How did Tartary die? Part 4

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

After the publication of the third part about "relict" forests, a lot of critical comments came, to which I consider it necessary to respond.

Many people reproached me for not mentioning forest fires, which regularly destroy millions of hectares of forests in Siberia, when speaking about the age of the forests. Yes, indeed, forest fires over a large area are a big problem for the preservation of forests. But in the topic that I am considering, the important thing is that there are no old forests on this territory. The reason they are missing is another matter. In other words, I can quite accept the version that the reason that the forests in Siberia “live no more than 120 years” (as one of the commentators stated) is precisely the fires. This option, in contrast to the "relict" forests, does not contradict the fact that at the beginning of the 19th century a large-scale planetary catastrophe occurred on the territory of the Trans-Urals and Western Siberia.

However, it should be noted that fires cannot explain the very thin soil layer on the territory of the forest belt. In case of fires, only the two upper horizons of the soil layer with indices A0 and A1 will burn out (decoding in part 3). The rest of the horizons practically do not burn and should have been preserved. In addition, I was sent a link to one of the works, where the consequences of forest fires are investigated. It follows from it that it is easy to determine from the soil layer that there was a fire in this area, since a layer of ash will be observed in the soil. At the same time, according to the depth of the ash layer, it is even possible to approximately determine when the fire occurred. So if you carry out research on the spot, you can say for sure whether the ribbon burs ever burned or not, as well as the approximate time when this happened.

I want to make one more addition to the second part, where I talked about the fortress in the village of Miass. Since this village is located 40 km. from Chelyabinsk, where I live, then one weekend I made a short trip there, during which I personally had no doubts that the fortress was once located exactly on the site of the island, and the channel that now separates the island is what is left of the moat that surrounded the fortress and the houses adjacent to it.

Firstly, on the terrain where, according to the fortress scheme, there should be an upper right corner of the channel with a protruding "ray", there is a hill about 1.5 meters high with rectangular outlines. From this hill towards the river one can see a rampart, the direction of which also coincides with the direction of the channel on the diagram. This shaft is cut approximately in the middle by a duct. Unfortunately, it was not possible to get to the island, since the bridge, which is visible in the picture, is no longer there. Therefore, I am not 100% sure, but from this bank it seems that on the opposite bank, in the place where the fortress should have been, there is also a rampart. At least the other side is noticeably higher. Where the upper left corner of the fortress was supposed to be, which is now cut off by a channel, there is a flat rectangular area on the ground.

But the most important thing is that I was able to talk right on the shore next to the channel with the locals. They confirmed that the current bridge is new, the old bridge will be below, next to the island. At the same time, they do not know exactly where the fortress was, but they showed me the old foundation of some structure, which is located in their garden. So this foundation runs exactly parallel to the direction of the channel, which means the position of the old fortress, but at an angle to the existing layout of the village.

The question remains, however, why the fortress was built so close to the water, because it should have been flooded during the spring flood. Or was the presence of a moat with water that protected the fortress and the village much more important for them than the spring flooding?

Or maybe there is another answer to this question. It is possible that at that time the climate was different, there was no big spring flood at all, so it was not taken into account.

When the first part was published, some of the commentators pointed out that such a large-scale catastrophe was bound to affect the climate, but we allegedly have no evidence that climate change occurred at the beginning of the 19th century.

Indeed, in such a catastrophe, when forests are destroyed over a large area and the top fertile layer of the soil is damaged, serious climate changes are inevitable.

Firstly, forests, especially coniferous ones, play the role of heat stabilizers, preventing the soil from freezing too much in winter. There are studies that show that in cold weather, the temperature near the trunk of a spruce can be 10^OS-15^OC higher than in open space. In summer, on the contrary, the temperature in the forests is lower.

Secondly, forests provide water balance, preventing water from escaping too quickly and the earth from drying out.

