Buried houses as evidence of a 19th century global flood

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

The theme of buried ground floors of buildings is gaining popularity. More and more people are starting to ask questions and trying to find answers on their own. But this must be done deliberately, otherwise it will add skepticism to our opponents …

Recently, the theme of filled up first floors of buildings is gaining more and more popularity among people of completely different circles of occupation, education and social status. More and more people are beginning to ask questions, and are trying to independently search for answers. This, of course, is great, but the problem is that if you do it not deliberately, it will add skepticism to our opponents, and even arguments. I will give a simple example, several times I was sent photos of new buildings and panel houses with a basement, as confirmation of the cataclysm.

Modern basement floor

I have always said and will repeat again - you cannot row everything in one pile. Even each buried house needs to be dealt with individually. So, what do the skeptics say to us, in photographs or videos about filled houses?

1. What, it was built on purpose.

2. What, the house sank.

3. What, this is a growing cultural layer. And this answer has special cases:

a) residents threw garbage at their feet,

Now I will not assess these explanations, which in their essence already contradict each other. With this article, friends, I want to teach you to distinguish between a really filled up house, from a built one. Also, now we will not prove or disprove the topic of the flood in general. Whether he was or not, this is the topic of another article, which is now being prepared and, I hope, will soon be published.

And so, let's immediately determine, there are houses "So built"and "Filled up" (well, or "buried", as you like it more). Now it is important to understand that the fact of the presence of buried houses is irrefutable. They just exist, and we will proceed from this. But the main thing here is without fanaticism, because mistakes, or deliberate distortion of facts, discredit the entire system of alternative research.

To determine whether a house is filled up, or it is built like that, you need to take into account five simple points:

1. Date of construction.
2. Terrain relief.
3. The external proportions of the building, and as a special case, the door made from the window.
4. The window frames are straight into the ground.
5. Bricks from the ground.

The fulfillment of only one condition is not an automatic proof that the house is filled up (buried). But the fulfillment of all five conditions by the house under study is guaranteed to confirm the fact of its being filled up.

Now let's go in order for each item. And so, we see a certain building in front of us, with windows to the ground.

Two windows in the ground

If we know for sure that the date of construction of the building is earlier than the beginning of the 19th century, then the first paragraph is completed, we pass to the second. Here I want to emphasize that if we EXACTLY we know the date. The exact date of construction can not always be found out, and even knowing the exact date, it can always be questioned, but knowing the construction techniques of a particular period, the building can be roughly correlated in time.

1897 date of "construction" of the Tula telegraph. On the left pediment

The date of construction, for verification, may turn out to be the date of major repairs, or the building may be attributed to several tens, or even hundreds of years, "to increase its historical value."

Date of "construction" of the Tula Kremlin

It is much more difficult when we know the date of the building's construction after the middle of the 19th century, or even the beginning of the 20th century. As I said, this date of construction can only be the date of the overhaul.

Renovation date

Renovation date

Here we must admit that we are unlikely to be able to refute this, since most likely some kind of repair and construction documentation has been preserved after the last renovation. But here you also need to take into account such a moment as World Wars.

The Great Patriotic War

Let me give you a simple example from life. After the Great Patriotic War, when our country lay in ruins, the task was set to restore the national economy in the shortest possible time.

Stalingrad

For the restoration of buildings destroyed by the war, commissions were created that determined the suitability of the destroyed building for restoration.

Building destroyed in battles

If it was expedient, then it was restored, but if the cost of restoration exceeded the cost of building a similar new one, then the building was simply demolished to strong walls, and on this basis, as on a foundation, a new building was built, and the year of construction of the upper part was announced year of construction of the entire building. And what was down there, very few people were interested, sometimes the lower floor simply fell asleep, because because of the war, the archives could not survive, people who saw or knew something about the building and its history are not easy, if not impossible, to find, therefore, no one thought about the origin of the lower floor.

City ruins

If the lower floor could be used, it was used as a basement, if not, then they simply fell asleep. Thus, the "Stalinists" appeared. But again, you do not need to row everything in one pile. Some buildings, already during construction, were deliberately built with a basement and a window in the pit, if there are some really filled up ones nearby, so that all buildings would look harmonious and not stand out from a single architectural row. And again, not all Stalinists are the same, in fact, although they may be the same in appearance. Each house needs to be dealt with individually.

And in this way, on the old foundation, new buildings were erected. So they restored and built, both after the Great Patriotic War, and after the Civil and First World Wars, but who can guarantee that the buildings were not restored in this way even earlier, for example, after the same cataclysm of the 19th century?

Therefore, in order to understand whether it is worth paying attention to the building, you need to enter the so-called basement and look at the masonry of the walls.

Basement of an old house

Large bricks, on white mortar, with arched doorways, are guaranteed to take us back to the early 19th century, if not even earlier. As an example, I can cite a residential building in Tula, an article about it is here.

