAI) measurements. Andrey Yuryevich's answer:

I asked Masha Dudakova for the figures according to our measurements - I am waiting for an answer.

Svetel also began to trample Anastasia's drawing with her feet:

The drawing is simply ugly. Not even drawn to the scheme.

I tried to calm Svetel down and turn the conversation into business:

Svetel's "hitting" on Anastasia is completely incomprehensible. They are both great.

Svetel:

Aha! The same problem as the engineer Sklyarov - they both did not realize that the picture of the drawing was taken at an angle and therefore the lines are not parallel. Although this is very easy to understand, because the marking lines of the notebook sheet on which the drawing is applied are also not parallel.

Instead of gratitude to Anastasia for the work done, Sklyarov and Svetel humiliate her in every possible way. And both exhibit an unforgivable weakness of mind. She, like a bee, worked for free for a common cause, climbed the stones in Lebanon in the August heat, made a detailed photo report and a drawing, and they find non-existent absurd deficiencies in her. They are accused of both negligence and an overshoot by 1 meter out of 4, of distortion in the drawing.

I then calmly explain why the drawing seemed careless (although she was not asked to draw at all - this is her initiative):

Then Sklyarov aggravates his situation by scoring a beautiful goal into his own net:

Leo Slim wrote:

In my opinion, you did not take into account that this is a photograph of the drawing taken at an angle to the surface of the paper.

In a personal message, I asked Anastasia to retake the drawing at a right angle to send it to me and I'll post it. Which she did. The drawing is perfectly flat and professionally executed.

I answer Sklyarov for the SECOND TIME the same thing:

The pressure in Sklyarov's boilers continues to rise. With the tenacity of a bulldog, he continues to whip himself:

They got it …

I had to crawl into the video archive of the trip 2014. According to the records that I found:

The height of the end raised above is not at all 4, 2 (as stated), but 4, 32-4, 33 (taking into account the error).

The length is not 20, 8, but 20, 7

I have not yet found measurements of the end located below. However, I was already convinced of the negligence of not only the "drawing" but also of the given measurement results.

I also see an indirect confirmation of the negligence of the measurements in the allegedly "reduced" height of the block in the corners - the erosion and damage of the block are simply not taken into account.

None of the participants in the two expeditions (each with 10 people) had even doubts that this (within the limits of small errors) was a normal parallelepiped.

It is simply impossible not to notice a difference of a whole meter even by eye.

As for the alleged "blanks for obelisks," they are simply not there either. There is a "small" stone higher up the slope (5-6 meters long) + a stone larger and south of the South - both parallelepipeds. In Baalbek's masonry there are no "oblique" blocks (mowing "under the obelisk"). There is not a single whole or broken obelisk in the complex (there are only columns of vertical objects).

So I think this topic is empty and has no foundation whatsoever.

And the one who opened the branch was just a flood …

So, Sklyarov found a discrepancy between Anastasia's measurements and his own within 10 centimeters from 4 and 20 meters, that is, from 0.5% to 3%. While a discrepancy of 25% is being discussed, that is, 1-2 orders of magnitude more. At the same time, he compares the data obtained as a result of measurements with a subjective feeling.

I think the slight discrepancy is due to the fact that all roulettes differ slightly in accuracy. In addition, Anastasia took measurements in August, and LAI in March. Due to the temperature difference, long, thin objects such as tape measures change in length by 3%. In August, the tape has become longer, and relative to it, the measured object will become shorter. It is important that Anastasia measured both ends with the same tape measure. Therefore, the difference in meter cannot be overlooked due to the accuracy of the marks on the tape measure.

Despite the fact that I have already answered Sklyarov more than once that it is not only Anastasia, but that ALL other sources confirm the meter difference in the width of the ends - the book of Nepomniachtchi, the report of Austrian surveyors and the data provided by Svetel. Sklyarov never once reacted to this remark of mine. Apart from Anastasia, nothing exists for him. The light fell like a wedge on her.

And it's all to blame, I, who opened the topic. I am a flooder, not Sklyarov. It is my fault that I want to clarify the controversial issue.

At the end of his speech, Andrei Yurievich began to prove that this was not a blank for an obelisk. Although I did not insist at all, but this is how I expressed the hypothesis "possibly".

After that, the moderator Natalya decided to close the topic, adding a completely correct conclusion from herself:

So, the purpose of the discussion was the true form of the South Stone.

Strange affair. This Natalya hated me and in every possible way mischievous me. But, even she recognized my complete victory over the great leader. True, she attributed all efforts only to Anastasia, although if I had not opened this topic, the moderator Koroviev would not have given her the task of taking measurements.

But, not even a few hours had passed when Sklyarov tore the lock from the topic with a tire iron (for the first time in my memory), burst like a wild horse into the closed door of the topic, and became even more indignant:

I then asked if Dudakova had answered him about the width of the rear end, because 5 days had passed since he promised to find out. But he did not promise to fulfill his promise.