Thirdly, during the catastrophe itself, during the passage of a dense meteorite stream, both overheating and increased pollution will be observed, both from those meteorites that collapsed in the air before reaching the Earth, and from the dust and ash that will be formed during falling and surface damage by meteorites, the size of which, judging by the traces in the images, from several tens of meters to several kilometers. In addition, we do not know the real composition of the meteor shower that collided with the Earth. It is very likely that, in addition to large and very large objects, the traces of which we observe, this stream also contained medium and small objects, as well as dust. Medium and small objects should have collapsed when passing through the atmosphere. In this case, the atmosphere itself should have been warmed up and filled with the decay products of these meteorites. Very small objects and dust should have slowed down in the upper atmosphere, forming a kind of dust cloud, which can be transported by winds thousands of kilometers from the crash site, after which, with an increase in atmospheric humidity, it would fall down as mud rain. And all the time, while this dust was in the air, it created a shielding effect, which should have consequences similar to "nuclear winter". Since sunlight does not reach the Earth's surface, the temperature should have dropped significantly, causing a local cooling, a kind of small ice age.

In fact, there are a lot of facts that indicate that the climate on the territory of Russia has changed noticeably.

I think that most of the readers know "Arkaim" - a unique archaeological site in the south of the Chelyabinsk region. Official science believes that this ancient structure was built from 3.5 to 5.5 thousand years ago. A lot of both scientific and completely insane books and articles have already been written about Arkaim and around Arkaim. We are also interested in the fact that archaeologists were able to quite accurately restore the original structure of this structure to the remains found in the ground. Here we will consider it in more detail.

In the museum, which is located next to the monument, you can see the detailed model of the structure shown in the photographs. It consists of two rings, which are formed by elongated living quarters, with an exit from each to the inner circle. The width of one section is about 6 meters, the length is about 30 meters. There is no passage between the sections, they are located close to each other. The entire structure is surrounded by a wall that is higher than the roofs of the inner buildings.

At one time, when I first saw the reconstruction of Arkaim, I was struck by the very high technical and technological level of the residents of Arkaim. Building a structure with a roof 6 meters wide and 30 meters long is far from the easiest technical task. But this is not what interests us now.

When designing any buildings and structures, the designer must take into account such a parameter as the snow load on the roof. The snow load depends on the characteristics of the climate of the area where the building or structure will be located. Based on long-term observations for all regions, a set of parameters for such calculations is determined.

From the construction of Arkaim it follows absolutely unambiguously that at the time when he existed, there was no snow in this area at all in winter! That is, the climate in this area was much warmer. Imagine that a good snowfall has passed over Arkaim, which is not uncommon in winter in the Varna district of the Chelyabinsk region. And what to do with the snow?

If we take a typical village today, then there are usually enough steep gable roofs on the houses so that the snow itself rolls down from them as it accumulates or when it melts in the spring. There are long distances between houses, where this snow can accumulate. That is, usually a modern resident of a village house or cottage does not need to do anything specifically to solve the problem of snow. Unless in case of very heavy snowfalls, help the snow down in one way or another.

Arkaim's design is such that in case of snowfall, you have a lot of problems. The roofs are flat and large. So they will collect a lot of snow and it will remain on them. We have no gaps between sections to throw snow there. If we throw snow into the inner passage, it will fill up with snow very quickly. Throw outward through a wall that is above the roof? But, firstly, it is very long and laborious, and secondly, after a while a snow shaft will form around the wall, and it is quite dense, since during cleaning and dumping the snow is noticeably compacted. And this means that the defensive ability of your wall is sharply reduced, since it will be easier to climb the wall along the snow shaft. Spend a lot of time and energy on pushing the snow further away from the wall?

And now let's imagine what will happen to Arkaim if a snow storm begins, which also occurs in that area quite often in winter. And since there are steppes around, then in case of strong snow storms, houses can be covered with snow to the very roofs. And Akraim, in the event of a strong snow storm, can bring snow along the outermost walls! And it will certainly sweep all the internal passages to the level of the roofs of the residential sections. So if you do not have hatches in the roofs, then getting out of these sections after the storm will not be so easy.

