Alternative history

The contradictions and absurdity of the official version of the construction of St. Petersburg

According to the official version, 200 years ago, the Alexander Column (AK for short) was lifted manually in 1 h 45 min. The weight of the column is 600-700 tons. Today, the largest tent in the world, Khan-Shatyr, was built in Astana. The best engineers of the modern world, led by Turkish engineer Selami Gurel, spent 2 days lifting the pylon weighing 1,500 tons.

In total, in the 21st century, with the help of machines, 2.5 times more weight was lifted 30 times longer than manually in the 19th century. Moreover, according to modern technology, the weight of the tower to be lifted does not affect the speed of ascent.

They told me that it’s incorrect to compare the lifting of an AK 26 meters high and the Khan Shatyr support tower to a height of 70 meters. That is, if the tower in Astana was raised to an AK height, then not in 48 hours, but in 17. Which is not 30 times more , but "only" at 10.

The Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow was built in the 19th century in 44 years, and in our time it was also built by the Turks in 5 years (from Wikipedia) after its destruction by the Bolsheviks. The column was installed 10 times faster, and the temple was built 9 times slower. That is, at about the same time, at the beginning of the 19th century, 2 objects in Russia were built with a difference in productivity of 10 x 9 = 90 times. This can be explained by the fact that the lifting of the column was manually invented. But the cosmic speed of the rise of the Alexandrian column is only the end of the matter. It was even more difficult to start, make it and bring it to St. Petersburg. In our time, we could install it, even for 10 times more time. But to create its modern technology is not yet capable.

The Alexander Column is the largest column in the world made from one piece of granite. Height is about 27 meters. It looks perfectly round (although no one has tested the ideal), polished to a shine. It does not have the shape of a cylinder, but a truncated cone, and even with a curved side line.

When I spoke with the restorer Vladimir Sorin on a completely different topic, he noticed, by the way, that the column has ... entasis.

Entasis (from the Greek. Ἔντασις - voltage), thinning - a smooth change in the diameter of the column section along the longitudinal axis from the maximum within the lower third of the trunk to the minimum at the end. It was used to create a visual effect of tension and eliminate the illusion of concavity of the column trunk

Mikhalovsky I.B. Architectural forms of antiquity. - 4th ed. - M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR, 1949:

If you put a round pillar (regular cylinder), then it will appear to our eye thickening up. To prevent this optical illusion, it is necessary to reduce the thickness of the column upward.

This thinning, very slight, ranges from 1/5 to 1/6 of the lower thickness: the upper diameter (or radius) is 5/6 of the lower diameter (or radius). However, usually the thinning of the column does not begin directly from below, but only starting from 1/3 of the height ...

To draw a curve, we use a special ruler, which has a variety of curvatures, called a “curve”.

Now attach this pattern to a granite block the length of a 10-story building and draw a smooth line with a sledgehammer and chisel. According to the official version, all this complexity is done manually. First, a giant rectangular beam was cut from a rock, it lay horizontally, and stonecutters did something unknown there, resulting in a giant, perfectly round, polished, very slowly tapering upward, starting from a third from the bottom, a truncated cone.

They tell us: “Look, just recently, without cars and computers, we built this column. Everything is documented! Just recently, and there is no doubt about manual labor!” It’s just that the main document doesn’t exist - how exactly did such complex shapes be given to such large blocks manually? Moreover, not only does this technical paper not exist on paper, but there is no oral knowledge of this technology.But it was all just recently! Less than 200 years ago. Therefore, there is no evidence of hand-made columns. It is only a matter of faith, like a religion. But religions arose thousands of years ago, so naturally the lack of material evidence. And the Alexandrian column appeared recently.

There are no reasonable explanations for the lack of evidence of its manual origin on paper and in the skills of stonecutters. Do it manually these days even made of wood! does not seem possible. Only on CNC lathe. And to make of granite beams weighing about 1000 tons in our time, it is impossible in any way, on any equipment. And all this was done only "for the prevention of optical illusion."

If we believe that in 200 years civilization has degraded so that we began to lift megagruises 30 times slower, then we must believe that we ran 30 times faster than we move now, on wooden accounts and in the column, calculations were made in 30 times faster than modern computers. This is quantitatively. And in the quality degraded over the past 200 years even more. There is no such CNC lathe that can turn a workpiece weighing 1000 tons. We cannot make such a column of granite for any time or for any money. And 200 years ago, they managed it manually for several months. Thanks to the “Russian” architect Augustus Augustovich Montferrand.

According to the official version, another Russian engineer named Betancourt collaborated with Montferrand. And their name was, attention ... also August Augustovich! And this is not a joke-joke. Imagine if Vladimir Vladimirovich was called not only Putin, but also Medvedev. President Vladimir Vladimirovich and Prime Minister Vladimir Vladimirovich Medvedev. Here is a scan of the page about him in the Brockhaus-Efron Encyclopaedia of 1891

Betancourt Augustine - Lieutenant General Rus. services (b. 1758, † 1824), ...

transformed the Tula arms factory,

built a cannon foundry in Kazan,

introduced new and improved old cars at the Alexander factory,

built the building of an expedition for the procurement of government securities (where he personally invented most of the machines),

huge Moscow exertsirgauz,

a guest yard for the Nizhny Novgorod fair and various other buildings.

According to B.'s project, the Institute of Railways was established in St. Petersburg, where he was appointed inspector.

Since 1816, Mr .. B. took the chair of the committee on urban buildings in St. Petersburg,

and in 1819 he was entrusted with the main department of communication. In this last post he remained until his death, which followed on July 14, 1824.

So far, a normal biography. St. Isaac's Cathedral and the Alexandrian Column have nothing to do with it. But, if he is such a talented person, and even not Russian, then it is necessary to hang on him the construction of Isaac! Not wild Russians, however, built such a beautiful cathedral from granite columns of 120 tons each!

Betancourt supervised the technical part of the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral

Source: "St. Petersburg. Petrograd. Leningrad: Encyclopedic Handbook. - M.: Big Russian Encyclopedia. 1992". It took some 100 years after the encyclopaedia of Brockhaus Efron, and he was already appointed the leader of Isaac. It takes quite a bit, the era of the Internet has begun and ...


Betancourt, Augustine Augustinovich Augustine de Betancourt and Molina, full name Augustine José Pedro del Carmen Domingo de Candelaria de Betancourt and Molina (Spanish: Agustín José Pedro del Carmen Domingo de Candelaria de Betancourt y Molina); ...

He took part in the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral.

He was buried at the Smolensk Lutheran cemetery in St. Petersburg.

The main scientific works "On the Expansion Power of Vapors" (Paris, 1790); "On the new system of inland navigation" (Paris, 1807); "Guide to the compilation of machines" (together with H. M. Lance, Paris, 1808, 1st edition; 1819, 2nd edition; 1840, 3rd edition, posthumous).

Works of Betancourt: 1817: Moscow Manege 1832: Alexandria Column

The engineer took an active part in the engineering side of the construction of the monument.

On Wikipedia, the date of Betancourt's death is 1824. And in the same article, he "took an active part" in the installation of the column in 1832. And it's not just Wikipedia. For example, look at what the great atheistic sages write on blogs who believe in the afterlife of Betancourt //

Under the leadership of Betancourt, restructuring of St. Isaac's Cathedral and the installation of the famous Alexander Column were carried out in St. Petersburg.

The engineer was personally involved in the calculation of foundations, designing scaffolding and lifting mechanisms. Augustine Betancourt passed away on July 26, 1824.

Here // it is described in detail with dates:

It is time to begin installing the columns on a pedestal. A.A. Betancourt also dealt with this part of the work. In December 1830, he designed the original lifting system.

This is the "Encyclopedia of Russian History." So, he was prolonged his life after death already until 1830. In the tourist project "Go Peter" he was given 2 more years to breathe fresh air:

August 30, 1832 ... to bring the column upright on Palace Square, engineer A. A. Betankur needed to draw in the forces of 2,000 soldiers and 400 workers, who installed a monolith in 1 hour 45 minutes.

Unfortunately, the authors of these articles do not indicate the sources of such information. The search for the source on the Internet about the “afterlife” of Betancourt yielded nothing. Hence, the authors draw these revelations from books. A couple of years will pass, and he will be credited with participating in the launch of the first satellite.

But I must admit, there are evil forces that do not allow a person to live peacefully after death. Betancourt is attributed not to active participation, but only to the use of his developments after his death. Indirect confirmation of the presence of man are his descendants. Augustus allegedly had a son Alfonso.

Wikipedia: Alphonse (Alfonso) Augustinovich Betancourt (1805-1875) - Russian military leader, lieutenant general ...

He died in 1875 (according to other sources in 18633).

Here are those on! All in the father! Dies twice with a difference of 12 years! Such a descendant is not reliable evidence of the reality of the parent. It is also alarming that he supposedly lived to the era of photographs, but his photographs could not be found, including in the Wikipedia article about him.

Do you think August Avgustovich Betancourt alone? Here // is another living in parallel with the first full teska:

Betancourt Augustin Augustinovich (1805-1863) general adjutant (1855-) In 1824, the chief manager of the Corps of Railways, honorary. tsp Russian Mineralogical Society of 1824

Here 2 biographies of Betankurov father and son are terribly mixed up. It turns out that at the age of 19 he became the chief executive and honorary member. And this promotion happened in the year of the death of Betancourt the father!

In 1821, Betancourt brought to Russia his nephew, the son of his sister. His name was also ... Augustine Moteverde-Betancourt. Monteverde - surname by father, Betancourt - by mother. In 1821, two Spaniards were added to the Corps of Railway Engineers. The first of these is Betancourt's nephew Augustine de Monteverde and Betancourt, aimed at building roads in St. Petersburg and Moscow, and later at organizing water supply to Odessa. The second is Miguel Espejo.

Researcher Valery Yermykin argues that Augustine Betancourt is one of the alternative names for Count Kleinmikhel Pyotr Andreevich. I have no desire and time to deal with this yet.

It is interesting to note that 2 "Russians" Augustus Augustovich Betancourt and Montferrand did 2 things: they solemnly raised the column, and solemnly opened the monument in 2 months in the month of August as well. August sits in August and chases in August.

Foreigners described the Russian workers who created this eternal perfection:

"They, these simple peasants in ragged short fur coats, did not need to resort to various measuring instruments; inquisitively glancing at the plan or model indicated by them, they accurately and gracefully copied them ... despite winter time and 13-15 degrees below zero, the work continued even at night.

Clutching the lantern ring tightly with their teeth, these amazing workers, climbing to the top of the forests (must be, for coconuts bananas - clarification of Leo the Thin), diligently carried out their work. The ability of even ordinary Russians in the art of fine arts is amazing. "

The one who wrote this, probably, never took the iron ring in the cold in his mouth. Freezes instantly. Ring in the teeth, ring in the nose. Also, this person ascribes to the ingenious builders of such perfect structures the lack of measuring tools. This is complete nonsense. Not only did they do everything by eye, but also at night by the light of a lantern. Moreover, the lantern in the teeth. Than not wild monkeys? Jumping on scaffolding with a flashlight in his mouth. And this monkey quote is in almost all sites dedicated to Peter.

It is still possible to restore old buildings from the previous Roman-Russian civilization. But do not build. A monkey can cover old cracks.

But even today, the mysterious builders of the past continue to be attributed to illiteracy:

Vladimir Sorin, artist-restorer: "There were no modern systems of calculation then. Therefore, Montferrand could only rely on intuition."

Recently, the eighth wonder of the world was tested for strength using modern technology.

The column, unlike the rest of the Palace Square structures, withstood the simulated earthquake of six points.

Good intuition, however! Wow. A long stick stands upright and does not fall from an earthquake. While everything will fall apart. Looking ahead, I will say that the column is not fixed in any way with the base. Just worth it. But, if we assume that Montferrand did not set up a column, but only put an angel on top of the antenna that was there, then he could really do without seismic stability calculations. These calculations were made by those who set the column before him.

