Questions to official confidants Masterk and Ikuv about their delight with absurd and contradictory pictures of alleged witnesses of the official version

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

Recently, one of the most popular bloggers of LiveJournal Trowel shared an old publication by Ikuva based on an even older article from the old Soviet magazine "Construction Industry" No. 4 1935.

And here is what an enthusiastic review Trowel wrote in the introduction:

Cool post, I read it with great interest and I advise you …

Weird. If a person read the post with great interest, then why did he not notice a lot of nonsense and idiocy in it?

Judging by the comments, these official believers believe that since there are drawings and texts about the manual construction of a giant megalith, then they confirm the official version by 100%. But how can pictures and words confirm anything? These are not photographs! In order to at least somehow believe the drawings, it is necessary that they do not contradict each other and are not idiotic in content.

And so, the quote:

Leafing through an old magazine, I found an article about how our ancestors, who lived 200 years ago, without any Komatsu, Hitachi, Ivanovtsev and other cutters, successfully solved a difficult and today engineering problem - they delivered the blank of the Alexander column to St. Petersburg, processed it, lifted and set up vertically. And it still stands. Vertically.

Prof. N. N. Luknatsky (Leningrad), magazine "Construction Industry" No. 13 (September) 1936, pp. 31-34

First minor remark. "For the seed." Why is there a completely different statue on the pillar? At the real monument, an angel with a cross stands with a raised hand. And he looks the other way. Google the photos if you don't know or look here:

And in the corners of the steps there should be square pedestals, but this is not in the picture.

Let's go further:

The stone was finally separated and overturned with levers and capstans on a prepared bed of branches thrown onto an inclined log grillage a layer of 3, 6 m.

So, the author of the text claims that the layer of branches for a stone blank is 3.6 meters. Take a look at the picture. The separated monolith is 7 meters thick. The layer of branches is 3.6, that is, the layer of branches should reach the middle of the monolith. And in the figure, the branches only slightly protrude above the lower line of the monolith.

First, a stone for a pedestal weighing about 400 tons (24,960 poods) was delivered; besides him, several more stones were loaded onto the ship, and the total weight of the entire loading was about 670 tons (40 181 poods); under this weight, the ship bent somewhat, but it was decided to install it between two steamers and tow it to its destination: despite on stormy autumn weather, it arrived safely on November 3, 1831.

Delivery of blocks for the pedestal of the Alexander Column

I liked that THE SHIP BENDED! under such weight. Here the question arises:

Why put extra weight on a unique vessel? Why bend the ship?

The extraction of a giant monolith at that time was very expensive and took a lot of time. And sail for about a day. By steamers then. The distance is about 200 km. Why not do 2 walks? Why risk a ship, a monolith and people?

In the figure, we see that

5 people are riding on the megalith. Without any handrails. There is nothing to hold on to, and the excitement is strong. Why risk their lives?

If a bent ship cracks, will these people glue it together on the go? Or will they hold 670 tons in the air while they bring up another ship?

Two hours later, the stone was already unloaded onto the shore with the help of 10 capstans, of which 9 were installed on the embankment, and the tenth was fixed on the stone itself and worked through the return block, fixed on the embankment.

Moving the block for the pedestal of the Alexander Column from the embankment

Explain here Why put one winch on the megalith as well? That on the whole Earth there was enough room for only 9 capstans, but there was no place for the 10th place?

To fix the capstan, you need to drill several deep and wide holes in the granite monolith so that the winch does not rip out later. After all, there are enormous efforts. Why spoil the future pedestal? What if it cracks from the stress?

Look also at the rope hanging from the top of the monolith, and which is drawn from the capstan set on the stone. This rope ends at the anchorage of the block that pulls this 400 tonne colossus. Further, this rope does not stretch anywhere.

Why is the rope wound on the capstan ?:

Moreover - this rope simply rubs against the edge of the granite block without any rotating block … Who does that? And pulling is an order of magnitude harder and the rope can burst from friction and the granite in this place will be deeply rubbed.

I quote further:

the column was moved by eight capstans, of which 6 were dragging the stone forward, and 2 located behind, held the column during its oblique movement due to the difference in the diameters of its extremities

Oh, I can't hold me tight. A mega mass of almost a thousand tons is pulled, and immediately braked by the tail.