I have big doubts that the residents of Arkaim would build their city without taking into account the problems listed above, and then they would suffer every winter with snow and drifts during a storm. Such a structure could be built only where there is either no snow at all in winter, or it happens very little and very rarely, without forming a permanent snow cover. This means that the climate at the time of Arkaim in the south of the Chelyabinsk region was similar to the climate of southern Europe or even milder.

But, skeptics may notice, Arkaim existed for a long time. For several thousand years from the moment Arkaim was destroyed, the climate could have changed many times. What does it mean that this change took place precisely at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century?

Again, if such a climate change happened so close to us, then there must be evidence of a sharp cold snap in documents, books and newspapers of that time. And, indeed, it turns out that evidence of such a sharp cooling in 1815-1816 abounds, 1816 is generally known as the “year without summer”.

Here is what they wrote about this period in Canada:

Until today, 1816 remains the coldest year since the beginning of documenting meteorological observations. In the USA he was also nicknamed “Eighteen hundred and frozen to death”, which can be translated as “One thousand-eight hundred-frozen to death”.

“The weather is still extremely cold and uncomfortable. Most likely, the season of fruits and flowers will be postponed to a later period. Old-timers do not remember such a cold beginning of summer, wrote the Montreal Gazette on June 10, 1916.

On June 5, a cold front descended from Hudson Bay and "grabbed" the entire valley of the St. Lawrence River into its icy embrace. At first there was a monotonous cold rain, followed by a snowfall for a couple of days in the city of Quebec, and a day later in Montreal by a wild snowstorm. The thermometer dropped to minus marks, and soon the thickness of the snow reached 30 centimeters: snowdrifts piled up to the axles of carriages and carts, stopping all summer vehicles tightly. I had to take out the sleigh in mid-June (!). Cold was felt everywhere, ponds, lakes and much of the St. Lawrence River were frozen again.

At first, the inhabitants of the province were not discouraged. Accustomed to the harsh Canadian winters, they took out winter clothes and hoped that this "misunderstanding" would soon end. Someone joked and laughed, and the kids were rolling down the hills again. But when the freezing birds began to fly into the houses, and in the village their small numb bodies were strewn with black dots on the fields and vegetable gardens, and the sheep sheared in the spring, unable to withstand the cold, began to die en masse, it became completely alarming.

The sun finally came out on July 17th. The newspapers happily reported that there is hope for the harvest of those crops that have withstood the frost. However, the upbeat comments from reporters were premature. At the end of July, a second wave of cold dry air came, followed by a third, which caused such a drought in the fields that it became clear that the entire crop had died.

The inhabitants of Canada had to deal with the disaster not only in 1816. Jean-Thomas Tashreau, a member of the Canadian Parliament, wrote: “Alas, the winter of 1817-1818 was again extremely difficult. The death toll that year was unusually high.”

Similar evidence can be found in the United States and in European countries, including Russia.

But according to the official version, this cooling was allegedly caused by the powerful eruption of the Tambor volcano on the Indonesian island of Sumbawa. It is interesting that this volcano is located in the southern hemisphere, while the catastrophic consequences for some reason were observed in the northern hemisphere.

The eruption of the Krakatau volcano, which occurred on August 26, 1883, destroyed the tiny islet of Rakata, located in a narrow strait between Java and Sumatra. The sound was heard at a distance of 3,500 kilometers in Australia and on Rodriguez Island, which is 4800 kilometers away. It is believed that this was the loudest sound in the entire written history of mankind; it was heard in 1/13 of the globe. This eruption was somewhat weaker than the Tambor eruption, but there was practically no catastrophic effect on the climate at all.

When it became clear that the eruption of Tambora volcano alone was not enough to cause such catastrophic climate changes, a cover legend was invented that in 1809, allegedly somewhere in the tropics, another eruption occurred, comparable to the eruption of Tambora volcano, but which it was not recorded by anyone. And it was thanks to these two eruptions that an abnormally cold period from 1810 to 1819 was observed. How it happened that such a powerful eruption was unnoticed by anyone, the authors of the work do not explain, and the eruption of the Tambora volcano is still a question of whether it was as strong as the British write about it, under whose control the island of Sumbawa was at that moment. Therefore, there is reason to believe that these are just legends covering up the true reasons that caused the catastrophic climate change in the Northern Hemisphere.