Once a philologist, literary critic, biblical scholar, historian, etc. was invited to a television program. Sergey Sergeevich Averintsev. Before giving him the floor, the host began to introduce him to television viewers, listing for a few minutes all his regalia, titles, works, Soviet, Russian and foreign scientific awards, but stopped short, saying: “If I continue reading this list, then we don’t have enough airtime for the interview itself. " In 1990, he received the USSR State Prize for a fundamental research entitled “Myths of the World's Peoples”. In this study, in the article "Nikolai the Wonderworker," he writes:

underwent strong folklore mythologization, serving as a connecting link between pre-Christian personifications of beneficent forces and the newest children's Christmas and New Year "mythology" (Santa Claus - "St. Nicholas"; its modifications - "Father Christmas", Santa Claus). Traditions tell how already in infancy N. manifests himself as an example of ascetic virtue, refraining from dawn on his mother’s breasts on Wednesdays and Fridays, and later revealing a wonderful ability to stand immediately after birth (a common motif of Russian iconography) ... his cult on Rus up to the XVIII century. was grassroots, plebeian, merging on the periphery with relics of pagan bear cults.

Strongly said. He called the highest degree of religious obscurantism of the brain a bear cult.

But all plebeian, grassroots, relict, bearish religious cults were surpassed by the highly wise "scientifically" - atheistic cult. And also ... bearish.

A number of stone structures of the ancient world has gigantic dimensions and the highest complexity of forms, sometimes inaccessible even to modern technologies of the 21st century. From this it is concluded that before our civilization on Earth there was another highly developed civilization of the "gods". (By "gods" is meant any intelligent creatures, but not the people of our civilization.These can be aliens, aliens, dungeons, submariners, angels, demons, devils, snowmen, gnomes, elves, people of another civilization, etc.). Or it could be our highly developed ancestors before some kind of catastrophe and / or before the history was rewritten to us.

But there is a standard objection to this: "How is it! In the XVIII-XIX centuries, Peter was built without cars! So why couldn’t they build pyramids and other megalithic structures of the ancient world without cars ?!"

That is, the fact that Peter was built by ordinary people of our civilization using hand tools is presented as an obvious fact. But is it a fact? Is there any evidence?

What can be the evidence of the manual way of building Peter, and not empty chatter or a children's New Year's myth?

Such evidence can be ONLY an old document on paper with a technical description of the technological process of extracting a granite block from a rock and manufacturing from this block, for example, the complexly curved shape of the Alexander Column using hand tools.

Trying to find natural explanations for the emergence of the St. Petersburg megaliths, the traditionalists begin to speculate, hypothesizing how they could possibly cut out the Alexander column.

But the fact of the matter is that fortunetelling here is inappropriate! Fortune-telling is appropriate about the origin of the prehistoric megalithic structures of the ancient world. Such as Baalbek or Machu Picchu. Because there is nothing surprising in the fact that after thousands or millions of years, written information about the technologies for their manual production did not reach us.

And Peter was built just a few generations before us during the life of Pushkin. In a well-documented period when mountains of scientific and fiction were written in modern language. Not only literature, but even technical documentation in archives. And while there is not a word about the tools and method of manufacturing ideal columns from granite. The stone masons of the next generations have neither documents nor oral knowledge.

Why do we have to guess that it is antediluvian structures of extinct wild Neanderthals on the other side of the Earth, all of whose libraries were smashed by a fallen asteroid, burned down a fire and washed away the giant tsunami of the global flood 10,000 years ago?

Official science admits that the 600-ton Al. the column is not made of concrete in an easy way, but complex - of one giant piece of granite. (Similar to it, the Vendome column in Paris is made of separate small stone blocks, like an ordinary factory chimney, and is lined with bronze bas-reliefs on the outside).

To prove that Petersburg was not built from granite by representatives of another technologically advanced civilization, it is necessary to indicate the person who chopped pieces from a granite rock into pieces the thickness of a 3-story building and the length of a 10-story building. Guess what his name was? You won’t believe it, but his name was also ... August Augustovich! Already the third. It was my fun little joke. Allegedly, this method was developed and embodied by a Russian peasant with the Jewish name Samson, either Semenovich or Ksenofontovich, but definitely Sukhanov.

The bear is the largest predator on Earth. The polar bear is the largest bear. He is twice as brown.

In Wikipedia and other sources, its strength is characterized in such a way: Sometimes it overturns the ice floe on which seals are located below

Standing on 4 legs, it is almost as tall as a person at the withers. Standing on its hind legs, height 3.5 meters, that is, 2 human height. Running speed - 40 km / h. Modern white bears weigh up to a ton. But they have been crushed due to global climate change over the past 200 years. In the encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron, published over 100 years ago, weight is indicated: 1600 kg ("16 centners by weight")!

Samson Sukhanov lived another 100 years earlier. Maybe then the bears were even bigger. Quote from the same:

The polar bear is very wild, angry, bloodthirsty and very strong, moving irregularly rather quickly. B. bear defends himself with great courage and is a dangerous opponent, especially on ice, on which he moves boldly and confidently. They hunt B. bears with guns, but this hunt is often worth the life of a hunter.

Therefore, a polar bear is hunted in a different way, without a direct collision with it:

The natives use the following method for hunting a B. bear: a sharp strip of a whalebone, 4 inches long, is coiled, filled with seal fat, which is allowed to freeze, and then put as bait. When this bait gets into the stomach of a B. bear, the fat melts, the whalebone straightens and tears the stomach and other insides, and the animal gets round.

Anyone who believes that people built Petersburg with hand-made primitive tools should believe in this great atheistic wisdom from the site “Peter’s breath”:

Samson Sukhanov was born in the remote village of Zavotezhytsia of the Vologda province in 1768, in a field during a braid, and was the son of a shepherd ...

Remember this date of birth - 1768 ...

more than once went to animal fishing. Once I met face to face with a polar bear. The northern lord, without turning, went straight at Samson. But the guy did not back down. Understood: you can’t run, he’ll catch up anyway. I stuck the skis in the snow, because I knew that the bear would never throw himself on the skis, would circle around them.

Why won't the bear jump on skis? Who said? Why did the bear wait for Samson to remove the skis and put them in the snow? Did he play giveaways? How Samson was able to surround himself with an impassable stockade of just 2 skis! Mannerheim Line! The great Wall of China! He set up anti-tank hedgehogs. Bear enemy will not pass! The tundra is great, but nowhere to retreat! Looking ahead, I’ll say that after reading all the books and reviewing all the documents on the history of the construction of St. Petersburg, you can find anything but one - in what real understandable technical way were you able to cut giant pieces of granite by hand and cut out complicated forms of columns from them? You can find any nonsense up to protection from the evil polar bear with skis.

We continue to quote:

He put forward the horn and first went to the bear.

If the mountain does not go to Mohammed, then Mohammed will go to the mountain! Forward for the Motherland! For Stalin! For the official bearish version of the story! For the grassroots relict bear cult! Death to the bears! Checkers bare!

Don't let the enemy rock the boat

Soak everyone in this way

With a saber, a Cossack will rush to the tank.

If an enemy freak attacks our people,

Ataman, go ahead!

Checkers bare!

We continue to quote:

The bear stumbled upon a horn, broke it, and fell upon Samson with all its carcass.

Rogatina is poked with its rear end into the ground, so that the bear with its own strength will come across it. But how can you put a stalk in snow or ice? Moreover, it is written that Samson WENT with a horned bear to a bear, but did not rest it on something and did not stand still! Rogatina is made from a sturdy stick.

Can you imagine Samson holding his stick with his hands so tightly that he cracked from the onslaught of a polar bear, but did not let go of his hands? The sturdy slingshot broke, which means that Samson rested his feet in the snow with more force than needed to crack a sturdy wooden stick for hunting a polar bear. But the snow is slippery. This is impossible in any way. But the bear on ice is "very dexterous" as we read above. This is his native element. He is on ice, like a fish in water.

He was not taken aback, pulled out a knife from behind his bootleg and thrust it into the beast's side. He returned to the winterhouse with a bear mark across his face from his forehead to his cheek.

A bear has any skin thick. And white and even more so. Plus a very thick thick coat to swim in ice water for hours. And under the skin a thick layer of fat, like all northern animals. So what if he stuck a knife under a bear? Did the bear die instantly? In order for the bear to die immediately, it must be at least divided into 2 parts along the body. For example, a burst of six-barrel drum machine gun. And even better in 4 parts. Otherwise, a wounded bear will calmly bite a man. Or just crush it with its weight.

Why didn’t he go on a bear hunt with a gun, because the guns were already then? It’s the same as hunting tanks with a checker, having a cannon. Let me remind you that even hunting with a gun often ends in the death of a hunter. Because not only a knife, but also a bullet cannot overwhelm a bear.Therefore, they prefer to tear it from the inside with a bait from a sharpened whalebone. Outside, you can't even take a bear with a gun.

He returned to the hibernation with a bear mark across his face, from the forehead to the cheek. The polar bear has claws of about 10 cm (on the right). This is for the modern. And we read that 100 years ago they were twice as large.

If he leaves a mark on his face ... "through the whole face, from the forehead to the cheek."

In fact, there is no “whole face” between the forehead and the cheek. The forehead passes into the cheek through the eye. Maybe through the whole eye, and not through the whole face? Sukhanov would have returned without an eye.

Another quote:

The power of this beast is truly amazing. He is able to pull a walrus carcass weighing more than half a ton onto the ice and lift up the slope. A lahtak seal, weighing not much less than the bear itself, can be killed by a predator by crushing the victim’s skull with the only crushing blow of its paw and, if necessary, moving the carcass in its teeth up to a kilometer away.

But Samsonchik only left a scratch.

On the left in the photo is the paw of a brown bear. White has twice as much. pay attention to

claw size. It’s a pity I didn’t find a photo of a polar bear’s paw on a man’s background.

Quote: In the spring of 1785, the artel returned to Arkhangelsk with walrus fat and fangs, blue fox skins, eider down, bear skins (two of them were Sukhanov's trophies)

Wow! It turns out that he failed not one, but two polar bears in hand-to-hand fighting! Pay attention to the date. Spring of the year 1785. And then he was born in the summer of 1768! So, he will turn 17 years old in the summer of 1785. That is, he flunked both polar bears at 16! It is a pity that by that time mammoths became extinct. And then Samson Sukhanov would have fallen in batches.

Here is the second version of his biography from 1818 from a chronicler with a beautiful native Russian name Svinin (this is not a joke!):

To all art lovers, Samson Semenovich Sukhanov is known in St. Petersburg for a very skilled mason-sculptor ... His father Xenophon ...

Patronymic Semenovich, and father - Xenophon. This is a typical example of zoological idiocy.

So Semenovich or Ksenofontovich? And this confusion is repeated in almost all sources. By the way, why, if not Russian, then the surname is beautiful - Montferrand, Betancourt, but as Russian, then immediately Svinin! As if inventing all these people, they specifically sought to humiliate the Russians. Comrade Svinin continues:

His mother fed on winter alms, and in the summer she lived in women workers, where she was born in a haymaking in 1766.

It is a pity that Svinin did not tell who she gave birth to on a haymaking - from Semyon or Xenophon? This is the second version of the biography. In the first, he was born 2 years later. Probably, in the 66th year he was born from Xenophon, in the 68th - from Semyon.

Further we learn that these were night battles with bears in the polar night. The competition of zoological bear idiocy continues:

On October 1st, the sun went down, deep darkness fell ... Once Samson, walking along a mountain with one of his companions, met a terrible polar bear. The beast walked right at him on its hind legs with its mouth open and a terrible roar.

So where did the bear come from! He, too, is depicted on his hind legs and with his mouth open!

Let me remind you that wild Russian monkey builders, galloping through the scaffolding in the cold, also worked in the darkness of the polar night, for which they kept a lantern ring in their teeth.

The night Samson, left by his companion, crossing himself, puts his skis in the snow *), takes the horn in his hands, strives to attack his opponent and, fortunately, gives him a deep wound in his side: when the bear sees the flowing blood, he gives himself up to flight **) and in view of the winner falls from exhaustion.