I also asked why he only accuses Anastasia, if her data coincide with several other sources, including the data of Svetel, whom he had not accused of negligence in the same topic.

In response, Natalia rushed to me:

Leo Slim wrote: Why did you not object to the measurements of Svetel?

Why she said about the preparation is not clear at all. I never insisted that it was definitely going to be turned into an obelisk. I only insisted that the rear end is one meter wider than the front. And what's wrong with the fact that I asked how things were going with Dudakova and why the same data from Svetel did not arouse indignation in Sklyarov. What violates the rules of decency in these matters is not clear.

Now the topic was closed by Koroviev. How long?

So what do we see? Andrei Yuryevich writes in his signature about the importance of facts and not theories, but in fact refuses to accept the same facts from several sources and trusts only his own eye that the ends of a 20-meter giant seem to be the same by eye. How is it that a serious person does not check the length with a ruler, but determines it by eye?

If he held in his hand a brick 20 cm long and sides 4 and 5 cm, then the difference would be noticeable. But how to estimate the same ratio in a giant megalith, standing on it, and not flying over it in a helicopter, for example? At the beginning of the course, geometry shows figures that seem to be the same by eye, but in fact are different and vice versa. So they teach children not to believe their eyes, but to check everything with measurements and calculations.

It should be added that I was not at all an enemy to Sklyarov. On the contrary, he defended him from the attacks of the monster-haters-concrete makers. Here read my old post in support of it.

What is the reason for going crazy? Is there any fundamental significance in the fact that the rear end is 25% wider in order to expose oneself to ridicule because of this nonsense?

The only explanation is painful pride and megalomania. Failure to change your mind and recognize someone as more right than himself.

On the night of August 22-23, I was banned indefinitely for violating paragraph 9 of the rules.

9. Any actions or violations deliberately taken in order to discredit the activities of the project will be immediately accompanied by a ban and removal of traces of such actions.

Thus, they proved that they are right. Whoever banned is right. No opponent - no problem.

I found Maria Dudakova on Facebook and asked about the same thing. Whether they measured the butt or not. For 2 days we were strengthening, but we had to answer. Maria Dudakova breaks through the silence, declaring at the forum that the bottom end was not measured at all. Thus, taking the last straw from the drowning Sklyarov:

Re: Excavation of a new megalith at Baalbek.

# 264 chi »Today, 04:05

When we were in Lebanon, most of the discord was underground. And we didn't measure it

True, instead of discussing the size of the butt in a topic I created specifically for discussing the size of the butt, Dudakova writes in another topic, in the topic of excavating new megaliths. Because my topic was closed.

After 5 hours, the enchanting Nelly crawled into the topic:

Yo-mine! Three dimensions are not enough for her and all that give the result in my favor. What if from the fourth time the end of the stone turns out to be a meter narrower and Sklyarov wins? Here we will teach Leo the Thin a lesson! Let's give him a spanking! Let's ban and ban again! We'll teach him a lesson then! We will show him that! Oh, we pile on him!

After 4 hours, our unerring great leader and teacher wakes up and continues to pour buckets of the same slops on Anastasia as before:

Edren loaf! There are no words. Beat your chest with such persistence, "Look at me - I'm crazy! Why don't you believe me? Do you think I'm kidding?"

And suddenly Svetel strikes him in the gut:

Plan dimensions on top:

4, 1 m (east end),

5.2 m (west end),

length 20, 7m. I myself took these measurements on the spot.

Read on for yourself.

Someone under the nickname Anus, whom I did not even know that he exists in nature, on the night of August 17-18 attacked me with insults in two topics of the LAI forum at the same time. He wrote 5 publicly offensive slanderous messages to me that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion. And he turned to “you”. In the fifth message, I openly addressed the administration, stating that I was stealing something in order to lie for my personal benefit. Completely inadequate psycho-praranoik, whom I did not touch at all and did not know before.

I clicked on all the exclamation mark complaint buttons. But no reaction followed. In the end, I POLITELY turned to him to you and asked to state all the claims not here, but on my site and gave a link to my site.

And what do you think? In the morning, the moderator Nelly issued a warning to US BOTH for squabbling! And I also for a link to my site.

But, am I to blame for something? I was attacked by an inadequate, unfamiliar nutcase, dirtied the forum and I just answered politely. Why were the victim and the aggressor punished the same way?

Nelly deleted all these messages so that she could be believed that the alleged squabbles were mutual.

But, I saved a copy in an independent web archive and you can see for yourself that I am not guilty of anything.

