On the strangeness of the "construction" of St. Isaac's Cathedral

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

No, today we will not talk about the complete absence of design, technical and construction documentation (with the exception of one sketch by Montferrand concerning the construction or restoration of the dome) for this - one of the most beautiful buildings in modern St. Petersburg, I have already talked about all this. I will only mention that the alternatives have already established that this supposedly originally "Christian temple" has a rather strange orientation along the sides of the world.

I hope no one argues with the obvious fact that Christian churches and temples have always been oriented to the cardinal points. But it turned out that St. Isaac's Cathedral is oriented not according to the modern geographic poles, but according to the previous ones, which existed before the Flood, which was the result of the displacement of the poles. You can check for yourself that when in fact this clearly antique building was being built, the North Pole was on the territory of Greenland And all similar buildings and structures of the ancient civilization that died in that Flood were oriented in the same way as St. Isaac's Cathedral.

And since at the time of the Romanovs there is no mention of such a global Flood (the cataclysm of the middle of the 19th century was caused by another reason), neither Montferrand nor anyone else in his time could build this building (like some other buildings in St. Petersburg). Well, the restoration of an older antique building, coupled with the likely reconstruction of the dome, cannot be called construction from scratch. This, by the way, well explains why Vedic swastika symbols have been preserved in this Christian cathedral, which was one of the "visiting cards" of ancient civilization.

All this has already been discussed in sufficient detail. But today I would like to draw your attention to one more "jamb" left by the falsifiers of history, which I discovered in the book "The Greatest Russian Prophets, Soothsayers and Seers" edited by D. Rublyov. This book turned out to be surprisingly with a very strong Christian bias, telling much more about the Christian exploits of holy fools and saints who lived on the territory of Russia, and then Romanov's Russia, than about the predictions themselves. But the main thing is that it was clearly written using Christian sources.

And so in the chapter devoted to the prediction of Xenia of Petersburg, made to Emperor Paul that he would die 40 days after settling in the built Mikhailovsky castle, I read the following lines: only forty-seven years of life, and this period expired very soon - in 1801. This joyless prediction was transmitted by Petersburgers to each other, spread more and more, human rumor carried it to Moscow and carried it further, to other cities, turning it into a belief.

Paul I undoubtedly knew about the ill-fated prophecy, however, being a person who believed in predestination, he stubbornly moved in the mainstream of his own fate, moreover, he hurried it just as he hurried the builders of the Mikhailovsky Castle. Due to the fact that the prophecy of blessed Xenia spread everywhere, a tense atmosphere was created around the personality of Paul I and his new palace. For a bad sign, they took the fact that for the decoration of the Mikhailovsky Castle, materials were used that were intended to decorate the Isakievsky Cathedral.

In January 1801, the builders were still trying to complete the decoration of the castle, both inside and outside, but they could neither revive its gloomy appearance and dull interiors, nor cope with the eerie dampness in the interior, which made it terribly cold and there was even fog …"

Generally. of course, if you believe the official history, then both the Romanovs and the architects involved in the construction of the royal palaces and many other buildings had little intelligence. For many of these buildings were originally built without heating, but with huge windows and doors. And the servants and staff of these buildings were so lazy that in a few years after such "construction" the first floors were pretty much buried by the "cultural layer".

But here I want to draw your attention to the fact that even before January 1801, some finishing materials were supposed to be used to decorate St. Isaac's Cathedral, but by order of the emperor, they were used to decorate the Mikhailovsky Castle. I'm not even talking about the fact that, in fact, apart from these finishing works, no construction work is described in detail here. But excuse me, according to the official history, only in 1809, i.e. 8 years later, a competition will be announced for the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral, which will eventually be won by Montferrand.

Of course, historians have written to us that before that, three different churches allegedly stood in succession on this place. They write to us that services in the first St. Isaac's Church, which was built for the Admiralty shipyard, have been held since 1710. But already in 1717 a new church was founded, due to the fact that the old one was dilapidated. Seriously? What was it built from then, if it was only enough for 7 years of operation? From brushwood?

But now, in 1717, they begin to build a second church (namely a church for the needs of shipyard workers, not a cathedral), and at the same time there is no mention that the old church was dismantled before building a new one. And what does this mean? Yes, that it was not built in the same place and not on the same foundation. As well as all subsequent ones. This church was commissioned in 1726. And again the clumsy builders "screwed up". It turns out that the churches were built too close to the banks of the Neva, and its overflowing waters constantly undermined its foundation.

As a result, by order of Catherine in 1761, the design of the third building began, which for some reason is no longer called a church, but a cathedral. Or is it not a cathedral, but this is a "free interpretation" of historians? And this is clearly being done for a specific purpose. Strange, but in 1766 a decree was issued to start work on a new construction site. Seriously? Those. for the third time they are building in a new place, they call these buildings "St. Isaac's Church" and want to convince us that all this has to do with the ancient St. Isaac's Cathedral?

Don't believe me? Well, see for yourself: on January 19, 1768, Catherine II signed a decree "On the manufacture of marble and wild stone for the construction of St. Isaac's Church in the Keksholm district, Serdobolsk and Ruskealsky graveyards with the installation of grinding mills there." The ceremonial laying of the building took place on August 8, 1768, and a medal was struck in memory of this event. After all, again we are talking about the church, and not about the cathedral. But they are trying to convince us that before St. Isaac's Cathedral there were three other versions of it. Although it is clearly seen that each time churches were built, not cathedrals, and each time in new places.