It turns out that the bear did not lean on Samson, but, on the contrary, ran away with a fright! So what did the bear do: cowardly ran away or courageously piled on? The authors of this idiocy did not take into account the main thing. A bear never runs away after being injured. It is on this principle that the method of hunting a bear with the help of a staghorn is based. The bear stumbles upon it and by its own strength continues to plant on it, despite the pain. Samson’s bears are kind of timid. They are afraid to get around skis stuck in the snow, or they are afraid of knife wounds.These are some kind of anti-Medved, or false Medved.

Samson, with the help of his cowardly companion, completes his victory with a few blows, takes off his skin and returns triumphantly to his home.

I can imagine what kind of picture it is. Attack a wounded polar bear. The wounded is not dead. He is even more dangerous than not injured. And these 2 comrades boldly rolled up to him.

In January 1785, it happened to him, again alone, to attack this beast, and then he, not with cowardice, but with good spirits, went straight at him and defeated him.

It turns out that the first bear was running away, and the second was piled on. So bears are fearful or brave?

And then he attacked the dinosaur and defeated, and then - on the three-headed Serpent-Gorynych. And when the fascist bastards attacked holy Russia, the granite-breaker Samson attacked the Panther armored tank with a horn. The tank broke the slingshot, piled all the armor on the granite breaker, and the granite breaker tore the caterpillar with the bare hands of the tank, took out a knife from the shaft and removed the armor and a piece of meat from the tank. And another tank was running away from Samson. But Samson caught up and also took the hide. And then he went out with a horn to the armored train and defeated him. And then on the battleship and drowned him. And when he was a little atheistic boy Samsosha, he dived into the water and drowned a large white shark, whale and sperm whale. Samsosha without arms 2 and a half tons of bears failed, and wild Russian monkey-builders without any measuring instruments built the most beautiful city. One-sided fantasy.

And here is the third version of Samson’s biography from the bibliographic encyclopedia:

Born on June 27, 1776 in the Eva parish of the Vologda province, died in the 1820s. So, he was born first in 1766, then in 1768 and 1776. Accordingly, he went to a bear at the age of 8. He died in the 1820s. It would seem that 3 birthdays with a spread of 10 years is enough. But it was not there. Bear-itching itching. How the hell out of the snuffbox it pops up //

Time has not been kept at home or the relatives of the unsurpassed master. There are only documents left that allow us to talk about this amazing person - Samson Ksenofontovich Sukhanov.

The first biographer of S. Sukhanov was the publisher of the journal "Domestic Notes" P. P. Svinin, who published a large article - a biography. The work contains a lot of valuable information, however, as shown by many years of research by prof. N.P. Borisova and prof. N.F. Khomutetskogo, the article made a number of inaccuracies and even errors.

Including the year of birth of the master is incorrectly indicated. The study and verification of the life data of S. Sukhanov now gives reason to say that Samson Ksenofontovich was born in 1769 in the village of Zavotezhitsa, near the village of Krasnoborsk (now the Arkhangelsk region).

That is, according to updated data, he soaked the bears at the age of 15. We continue to read:

In 1837, his property was sold at auction at the expense of the cost of the barge with sunk on Lake Ladoga with pedestals for the monuments to M. Kutuzov and Barclay de Tolly. New pedestals had to be made with our own money.

Well here again! We read in a previous source that he died in the 20s! But it turned out after 1837 he was again alive. Samson is Risen! Truly risen!

They link to the document:

In one of the archives of prof. N. Khomutetskiy discovered an exciting document about the last years of the master’s life ...

The third source states that the petition was filed in 1840:

The Sukhanov family was completely ruined. This is evidenced by the petition to the Grand Duke of October 5, 1840 (this document was discovered by a researcher of Russian art, Professor N. Komuzhetsky).

But we just read that Khomutetskiy discovered him.

In the document, the old master writes about the misery that his family found himself in and asks to give out "... for the best nutrition of the family, the most gracious help." The request, apparently, remained unanswered, but this document helps to establish an approximate date for the death of the famous stonecutter. Samson Sukhanov died in complete poverty in the forties of the last century.

So, for the time being he was born 4 times - in 1766, 1768, 1769 and 1776 - and he died only 2 times - in the 20s and 40s! The spread of 4 dates of birth is 10 years, and two dates of death - 20.

And why was he born 4 times, and only two fathers? And because Semyon and Xenophon 2 times became his fathers. But the mother remained a virgin.

We read further // and then the turn of Strelka Vasilievsky Island came. Artel Sukhanova appeared on Vasilyevsky Island in 1803. She was faced with earthwork and stone work. Earthly: to raise the low bank and in front of the Exchange building, having crowded the river, fill the area, put it in granite. According to the drawings of I.P. Prokofiev, Samson Ksenofontovich carved Neptune with a trident and a chariot, the goddess of Navigation with Mercury and two rivers. They decorated the facade and the opposite side of the Exchange. Five years the artel Sukhanova dressed in granite the cape of Vasilyevsky island, and then the Rostral columns were created.

People went to the artel willingly. We saw: he is a fair, experienced person, a noble, meticulous master - in his free time he learned to read and write, learns to read architectural drawings - you won’t get lost with this.

This is especially for those who believe that the evil wild Russian tsars of the people drove people to the quarries like slaves.

And then there were the columns of St. Isaac's Cathedral. On the tower of the Admiralty are carved statues of soldiers. His artel dressed the Kryukov Canal with stone and built an almost 100-meter Blue Canal, a bridge in Pavlovsky Park, and a huge stone bath carved from a single piece of granite in the Babolovskiy Baths, and in Moscow a pedestal for the monument to Minin and Pozharsky.

Samson Sukhanov did a lot for the city on the Neva. But his old age was difficult. By the middle of the XIX century, when classicism began to go out of fashion, the number of customers in its artel reduced. The strip of failures began. He died as poor as he came here from under Vologda.

Who cares what style? The main thing is to be able to cut a stone. Although in the Rococo style, even Baroque. He fashioned Neptune according to the drawing of I.P. Prokofiev. The style is set not by the mason, but by the artist. And the cutting of blocks in the rocks generally does not depend on the style of fashion. If the fashion for blondes has passed, then a good photographer will not be able to photograph brunettes, and he will begin a streak of failure? Why did he come up with the name Samson? Because Samson (Hebrew שִׁמְשׁוֹן, Shimshon) is an Old Testament hero judge, famous for his extraordinary physical strength:

“And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he tore the lion; but he had nothing in his hand” (Judges 14: 6)

It was in honor of him that they named the Russian fairy-tale hero. The biblical Samson tore the lion, the largest predator in those places, and the Russian Samson, the polar bear, also the largest predator in its places.

"Samson" - the central fountain of the palace and park ensemble of Peterhof sculptor Mikhail Ivanovich Kozlovsky, "Samson tearing apart the mouth of a lion."

A. M. Platunov, the author of the solid work “That was how Petersburg was built” (published in 1997), wrote in a footnote: “Samson is an ancient Greek mythical hero who was credited with supernatural physical strength and courage.” Thus, according to the will of Platunov, Samson "migrated" to ancient Greek mythology.

He found a fresh donkey jaw, extending his hand, took it, and killed a thousand people with it. (Judges 15:15)

Well, well, object, how can he be a fictional character? After all, probably there is his grave?

I quote: We do not know either the year of the death of the great master, nor the place where he was buried.

So he ascended into heaven! On the chariot of fire! Harnessed to angels with faces of polar bears and butterfly wings! Samson is risen! Truly risen! Atheists came in the morning to pray to Samson, and the grave is empty. And only an angel in white clothes says, "What have you come to look for the living among the dead?"

In books about the city, art critics did not even mention his name.

What could be the best evidence of the non-existence in nature of this Samson? The books about Peter have not been mentioned before, and then suddenly it burst - appears in almost all books about Peter. After all, one must ascribe to someone a mysterious method of cutting granite for all of St. Petersburg.

How can one not know the place of burial and the year of death? And the children don’t know him either? And grandchildren? After all, he was married, according to their version. Her name was Evdokia Pravdina. That’s where the name of the Pravda newspaper came from!

For a long time we did not even know what he looked like.

Once, an old canvas was found at a Moscow collector. Under a thick layer of soot and dirt it was impossible to make out what was depicted on it. But the restorers are still interested in the canvas. Centimeter by centimeter, they began to clean it and saw the artist’s signature: "Vasily Tropinin", the author of many paintings and portraits of famous people.

When the canvas was completely cleaned, it turned out to be a portrait of an old man standing near a wall. Nearby is the circular base of a mighty stone column. In the hands of an old man a stone-carving hammer. Found that this is Samson Ksenofontovich Sukhanov.

As established - science is not known. Installed and all. Once a man with a hammer, then only Sukhanov. But if we believe in two polar bears who died in hand-to-hand combat, then we will believe in this. We are now all for nothing. That is, on the shoulder.

A slight zoological idiocy from another source:

The village priest found him a rare name - Samson - probably not knowing that according to ancient myths Samson is an extraordinary strongman.

Well, come up with such a thing that pop does not know the biblical story about Samson. Priests not only do not read the Bible, but have never even seen it! The village doctor or the shoemaker may not know, and that is unlikely. But just not pop. In those days, everyone knew the Bible. At least the main biblical stories.

The myth-makers also took the surname Sukhanov by chance. Sukhan is also a hero, but Russian. In the “TALK ABOUT SUKHAN” by an unknown author of the 17th century, over 90-year-old Sukhan uprooted a young oak tree and killed the Tatar army with this oak tree, after which it was shot from a cannon:

In the city of Kiev, speed with the headman,

Under the Grand Duke Manamakh Vladimirovich,

There was a hero old kind,

Bigger than ninety b ...

And Sukhan went to the green oak,

And the green cheese holly ran over

Yes, I pulled out evo and with the root,

Yes, he doesn’t go with him ...

Mother of Sukhanov cried ...

And she carried the evo into the stone cave:

"Here you, Sukhanushko, mortal stomach in the armory."

It turns out that more than 90-year-old Sukhan had a mother who was alive, that is, she was at least 110 years old. So what do we have in the bottom line? Samson Ksenofontovich Sukhanov, son of Semyon, three times born and twice dead, chopped off giant granite blocks and shaved them to perfect forms, and installed megaliths in a hurryAugust august Augustus Betancourt and living Russian architect Monferrand, also Augustus Augustovich.

Wikipedia Pay attention to his second last name.

Pavel Petrovich Tugoy-Pig (1787-1839)

Born in the estate of Efremovo, Galich district in the family of fleet lieutenant Pyotr Nikitich Svinin and Ekaterina Yuryevna Lermontova. The poet M. Yu. Lermontov was his cousin.

It is not clear where his name Tugoy comes from. He attributed two fathers to Samson Sukhanov, perhaps because he himself had 2 fathers, and one of them was Tight?

He served in the Moscow Archive of the College of Foreign Affairs.

In all of his many pursuits, Svinin was an amateur.

... in literary society, Svinin was treated mostly ironically because of his tendency to exaggerate with a touch of sensation, and also because of his willingness to serve the authorities (his brother was married to the sister of the powerful P. A. Kleinmichel).

Both Pushkin (the fairy tale “Little Liar”) and Vyazemsky (epigram “What is Good,” the Calculating Svinin Says “) taunted him with evil.

Even Pushkin called him a "little liar"! And modern scientists consider him a great truth, who compiled the true biography of Samson Sukhanov!

Svinin's “restlessly exaggerated patriotism” was manifested in his enthusiasm for historical fiction and in the fact that “for each book in his journal he created some sort of Russian self-taught genius”

Still have questions? Finally, here is Pushkin's fairy tale about Pavel Svinin:

Pavlush was a tidy, kind, diligent boy, but had a great vice. He could not say three words so as not to lie.Daddy gave him a wooden horse in his name day. Pavlusha assured that this horse belonged to Charles XII and was the one on which he rode from the Poltava battle. Pavlusha assured that in the house of his parents was a cook-astronomer, a forreitor-historian, and that the house Proshka wrote poems better than Lomonosov. At first, all the comrades believed him, but soon guessed, and no one wanted to believe him even when it happened to him to tell the truth. //

Official historians with a very smart look like to mock all sorts of miracles. What other plates ?! What other little green men! This is all nonsense! Ha ha ha And their official truthful stories themselves build on the works of pathological liars who cannot say three words so as not to lie.

