How did Tartary die? Part 3

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

One of the arguments against the fact that a large-scale catastrophe could have occurred 200 years ago is the myth about "relict" forests that supposedly grow in the Urals and Western Siberia.

For the first time, I came across the thought that something was wrong with our "relic" forests ten years ago, when I accidentally discovered that in the "relic" city forest, firstly, there were no old trees older than 150 years old., and secondly, there is a very thin fertile layer, about 20-30 cm. It was strange, because reading various articles on ecology and forestry, I repeatedly came across information that for a thousand years a fertile layer of about one meter is formed in the forest, then yes, by a millimeter per year. A little later it turned out that a similar picture is observed not only in the central city forest, but also in other pine forests located in Chelyabinsk and the surrounding area. Old trees are absent, the fertile layer is thin.

When I began to question local experts on this topic, they began to explain to me something about the fact that before the revolution the pine forests were cut down and replanted, and the rate of accumulation of the fertile layer in pine forests should be considered differently, that I do not understand anything about this and it's better not to go there. At that moment, this explanation, in general, suited me.

In addition, it turned out that one should distinguish between the concept of "relict forest" when it comes to forests that have been growing on a given territory for a very long time, and the concept of "relict plants", that is, those that have survived only in this place since ancient times. The last term does not mean at all that the plants themselves and the forests in which they grow are old, respectively, the presence of a large number of relict plants in the forests of the Urals and Siberia does not prove that the forests themselves have been growing in this place invariably for thousands of years.

When I began to deal with the "Ribbon bora" and collect information about them, I came across the following message on one of the regional Altai forums:

This message is dated November 15, 2010, that is, then there were no videos by Alexei Kungurov, or any other materials on this topic. It turns out that, independently of me, another person had exactly the same questions that I once had.

Upon further study of this topic, it turned out that a similar picture, that is, the absence of old trees and a very thin fertile layer, is observed in almost all forests of the Urals and Siberia. Once I accidentally got into a conversation about this with a representative of one of the firms that were processing data for our forestry department throughout the country. He began to argue with me and prove that I was wrong, that this could not be, and immediately in front of me called the person who was responsible for statistical processing. And the person confirmed this that the maximum age of the trees that they had been counted in this work was 150 years. True, the version issued by them said that in the Urals and Siberia, conifers generally do not live more than 150 years, therefore they are not taken into account.

We open the tree age guide and see that Scots pine lives 300-400 years, in especially favorable conditions up to 600 years, Siberian cedar pine 400-500 years, European spruce 300-400 (500) years, prickly spruce 400-600 years, and Siberian larch is 500 years old under normal conditions, and up to 900 years old under especially favorable conditions!

It turns out that everywhere these trees live for at least 300 years, and in Siberia and the Urals no more than 150?

You can see how relict forests really should look here: These are photos from the cutting of ancient sequoias in Canada at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, the thickness of the trunks of which reaches up to 6 meters, and the age is up to 1500 years. Well, then Canada, but we, they say, do not grow sequoias. Why do not they grow, if the climate is practically the same, none of the "specialists" could explain plainly.

Now yes, now they are not growing. But it turns out that similar trees grew here. The guys from our Chelyabinsk State University, who participated in the excavations in the area of Arkaim and the "country of cities" in the south of the Chelyabinsk region, said that where the steppe is now, in the time of Arkaim there were coniferous forests, and in some places there were giant trees, the diameter of the trunks was which was up to 4 - 6 meters! That is, they were comparable to those that we see in the photo from Canada. The version about where these forests have gone says that the forests were barbarously cut down by the inhabitants of Arkaim and other settlements created by them, and even an assumption is made that it was the depletion of the forests that caused the migration of the Arkaim people. Like, here the whole forest was cut down, let's go cut it down in another place. The people of Arkaim apparently did not yet know that forests can be planted and re-grown, as they have been doing everywhere since at least the 18th century. Why for 5500 years (this age is now dated to Arkaim) the forest in this place has not recovered itself, there is no intelligible answer. Not grown, well, not grown. It happened so.

Here is a series of photographs that I took in the local history museum in Yaroslavl this summer, when I was on vacation with my family.

In the first two photos, pine trees were cut at the age of 250 years. The trunk diameter is more than a meter. Directly above it are two pyramids, which are made up of cuts from pine trunks at the age of 100 years, the right one grew free, the left one in a mixed forest. In the forests in which I happened to be, there are basically just such 100-year-old trees or a little thicker.