The next item is the terrain. This is a frequent trump card of skeptics, since a building on a slope has every chance of being "built this way", because the opposite ends of a long building will automatically be at different levels.

Assembly of the nobility in Tula

However, at the same time, a lot of buildings, even those standing on the slopes, are still filled up, but the logical argument of skeptics about level drops sometimes seems impenetrable.

Slope building

After all, their arguments are based on the true order of things: that it is more convenient for a building on a slope to make two or three levels, and on a false understanding of the process of falling asleep itself - that if there were, say, a flood, then all the clay would just glass down the slope. Elementary knowledge of building codes of the past, about which I spoke above, will help us figure it out - this is the size of bricks and the type of masonry mixture, as well as a correct understanding of the mechanism of falling asleep.

Brick size, by year

For example, snow in winter lies on sloping roofs or hillsides, it does not flow anywhere. Of course, it depends on the angle of the roof or the hill, but in general, you get the idea. I have deliberately used snow as an example, since it is suitable for different versions of the flood. I will repeat once again whether there was a flood or not, and if there was, then how it could be, this is the topic of another article.

Go ahead. External proportions of the building. To begin with, the beauty of buildings of the past is strikingly different from modern buildings.

Ancient and modern buildings

Now, during mass construction, they do not make stucco moldings, ornaments and other decorations, considering this to be architectural excesses. Of course, some shishkar with a ruble can build a house in the antique style for himself, but this is just an exception that proves the rule: at present, faceless boxes are being built according to a standard design.

Ancient and modern buildings

If you remember our most New Year's film of all times and peoples - "The Irony of Fate or Enjoy Your Bath".

Stills from the film

So there the main character, confusing only the city, was able to get into someone else's apartment, opening it to their key. Of course, everything is exaggerated there. But the hint given by the director of the film, Eldar Ryazanov in 1975, is clear and understandable even today - a typical project carried out by one design bureau, embodied in any city in a huge country, looks the same. It was during the Soviet era. In our time, the situation has not changed much.

Typical project

Although there are more design offices, and there seems to be more competition, but even with the development of market relations, the same boxes are being built all over the country, which do not differ much from each other. But what if you compare it with the architecture of the past? What is not a building is a masterpiece, every building is unique.

Monastery in Moscow

Surely in those days there were also typical projects, but the buildings were always decorated exquisitely, and at that time, the situation described in the film could not happen in principle.

So, my friends, what happened to us? Have we, in our time, ceased to appreciate the beautiful? Do we like faceless boxes better? No. We look at the buildings of the past with great pleasure and never cease to admire them. We still have a sense of beauty! Our ancestors had it too! At the same time, note that all the boxes, no matter how faceless they are, look proportional, but what then did our ancestors build beautiful buildings, but lost sight of the proportions?

Non-proportional building

Our ancestors were not fools or savages, and building such magnificent buildings for centuries, tried to make them beautiful in every way. Including in proportions.

Height of floors

Therefore, if a building, with a filled-up floor, fits the first point, stands on level ground, and looks disproportionate, then it is most likely a filled-up building. Well, a door made from a window is easier to show how it looks.

Front entrance. A door made from a window

Or here is a view of another building, from the end, and here we see a door made from a window.

A door made from a window

Moreover, there is no doubt that this is a window in the past, since even lower, in the modern basement, under this door there is another door … into the ground. About this house, there is already an article on the site, there is generally such a confusing story that it is more drawn to a detective investigation than a historical one. You can read the article here.

Let's go further. To understand the next point about window frames sticking out of the ground, try to imagine it yourself:

Modern private construction

So you decided to build a house for yourself, chose a team of builders, agreed with them on the price, gave them money and left, on vacation, or a business trip, that's not the point. So, a year later you come back, come to see, and you see, the two-story mansion has already been built, some finishing work is still going on, but in general the box is ready. And at the same time, wooden (or plastic) window frames, even a basement, look straight out of the ground. What will be your reaction to such builders? At the very least, you would force a pit to be made around each window, wouldn't you? This is at least.

It is important to understand that if you had the opportunity to control the construction process, then most likely, for yourself, you would not build like that. With a pit? Perhaps, but not a frame straight out of the ground.

Frame made of earth

Then why, then, could someone else build it like that? But the most important thing here, as I said, is not to row everything in one heap.

Depending on the mechanism of the cataclysm, the wooden frames might not have survived, for example, during a flood, when a layer of water or dirt pushes on, the frames could simply be pressed into the room. But if the soil "came" not from the side, but from above, like the same snow, then the frame could well have survived. Another question is, why haven't the wooden frames rotted for 200 years? Unless they are oak, or the soil in this place is not dry. Window frames, looking into the ground, also have a place to be, if the walls of the pit collapsed, or were deliberately dismantled, and this could have happened quite recently. In general, if there is one fact, there are always several options.

Well, and the last moment - bricks sticking out of the ground.