A separate topic on the biographies of petro-builders: the main builders of St. Petersburg have neither graves, nor posterity, nor portraits. Because they were not invented.

The Alexander Column is made of granite of a special, pinkish color and is called "rapakivi".

On August 30, 1834, on the feast of St. Alexander Nevsky, at 12.30 am, under the salvo of artillery fire, this monument was unveiled to the victory of Alexander I over Napoleon. The military parade lasted 3 hours.

Column height without an angel and a pedestal according to various sources from 25.6 m (Wikipedia) to 27.5

Different sources cite the same data: "The lower diameter of the column is 3.5 m (12 ft), the upper is 3.15 m (10 ft 6 in)." This is the shallow start of official absurdities, for the ratio is 0.9 meters for feet and 0.883 for feet.

The chronology of events according to the official version is as follows:


For the granite monolith of the column, a rock was used, which was processed in 1830 - 1832 in the Pyaterlak quarry between Vyborg and Friedrichsham. A prism was cut off from the rock, significantly exceeding the size of the future column.

The story of the creation of the Alexander Column is set out in two albums published by Montferrand in Paris. The "old" color album was published in 1832, the "new" black and white 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 //

The old Montferrand album is available on the site of the French national library // (or with lower quality here //

Album Title:

Auteur: Ricard dit de Montferrand, Auguste (1786-1858). Illustrateur

Sujet: Saint-Petersbourg, Colonne Alexandrine, v. 1832

Date de mise en ligne: 02/24/2012 Album of 1832.

To the site of fr. libraries laid out in 2012.

Here's what the official white-bearish version says and shows:

Thanks to the efforts of the workers and Yakovlev's resourcefulness, it was possible to safely break off a block of granite a little more than 30 meters, and about 7 meters thick. The weight of the block was over 230 thousand pounds. (about 4000 tons, or 70 railway freight cars, that is 2-3 trains!).

What is this? How can you break a block of 7 meter thick? Why would 7 meters break away? This is 4 human height! Why should a 7-meter break away if the column is 3.5 meters thick? Exactly 2 times thinner. Why create an extra job in advance? And to chop off such a lump is more difficult, and then also cut off excess from the lump. What for? Maybe they wanted to make two columns? Then, let's calculate what is the height of the column blank? The density of granite 2.6. We consider 4000 / 2.6 / 7/30 = 7.3 m.

That is, a square blank in the cross section was cut down, each side of which is twice as thick as the future column. So, exactly 4 columns could be cut from it! Where are the other 3 columns? In Baalbek?

So Montferrand depicted in his album of 1836 on page 51 the separation of a stone block from a rock. And in this state the quarry was most likely already in 1830, at the beginning of cutting, for this is the initial stage of the process. Because in June 1832 the convoy was already taken away from there.

Please note - with a sledgehammer, they thrashed vertically from top to bottom to separate the horizontal workpiece from the rock on the side. This is clear. But how to separate this workpiece from below? Text sources are silent about this. (I have not found). Judging by the drawing, the men gnawed under a block (7 meters), making a deepening above human growth, so that, standing under a block, wave a sledgehammer from top to bottom.

Then the question arises - did they put supports under this blank so that it would appear on them after cutting from the side? Or, after chopping, did she fall freely from a height of 2.5 meters? And if a 4000 ton granite monolith crack when dropped? All the titanic work of hundreds of people in vain?

But, most importantly, what kind of scrap should be in order to chip 7 meters of granite? Where are such 7 - meter crowbars taken?

The figure really stands a man with a long object, like a crowbar! Maybe this is a ruler? I have highlighted a fragment of the figure, where a man stands with such a long object of 3 human height, that is, no more than 6 meters. Maybe it’s already scored 1 meter? And how to hit such a crowbar with a sledgehammer from above? In a jump or on a stepladder? What kind of jokes?

And further. If you beat a crowbar of such a length, then nothing will be beaten out. He will bend himself from the blows, "play." It’s the same as trying to hammer a thin nail half a meter long. There are no absolutely solid materials. Upon impact, any scrap is compressed to a fraction of the length. The greater the length, the more it will shrink and bend from the impact, not bringing the force of the impact to the opposite end. In general, we assume that this is not scrap, but a measuring tool.

To separate a thick block, it is not necessary to punch holes to the entire thickness, it is enough to make a hole to a small part of the thickness, and then the granite will crack to the entire thickness.

Here, for example, is an old American pattern of chipped granite with traces of such holes only part of the length of a chipped block: Taken from here //

Here is a page from the "stone blog" where modern examples of chipping with this method are shown //

Here's what the wedges look like:

And now let's see a picture of the same Montferrand from his earlier album of 1832:

Aligned the top of the hill. I would not be surprised if the stone rock was aligned just above the workpiece for the column. But, we see that they are aligned right up to distant trees about a hundred meters. What for?

But even more surprisingly, there is no 2.5 meter undermining below. Moreover, it will not be. Because the granite rock sticking out of the ground just has a height of 7 meters (more than three human growths).

So the question remains open. Nevertheless, we see a very clear, even line under this block:

Perhaps the granite layer was limited from below, that is, the granite rock did not go to the depth, but stood on some surface or different layers of granite lay on top of each other? But why is the dividing line so smooth as if artificial?

This is reminiscent of new circumstances discovered in 2014 during excavations in Baalbek. It turned out that the famous South Stone was most likely cut off from the bottom of the cliff by a horizontal section. The cut line was exposed when the soil layer under the stone was removed:

Maybe, of course, this is just a line only around the megalith, but not through, no one has yet checked whether it is through. To check, you need to lift this brick with a jack from one end, which is quite real. There are jacks of hundreds of tons. But I could not imagine how this horizontal cut along the stone could be made. The first thing that comes to mind is that two people will stand on opposite sides of the stone, pull a string or cable and start sawing as they walk along the stone.

But how to maintain a straight line? Then it is necessary to extend the guides along the megalith, and 2 carts with a string stretched between them will go along them. If the string breaks, you will have to cut again from the very beginning. To avoid this, you need to do a thick cut and lay some kind of support so that there is a gap between the surfaces, and one end of the string could be inserted into this gap. But where did the backwater go after the whole process? Maybe they have already flattened and rotted, or they were made of ice and have already melted and absorbed. This is my very approximate fantasy, I do not pretend to be correct. Just think out loud. Suggest your versions in the comments,

The second version is high-tech.Andrey Sklyarov in the last expedition to Baalbek in March 2014 saw an amazing cut of zero thickness. Moreover, not through !!!


Most likely, it was made by a beam cutter of an unknown high-tech design. Such a beam could well make a cut under this megalith. Details of the new discoveries in Baalbek are here //

Nowadays, they cut underneath with giant saws. Disk, chain, cable (rope). Here's a modern outline: Watch a Jewish folk science-fiction video about this method // But, how did the ancient Jews cut off this block from below before chopping it to the side? This question is ignored by the Jews.

And further. On a Jewish video, each lever is pulled by one hero. And in the Russian version of 40 heroes Sukhanovtsy:

iron gutters were inserted into them, and two forged wedges were inserted into the gutters. At the command of the hammer thieves, heavy sledgehammers simultaneously hit wedges until a crack appeared in the rock. Iron levers with rings and ropes were inserted into it. For each rope, 40 people simultaneously took and pulled.

Well, what thickness should the iron levers be so that they do not bend from 40 heroes? After all, what is leverage? This is a long stick in which the axis of rotation is very close to one end and very distant from the other, for which 40 people are pulled.

Montferrand pleased us with the picture of pushing this block on the 52nd page of the album:

We do not see at all what we hear (read). Not a 4000 ton block is pushed back, but a finished rectangular beam with a thickness of 2 human height, that is, 3.5-4 meters, whose weight is already close to the weight of the column - about 1000 tons:

To measure the thickness of the monolith, I put 2 people from this drawing - one closer to us, the second a little further. Obviously, the thickness of the monolith is about 2 human growths, and not at all 4. They write that they moved the block 7 meters thick, and draw 3.5. It’s not anyone who draws, but the best draftsman and architect of the time, project manager Auguste Montferrand. He cannot make a twofold mistake in the proportions in the foreground of the picture.

Another mystery. In the first picture from the same album there was a rock about 10 meters high. In the second picture from the old album, she left an aligned rock 7 meters high. Now we see only 3.5 meters. Moreover, not only the blank for the column, but also the rest of the rock of the same height. The question is, where is the remainder of the rock behind this workpiece with a height of almost 3 such workpieces?

The top of this rock should reach the upper end of the levers shown in the figure! And where is she? Look again at the first drawing of the quarry. Where did the whole stone hill fail? Or did he fly away? Instead, the figure shows a pile of rounded boulders of natural origin. The granite hill was also cut into pieces, and boulders were dragged into their place? The peasant’s strength is nowhere to go, they sit all day at offices at computers, and, therefore, did useless work to warm up?

And, the question arises: who and how kept these long pillars from tipping over? These 10 meter poles with ropes are in unstable condition. And they are not just buried in the ground, but stuck in a long gap. And these pillars will begin to be pulled by 40 men, they will swing. Why don't they fall? Especially after the block is overturned. And if they fall, then a little will not seem. The thickness of these pillars is about a meter. And the men are right under the pillars. Here's what the official historians write further:

The blocks broke off the cliff so evenly that foreign engineers could not understand how this master, who was not knowledgeable in geometry, carried out his exact calculations.

Calculation can be done, the paper will endure everything, but how to chop off so smoothly? Is it really in the calculation?

I quote further the official version:

For two years (1830-1831) day and night, on weekdays and on holidays, a relentless knock of a sledgehammer was heard on the rock. Along the cliff stood up to 400 workers.

What could 400 workers do there? How many workers with sledgehammers can fit on 1 meter? From force 3, if each three workers will be in a line perpendicular to the fault line (two with sledgehammers and one scrap holder between them). This means that 81 workers will become the entire length of the workpiece. I was not too lazy, counted the people in the above figure of Montferrand. I read 80. This is real. And where to cram another 320?

We read further the official version:

Up to 400 workers stood along the cliff, some of them holding long, steel-bound crowbars in their hands, directing them vertically to the mountain.

For each such scrap two people alternately beat with sledgehammers. It was especially difficult for those who held crowbars: the concussion from the blow of the sledgehammer was transmitted to the whole body, and the terrible clang caused deafness. After two or three months, it was necessary to change workers: some of them became deaf, others received paralysis of the hands.

And what is this madness? Why was this “concussion from the blow of the sledgehammer transmitted to the whole body, and the terrible clang caused deafness” only for those who held the “bound” crowbars? Guys with hammers were in headphones, and crowbar holders without? Is it a problem to stick plugs in everyone’s ears? And what, the blow did not act according to Newton's first law with the same force on a sledgehammer? Or were the sledgehammers soft rubber? But, most importantly, why should anyone keep crowbars? Is it impossible, perhaps, to build something like a stool with a hole for scrap in the center to keep the scrap upright? Maybe even put people to support the pants to the hammers instead of buttons and belts? Better let more men work with sledgehammers. A stool with a hole can hold crowbar, but a stool cannot beat it - only men can.

In Puterlax’s career, 600 people were simultaneously employed under the guidance of self-taught technician Vasily Yakovlev, a 20-year-old young man gifted with a remarkable mind and organizational abilities.

Just because they wrote about 400. Although, only 80 were located in the figure. Now 200 more total 600. Who is more?

So, a new granite breaker surfaced. 20 year old self-taught. With a completely Russian name and surname. Samson Sukhanov has a Jewish name, and Yakovlev has everything Russian. How so? What is he laughing at us ?! Here is an excerpt from the book. Stepan Balashov, "Alekseevs":

Vasily Abramovich Yakovlev (1806-1848), the grandfather of K. S. Stanislavsky and his brothers and sisters. He was a major contractor for the supply of stone for construction projects in St. Petersburg and worked with the architect O. Montferrand - in particular, he supplied granite for the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral and the construction on Palace Square in front of the Winter Palace of the Alexander Column, erected from two solid, cut from a natural massif blocks.