Here is a copy of assaults on me in one thread

And here is a copy in the second

Have you seen it? Thus, I proved that Nellie is not fair and criminal. Was I an innocent white lamb, an honest, polite man-lover of truth, a researcher, insulted and slandered, and I, the victim, was more guilty than the aggressor? I remind you that I am a victim, I was attacked by an inadequate psycho, whom I did not know at all.

In response to this complaint of mine against the moderator Nelly, the moderator Natalya refused to take any measures against this scoundrel and threatened not his aggressor, but me, the victim, to be banned forever if I complained and called me a creature, quoting Ranevskaya:

Sent: Yesterday, 23:27

From: Natalia

To: Leo Thin

"Thus I have proved …"

Later, I accidentally noticed that just 2 weeks before this hit, on August 6, this Anus expressed gratitude to me for my publication on my website.

On the LAI forum, I tried to find out from Sklyarov how he explains the rake marks on the surface of the Pondyugar aqueduct quarry?

He refused to answer on the merits, but began to twist, answer with scraps of phrases and accusations of breaking the rules

Leo Slim:

And you do not see anything unusual on the blocks of the Pondyugar aqueduct itself, or on the walls of his quarry, too, nothing unusual?

Sklyarov:

I was not there. And from the photo - nothing special …

The fundamental point in the dimensions of continuous lines and their geometry. In Pondyugar, I don't see anything unusual for a simple chisel yet

Leo Slim wrote:

Couldn't it be more detailed? What dimensions and geometry of lines do you refer to the DVTs?

Sklyarov:

I do not consider it, but I consider it worthy of attention. Rows of clearly parallel lines in length, obviously exceeding the range of comfortable movements of a stonecutter of average height.

Further Sklyarov refused to admit and even discuss the fact that the lines are 4 - 5 meters long, which is tens of times greater than the range of comfortable movements of the stonecutter. He began to give incomprehensible answers about some kind of horizontal lines, which in no way affect the essence of the matter. Especially for him, I made enlarged images of some of these lines, which clearly show that they are freely intersected by inclined parallel lines of artificial origin, so that they did not interrupt on horizontal lines and did not change their direction, as could be the case with manual work with a chisel:

But I did not have time to show it to him, because I was banned (about this here If anyone is interested, ask him instead of me, posting these pictures.

Leo Slim:

As you know, these aqueducts are folded without a binder solution (except for the aqueduct itself at the very top of the aqueduct). Do you know any other serious structures of the ancient Romans that were built without cement?

Sklyarov:

He didn't have the intelligence to understand that the Romans were needed to cut off a simple explanation. If the Romans always used cement, then its absence can be seen as a likely sign of divine technology. If the Romans already built a lot of things without mortar, then this does not pretend to be a sign of the gods at all.

My study of aqueducts as possible structures of the gods here will not be read in more detail by that fool.

Sklyarov also became divided on the issue of rake marks in Baalbek.

Here he writes:

Well, there is even there was no doubtin manual processing …

How to understand this ambiguous phrase?

It is clear that he is certain of something. But in what? There are 2 options:

1) I am sure that it is manual.

2) I am sure that it is not manual.

In the account of the expedition to Baalbek, he put it in the opposite way:

The traces of the alleged "kyle" on the blocks of the southern megasobra are too long and go in "packets". Doubts about manual sampling.

So all the same does not doubt how he answered on the forum or or doubts how in the report?

In the report, it follows from his words that he is capable of machine processing.

He answered me the same thing in another thread in his two answers here

and here

In Pondyugar, I don't see anything unusual for a simple chisel yet.

I don't see Segovia either.

And where I see it (for example, in Egypt and Lebanon) - it is shown in the reports

So in Lebanon (that is, in Baalbek), he sees something unusual for a simple chisel.

There is still an incomprehensible moment - does he still doubt the manual processing or does not hesitate? In general, we need to find out what he had in mind here - is he sure that the processing is manual or that it is machine? BUT the split personality remains. Here he is sure, but doubts about the report.

There is a prohibition on discussing Peter's riddles on his website. But, once he himself violated the ban. In the article "Land of Baal" he writes:

I asked on his forum a question where did the Thunder Stone mass of only 1000 tons come from, and not 2000, as in official sources (more precisely, from 1600 to 2400).

And where does the information come from that not only the balls, but also the runners were made of bronze, if all official sources say copper runners. Even if you enter the query “thunder stone bronze gutters” into a search site, it gives out copper gutters, but bronze balls.

In response, my topic was removed to the forum trash, writing that Peter cannot be discussed on their forum. But, if not, then why did Sklyarov himself mention it? And I just asked for the source of his information.

Then I asked the same questions to Sklyarov in personal correspondence. He replied with excuses that this was all nonsense and that he was not interested. Although I just asked to name the source of information, and not philosophize about lofty matters: what is nonsense and what is great wisdom.

I also noticed to him that even though there are 3 trilitons, the Thunder-stone weighs twice as much as each one.

