Where is the city from? Part 9. First floors - new facts

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

and also some elements of building structures, consider the building at number 35 on Bolshaya Morskaya.

A huge granite portal instead of a doorway seems alien here, it would have come closer to the steps and columns of St. Isaac's Cathedral, there it would have looked more harmonious, but they added it here. Either they stole it on time, or there was no place for him in the restructuring project of Isaac. But the doors in the same building, which fit in logically, technologically and conveniently.

Consider the inconsistencies in the dates of Isaac's construction.

View of St. Isaac's Square from the Senate. 1820 g.

There is a cathedral! How WORTH it !!!

And here's a simple newspaper clipping

Take a closer look at the date - 1817

The official version says: The first column was installed on March 20, 1828.

And the phrase "Completed in 1802 is surprising, isn't it? Or was there a cathedral?"

A couple more pictures for completeness, so to speak, falsification of history.

The inscription reads: Solemn return of the St. Petersburg militia to St. Isaac's Square. Sketch engraving hand-painted with watercolors. 1815 Engraver I. A. Ivanov. What does this cathedral look like? … and who to believe?

Unknown artist:

View of the Admiralty, the old St. Isaac's Cathedral, the English Embankment and the building of the Academy of Sciences on Vasilievsky Island, 1825.

So how is this to be understood? In 1768 there was a cathedral, and in 1825 there was a church in its place, how to believe that then this cathedral was built from this cathedral

The third St. Isaac's Cathedral, completed by V. Brenna. Lithograph 1810-1830

With dates, a complete fuck. Either the artists are lying without saying a word, or the historians are not saying something?

View of St. Isaac's Cathedral under construction in 1838. Lithograph with tone. F. Benois, based on the original by O. Montferrand.

View of St. Isaac's Cathedral in the woods. Colored lithograph from the album of O. Montferan, 1840

(there are no four side towers in sight).

And here are drawings from life by Andre Durand (from the album Traveling in Russia)

View from the Neva to St. Isaac's Cathedral 1837-1839.

Durant has a cathedral, but Montferrand is just under construction.

And this despite the fact that the album with drawings was already published in Paris in 1839, which means that the drawings were made earlier. Here are the data from the "official" historians: Andre Durand's album "Voyage pittoresque et archeologique en Russie", published in Paris in 1839, defined the face of Russia for the Western public for a long time, here is the link: Travel to Southern Russia and Crimea. A scenic journey across Russia. 3 albums.

Here is another official document testifying to the rebuilding of the existing temple.

Explanatory note to the plan of St. Isaac's Cathedral. - March 12, 1825.

It is also important that in his notes Vigel characterized Montferrand only as a good draftsman, but not as an architect …

This drawing seemed very strange to me,

not the date on it, but the view of Issaac, its height. I don’t think that the artist’s imagination would be so carried away, something doesn’t grow together here.

There is a version that the columns of St. Isaac's Cathedral are assembled from fragments, but until you saw it, you won’t understand. Montferand knew nothing of this for sure.

If you play with contrast in Photoshop, you can see the color drops of the stone.

Here too … (only this topic is for a separate article).

Here are some photos of the patches on the columns, draw your own conclusions.

A patch in a granite block.

A patch on the column itself.

Chipped on the column, inside it looks more like cement, I wonder, huh?

But Montferand knew nothing about it for sure.

A crack in the base of several columns of the Kazan Cathedral, what is it?

Here is another masterpiece of stone-cutting art.

Column in St. Isaac's Cathedral.

I consider this kind of joining, gluing, and manual polishing of granite to be jewelry and in our time machine processing of stone, and then all the bearded men did by eye. The photo was sent by a history lover under the pseudonym Otet Sergiy.

It is also strange that official historians in every possible way avoid talking about another significant monument - the obelisk at the Kazan Cathedral.