In these photos they are given larger. At the same time, the difference between a pine that grew free and in an ordinary forest is not very significant, and the difference between a pine of 250 years and 100 years is just somewhere 2.5-3 times. This means that the trunk diameter of a pine tree at the age of 500 years will be about 3 meters, and at the age of 600 years it will be about 4 meters. That is, the giant stumps found during excavations could have remained even from an ordinary pine tree about 600 years old.

The last photo shows cuts of pine trees that grew in a dense spruce forest and in a swamp. But I was especially struck in this showcase by the saw cut pine trees at the age of 19, which is on the upper right. Apparently this tree grew free, but still the thickness of the trunk is just gigantic! Now the trees do not grow at such a speed, even if they are free, even with artificial cultivation with care and feeding, which again suggests that very strange things are happening to the climate on our planet.

From the above photographs it follows that at least pines at the age of 250 years, and taking into account the manufacture of saw cut in the 50s of the 20th century, born 300 years from today, in the European part of Russia there are, or, at least, met there 50 years ago. During my life, I have walked through the forests for more than one hundred kilometers, both in the Urals and in Siberia. But I have never seen such large pines as in the first picture, with a trunk more than a meter thick! Neither in forests, nor in open spaces, nor in habitable places, nor in remote areas. Naturally, my personal observations are not yet an indicator, but this is confirmed by the observation of many other people. If someone reading can give examples of long-lived trees in the Urals or Siberia, then you are welcome to submit photographs indicating the place and time when they were taken.

If we look at the available photographs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we will see very young forests in Siberia. Here are the photographs known to many from the site of the fall of the Tunguska meteorite, which have been repeatedly published in various publications and articles on the Internet.

All photographs clearly show that the forest is quite young, no more than 100 years old. Let me remind you that the Tunguska meteorite fell on June 30, 1908. That is, if the previous large-scale disaster that destroyed the forests in Siberia occurred in 1815, then by 1908 the forest should look exactly as in the photographs. Let me remind skeptics that this territory is still practically not inhabited, and at the beginning of the 20th century there were practically no people there. This means that there was simply no one to cut down the forest for economic or other needs.

Another interesting link to the article where the author gives interesting historical photographs from the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. On them, we also see only a young forest everywhere. No thick old trees are observed. An even larger selection of old photos from the construction of the Transib here

Thus, there are many facts and observations that indicate that in a large area of the Urals and Siberia there are virtually no forests older than 200 years. At the same time, I want to make a reservation right away that I am not saying that there are no old forests in the Urals and Siberia at all. But exactly in those places where the disaster occurred, they are not.

Let's go back to the issue of soil thickness, which is also mentioned by the author of the message about the ribbon pine forest, which I quoted above. I have already mentioned that earlier I had come across a figure in several sources that the average rate of soil formation is 1 meter per 1000 years, or about 1 mm per year. Collecting information and materials for this article, I decided to find out where this figure came from and how much it corresponds to reality.

Soil formation, as it turned out, is a rather complex dynamic process, and the soil itself has a rather complex structure. The rate of soil formation depends on many factors, including climate, relief, vegetation composition, the material of the so-called "mother base", that is, the mineral layer on which the soil is formed. Thus, the figure of 1 meter in 1000 years is simply taken from the ceiling.

On the Internet, I managed to find the following article on this topic:

Based on the last paragraph, it can be assumed that the notorious figure of 1 mm per year is the same maximum possible rate of soil formation, as previously thought. But here you should pay attention to the fact that in this article we are talking about mountainous regions, where, as you know, rocks and very sparse vegetation. So it is quite logical to assume that in forests this speed, by definition, should be higher.

Continuing my research, I came across in one of the brochures on ecology a table with the rate of soil formation, from which it followed that the highest rate of soil formation is observed on plains with a favorable climate and is about 0.9 mm per year. In the taiga area, the rate of soil formation is given 0.10-0.20 mm per year, that is, about 10-20 cm per 1000 years. In the tundra, less than 0.10 mm per year. These numbers have raised even more suspicion than 1 meter in 1000 years. Well, okay, the rate of soil formation in the tundra with its permafrost is still somehow understandable, but it’s hard to believe in such a slow rate of soil formation in the taiga with powerful vegetation, even less than that observed in the Alps mountains. There was clearly something wrong here.