In the last answer, he wrote at the end that many people still confuse copper and bronze. But one and the same author called the gutters simply copper without any reservations, and called the balls copper with impurities of special metals in the adjacent sentences:

In the end, on their forum, I proposed to rename their firm "Laboratory of Alternative History" into "Laboratory of Alternative History except Peter". My message was destroyed and Sklyarov himself personally downgraded my rating by one. Some kind of kindergarten. Probably when he lowered my rating, he also waved his fist in front of the screen with a menacing look.

Later it turned out that in the last statement Sklyarov was right. Indeed, various historians, writers and engineers often refer to bronze as copper. Pushkin, for example, called the poem "The Bronze Horseman", although we are talking about the bronze horseman, which is even noted in Wikipedia.

Another unpleasant discussion took place. During the video lecture, he was asked a question from which he dodged. I asked Andrey Yuryevich to answer briefly - yes / no / don't know to a trivial question.

In the video version of the lecture "Land of Baal" you were asked the question "Yahweh and Jehovah are the same person?"

Here is the exact link to that point:

You did not answer this one person or different, but began to explain what it means "I am" and something else. But, the question was not in decoding the meaning of the name, but in whether this is one person with different names or 2 different persons? If different, then these are the opposing gods

or friendly

?

Just tell me please your opinion on this issue. Yahweh and Jehovah - One person or 2 different and if different then what kind of relationship between them.

Thank you for your activity in general and for the future answer to the question in particular.

Instead of answering yes / no / don't know to this trivial question, the perversion of the brain began. Read on for yourself Anything but the answer to the question.

Less than six months later, Sharp Eye recognized himself as Slant Eye:

25 Aug 2015, 18:09

Anastasia Semechko,

I have to apologize to you.

Yesterday it became clear that there are opportunities - right now, there are two participants in the Cairo seminar in Lebanon. I asked them to measure the width of the bottom end (without going into the details of the disputes that have flared up here - for objectivity). The answer came today. I quote:

"… the dimensions are as follows: 530 is the uppermost edge, then the stone expands. At an altitude of 160 from the ground 565, further somewhere 580"

(apparently, we are talking about centimeters).

So I beg your pardon - I was wrong in suggesting that you were seriously mistaken in your measurements.

Masha, and we have a lesson for the future - do not rely entirely on visual perception and control as much as possible.

P. S. Accordingly, the estimates of the weight of the pebble change. Too lazy to calculate the exact value for such a curve figure, but over a thousand tons will obviously go over.

So debriefing

1. Why is he apologizing not to me, but to Anastasia? Well, he banned me for truth and intelligence, not Anastasia. It was I who originally raised the question of the meter difference. This I created a separate topic dedicated to the difference in the widths of the ends.

It was thanks to me that Anastasia began to take measurements, which she herself wrote about on the forum. I proved this in two topics to Sklyarov that he was wrong, one cannot rely on sensations more than on the results of measurements with a ruler from four different sources.

Etc.

2. "Yesterday it turned out that there are opportunities - just now there are two participants in the Cairo seminar in Lebanon. I asked them to measure the width of the bottom end (without going into the details of the disputes that have flared up here - for objectivity)" - For objectivity? And that reliance on your visual sensations versus measurements with a ruler from 4 different sources, cited by me - was that bias?

But it's not that. In Lebanon, the Baalbek area is the most dangerous militarily, as Anastasia explained to me in her personal correspondence. There are skirmishes, refugees from Syria and Iraq, searches for possible terrorists - the notorious organization ISIS is approaching there. And driving people there for the sake of their own idiocy is not good.

3. ""… the dimensions are as follows: 530 is the uppermost edge, then the stone expands. At an altitude of 160 from the ground 565, then somewhere 580"

(apparently, we are talking about centimeters). "

-That's great. He is certainly not sure, but he thinks that it is centimeters. This must be entered into the treasury of world wisdom.

4. "Masha, and we have a lesson for the future - do not rely entirely on visual perception and control as much as possible."

-Masha! It's not about visual perception! It's about megalomania and stupidity!

Lesson for the future - rely on Leo the thin! He's smarter! Don't rely on your "mind".

Briefly speaking. He ignores the main thing - that he was not smart enough to understand that the sheet with Anastasia's drawing was photographed at an angle. And he accused Anastasia of carelessness and inability to draw. For this, he must apologize to Anastasia and not for measurements. It's not about measurements, but about idiocy and megalomania.

He still thinks that Anastasia drew carelessly, and he is the greatest understanding of correct drawings and projections, expositions and isometrics.

And it's not about him - not a single member of the forum indicated to him that he must first of all apologize to me. They are all sycophants and lackeys.

Subscribe to me for updates on social networks

I'm in VK

I'm in FB

I'm ok