Sarpedon

As an architect with an interest in archaelogy, I can say that those formations shown in those pictures resemble no ruins I have ever looked at, and do not resemble man made objects.

I notice many of them are photographed from a convenient distance away, obscuring detail. I also note that 90 degree angles do not necessarily denote man made architecture. Salt, which, I hear, is a common compound in the dead sea area, fractures naturally into cubes. If you don't believe me, take a look in your salt shaker. Do you think a man with a tiny chisel shaped each one of those salt crystals? A number of natural minerals have similar characteristics.

Furthermore, that 'wall' with the supposed 'butresses' does not actually meet at 90 degree angles. From a distance, it may appear to, but if you look closely, you'll see all kind of crap between the 'wall' surface and the 'buttress' surface. Also, I note that intelligent military engineers put the butresses on the INSIDE of defensive walls, where they better protect from battering and don't provide cover for the enemy, rather than on the outside, as shown.

And if its a wall, where are the mortar joints? Where are the chisel marks? If its clay, where are the thumb prints and the tooling marks common in ancient brickwork? You may allege that those striations are the courses of masonry, but who makes brick that flat and long? Even the romans, who are famed for having the flattest bricks of all, don't approach that tininess!

Also, why would there be any settlements at all on the shores of the dead sea? Have we got a timetable for its salinaty? Wasn't it too salty, even in ye olden tymes for human habitation? I know that religious people would claim that it was god's wrath that made it salty, but isn't that as far fetched as the story of why goats have such small tails? (because the wolf pulled it off when the goat hid in a pile of straw) In short, a fable meant to explain a natural occurance?

Sarpedon

For fun, I'd like to direct your attention to this website, which is similar to the ones cited by praxeus: http://www.world-science.net/exclusi...unertanfrm.htm

Like the above mentioned sites, this one makes a silly claim, and submits photo "proof", in the form of two people who are apparently going about on all fours. It took me about two seconds to see what was wrong with these pictures. Can you? (actually there are a lot wrong with them, I just hit on one detail)

Look at the woman's hands, and compare them to the dirty ground she is supposedly travelling on. What clean hands! It sure doesn't look like she's been crawling around in the dust all day, does it?

Yet these photos have fooled some people. Praxeus's photos have fooled him, but like these photos, they have their glaring problems. Anyone knowledgeable about buildings would see right through those pictures of his. Its completely transparent.

Joe Meert

One exception. This evidence is supposedly coming out in a BBC video. There is something truly bizarre with this story. I don't know what, but it would be interesting to see the video and the discussion.

Cheers

Joe Meert