Later I came across a textbook on soil science in two volumes edited by V. A. Kodwa and B. G. Rozanova, ed. "Higher school", Moscow, 1988

In particular on pages 312-313 there are such interesting explanations:

The age of the soil cover of the plains of the northern hemisphere corresponds to the end of the last continental glaciation somewhere around 10 thousand years ago. Within the Russian Plain, in its northern part, the age of soils is determined by the gradual retreat of ice sheets to the north at the end of the Ice Age, and in the southern part - by the gradual Caspian-Black Sea regression at about the same time. Accordingly, the age of the chernozems of the Russian Plain is 8-10 thousand years, and the age of the podzols of Scandinavia is 5-6 thousand years.

The method for determining the age of the soil by the ratio of 14C: 12C isotopes in soil humus was widely used. Taking into account all the reservations about the fact that the age of humus and the age of the soil are different concepts, that there is a constant decomposition of humus and its new formation, the movement of newly formed humus from the surface into the depths of the soil, that the radiocarbon method itself gives a big error, etc.., determined by this method, the age of chernozems of the Russian Plain can be taken equal to 7-8 thousand years. G. V. Sharpenzeel (1968) determined by this method the age of some cultivated soils in Central Europe on the order of 1000 years, and of peat bogs - 8 thousand years. The age of the soddy-podzolic soils of the Tomsk Ob region was determined to be about 7 thousand years.

That is, the data on the rate of soil formation in the above table were obtained by the opposite method. We have a certain soil thickness, for example 1.2 meters, and then, based on the assumption that it began to form 8 thousand years ago, when the glacier allegedly left here, we get a soil formation rate of about 0.15 mm per year.

Only the lazy did not write about the accuracy and efficiency of the radiocarbon method, especially over relatively "short" periods of up to 50 thousand years by historical standards. And if we take into account that we assume the possibility of using nuclear weapons in these territories in one form or another, then there is nothing to talk about at all. Obviously, the data was simply adjusted to the desired figure of 7-8 thousand years.

Okay, I decided, let's go the other way. Maybe somewhere there is work to monitor the process of current soil formation? And it turned out that there are not only such works, but the figures in them are completely different, and much more similar to reality!

Here is a very interesting work on this topic by F. N. Lisetskiy and P. V. Goleusov from Belgorod State University "Soil restoration on anthropogenically disturbed surfaces in the southern taiga subzone", 2010, UDC 631.48.

This paper provides a very interesting table of actual observations:

In this table, the letters A0, A1, A1A2, A2B, B, BC, C denote different soil horizons, including:

• A0 - forest floor, in herbaceous communities there is waste.
• A1 - humus, or humus horizon, formed by the accumulation of plant and animal remains and their transformation into humus. The coloration of the humus horizon is dark. To the bottom, it brightens, as the humus content in it decreases.
• A2 - washout horizon, or eluvial horizon. It lies under the humus. It can be identified by a change from a dark color to a light one. In podzolic soils, the color of this horizon is almost white due to intensive leaching of humus particles. In such soils, the humus horizon is absent or has a small thickness. The leaching horizons are poor in nutrients. The soils in which these horizons are developed have low fertility.
• B - the wash-in horizon, or illuvial horizon. It is the most dense, rich in clay particles. Its color is different. In some types of soils, it is brownish-black due to the admixture of humus. If this horizon is enriched with iron-aluminum compounds, it becomes brown. In the soils of forest-steppe and steppes, horizon B is powdery white due to the high content of calcium compounds, often in the form of spherical nodules.
• C is the parent rock.

(taken from here:

In other words, when talking about the thickness of the soil as a whole, you need to add up the thickness of these layers. At the same time, it is clearly seen from the table that in fact there is no talk of any 0.2 mm per year!

Cut 18 and 134 years old gives a thickness of 1040 mm without column BC and 1734 with column BC. The peculiarity of column BC is that it is part of the "parent rock" mixed with a layer of soil gradually seeping into it. In this case, this is loose sand. But even if we exclude this layer, we get an average rate of soil formation of 7.8 mm per year!

If we calculate the rate of soil formation, then we get values from 3 to 30 mm, with an average value of about 16 mm per year. At the same time, it can be seen from the data obtained that the older the soil, the lower its growth rate. But be that as it may, at an age of about 100 years, the thickness of the soil layer turns out to be more than a meter, and at an age of 600 years, the thickness is from 2 to 3 meters.

Thus, the data of real observations give completely different figures for the rate of soil formation than data from reference books on ecology, based on certain assumptions and empirical constructions.

This, in turn, means that a very thin layer of soil, which is observed in the belt pine forests of Altai, immediately followed by the parent rock in the form of sand, indicates that these forests are very young, they are at most 150, maximum 200 years old.

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