What other two blocks? Is this another official version?

Vasily Abramovich, an educated man, often traveled abroad, knew foreign languages, was known as a great theater-goer and was close to the theatrical circles of St. Petersburg. V. A. Yakovlev was in a civil marriage with Frenchwoman Marie Varlet (Marie Varlet), an actress who played in Paris and St. Petersburg, in the Mikhailovsky Theater. In Russia, her name was Maria Ivanovna. There were no images of Vasily Abramovich Yakovlev, and none of his descendants knew what his appearance was. //

ABOUT! Another mythical character? Vasily Abramovich. How can one manage not to leave a portrait? To travel abroad in theatrical circles, cut down all the granite for Peter and never draw again? Not even a verbal description of his appearance was left! Sukhanov did not have any descendants and graves, but a portrait remained, and this one left offspring but no portrait.

In the close-up image of the blank for the Alexander Column, 3 meaningless rectangular holes can be seen:

As the saying goes, "The devil is in the details." The same minor details of incomprehensible purpose are found in almost all known ancient megalithic objects. This is a separate topic // But such holes in Baalbek are most similar to St. Petersburg:

An interesting question arises.Is Auguste Montferrand the personality of our civilization or not? If ours, then how did he know what the blank for the column looked like under a foreign civilization that built the megalithic complex in Baalbek? How did he know about these rectangular holes? Either 200 years ago ancient megalithic objects were already known, or Montferrand wasn’t from “ours”. Either his "not ours" enlightened in some way. In a dream, in sessions of spiritualism or directly during physical communication.

My version - Montferrand with these details in the drawings hints to smart people that he draws bullshit under duress. He was forced to take over the construction of AK and Isaac under threat of death, and he invented all sorts of things he did in his drawings so that those who are interested in the truth understand that this is bullshit. And the rest of the true haters will find what they need. Look, they’re turning the column with sticks. No aliens and highly developed technological civilizations.

Read more the topic of rectangular holes in the mysterious structures of ancient civilizations around the world here //

Before us is the 35th drawing from the album of 1832 from the site of the French national library // To the site of fr. library album posted in 2012. A copy of the album here // with lower quality.

Here is a column entwined with ropes inside a lifting tower.

To hook the column in an upright position, the barrel of the column was surrounded by 5 rings consisting of 6 cubic growths. To get a better look, I cut out the column and arranged it horizontally:

These cubes about half a meter in size cannot be glued to the trunk in any way. Because they have a monstrous load when lifting the column. 20 tons each. (Note also that for a circular protrusion around the top of the column, the ropes are not hooked at all. This will be useful to us in the future). They are just somehow grown from stone, or just when cutting a column from a prism, these parts were circumvented by a cutter.

Looking ahead, I note that Montferrand painted similar protrusions on the column of St. Isaac’s Cathedral in the only drawing of St. Isaac’s album on page 98:

These cubic protrusions from St. Petersburg columns connect Peter with ancient megalithic objects. Here are similar ledges from the cliff in Ollantaytambo (Peru):

By the way, these absolutely amazing truncated cones sticking out of the rock are small copies of the Alexander Column. It remains to saw off the wall and send to the Palace Square in the center of St. Petersburg.

Here in egypt

Well and so on:

What else unites the Alexander column with the ancient megaliths? This we can learn from the little-known, but very important article "Angel over the City" //

The real heroes of the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg are not city dwellers, and even less so those in power. Restorers. Vladimir Sorin "cured" one of the main relics of St. Petersburg - the Alexandrian pillar. For two years, his workplace was 50 meters above St. Petersburg.

Montferrand Error

Sorin looked inside the capitals, where there were holding the top of the structure, and personally saw the results of the only mistake of Montferrand.

The Great Auguste used brick instead of granite: that year there was cholera in Russia, people died on granite quarries, the contractors failed, and the tsar hurried.

The explanation is absurd. This brick fits into the theory of reconstruction of the old column. At the top, as you remember, there used to be another creature, it was changed along with the top. And they did as they could primitive builders from our civilization 200 years ago.

This is a traditional situation on ancient megalithic objects, where ancient giant well-treated megaliths adjoin without any connecting solution to the later primitive remake of a later primitive civilization (Incas, Egyptians, Romans ...), where the stones are held together by some kind of mortar, for example, clay. New civilizations simply use ancient megaliths as a basis, building houses or places of worship on them. Do not waste good.On the ancient polygonal masonry lay the usual rectangular masonry of ordinary bricks or stones.

Here is an example of such a pyramid-Egypt neighborhood:

And this is in Peru

The Alexander Column fits perfectly into this tradition of combining ancient high-tech megaliths without any connecting mortar and more modern primitive bricks or just stones connected by some kind of mortar). I continue to quote the article "Angel over the City":

For almost two centuries, a brick on lime mortar absorbed about three tons of water, and on the eve of the anniversary on the main square of the city a part, or even the entire capital, could collapse.

Sorin immediately attracted the best scientific forces of St. Petersburg to research. Specialists from SIC-26 working for the Ministry of Defense, on duty, are studying the properties and strength of the very granite from which the Alexander Column was cut ...

“They answered all our questions,” Sorin says, “and made predictions.” Their findings determined the restoration strategy. It turned out to be a major work.

What it took to remove the swollen, crumbling brick, replace it with granite, clean the monument from the inside, drill 56 inconspicuous holes in bronze, create a ventilation system. They worked with the help of an endoscope, a telecontrolled camera and ... a rotor. They hung in a drift inside the column head down, their hair froze in the cold.

Peter the Portuguese, the master restorer, drilled the foundation manually in a 25-degree frost. Restorer Sergei Morozov, the most flexible and narrow, undressing, squeezed into Angel through a hole of 17 by 45 centimeters and worked there in cramped and icy cold ...

However, Montferrand disobeyed the emperor, and although the project says by the hand of Nicholas: "Make everything from red Finnish granite!" - used Serdobol granite for the “heel”, five times more durable.

And when the ultrasound studies were completed, it became clear: cracks in the outer layer do not cut through the granite.

So, the brick is called the only mistake of Montferrand. But, this problem of primitive brick bothered at the very beginning. Here is what Wikipedia says:

Two years after the installation of the monument, in 1836, under the bronze top of a granite column, white-gray spots began to appear on the polished surface of the stone, spoiling the appearance of the monument ...

One of the results of the study was the unraveling of the spots appearing in the upper part of the column: they turned out to be a product of the destruction of the brickwork flowing out.

All problems are due to brick. Nowadays I had to replace it with granite. What is going on comrades! I made everything out of granite, but only the tops of simple bricks. Yes, not only the entire column of granite, but the whole city. And this is due to the official cholera epidemic "that year."

But a great question arises. Why was cholera mowed by granite breakers rather than brick makers? Is cholera an occupational disease of granitometers? Do bricks have strong immunity against cholera? So let's get the cholera vaccinations made of bricks!

The cholera epidemic was "that year." "One," which one? In 1832, the column itself was installed. In the 34th solemnly opened. The peak was made in 1833-34. And when was the cholera epidemic in Russia? Really in 1833-34?

Here is an article called "Cholera in St. Petersburg."

I quote:

Epidemics - cholera pandemics invaded Russia during the XIX - early. XX century 9 times (1823, 1829, 1830, 1837, 1847, 1852, 1865, 1892, 1908). The reign of cholera in the capital was accompanied by popular unrest, which reached real pogroms and riots. The peak of popular unrest reached June 22 (July 4), 1831, ... The cholera epidemic in St. Petersburg ended in the autumn of 1831 ... Having gone down in Russia in 1832, the cholera epidemic made an unstoppable march to Western Europe.

So, the hoaxers poked a finger at the sky, and missed. The epidemic was 2-3 years earlier than their version and 3-4 years later. And during the necessary supply of granite for the top, there was quiet and grace. 2 years before the epidemic left Russia. So nothing prevented from putting granite instead of bricks. From all over great Russia, several pieces of granite could be obtained even during an epidemic.For the main construction site of the empire. // is a video report with the participation of restorers.

A brief report on the work done from the Intarsia website is here //

And here are some more details on the same topic:

It is known that Montferrand feared for the stability of his brainchild, mainly because the blocks of power structures of the pommel, originally conceived in granite, at the last moment had to be replaced with brickwork with a binder solution based on lime.

Two years after the installation of the monument, in 1836, white-gray spots began to appear on the mirror surface of granite under a bronze top, spoiling the appearance of the column. In 1851, the Alexander Column was covered in wooden scaffolding, people went upstairs to inspect and clean the column. The reasons for the stains were not established, and since then, specialists had to periodically "ascend" to the monument and clean it, and given the large height of the column, this can be very difficult.

... With the help of a special flexible three-meter endoscope, restorers were able to penetrate “into the womb” of the monument, examine all its cavities, establish what the general structure looks like, and determine the differences between the original project and its actual implementation.

It turned out that the product of the destruction of the brickwork flows onto the column trunk, forming the very messy spots.

The brickwork in the abacus is completely destroyed, there is the initial stage of its deformation. And inside the cylinder, up to 3 tons of water accumulated, which penetrated through dozens of cracks and holes in the shell of the sculpture. Water, freezing, tore the cylinder, deforming its original shape.

So the immediate tasks were determined: firstly, to remove water from the cavities of the pommel and to make sure that it does not accumulate in the future, and secondly, to restore the construction of the abacus support.

The difficulty was that the work on the monument was carried out in the winter without dismantling the sculpture, which means it was at a great height. The total weight of the top of the column is about 37 tons, and cold bronze literally "sucked" the heat of the human body. But a large amount of work was carried out inside the structures. And what the specialists of Intarsia did - Leonid Kakabadze, Konstantin Efimov, Andrey Poshekhonov, Peter the Portuguese can be considered a real feat - in the name of the City and its history.

As a result, all the cavities of the monument were connected into one system, and the cross cavity was used by restorers as a “chimney” with a height of about 15.5 m. The drainage system arranged by them provides for the removal of all moisture, including condensation.

Achtung! Achtung!

Completely destroyed brick structures replaced by granite,

Superior! Surprise!

self-adhesive without binders - thus, restorers many years later brought to life the original concept of Montferrand. //

Hooray, comrades! Finally, our civilization has again approached the level of development of the civilization of the "gods." (At what, it seems, these gods were Russian). This was not the case during Montferrand. Instead of granite without binders, bricks and clay were used. Restorers threw all this wild primitive bullshit into the garbage and built it according to ancient prehistoric high technologies.

Note that what the ancients did does not need much repair. Although this is precisely the load. It’s down below.

The only clarification. Blocks are not self-locking, but self-locking. This is also a journalist's mistake:

These blocks are wedge-shaped. Its angle is such that

1. Together, each in their respective places, they are a ring lock holding the top of the column.

2. When ice forms, part of these wedges is squeezed up by ice, so that the castle does not lose its properties. When melting ice, the extended blocks are lowered so that the castle always retains its properties.

Sincerely, V. Sorin

In general, due to the absence of a rigid connection, the structure freely breathes. Separate blocks are displaced by ice and returned without breaking.On ancient megalithic objects, the same principle probably made it possible to withstand earthquakes and seasonal temperature fluctuations without cracking.

Chronology of events according to the official version:


June 9 - the beginning of work on loading the column onto the ship. The distance from the quarry to the pier (91.5 m) was covered in 10 days.

June 19 - 21 - loading of the column barrel onto the ship.

The most interesting thing in the official version happened during the transportation of the finished column:

When the monolith was moved from the pier to the ship, the wooden poles did not withstand such a heavy load and broke off. The column collapsed into the water and could go to the bottom of the sea.