This is the school of Solomon Plyar, Ballroom dance school, you are told.

Two steps to the left, two steps to the right

One step forward and two steps back

What prevented the narrower edge of the column from being pulled forward instead of holding the wider one? This is nonsense

We quote further:

28 logs, 10.5 m long and 60 cm thick, were laid on the dock and the ship; along them it was necessary to drag the column onto the ship with ten capstans located on the avanmole; in addition to the workers on the capstans, they also put 60 people in front and behind the column. to observe the ropes going to the capstans, and those with which the ship was secured to the pier. At 4 o'clock in the morning on June 19, Montferand gave the signal for loading: the convoy was moving easily along the slopes and was almost already submerged, when an incident occurred that almost caused a catastrophe; due to the slight inclination of the side closest to the pier, all 28 logs were lifted and immediately broke under the weight of the stone; the ship heeled, but did not capsize, as it rested against the bottom of the port and the wall of the pier; the stone slid to the sagging side, but lingered at the side of the dock.

Loading a column bar onto a barge

A military team of 600 people was summoned to help the workers; having passed a forced march of 38 km, the soldiers arrived at the quarry in 4 hours; after 48 hours continuous without rest and sleep workthe ship was straightened, the monolith on it was firmly strengthened and by July 1, 2 steamers delivered it to b. Palace Embankment.

Why did not the organizers of the loading insure themselves in advance by these 600 not sleeping and not resting heroes?

Still, for the first time in the documented history of mankind, 700 tonnes of stone were loaded onto a ship on boards. Not a joke. What if 28 boards crack? 2 years of work of hundreds of people - down the drain. Better to be safe.

You will laugh, but in a similar situation 8 years earlier, exactly 600 soldiers also participated with columns for St. Isaac's Cathedral:

On July 29, 1824, one ship with two columns sank between St. Isaac's Bridge and the Admiralty. The contractor Zherbin, who delivered the convoy, himself wished to unload the sunken ship. To do this, he hired 40 of his own workers and hired 600 more soldiers, having refused the services of Samson Sukhanov offered to him by Montferrand.

RGIA, f. 1311, op. 1, d.237, l. 18, 38 vol. - 40 vol. Excerpts and links are taken from: V. K. Shuisky. Auguste Moferrand. The history of life and work. - SPb.: OOO MiM-Delta; M.: ZAO Tsentrpoligraf, 2005. Pp. 98 - 101.

But, and that's not all. The same 600 people mined this column:

At the same time, Puterlax was employed in the quarry six hundred (600)people who worked under the guidance of a self-taught technician Vasily Yakovlev, a 20-year-old boy gifted with remarkable intelligence and organizational skills.

Isn't that too much of a coincidence with this 600 number?

I quote further:

The bottom of the river was cleared of the piles left over from the lintel after the embankment wall was built; the inclined granite wall was leveled to the vertical plane with the help of a very strong wooden structure so that the vessel with the column could come close to the embankment, without any gap; the connection of the cargo barge with the embankment was made from 35 thick logs stacked close to each other; 11 of them passed under the column and rested on the deck of another heavily loaded vessel, located on the river side of the barge and serving as a counterweight;

Not understood. Why would the second ship be heavily loaded? To sink faster, when the weight of the column also falls on it? Or how?

in addition, at the ends of the barges, 6 more thick logs were laid and reinforced, the ends of which were firmly tied to the auxiliary vessel on one side, and the opposite ones were extended 2 m to the embankment; the barge was firmly pulled to the embankment with the help of 12 ropes covering it. To launch the monolith ashore, 20 capstans worked, 14 of them pulled the stone, and 6 held the barge; the descent went very well within 10 minutes.

Again the same bullshit. 14 capstans pull the column, and almost half of this number are holding the barge.

What to keep her from? The barge is simply tied down. What other capstans? Why fence a garden?

This could be written only by those who were not at the scene of events and fantasized lying on the couch.

Further in the article by Ikuva-Masterk, whom they admire so much, more "proofs" are attached in the form of illustrations:

Moving the finished column: from the embankment to the overpass

At the beginning of the overpass

On the flyover

On the flyover

At the end of the overpass

The beginning of the rise of the column

Denisov Alexander Gavrilovich. The rise of the Alexander Column. 1832

The fact is that in these illustrations the biggest and most noticeable nonsense of Montferrand, which I described in detail in my old article

I will now repeat a small fragment from it.

