A classified Cyclopean structure on the site of the Alexander Column at the beginning of the 19th century

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

The infamous painting by Grigory Gagarin depicts the Alexander Column in the woods. The question is, what is this structure under the column that covers the pedestal? It turns out that Montferrand made a detailed drawing of this structure and even more questions arose.

Here is the notorious painting by the artist Grigory Gagarin, claiming to confirm the official version, which depicts a column in the woods:

There are no hints about the installation and, accordingly, the manufacture of the column. There is no inclined wooden flooring, ropes, capstans, that is, everything that is associated with the lifting of a 700-ton stone structure. This picture only shows the scaffolding that is being used for renovation work and not for installing the column. This corresponds to the alternative version, according to which our primitive civilization was only doing the repair of the column, installed by the previous high-tech civilization. So, Gagarin, most likely, is not involved in falsification.

The question is, what is this structure under the column that covers the pedestal? Let's say this is a temporary brick structure to support the wooden pillars of a tower. But why is it so dilapidated? In theory, it should be dismantled last, when the scaffolding is completely removed. After all, the forests rely on this structure. How can you first disassemble the support, and then what is on it? Absurd.

And why there is no official information that in the middle of the palace square there was some kind of grandiose structure, Mama, do not cry!

The history of the creation of the Alexander Column is described in two albums published by Montferrand in Paris. The "old" color album was published in 1832, the "new" black-and-white album in 1836 under the title "Plan and details of the memorial monument dedicated to Emperor Alexander."

The new album can be viewed on the website of the National Russian Library and here (Or in a slightly worse quality here

An old album of Montferrand uploaded on the website of the French National Library

The cyclopean dimensions of the structure are visible on page 57 of Montferrand's album:

Installation of a pedestal for a column. (The pedestal itself is much larger than its size, which we see under the column now. This is discussed in detail in my research "Unsolvable confusion of the official history in the size and weight of the pedestal under the Alexander Column"

Is the pedestal inside some kind of brick walls of a long corridor in the middle of an empty Palace Square? What kind of joke? The height of the walls is like a fortress - 5 human heights by eye, that is, 8-10 meters, 3 floors!

The dimensions of the impossible structure are precisely indicated on the previous 56th page:

Don't forget to click on the pictures to enlarge

Now attention. Wall thickness … Attention … drum roll … 2 meters! In the thinnest part. And on 2 adjacent corners of the square part around the place of the column installation the thickness of the walls is … 7 (SEVEN) meters

The height of the walls is 9 meters. This is a three-storey house

Now let's find out how this building is oriented on the palace square? The stone was unloaded at the nearest pier to the place where the column was installed. On the 54th picture of the album, where the beginning of the path of the pedestal from the pier is shown, to the right of it is visible the Peter and Paul Fortress, and even more to the right - the facade of the Winter Palace from the side of the Admiralty:

So, the stone was dragged along the same path as the column. That is, the 30-meter corridor, inside which the stone was dragged, starts from the side of the Admiralty.

Where did this huge structure come from? Either it was built a long time ago and was built by a previous civilization, or it was built just before the installation of the column.

According to the official version, of course, there was nothing on the square before the column - this is confirmed by several old art paintings with an allegedly empty palace square. So, according to the official bugbears, Montferrand built this structure for temporary technological purposes, and then it was taken apart brick by brick.

The only reason it needed to be built was for the supports of the future lifting tower for lifting the column. (Because after the installation of the column it was demolished). The shorter the wooden support, the stronger and more reliable it is. Thanks to these walls, the support pillars of the lifting tower did not begin from the ground itself, but 8-10 meters higher:

But, in this case, it is not clear why build a whole wall, if it would be enough to build several stone supports, like supports for a bridge? And why build long corridor walls where there will be no lifting tower at all?

For these purposes, the square part on the right in the drawing can be imagined, and a long 30-meter corridor with 2-meter walls does not apply to this in any way.

Further. This square room has only 3 walls. In place of the fourth is the end of the corridor. This means that the lifting tower has nowhere to support its vertical supports, which are 6 on each side. Namely, on the side where there is no wall, the lower, thicker and heavier side of the column was located just before the start of the process of lifting it.

So, this structure with 2-meter walls did not play any role for the supports of the lifting tower.