The frost is getting stronger. What is that ficus picus? If the column "collapsed into the water", then what prevented it from "going to the bottom of the sea"? The creators of the OM, forgot that it is not foam, but granite? Bulk! And that’s it! I know! This is a serial ripper of 1600 kg of polar bears. Samson Sukhanov ducked under the water and held the column like a match. On one little finger.

That, with what ease and speed the stone goes under water, has become a "byword". God himself in the Bible provides a similar example to illustrate the speed of events:

“And one strong angel took a stone, ... and cast it into the sea, saying: Babylon will be cast with such an aspiration” (Revelation 18:21)

Below is a fragment of a picture from the 60th page of Montferrand's album:

And in our Russian Christian heroes, the stone plunges into the water, but does not sink. Moreover, the figure shows that the boards are not slightly broken, but rather strongly. Broke They are no more. Cheeky breeki, ay-li-lu

By the way, how were these boards going to be pulled out from under the column? Or would they stick out sideways while swimming?

It’s also not clear what kind of strange configuration this ship is - a heavy stone load lay above, not below the deck but above it, high above the waterline. The ship was extremely unstable and could tip over. But this is all the little things.

They say that supporters of the official version do not believe in miracles, therefore they do not believe in any Russian gods who built Petersburg. And the fact that the column "collapsed into the water", but "did not go to the bottom" - this is not a miracle among them. It’s just that the column temporarily became wooden. Pinocchio.

Here are the official details reported elsewhere:

28 bars along which the stone was lifted aboard with the help of collars, broke, and the column, hooked overboard, banked the vessel //

And why there were only 28 bars? 22 tons per timber! Unless the bar is the thickness of the column itself! This great 20-year-old "gifted young man" was able to push 4000 tons off the cliff, place 15 people per meter when cutting off the pedestal, and didn’t guess to put more boards? And what? The economy must be economical! Why spend too much? Spend national property on some columns there. You think! Drown column, make a new one in 2 years. The rocks are nearby. Hand in. Moreover, experience is already there. Some 2 years compared with eternity is nonsense. Speck of dust. Then we put on 1 board more - 29. If it crack again, under the next column we put another one more. And so on, until the columns stop falling. But the trees will save. There are so few of them left in Russia. One-two and miscalculated.

Perhaps they could not put more boards, because they occupied the entire width of the column closely? The length of the column is 27 meters. And there were 28 boards there, about a meter thick?

What is it that such a brilliant engineer "a 20-year-old young man, gifted with a remarkable mind" was able to engineer the impossible, but did not have enough to put enough boards of the "remarkable mind"? If you really want to save, test it. Take one such board, put a large box on it and sprinkle with sand until it cracks. And you will know how much they need for the weight of the column. Also me, Newton’s binomial!

However, the official version is three.

According to the second version, a rock fragment, a monolith, was processed not in a quarry, but in St. Petersburg, and not 600 tons, but all 4000 were loaded onto the vessel, respectively. And they also did not drown, but only fell into the water:

The monolith, from which the column was later turned, weighed about 4000 tons. When loading, he almost drowned, and for 48 hours the workers and soldiers tried to save him.July 1, 1832 the ship arrived in St. Petersburg, and after 12 days, under the guidance of V. Yakovlev, the monolith was unloaded onto the shore. Then it was hewn by masons and, according to a specially constructed structure, on a wagon set on casting rollers, delivered to the lifting site

This great forest wisdom was taken, neither more nor less, from the official site of the Hermitage itself! // So!

According to one version of the official version, a finished round column weighing 600 tons was brought to St. Petersburg, according to another version of the same official version, a shapeless block weighing 4000 tons was brought, and then it was trimmed in St. Petersburg.

But, there is also a third official version. I will call it "intermediate":

A block of granite of 1200 tons was cut down near Vyborg, ninety meters from the shore of the bay. For half a year, the ancient builders of temples and pyramids moved to the water to be loaded onto a specially made barge. But on the Gulf of Finland, English steamboats were already dragging the barge.

She moored to the Admiralty Descent. An inclined overpass was built at the shipyard. A column with a height of 47.5 meters was dragged. Raised by hand. Three thousand people did it in a hundred minutes. They polished it, having already put it, heaved 400 tons of granite.

Tokareva Marina, St. Petersburg "Angel over the City" // MN Time (Moscow) .- May 28, 2003.- C.8 //

The version is intermediate, because in it the mass of the workpiece that was dragged is greater than in the first version and less than in the second. True, here they get a column weighing 1200-400 = 800 tons. 200 extra.

What happened next, either with a 600-ton column, or with a 1200-ton block of granite, or with a 4000-ton monolith collapsed into the water but not sinking? We read:

For two days, the convoy was held on ropes by 300 lower ranks with non-commissioned officers of the local garrison and engineering team //

So, no more no less. 2 tons per person held a column for two days over the sea abyss. (Or 13 tons each according to the second official version). And what, these 300 Atlanteans held the ropes for two days? And when to sleep? And go out of need? So, while some were sleeping, others were holding not 4 (26) tons, but 2 each.

And who stretched these ropes under water? Divers? And what are these ropes hooked on? For the lower ranks? Why couldn't the ropes be tied to trees? Why did three hundred people hold ropes instead of trees or stakes? Solid nonsense. Previously, men held crowbars instead of stools with a hole, but now they hold ropes instead of trees and stakes.

In another source, the detail is specified - held by hands:

When the monolith was moved from the pier to the ship, the wooden poles, unable to withstand the monstrous gravity, broke. The column collapsed into the water. To prevent her from sinking, the workers held a huge stone with their hands.

Oh, Montferrand, Montferrand, or whoever hides behind his name! Well, why didn’t you draw this moment, how do men hold 600 tons with their hands? Where do they keep her? Bottom, side or what?

Yakovlev managed to restrain her with the help of new supports.

What other "new pillars"? Details can be? Well, let’s say he came up with some kind of magical support, but it takes time to build, drag and drop it. And while the column hangs, wait? Will sink in water. Maybe it's inflatable?

And any support must be supported with one end on the pier and the other on the side of the ship. And how do you stick the support from below under the column, but above the side and pier if the column is already in the water? Or the supports performed a different function for official wiseacres - they kept the column from above from takeoff. An inflatable column, could fly away like a sausage-shaped balloon? By the way, with this version it is clear how 300 men were holding a column with ropes. They pulled it down so that it would not fly away. Like holding balloons.

How can I explain such nonsense? Why create such a myth? Well, if you want to hide that the gods set up this column, then compose without such incredible details about the broken bridge between the shore and the ship. It seems that Montferrand between the lines hints: "Guys! - I write this nonsense under duress, and I specially add more idiocy to the description so that you understand that this is misinformation."

Just as in the 37th year, those accused of working for Uruguayan intelligence could not prove innocence to stupid investigators and invented an idiotic version, hoping that judges, unlike investigators, are smart people and will understand the whole absurdity of the accusation. For example, they admitted that they were digging a tunnel from Tashkent to London so that the British would come and kill Stalin.

Or is it not Montferrand wrote at all, but it is not known who on his behalf. Montferrand, perhaps, did only the repair of the ancient column, and he was credited with its installation and instead of it they drew an album.

And also, perhaps, this is a psychological experiment of the gods - they check to what extent idiocy people can believe. Where is the limit? The most interesting thing is that those who believe in this nonsense with a drowning column and polar bears are called "skeptics." That is, by name, not leading to any sensations.

In the meantime, six hundred soldiers were called for help from the nearby Friedrichsham fortress. They made a throw of 36 miles, in the heat, on mountainous terrain, overcoming this distance in 4 hours.

Versta - more than a kilometer. 40 km in 4 hours. In the heat of the mountains. Is it a lot or a little? This is just a marathon distance!

Here is a list of world records for the marathon. The first result was recorded in 1896 and amounted to 3 hours. It was established by the Greek athlete Spiridon Lewis. It is in good conditions, in sports shoes and on a flat road, not in the mountains. This is the first world record. But that's not all. To run such a distance is not at all possible for many at any time. Only world-class athletes. Usually, in marathon races, many athletes simply leave the race. This is too much stress on the body. This is not a 5-10 km wellness run. And 600 Russian soldiers in boots and military uniforms ran only a third longer than the world record holder in 70 years?

The fact that soldiers ran through the mountains is called Cross Country Run or Cross. In such conditions, even athletes do not run at marathons at all. The running distance is limited to 12 km, even for athletes.

One more question. If 600 world champion cross-country marathons ran in the heat in 4 hours, then why did they wait two days? It would take about 4 hours to get the soldiers to get from the hanging, but not sinking for some reason column in the water to the garrison of soldiers, to help. And two days is 48 hours. What did the remaining 40 hours do? Compiled the official version? They thought, maybe, if the column doesn’t drown miraculously, so maybe it itself will emerge by some miracle too? You just have to wait. The morning is wiser than the evening. Why bastard bang, if by the morning everything by itself, maybe, will settle down?

The soldiers set to work on the move and put the convoy on the ship. July 1, 1832 she was taken to the capital.

Bravo! Hurrah! We will defeat everyone! From the ship to the ball! After the marathon of the MEETING, the soldiers set to work and put the convoy on the ship. Soldier Ears, brave guys Ears! After the super marathon, they did not fall dead, but raised 600 tons! They are not tired at all. They didn’t go to sleep, and then eat, and then sleep again, and "on the move set to work and put the convoy on the ship." No wonder they ate pasta for two days.

From Wikipedia:

An ordinary unprepared person has about 380 g of glycogen (1,500 kcal) in his body. Intensive running can easily lead to costs of 600-800 kcal per hour, and if these reserves are not replenished, after a couple of hours the body completely waste them (the tipping point usually occurs at around 30 km of the marathon), and blood sugar level decreases. This causes a sharply appearing feeling of extreme fatigue and powerlessness, "pushing against the wall." At this phase, the body switches to the use of fat reserves, it takes time, and fat is a less effective "fuel".

In how. After 30 km of the marathon, a feeling of extreme fatigue and powerlessness, “pushing against the wall”, sharply appears. And our fellows, after 40 km of running, have a surge of strength and abutment against a 600-ton column (and, according to another version, from the Hermitage website - a 4000-ton monolith).

Another point. You need to prepare for a marathon in a special way in a few days. This is a whole science. Special diet, special regimen. And after the marathon you need to recover for a long time.

Training and special nutrition can increase glycogen stores up to 800 g (3,500 kcal). Most athletes use a carbohydrate diet, and a hearty pasta dinner just the day before the competition is almost a tradition among marathon runners.

ABOUT! Here's the answer why they waited two days if they only ran for 4 hours. They ate pasta the day before the marathon. That is the tradition.

Some researchers recommend a normal diet with intense training the day before the race. 12

In sports societies that organize marathons, there are running schools that offer individual preparation for the marathon. Six months of preparation is the usual minimum recommended time. An amateur should not run a marathon distance in training: it requires too long a recovery.

Usually the longest distances at the end of preparation are no more than 35 km. About a month before the marathon, the pace of training is significantly reduced, and in the last week before amateur marathons, amateur runners are recommended to do only short (5-10 km) runs.

A constant pace and maintaining the amount of water in the body are two of the most important conditions during the marathon.

On the route of the marathon (as a rule, every 5 km) there are food points offering runners water, an energy drink and food products (bananas, dried fruits, etc.).

The optimum temperature for the marathon is about 14-16 ° C. Temperature above +18 ° C is already considered dangerous for some categories of runners, and at temperatures above +28 ° C it is recommended to cancel the start.

Runner thermoregulation is carried out by blowing the body and evaporating sweat - for this, special equipment, drinking at a distance, the correct tactics and running strategy are used.

The temperature is determined (but not guaranteed) by the time of year. Usually it is spring or autumn, in the Dubai marathon - winter.

The usual start time for commercial marathons in the morning is approximately 8: 30-11: 00 in the morning.

In short, in order for 600 soldiers not to die along the road of the marathon, they had to undergo special training, put drinking and nutrition points on running distances, wear special Adidas blown shirts, and most importantly, do not run in the heat at all (and in the official version there there was a terrible heat).

This is only to run away at all, and not die. And about how to fly in 4 hours, you must be a professional athlete - a runner. The only explanation is that Samson Sukhanov was chasing them on skis.