Bricks "come out" immediately from the ground

Friends, to make it clearer for you why this is so important, I will briefly explain some of the construction points. Brick is a porous material, like a sponge, that absorbs water well. The masonry mixture also absorbs water. And it turns out that if the soil on which the brick wall stands gets wet, then due to capillary suction, the moisture rises up the brick wall. And then, as always, winter begins unexpectedly, and the water in the brick freezes. And when it freezes, the water expands and breaks the brick from the inside. Nowadays, it is easy to prevent this by providing waterproofing during construction, for example, from roofing material.

Waterproofing

But now let's remember that our ancestors were not fools, they built such magnificent buildings that you want to admire even now. And here an obvious contradiction arises: did people build such an amazing structure, spent so much effort, time and money, and forgot about waterproofing? Do you really believe that? There may be two answers here - either it was not done on purpose, because there was no need, because of the climate (about climate change, read here), or it was made, but from this level it is not visible, since the building is filled up, and the level the foundation is now deep underground!

In fact, there may be a third option - no waterproofing was done at all, since there was no need, but the level where it could theoretically be is underground. And often, this is the most correct option if the building is really filled up.

Nowadays, they try to make imitation of waterproofing during repairs, which will then be called a building, overlapping the building at ground level, along the perimeter, with a stone.

Pseudo foundation

Then one gets the impression that this building has waterproofing, because, according to the official history, there was no roofing material in ancient times, and the waterproofing was done with a stone. I will definitely tell you about various materials of the past, including polymer ones, in one of the following articles. Here we must admit that granite, like some other types of stone, is really suitable as waterproofing, but, for example, marble or limestone is no longer. Marble, like limestone, is a porous material. Of course, it cannot be compared with brick, but, nevertheless, if you build for centuries, then use limestone as waterproofing, this is the worst option you can think of. It is beautiful when it is part of a dry wall, but nothing more. It also absorbs water, and when it freezes, the water tears it just like a brick, only it takes a little more time. And paradoxically, in Tula, as in many other cities, the imitation of waterproofing is made of limestone. This is easily explained by the fact that this is a local and readily available material, and the essence of water absorption by limestone is not widely understood, and those who know simply do not pay attention to it.

It is important to understand that there are exceptions to every rule. For example, in our time, foundations are sometimes made of brick, but at the same time, without fail, waterproofing must be present.

Brick foundation. Waterproofing

Modern builders are well aware of this. But did not the builders of the past know that the brick absorbs water? They knew. Maybe they didn't know that water expands when it freezes? Also, they probably knew. Then why hasn't the waterproofing been done? Or is it done? Numerous modern renovations and facade decoration could change the appearance beyond recognition, so you need to look not from the outside, but from the inside of the building, and not at the modern level, but at the level of the basement or basement floor. And here the question arises, what should we see there?

Arched window, made of large-format bricks, lime mortar

Firstly, large-format bricks, secondly white masonry mortar, thirdly arched door and window openings, or traces of what they were. And, if there is waterproofing, then granite slabs or blocks. In fact, the stone can be anything, the main thing is that it is not porous, like limestone or marble. And the masonry should be exactly from the correct blocks, the same size, or as much as possible fitted to each other, for rough stone or ordinary boulders laid on the masonry mix give thick seams along which moisture can also rise.

Stone foundation

There is also a version of official historians that birch bark could be used as waterproofing, such as it does not rot and is not visible from the outside. But friends, everything rots, even roofing material, and if birch bark, as waterproofing, is not visible from the outside, then it does not cover the entire diameter of the wall, then moisture will still rise up.

And so, we have a brick wall coming out of the ground, but we do not see a layer of birch bark sticking out of the masonry, or a row of granite blocks under the bricks, or we see it, but much lower than the level of modern soil. Thus, in both cases, we can consider the fifth condition to be fulfilled.

Windows in the ground

And when all five of the above conditions are met, then we can confidently assert that the building is filled up. It's simple - the fewer the conditions are met, the less confidence in the filling up of the building. I emphasize - confidence in sleepiness. It is important to note here that the failure to fulfill one or two, or even three conditions, does not yet give grounds for unambiguous conclusions. This means that the building has a confusing history, which may be interesting to understand, but it will take more time.

I also especially want to note that you do not need to row everything with the same brush. Each building needs to be dealt with individually using the above algorithm. However, in each specific case, each item may have its own different options, which are not described by me now. Therefore, in order to get to the bottom of the truth, you need to arm yourself with the desire to get to it, attention and time.

Friends, pay attention to the little things, to any, even seemingly insignificant details, and analyze everything. At first, this scheme may seem complicated, but believe me, the truth is worth it, besides, having mastered this method, you can easily learn how to separate the buildings so constructed from those really filled up.

Film by article:

On this I am not saying goodbye to you, there is still a lot of interesting things ahead. All the best, goodbye!