These doubts arise also because in the case of volcanic eruptions, the impact on the climate is temporary. Some cooling is observed due to ash, which is thrown into the upper atmosphere and creates a shielding effect. As soon as this ash settles, the climate is restored to its original state. But in 1815 we have a completely different picture, because if in the USA, Canada and most European countries the climate gradually recovered, then in most of Russia there was a so-called "climatic shift", when the average annual temperature dropped sharply and then did not return. No volcanic eruption, and even in the Southern Hemisphere, could cause such a climatic shift. But the massive destruction of forests and vegetation over a large area, especially in the middle of the continent, should have just such an effect. Forests act as temperature stabilizers, preventing the land from freezing too much in winter, as well as heating up and drying out too much in summer.

There is evidence that the climate in Russia, including St. Petersburg, was noticeably warmer until the 19th century. The first edition of the Britannica encyclopedia from 1771 says that the main supplier of pineapples to Europe is the Russian Empire. True, it is difficult to confirm this information, since it is almost impossible to get access to the original of this publication.

But, as in the case of Arkaim, a lot can be said about the climate of the 18th century from the buildings and structures that were built at that time in St. Petersburg. During my repeated trips to the suburbs of St. Petersburg, in addition to admiration for the talent and skill of the builders of the past, I drew attention to one interesting feature. Most of the palaces and mansions that were built in the 18th century were built under a different, warmer climate!

First, they have a very large window area. The walls between the windows are equal or even less than the width of the windows themselves, and the windows themselves are very high.

Secondly, in many buildings, a heating system was not initially envisaged; it was built later into the finished building.

For example, let's look at the Catherine Palace in Tsarskoye Selo.

A stunning huge building. But, as we are assured, this is a "summer palace". It was built supposedly only to come here exclusively in the summer.

If you look at the facade of the palace, you can clearly see a very large area of windows, which is typical for the southern, hot regions, and not for the northern territories.

Later, at the beginning of the 19th century, an annex was made to the palace, where the famous lyceum was located, in which Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin studied together with the future Decembrists. The annex is distinguished not only by its architectural style, but also by the fact that it has already been built for new climatic conditions, the area of the windows is noticeably smaller.

The left wing, which is next to the Lyceum, was significantly rebuilt at about the same time as the Lyceum was being built, but the right wing remained in the same form as it was originally built. And in it you can see that the stoves for heating the premises were not originally planned, but were added later to the already finished building.

This is how the cavalry (silver) dining room looks like.

The stove was simply placed in a corner. The wall decoration ignores the presence of the stove in this corner, that is, it was done before it appeared there. If you look at the upper part, you can see that it does not fit snugly against the wall, since the curly gilded embossed decoration of the top of the wall interferes with it.

It can be clearly seen that the wall decoration continues behind the stove.

Here is another of the halls of the palace. Here the stove fits better into the existing corner design, but if you look at the floor, you can see that the stove is just standing on top. The pattern on the floor ignores the presence of the stove, going under it. If the stove was originally planned in this room in this place, then any master would have made a floor pattern with this fact in mind.

And in the large hall of the palace there are no stoves or fireplaces at all!

The official legend, as I have already said, says that this palace was originally planned as a summer palace, in winter they did not live there, so it was built like that.

Very interesting! In fact, this is not just a shed, which can easily overwinter without heating. And what will happen to the interiors, paintings and sculptures that are carved from wood if the premises are not heated in winter? If you freeze all this in the winter, and let it damp in the spring and autumn, then how many seasons can all this splendor stand, on the creation of which enormous efforts and resources were spent? Catherine was a very intelligent woman and she had to understand such and such things well.

Let's continue our tour of the Catherine Palace in Tsarskoye Selo.