Where did the old churches go? For some reason, there is no mention anywhere when they were taken apart. And no images of them have survived until the beginning of the 19th century. Official information claims that this construction was completed only on May 30, 1802. But it seems that the Russian tsars simply had nowhere to put their money into, and already in 1809, i.e. again, some 7 years after the completion of the construction, the new tsar announces the beginning of a competition for the construction of a new St. Isaac's Cathedral.

At least you yourself, gentlemen, historians believe in all this nonsense that your predecessors invented, only to hide the fact that St. Isaac's Cathedral (the very modern Isaac, and not some churches with his name), no foreign or domestic architects during the Romanovs did not build, but only engaged in excavation and restoration (and reconstruction of the dome) of this amazing masterpiece of ancient civilization, which died in the Flood after the pole shift? And it happened no more than 500-600 years ago. For example, a number of alternative scholars believe that this happened somewhere at the turn of the 16-17 centuries. And just after this catastrophe, the new ruling elites organized the first wave of falsification of history.

Now let's deal with those images of Iskakiev churches that historians offer us. So the first St. Isaac's Church is depicted in the drawing of the same Montferrand in 1845. Seriously? Those. historians assure us that by 1717 the first church was so dilapidated that it became necessary to build a new one, but the drawing of Montferrand, made 130 years later, suggest that we take it as proof of the existence of this church. From what nature did he draw her? Out of the imagination, like the rest of his drawings on the "construction" of Isaac? This has already been proven by many independent researchers. It turns out that no genuine images of the first church exist.

There is a drawing of the second church, attributed to the first architect of St. Petersburg, N. Gerbel, made in 1721. Or rather, not even a drawing, but a sketch. For we do not see panoramas of the surrounding Petersburg on it and cannot perform a binding on the ground to find out the location of this building. Those. again we see only a sketch of the building, incidentally called "Church of Isaac of Dolmatsky". Again the church, not the Cathedral. And there is no proof. that this church, if it ever existed, it was on the site of the current Isaac.

On the third St. Isaac's Cathedral there is an engraving by I. Ivanov, which "Vicky" ascribes to 1816. But other sources attribute it to both 1814 and 1800 and even 1796. And it is precisely this kind of confusion with dating that smacks of an outright fake. And you want to consider this little drawing with an unidentified date as proof of the existence of Isaac-3? Well, firstly, in all historical sources, including imperial decrees, for some reason Isaac-1, Isaac-2, and Isaac-3 are referred to as churches, and not as cathedrals. And as we found out, each time these churches were built in a new place, and at the same time what happened to the old buildings is unknown to us. But the oddities don't end there.

Again, the official history claims that since 1809, a competition has already been announced for the alleged construction (and, according to my version, restoration and reconstruction) of the real Isaac, and many artists and architects of that time presented their versions of drawings and sketches at that time. For example, the worse this drawing of the unrealized project of A. Rinaldi, drawn by the same O. Montferrand. Hope you appreciate this artist's talent for drawing pictures from your rich imagination.

Again we see the square, and people, and carts, and ships in the background. Everything seems to be drawn from life. But even official historians recognize this project as unrealized. Those. again, we are talking about the project, and not about the drawing made from life. And it looks no less realistic than the drawing by I. Ivanov with an unknown date. And the most interesting thing is that the final design of Montferrand was approved in 1825, but it is argued that work on the construction of the foundation began already in 1818. But it was necessary to have time to disassemble the old building and its foundation.

However, what is the old one if its construction was completed only in 1802? Moreover, it happens that for some year its finishing was completely completed. Let's remember that back in January 1801 the builders used all the finishing materials prepared for Isaac to decorate the Mikhailovsky Castle. Consequently, before the discovery of Isakia-3, it was necessary not only to extract them somewhere again, to bring them to St. Petersburg and finish all the work. It looks rather unlikely.

But what was the point of initiating new construction already 7 years after the completion of the construction of Isakia-3? What was wrong again? Has the building become dilapidated again, or has the flooded waters of the Neva begun to wash away its foundation? However, in 1824 it is argued that there was a powerful flood in St. Petersburg. But how could the tsar know about this back in 1809, when he announced a competition for new projects? Historians do not give any intelligible answer to this question, and all the absurdities, as usual, are attributed to the tyranny of the rulers.

But if you carefully read the legends and myths "About the construction of the four Isaac's Cathedrals", you get the impression that in the time of the Romanovs we did not have adequate rulers at all. At least up to Alexander I, who, following the example of his ancestors, already 7 years after the completion of the previous construction, initiated a new one. And we still wonder after that why these ordinary peasants walked in bast shoes then.

And, can you imagine, A. Montferrand, who came from "civilized" Europe, turned out to have no idea about the compass and how to correctly orient Christian churches to the cardinal points and oriented St. Isaac's Cathedral to the old antediluvian pole. And our kings, too, are no better. They pushed such projects. That is why it turned out that not only Isaac with Isakievskaya Square and the Admiralty, but also Alexandria Square with the Alexandria Column and even the bastions of Peter and Paul, are all oriented towards the same antediluvian pole.

And after all, there are people who believe in all these delusional absurdities and absolutely illogical "inconsistencies" invented by falsifiers in order to hide from us the truth about the events of the past. This whole story with the construction of four St. Isaac's Cathedrals (or 3 churches and 1 cathedral) is so far-fetched that it deserves a nomination in the science fiction writers competition. It is time to equate the history textbooks with fantastic literature, which describe to us such exciting, but completely implausible stories about our past. I think that many such historians can quite seriously compete with mastered science fiction writers and have a good chance of winning the Bradbury Cup international literary competition. Which is what I advise them to do, instead of continuing to hang on our ears.