Why did not the ingenious 20-year-old organizer secure themselves in advance with these 600 biorobot champions? Still, for the first time in the documented history of mankind, the overload of 600 tons of stone per ship on the boards. No laughing matter. What if 28 cost-effective boards crack? 2 years of work 600 people - down the drain. Better safe than sorry. Request a couple of hours of marathon biorobots.

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 who delivered the convoy Zherbin himself wanted to unload the sunken ship. To do this, he attracted 40 of his own working people and hired another 600 soldiers, refusing the services of Samson Sukhanov offered to him by Montferrand.

The work was to be performed in the presence of a member of the Commission for the Construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral, Engineer-General K.I. Opperman, but due to his illness on August 12, at 7 a.m., the president of the Academy of Arts A.N. Venison Unloading of the vessel began at 10 o’clock "in the presence of the English ambassador, Mr. Bagot and other gentlemen of foreigners." And has been successfully implemented. According to Olenin, all work lasted no more than two hours; and not a single rope burst and not a single rope cracked. "

RGIA, f. 1311, op. 1, d. 237, l. 18, 38 vol. - 40 about. Excerpts and references taken from: Shuisky V.K. Auguste Moferrand. The story of life and work. - SPb .: MiM-Delta LLC; M .: CJSC Centerpolygraph, 2005. p. 98 - 101.//, //

A completely different version of these events was unearthed by a certain Veta_42 in the newspaper "Northern Bee" on July 01, 1832! No. 149 and 151. Apparently, in some library I got:

We are awaiting the arrival of a granite column here for the monument to Emperor Alexander. (That is, someone from Peter writes)

Of course, rumors have reached you or will still reach you about the interference that occurred while loading this convoy onto a ship. By duty I deliver to inform you how this happened. There was space between the marina and the ship, a two-and-a-half arshin (that is, about 1.5 meters) in which a bridge was to be built.

What prevented the ship from being pulled close to the pier? To make it easier to drop it in water? Everything was done idioticly, according to this version. What kind of giveaway game?

Unfortunately, this bridge was unhappily solid; the granite mass fell off at one end, and at the same time heavily tipped the ship, which it had already touched the edge ... Engineers with commands and guns were sent from here to raise the bulk; but these extraordinary measures were not needed. Our Russian peasants, having recovered after the first fright, discerned what was the matter, crossed themselves, boomed in a friendly manner, raised the convoy, and put it on the ship. When the messengers arrived from here, the case was already completed. //

According to this version, only one end failed. But, according to the first version, all 28 boards broke. And in the Montferrand picture, both ends are in the same position. And it is strange that the engineers who returned from there did not talk about 600 Atlanteans from a nearby fortress.

Let's freshen up how it all looked.

If the ship is so banked, then, even if the column did not drown miraculously, it still needs to be rolled now onto the ship, not horizontally, as planned, but upward. And this is a big difference. It’s one thing to roll a barrel on a horizontal surface, and raising it up is another thing. You can ride endlessly on a bicycle on a smooth road, and it will last only a few seconds to lift forces.

The curious thing. As soon as they want to add credibility to the ongoing events with burdens, an emergency immediately arises. Excerpts taken from the book. VK. Shuisky "Auguste Montferrand History of Life and Creativity", pp. 194-195

When approaching the island of Varpusari, they hit a pitfall ... At the strongest steamship, called "Nikolai", a large cast-iron shaft broke, on which the whole mechanism of the steam engine was based ...

The ship rocked and waved sideways in an unusual way so that the coasters inside the ship and the counterforts that strengthen the convoy on the deck cracked and diverged in their convoys ...

Finally, there followed three such strong blows to the side of the ship, one after the other, that the ship crackled in all its fortifications in a terrible way ... I (contractor Vasily Yakovlev), calling for God's help, began to hammer wooden wedges in weakened places between the counterforts and supports ... Finally, the excitement began to decrease, and we, passing the Tolbukhin lighthouse, safely arrived the next day at 6 o’clock in Kronstadt, from where, having withdrawn and reaching the milestones, we were forced to stop because of the very low water that was not capable of passing the ship ... "

Well, they say one is not a warrior in the field! And then a 20-year-old contractor, that is, the chief boss, a gentleman, I recall a 20-year-old young man, without any hard workers, one pacified the storm and a 600-ton block. The excitement is such that the cast-iron shaft bursts and he is alone! Just one conquered the elements. Pay attention, these clever men came up with the idea that supposedly a granite block was carried astride the deck! Not lower than the waterline, as expected with heavy loads, but at maximum height, and, accordingly, with minimal stability. Only saboteurs could come up with such a scheme. And with such a pitching that even the shafts burst, the granite block riding on a wooden stand does not tip over!

And now we are being transferred after the column to Petersburg. Here we can calculate how many Montferrands were. First, pay attention to three little things in which the “devil hides” again.

one.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 openings on the future top surface of the column.

3. On the circumference of the upper surface there are no 4 cutouts at the edges.

4. The nose of the barge is stupid like a bulldog. This is the first Montferrand.

Let's also see how the barge looked on the 59th page of the album:

The barge's profile is symmetrical and "blunt" - vertical nose and tail.

Official chronology:

July 1 - a ship with a column came to St. Petersburg and stood at the wooden pier, specially built for this at the Palace Embankment.

July 12 - a column on the flooring of 35 beams is pumped to the embankment. 768 people participated in the works.

August 28 - rehearsal of lifting the trunk of the column, raised with the help of winches by 20 feet (In another source it was 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 column transportation along Palace Square (61 pages):

On July 12, the convoy was rolled from the barge to the shore. The marked annular ledge is visible, which was still when loading onto 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. A column with an annular protrusion in the middle.

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

3. The nose of the barge is already sloping

4. There is a fence at an inclined surface.

On the next “frame” (the 63rd page of the album), the column was rolled to an inclined surface:

Along an inclined plane, 8 wooden rails stretch for rolling columns on them. It is impossible to determine the presence of a ring on a column - the column is too far. But the fence disappeared. But, a hole appeared in the upper part 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 upper end. (Perhaps this is the bottom end of the column if it was unfolded for some reason after unloading from the barge by 180 degrees, which is unlikely + this arrangement will be visible in the following figures. Also, in all other figures in this study, there will be no hole in the bottom end) .

2. There is no cut in circles.

3. There is no fence.

On the next "frame" (the 64th page of the album), the column was already rolled up. And lo and behold! The ring is gone!

Now the column is smooth. But the fence again appeared on both sides of the inclined plane, on a mountain of bear cubs! And the rails became 9 instead of 8. Sorry, it is not possible to check for holes in the upper plane of the column. Maybe even skeptics are lucky with this element? Well, at least something should be true in the official version, except that the white-faced 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. Under the inclined surface, carriages pass by.

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

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

The fence and 2 rails (there are now 7) on the inclined surface disappear again. Here you can also see that under the bridge there are no driveways for horses.

This is the fifth Montferrand with this version:

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

2. There are no holes in the center of the end of the column (the third had one).

3. On all three annular protrusions there are 1 or 2 cuts (the second is not visible from below, it is closed by a column, and on the top - as many as 4 cuts are visible.

4. Under the inclined surface there are no passages for carriages.

In another picture of Montferand (p. 68) capstans are at the same level as the column, there is no second level at all. (The same will be in the picture of Denisov):

And the sixth Montferrand painted a column with 30 square ledges:

In general, there could be already 6 Monferrands.

What does it mean? The drawings are not dedicated to the landscape, but to the column. She's the center of attention. And not to draw a large detail on the entire circumference of the column in the middle of its trunk is impossible.How could Montferrand forget about this ring in the intermediate drawing? I remembered in the previous and next drawings of my own production, but forgot in the intermediate? That he could not look at the first drawing when he drew the second? And when he drew the third, he did not look at the second?

And how did no one indicate to him an error in the drawing process or after? Did he draw all this as a hermit in the desert? No one was around?

I'm not talking about the four-times fading and appearing fence. Like fortune-telling on a camomile-appeared-disappeared-appeared-disappeared-loves-dislikes.

It’s all the same that the aircraft designer will draw the largest plane, created by him personally and forget how many wings he has - not just 2 or 3.

But if we assume that all this was not drawn from nature, but by imagination, if we were given the task of drawing the installation process of a column that no one had seen, then you can imagine such errors.

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

But, the fence on it - "neither ours nor yours" - only reaches the middle. Friendship won. 1: 1. Hurrah! Denisov chose the middle ground. Master of compromises. And the wolves are full and the sheep are whole. He was able to please both Montferrands (or three or four).

Since, in the end, the column is without a ring, the mythmaker, depicting the rise of the column, could 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 recessed into the opening of 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. Put a pencil, standing end upright on the table, how long will it stand in case of minimal earthquakes or gusts of wind? Relying on accurate calculation is dangerous. So that it would not be like 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 named after Montferrand, which perhaps did not exist in nature) painted in the second picture a column not straight, but curved or knotted, would official scholars also not notice? Even if he wrote on the column "Glory to the CPSU! Long live atheism and healthy skepticism! Lenin is with us!" anyway would ride?

After installation, the columns could chop off the extra part needed only for lifting. But how could this detail disappear at an intermediate stage, and then reappear? How to combine all this? As we like to say in our Sirius, "How to cross a snake and a hedgehog?"

And, for starters, another Montferrand drawing from page 67:

That is, this third mysterious ring inside is and cannot but eat. This ring is necessary for hanging the column in a vertical position. In this case, all the ropes will hold the column. Otherwise, all the weight would fall on only a few upper ropes tied to a ledge at the top.

This rope system looks ridiculous. If the column needs to be raised to a vertical position, then it is only necessary to cling to the upper part (in the figure - the left end). From an engineering point of view, the remaining ropes are completely unnecessary.

I counted the number of ropes in the figure - 60 pieces. But this is on the one hand. From 2 sides, respectively, 120. 5 tons per rope.

The need for this ring did not understand Alexei Kungurov. In one video lecture, he simply stated that this ring cannot exist at all, “because the column is smooth,” in another he noticed that in the upright position all the weight will fall on the upper ropes:

And what weight can the rope support?

Quote: When operating the hemp rope GOST 30055-93, it is worth remembering that the recommended load is 20-25% of the breaking strength. Nodal joints with a continuous rope reduce strength by 2 times, and end nodal joints of two ropes by 7-8 times. // Next, there is a table, from which it follows that the maximum breaking load - 22 tons is achieved with a rope thickness of 7.2 cm.

But, anyway, this does not solve the problem.Here's what the column rise looks like in the drawing of contemporaries of those events:

Lithograph "The Rise of the Alexander Column in 1832". Artists Bishebua Bishbois Louis Pierre Alphonse, Bayot Adolphe Jean Baptiste (70th page of the album)

After the "installation" of the columns of Isaac, and, especially, the pillar of Alexandria, Montferrand became the main "specialist" in weight lifting. And in Moscow, the broken Tsar Bell, weighing 202 tons, was “not capitalized” (that is, it has been lying in a hole for more than 100 years since 1735 and is waiting for a weight specialist). Naturally, the choice fell on Montferrand.

According to the project of Montferrand, strong forests were installed above the pit, equipped with a system of blocks with ropes thrown over them. To observe the preparatory work "to raise a large bell from the pit," Montferrand called the draftsman P.I. Volkhov (RGIA, f. 1311, op. 1, d.854, l. 19).

For weight lifting, the main draftsman is to draw the official version for posterity. It was still necessary to call a ballerina, a chess player, a comedian, a wedding general, a cat trainer. Then no ropes are needed. The bell itself will come out.

On April 30, 1836, the Moscow Governor General invited Montferrand to him and ordered him to proceed with the raising of the bell. The next day, at 10 a.m. a huge crowd gathered in the Kremlin.

At the signal of Montferrand, gates were set in motion, creaked from the tension of the forest, the blocks spun, ropes stretched like strings and, finally, the upper part of the bell appeared from the pit. Unfortunately, the bell carried along a part of the metal grill, on which it rested until then.