At this link, everyone can take a virtual trip to Tsarskoe Selo and admire both the appearance of the palace and its interiors

There we can see, for example, that in the first anticamera (entrance hall in Italian), the stoves are on legs, which once again confirms the fact that the installation of stoves there was not planned during the construction of the palace.

While viewing the wonderful photos, I also recommend that you pay attention to the fact that many rooms in the palace are heated not by stoves, but by fireplaces! Not only are fireplaces very fire hazardous, which is why fires regularly occurred in all palaces, but they are also extremely ineffective for heating rooms in winter.

And judging by what we see, it was the fireplaces that were envisaged as the main heating system in all palaces built in the 18th century. We will see the same picture later in the large palace of Peterhof, and even in the Winter Palace itself in St. Petersburg. And even where we see stoves today, judging by the way they are installed, they replaced the fireplaces that once existed in these rooms and use their chimneys. And they installed them precisely because they are more effective.

The fact that by the time the palaces were built, stoves had long been known to mankind as a more efficient and safer heating system than a fireplace, there is no doubt. Therefore, there must have been a good reason for using fireplaces as the main heating system in royal palaces.

For example, they will be used very rarely due to the warm climate. The fact that this was done due to the illiteracy of the architects who built the palaces will be on the last place in the list of possible reasons, since the best of the best were invited to design and build the royal palaces, and for all other technical and architectural solutions, everything was done on the highest level.

Let's see how the Grand Palace looks like in Peterhof.

Also, as in the case of the Catherine Palace, we see very large windows and a large area of glazing of the facades. If we look inside, we will find that the picture is the same with the heating system. Most of the rooms are heated with fireplaces. This is what the portrait hall looks like.

In the large halls, the dance hall and the throne hall, there is no heating system at all, there are no stoves or fireplaces.

Unfortunately, in the halls of the large palace it is forbidden to take pictures of ordinary visitors, therefore it is difficult to find good photographs of its interiors, but even those that are there, one can see the absence of fireplaces and stoves.

We see a similar picture in the Winter Palace, the very name of which suggests that it should be designed for the harsh Russian winters.

Here you can find a huge selection of materials on the royal palaces, including a lot of beautiful photographs, as well as paintings by different authors depicting interiors. I highly recommend it.

There you can see the following materials on the Winter Palace:

Walking through the halls of the Hermitage:

part 1

part 2

part 3

Several collections with unique watercolors by Eduard Petrovich Hau:

Speaking about the Winter Palace, it should be noted that strong fires occurred in it on a regular basis, for example, in 1837, so we cannot say that inside we observe exactly what was conceived by the architect during its construction.

Whether these fires were accidental is a separate question, which is beyond the scope of this article. At the same time, the reconstruction of the interior premises in the Winter Palace took place constantly, both as a result of fires, and simply at the request of its inhabitants. At the same time, it should be noted that most of the premises of the Winter Palace continue to be heated by fireplaces, despite all the rebuilding and reconstruction. And as far as I understand, one of the reasons that fireplaces remained in the premises is precisely the fact that initially the construction of the building did not provide for the installation of stoves, which require special preparation of the building both in terms of foundations and in terms of organizing chimneys and wall structures.

If we look at the facades of the Winter Palace, we see all the same signs of a building that is being built for a warm climate - a large area of windows, narrow walls between the windows.

Moreover, this feature is observed not only in royal palaces. Here are photographs of the facades of two buildings. The first was built in the 18th century and the second in the 19th.

The difference in the area of glazing is very clearly visible, as well as the fact that in the second building the width of the walls between the windows is more than twice as wide as the windows, while in the first building it is equal to or less than the width of the windows.

Since the 19th century, buildings in St. adjacent houses. For example, during my last visit to Sank-Pereburg this summer, I lived in a house at st. Tchaikovsky, 2, which was built in 1842 immediately with a separate boiler room and centralized water heating system.

Dmitry Mylnikov

Other articles on the site sedition.info on this topic:

Death of Tartary

Why are our forests young?

Methodology for checking historical events

Nuclear strikes of the recent past

The last line of defense of Tartary

Distortion of history. Nuclear strike

Films from the portal sedition.info