First, let's pay attention to three little things, in which the devil is hiding again.

1. The column did not have a smooth barrel, but with a special annular protrusion at the far end (indicated by a red arrow).

2. There are no holes on the future top surface of the column.

3. On the circumference of the top surface there are no 4 notches along the edges.

4. The bow of the barge is dull like a bulldog's.

This is the first Montferrand

Let's also see what the barge looked like on page 59 of the album:

The profile of the barge is symmetrical and "blunt-nosed" - vertical nose and tail.

Official chronology:

July 1 - a ship with a column arrived in St. Petersburg and stopped at a wooden pier, specially built for this at the Palace Embankment.

July 12 - a column of 35 beams was rolled out onto the embankment. 768 people took part in the works.

August 28 - rehearsal for lifting the column trunk, raised by the collars to 20 feet

(In another source, it is added that they managed to polish it in St. Petersburg before lifting).

Here is a fragment of Montferrand's drawing of the first stage of transportation of the column along the Palace Square (61 pages album):

On July 12, the convoy was rolled out of the barge onto the shore. The marked annular ledge is visible, which was still during loading on the barge.

But, the bow of the ship is already completely different - of a modern type, sharp with a large angle of inclination, which makes sense for the high speeds of modern boats.

On the right and left we see a fence on an inclined plane.

This is the second Montferrand … Him:

1. Column with a collar in the middle.

2. All collars have at least 1 noticeable cut along the edges of these rings.

3. The bow of the barge is already inclined

4. There is a fence near the inclined surface.

On the next "frame" (page 63 of the album), the column was rolled up to an inclined surface:

8 wooden rails stretch along the inclined plane for the columns to roll over them. It is not possible to find out the presence of a ring on the column - the column is too far away. But the fence disappeared. But, a hole appeared at the top of the column in the center of the circle:

This is the third Montferrand … He has this version:

1. Column with a hole in the top end.(Perhaps this is the lower end of the column, if it was unrolled for some reason after unloading from the barge by 180 degrees, which is unlikely + such an arrangement will be seen in the following figures. Also, in all other figures in this study, the hole in the lower end will not be visible) …

2. There is no cut in the circles.

3. There is no fence.

On the next "shot" (page 64 of the album) the column was already rolled up. And lo and behold! The ring is gone! The column is now smooth. But the fence reappeared on both sides an inclined plane, on the mountain to bugbears! And there were 9 rails instead of 8. It is a pity, it is not possible to check the presence of a hole in the upper plane of the column. Maybe skeptics will be lucky with this element? Well, at least something should be true in the official version, except that the white bear is afraid of stuck skis.

Pay attention to the carriage that drives out from under the inclined bridge.

This is the fourth Montferrand! He has this version:

1. The column is smooth.

2. There is a fence.

3. Carriages are passing under the inclined surface.

The fourth frame from the 72nd page of the album:

The annular protrusion on the column shaft reappeared in all its glory, and the hole in the center of the upper surface of the column disappeared. Not a word of truth.

Fence and 2 rails (there are now 7 of them) on the ramp disappear again. It also shows that there are no horse passages under the bridge.

This is the fifth Montferrand with a version like this:

1. There is no fence (like the third Montferrand).

2. There is no hole in the center of the end of the column (the third had one).

3. On all three annular protrusions there are 1 or 2 slots (the second one is not visible from the bottom, it is closed by a column, and on the upper one there are already 4 slots visible.

4. There are no carriage passages under the ramp.

In another painting by Montferrand (p. 68), the capstans are on the same level as the column, there is no second level at all. (The same will be in Denisov's painting):

And the sixth Montferrand drew a column with 30 square protrusions:

In general, Montferrand could already be 6.

What does it mean? The drawings are not about the landscape, but about the column. She is the center of attention. And it is impossible not to draw a large detail for the entire circumference of the column in the middle of its trunk. How could Montferrand have forgotten about this ring in the intermediate drawing? I remembered my own production in the previous and next drawings, but forgot in the intermediate one? Why couldn't he look at the first drawing when he was drawing the second? And when he was drawing the third one, he didn’t look at the second one?