The column weighs 700 tons. Do you know how much only the 7-meter corner of this temporary structure weighs? 7 * 7 * 9 * 2.6 = 1200 tons! And the second corner is 1200 tons.

The 30 meter wall of the corridor is 2 meters thick and 9 meters high and weighs 30 * 2 * 9 * 2, 6 = 1500 tons. And there are two such walls. And also the walls of that square. In short, in order to lift 700 tons, a senseless stone fortress weighing about 10,000 tons is being built.

On page 65, Montferrand drew a top view along with a column:

Click to enlarge

As you can see, the two center lines of the vertical supports do not hit the walls of the structure, except for the rearmost pair. But they rely on the interior walls that have appeared from nowhere.

Figure caption:

Google translation:

And so, the masonry appeared where it was not on the previous schemes - on the previous ones there were only external walls, and now there were also internal ones, on which the tower itself rests, indicated by the masonry.

But, the question arises - why build 2-7 meter outer walls in the middle of the Palace Square, if the tower rests only on the inner ones? Exactly where the thickness reaches its maximum, 7 meters, there are no supports !!

My conclusion is that this structure, together with the inner walls, was there before the reconstruction of Montferrand, and for us they drew bullshit to explain why this structure was supposedly built.

Why were they drawn to us that at first there were supposedly no internal walls? To explain how the pedestal stone was dragged there. He would not have walked through the walls.

Compare with the aforementioned image of Gagarin:

We see this with high windows on the side of the building, where the thin part of the column was turned. A long corridor on the left side of the picture, from the side of the Admiralty. A stone and a column were dragged from there. This corridor is partially disassembled like a square room.

And this structure is also drawn on the 66th page of the Album:

It is difficult to understand from the drawing what kind of ladder-like things are. The distance between the rungs of the "stairs" is comparable to human height. Too large for use as ladders.

Here is the complete image from page 66:

ALL INCLINED MASTS REACH THE GROUND. There are 3 of them on each side

Now get ready for a sharp turn.

Before us is the 35th drawing from the 1832 album from the aforementioned website of the French National Library. library album released in 2012. A copy of the album is here

As you can see, all the inclined elements rest against the stone structure, none of them reach the ground. There are not 3 inclined beams on each side as in the new album, but 7.

The outermost sloped beams are supported by additional walls that are built at right angles to the outer walls. In this old album, again, the outer walls do not carry any significant load. Only the third row of supports farthest from the column rests on them. Moreover, even for these supports, only a small central part of the outer wall is required. The third part of the length. Why build another two-thirds is not clear. And the 7-meter corner walls do not bear any load at all. What were they built for?

The conclusion is unambiguous - Montferrand did not build external walls. He doesn't need them. But they did not interfere either. There is no sense in them, like from a goat of milk, but there is no harm either.

And the 33rd page of the old album. View from above:

In place of the seven-meter corner walls, ordinary walls are marked here. In the new album from 1836, there were 3 supports on the sides against 2 in the old album from 1832:

The question arises - why could the ancients use the structure from which these outer walls remained? Let's dream up. A stone corridor of 30 meters and a square room with a column in the center and very thick walls. It looks like an ancient spaceport. The column could be used as a guide rail for a large rocket. Or is it the rocket itself, petrified with horror. As Waduhan-08 wittily noted in the comments.

It may also have been a nuclear reactor. On top of the walls lay a heavy lid that was torn off after an uncontrolled reaction, like in Chernobyl.

Anyone who has other hypotheses - write.

An interesting version was suggested by one of my talented, pretty (by?) Reader, but out of modesty asked her not to be named. The column inside the square structure resembles the Indian composition "Yoni Lingam":

Yoni (Old Ind. Yoni, "source", "female genitals"), in ancient Indian mythology and various currents of Hinduism, a symbol of divine generating power. The yoni cult apparently dates back to the earliest period of Indian history, finding parallels in many other cultural traditions (antiquity, Taoism, etc.). … yoni is worshiped in conjunction with the corresponding male symbol - linga (creative principle); the specified couple symbolizes Shiva and his wife Parvati, and the object of worship is most often I am a stone image, where yoni serves the base of the phallus rising from it (lings).

Read more about this version here