Kazan Cathedral from the side of Kazanskaya street, 1810

Painting by Fyodor Alekseev 1810

Obelisk in front of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg (painting by Fyodor Alekseev 1810)

Perhaps the official version of the purpose of the obelisks has not been agreed yet? And demolition, of course. Historians are still debating what their function is. And with age, they also did not decide.

Here's something else about obelisks: Stella Axum

Another discrepancy is surprising - the cultural layer.

Now the building of St. Isaac's Cathedral has 3 steps. We are looking at the layout of the installation of the columns, located in the temple itself - 9 steps! 6 went underground! 1.5 meters!

But buildings are sinking into the ground not because they sink under their own weight, but because the cultural layer is growing.

Excavations of the cultural layer on Palace Square gave a very interesting result:

the lower layer is the lower pavement, then 1.5 meters of the cultural layer in the form of ordinary soil, the upper layer is the upper pavement, then the modern crushed stone and asphalt.

Where did the 1.5 meter layer of soil come from on Palace Square? It turns out that as a result of some kind of catastrophe, the whole city was covered with mud, possibly a flood. Or maybe the cultural layer grew on its own, in a natural way, but then more than one hundred years had to pass and Peter would have to remain deserted, since otherwise the janitors from Palace Square would certainly have removed the accumulated dirt.

This is a 2002 photo. made at the northwest corner of Palace Square. The red arrow marks the black stripe, which on TV was declared the day surface of the times of Catherine. But what about the Winter Palace? After all, based on Rastrelli's project, he practically did not submerge … From the blue upward arrow begins the asphalt layer. A layered sand structure is visible between the arrows. It cannot be recognized as a stratification of the cultural layer, starting from the 18th century, since we will have to talk about the strange layer-by-layer uniformity of the color of the allegedly brought dirt or dust, as well as again about the immersion of the Winter Palace, which is not in the drawings.

The explanation for all this may be the catastrophe that plunged the ancient Winter Palace into the sand. Layering indicates a series of minor catastrophes or floods.

In this 2002 photo, two pavements are clearly visible, one of which is covered with asphalt, and the other (lower) is covered with stratified sand. It seems absurd to dive to a depth of more than half a meter of stone pavements (meaning the economic inexpediency of allowing the stones of the pavement to disappear into the ground so easily without taking advantage of the opportunity to simply shift this pavement).

Here are drawings of the construction of the cathedral, entertaining pictures I will tell you, see the link, click HERE.

No less mysterious is the recently found foundation of a colossal structure, hidden under a four-meter layer of earth.

Photos are taken from here, here in more detail: Peter's Skyscrapers.

Interesting observations here, just click the link: The city that they could not build.

Dear ZigZag

There are two photographs, the first is the steps of a pyramid in Mexico, covered with sand, later excavated by archaeologists.

… and the steps in the Peter and Paul Fortress

The depth is approximately the same, the same method of laying and … much the same. Draw your own conclusions. Most importantly, the sandy sediment is the same.

Respectfully yours, the person who remained incognito.

I received a couple more photos of the Nevsky Curtain by mail. It connects Menshikov and Gosudarev bastions. Previously, people used to walk here, perhaps there were carts or horse riders, but no one remembers this, everyone only remembers this:

Perhaps these arches used to look like this

or so

… but we have what we have.

Here is the opinion of a native of St. Petersburg, a geologist, historian, professor, academician and a person who is very respected by me:

… the facts are that our city was covered with a sandy-clay mixture (river alluvium?), And if there is no indication of such an event after 1703, then the event happened earlier. I will not say when and for what reason (let others fantasize - Kadykchansky, Lorenz and …), but you cannot confuse a sandy-clay mixture with a "cultural layer".

But this is Menshikov's Palace, compare the level of the street with the level of the excavated building.

Taking into account the basement, the real foundation of this building is at a depth of three meters, and what is the funniest thing is that it is laid out of perfectly polished multi-ton granite slabs intended for external decorative finishing of the building, such as these.

If you believe the history, in the 18th -19th centuries, so many stone mysteries appeared that you can take off your hat and stand for hours with your eyes wide open.