And how did no one point out to him an error during the drawing process or after? Did he paint all this as a hermit in the desert? Was there no one around?

I'm not talking about the fence that disappears and appears four times. Like fortune telling on a chamomile-appeared-disappeared-appeared-disappeared-loves-dislikes.

It's like an aircraft designer draws the largest plane, created personally by him and forgets how many wings he has - maybe 2 or 3.

But if we assume that all this was drawn not from nature, but according to imagination, if they were given the task to draw the process of installing a column of which no one had seen, then such errors can be imagined.

In addition to Montferrand, I found another artist who depicted an inclined plane. Surname Denisov. Here is a snippet of the picture:

But, the fence on it - "neither ours nor yours" - only reaches the middle. Friendship won. 1: 1. Hooray! Denisov chose the golden mean. A master of compromise. And the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe. He was able to please both Montferrand (or three or four).

Since, in the end, the column stands without a ring, the myth-maker who depicted the rise of the column might not know anything about the work of other myth-makers.

Most likely, other myth-makers think that the lower part of the column, below the "magic" ring, is sunk into the hole in the pedestal and therefore this part is not visible on the finished column.

In fact, according to the official version, the column stands on a smooth pedestal without any fasteners, which is also doubtful. Place the pencil upright on the table, how long will it resist in the event of minimal earthquakes or gusts of wind? Relying on accurate calculations is dangerous. So that it would not be like in the "exact calculation" in Puterlax when 28 boards cracked and the column fell into the water, but did not drown. There was a sad experience.

If Montferrand (or the one who was named after Montferrand, which, perhaps, did not exist in nature) had drawn in the second picture a column not straight, but curved or tied with a knot, would official scholarly historians not have noticed either? Even if on the column he wrote "Glory to the CPSU! Long live atheism and healthy skepticism! Lenin is with us!" would it still work?

After installing the columns, they could chop off the excess part needed only for lifting. But, how could this detail disappear at an intermediate stage, and then reappear? How can all this be combined? As they like to express in our Sirius "How to cross a snake and a hedgehog?"

Returning to the article by Ikuva-Masterk, which they admire so much:

The lifting of the column lasted 40 minutes;

Hello, we've arrived. Here are those on those!

All other sources have 105 minutes, but here it is 2.5 times less

I thought, maybe the original article in the magazine on paper is 100 minutes, but the one who copied on the Internet was mistaken. But, nothing like that. The original also contains 40 minutes. The scan is attached:

*

Finally, it should be added that over a year ago I already tried to get the author of the original publication, Ikuva (ig-kuv), into public discussion. He proudly and boldly refused to answer my questions.

The ig-kuv explained the contradictions and idiocy in Montferrand's albums by the fact that Montferrand painted it all allegedly 30 years after the column was installed. Therefore, I forgot and confused a lot. But, after all, Montferrand died after 24 years. In paradise, did he draw from memory? Or was he resurrected temporarily as Sukhanov?

I asked this weird hater for a link and a quote where he found these 30 years. He said the links are at the end of his article. There are only 2 references and none of them mentions these 30 years.

He began to twist, twist, snarl, laugh it off, wriggle, distort, be clever, but he never gave a link and a quote.

I quote our dialogue

Lev Khudoy Feb 15, 2015 18:17 (UTC)

-I didn’t find anything like that in those links. Please provide an exact link and a quote with the date of painting or engravings in 30 years.

ig_kuv Feb 15, 2015 18:21 (UTC)

- If you haven’t found it and don’t believe me, I don’t insist.

Lev Khudoy Feb 16, 2015 18:48 (UTC)

- Here are 2 links at the end of your article:

Which of them says that the writing of paintings or engravings was in 30 years?

Please provide an exact quote or admit that you are mistaken.

In this case, a fundamental question remains. How could the author and participant in the construction of the column draw the complete nonsense of a gray mare if he himself was in charge of the project?

Here you wrote:

"Montferrand's engravings were drawn 30 years after their construction"

And I say that they were painted at the time of the alleged construction (of course, according to the official false version of history). And you invented a 30-year break to justify the millions of contradictions and nonsense in the drawings of the author of the project himself.

Waiting for an answer. Wait. Apologized for the "mistake". Well done. But, he refused to answer further questions. But unlike other scoundrels, at least he did not ban me, but only said that he refused to answer my questions.