I have already talked about the compulsory state of emergency for credibility.

At the same time, two ropes burst, one block broke and hit the forests with force. However, the lifting process continued, and only after two more ropes broke, Montferrand ordered the operation to cease.

To the great chagrin, he had to return to Petersburg "

for the departure of 12 capstans and 36 iron blocks assigned to them to Moscow, of which 12 are four, 12 are three and 12 are two cast iron pulleys. "

How did the grill captivate the bell? How much does it weigh compared to a 200 ton bell to break the ropes? Only four ropes broke, and as many as twelve capstans were transported, 36 blocks and a heap of ropes.

In addition, the St. Petersburg manufacturer P.P. Sazonov, he ordered another "20 ropes of 6.75 inches thick and 75 fathoms long, 10 ropes 4 inches thick and 100 fathoms long, 2 ropes 1.5 inches thick and 100 fathoms each length and 25 slings of different thicknesses and measures "RGIA, 1311, op. 1, d.939, l. 5, 10.

Why did Montferrand need 20 ropes with a diameter of 17 cm and a length of 160 m? If 7.2 cm holds 22 tons, then 17 cm will withstand a gap of about 100 tons (the strength of the rope is proportional to the square of the thickness, and not to the thickness itself). 20 ropes - 2000 tons can withstand breaking. Each meter of such a rope weighs 25 kg. 160 meters - 4 tons. 20 ropes - 80 tons. Some crazy numbers. To raise 200 tons only ropes scored 80 tons. But he still ordered 10 centimeter ropes of 10 pieces of 200 meters.

That is, the mass of the ropes is comparable to the mass of the lifted load. There can be no such thing. Usually the rope is 100-1000 times lighter than the load! For example, an ordinary thread weighing about 1 gram can withstand a load of several kilograms.

In the above table, the entire 80-meter rope bay weighs 316 kg, and can lift 22,000 kg. The difference in weight is 70 times.

And the answer is simple. It turns out that in those days, by thickness was meant not the diameter of the rope, but the length of the circumference of the rope Pi twice as large as the diameter. Because it’s easier to measure with a flexible ruler in the form of a measuring tape. So, the rope thickness is almost three times less, and the cross-sectional area is almost 10 times less and, accordingly, the specific gravity of the rope.

After all the additional preparations, the next rise of the Tsar Bell was scheduled for July 23, 1836. On this day, at 6.5 a.m. at the command of Montferrand, the soldiers began to rotate capstans, and after 42 minutes 33 seconds, to the great satisfaction of those present, the Tsar Bell was safely removed from the pit in which he had been for a century.

Montferrand turned to the Minister of the Imperial Court for permission to publish an album describing the history of the Tsar Bell, promising to perform illustrations for him. Montferrand's album with nine copyright illustrations was published in Paris in 1840. The following year, he presented two copies of this unique album, printed in a limited edition, to the Imperial Public Library, accompanying the gift with a letter addressed to its director Alexei Nikolayevich Olenin.

OR MFN, f. 542. Venison, d. 257, l. 2.

VK. Shuysky Auguste Montferrand. The story of life and work. - SPb .: MiM-Delta LLC; M .: CJSC Centerpolygraph, 2005. p. 73-74.

It is interesting to find these drawings. There is a similar crazy order of ropes for allegedly rolling columns of St. Isaac's Cathedral.

I quote:

Subsequently, the place of Sukhanov was taken by Arkhip Shikhin. In particular, on July 12, 1826, he undertook to “roll four granite columns lying at the pier near the St. Isaac's Cathedral” at a distance of 24 fathoms, for which he demanded “pine logs four fathoms long, seven points thick - 100, a nine-inch-tall rope — 300 linear fathoms

RGIA, f. 1311, op. 1, d. 340, l. 7.10.

There is a drawing of Montferrand from St. Isaac's Album on page 97 on this subject:

We read the official version further:

... in December 1830, the original 6 lifting system was designed. It included: scaffolding 47 meters high, 60 capstans and a block system.

Please note that 60 capstans were used to raise 600 tons. Remember, this will be useful to us in the future.

On August 30, 1832, in order to bring the column upright on Palace Square, it was necessary to draw in the forces of 2,000 soldiers and 400 workers, 7 who installed a monolith in 1 hour 45 minutes.

The column lifted obliquely, slowly crawled, took off the ground and brought it to a position above the pedestal.

By the way, pay attention. In the picture, each capstan rotates 12 soldiers - 3 people for each of the 4 levers. But, according to the verbal description, there should be 16 (4 by 4):

... Montferrand developed detailed instructions for lifting it. According to this instruction, the lifting of the column was carried out by means of 60 collars located around the forests in two rows. Each gate had to serve 29 people:

"16 soldiers at the levers, 8 in reserve, 4 sailors for the hauling and harvesting of the rope as the column is raised, 1 non-commissioned officer"

VK. Shuisky. "Auguste Montferrand. History of Life and Creativity", pp. 199-200. In general, no matter what, all lies.

By the way, myth-making continues in our time. Here // shows a computer reconstruction of the lifting of the column. The column itself does not look at all like in the drawing of Montferrand. It already has 2 extra rings and no rope rings. But, in this case, this does not apply to falsification, but to the relict forest bear frivolity of those who believe in the official version and did this computer reconstruction.

Please note that 60 capstans were used to raise 600 tons. Remember, this will be useful to us in the future.

And now let's pay attention to an extremely important moment. So.

On August 30, 1832, in order to bring the column upright on Palace Square, it was necessary to draw in the forces of 2,000 soldiers and 400 workers, 7 who installed a monolith in 1 hour 45 minutes. The column lifted obliquely, slowly crawled, took off the ground and brought it to a position above the pedestal. At the command of the ropes were given, the column sank smoothly and fell into place

Attention! This is a very important point! Why raise the entire column into the air, if it is enough to lift only one end, that is, half the mass of the column, and the second end should remain on the pedestal? This is exactly what they did, for example, when installing the khan-shatyr support tower in Astana in the 21st century. Why did Montferrand award such a garden?

Let us return to the above article "Angel over the City" // The real heroes of the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg are not city dwellers, let alone those in power. Restorers. Vladimir Sorin "cured" one of the main relics of St. Petersburg - the Alexandrian pillar.For two years, his workplace was 50 meters above St. Petersburg.

Secrets of the Pillar of Alexandria

Vladimir Sorin and Peter of Portugal looked into a place where no one had looked since Pushkin’s times - and saw a miracle. It is not described in textbooks or in guides.

The column does not stand on a plane, but on a cone, which is grown from this plane, its edges hang and with a weight of a thousand tons the structure does not crumble.

(This is how it looks on the 76th page of Montferrand album

It does not look like a simple cone, but a truncated cone. But this is just a view from the outside (if you remove the bronze decoration. And what is inside the column itself is not shown in the figure).

If the column stands on a cone, then there must be a hole in it, into which this cone is stuck. But, talking to the restorer Vladimir Sorin on the phone, I found out that he had in mind a truncated cone, as in the picture of Montferrand. So, in this moment there is no sensation.

There is also no single version of what the lifting tower looked like.

This is a fragment of a Montferrand drawing. Pay attention to the length of the vertical and inclined boards. Do not forget that inclined boards stretch below the floor level for another 10 meters to the ground. That is, the length of these boards is up to 40 meters with a thickness of about 1 meter. What kind of trees are these? The height of only a flat part of the trunk should be from a 12-story building. But over the trunk is also a crown. Their trunks should be perfectly straight. Look at the photos of pines - everyone has a slightly curved trunk.

In the triangular part (inside the red circle) there is one row of horizontal bars. And only 7 horizontal crossbars (to the attic) (marked in the figure with numbers). The following figure:

This is the 68th page of Montferrand's album. Only 9 horizontal crossbars on the tower. In the triangular part, 2 rows of crossbars along the tower. And pay attention - two horizontal crossbars inside the column opening. But in the right wing of the lifting tower there is no horizontal bar (I marked it with a question mark).

Pay attention to the titanic structure - a springboard for rolling up the column. The whole city is built of wood. What's the point of this? After all, in the end, the column will still be lifted on the ropes in an upright position above the pedestal. Why couldn’t it be rolled just on the ground to the lifting tower? Well, they will raise it a few meters higher. Why build a whole wooden city? At least, this same springboard could be built not from the embankment but near the lifting tower. Why build the extra hundreds of meters of a giant wooden bridge?

And it’s especially not clear why to build a giant wooden platform the height of a three-story house around the tower, where even the column will not move?

This is a fragment of the drawing, also of Montferrand (69th page of his album). In the upper triangular part there are also 2 rows of horizontal bars (the picture is taken from here //

And, lo and behold - on it is the third version of Montferrand, the number of horizontal bars on the left is 8! There is no crossbar indicated by the number 2 in the previous figure. The same one that was to the left of the column, and opposite to it to the right there was no crossbar. This figure does not have both of these crossbars. What is this if not a clear hint that he is forced to lie under duress? How the exposed radio operator will give secret signs during the broadcast that he works under the supervision of enemy counterintelligence.

And on the right, their number coincides with the previous figure, but is 1 less than before the previous figure. I remind you that all 3 different options are drawings of the same author - the most ingenious engineer, architect and artist of that time, August Montferrand. He disagrees with himself three times.

In the first 2 figures, a high mast sticks out above the tower, but in the last figure it is not. Again, Montferrand “forgot” an essential detail that he himself indicated twice in other drawings?

And, notice, the two horizontal bars inside the column opening have already disappeared.

And, again, in 3 drawings of one Montferrand there are 3 different numbers of horizontal crossbars - 9, 10 and 11. But he has a detailed diagram of this tower in his album. On page 66.That is, he knew every detail:

In this diagram, the fourth option from Montferrand is already - only 6 horizontal beams to the attic. He disagrees with himself four times already. So, there were at least four Montferrands. Although, in fact, there are at least 6 of them.

Below is a fragment of a drawing by another artist, Alexander Denisov, who was awarded a diamond ring for this work on September 4, 1832.

Surprising speed of presentation of the medal. They set up a column on August 30, and Denisov managed to draw and get a ring in just 5 days. The column hangs in the water and does not sink for a long time, and the pictures are drawn and the rings are obtained instantly. From haste, he has no crossbars in the triangular part. Only 5 horizontal crossbars - there is not enough crossbar, for example, in the square under this triangular part. This is the fifth option. But there are 2 crossbars in the central opening, which is not in the previous figure of Montferrand.

The focus of these drawings was precisely the lifting tower, and the absence of such noticeable details on the tower is unimaginable. One could imagine that the artist Alexander Denisov forgot some details if he painted a picture from memory when the tower was already dismantled. But according to the official version, he painted a picture in the first 4 days after the installation of the column, and no one was going to disassemble the tower, because with its help it was still necessary to raise the figure of an angel to the top of the column, to polish the column and other works. The grand opening of the column will take place after 2 years.

The mere statement that even the most talented artist can paint such a serious picture in less than 5 days is highly doubtful.

I showed only a fragment above, but look at the whole picture (I cut only the sky):

Traced hundreds of minor details. For example, an emerging and disappearing fence on an inclined plane stretches only to its middle. In the previous pictures, either the fence stretched along the entire length, or it was not there at all. And Denisov chose the middle ground. In electronic form, the picture is compressed, and small details are lost. But, even this is enough to appreciate the titanic work of the master. And at the same time, he does not notice the large elements of the lifting tower - what is the picture dedicated to?

Here // a detailed description of the picture. Quote: ID: 37052 Source: State Russian Museum. Painting. The first half of the XIX century. Catalog (AI). St. Petersburg. Palace Editions. 2002. Rise of the Alexander Column 507. Erecting the Alexander Column 1832 Oil on canvas. 36 x 46 Received: in 1930 from the State Hermitage. F-4872

What is the size of the picture 36 x 46? In what units of measurement is not indicated here. But here it is claimed that it is centimeters. Hard to believe - such a grandiose picture with so many small details, and a width of less than half a meter? Maybe inches? It would be necessary to make inquiries.

September 4, 1832 “a diamond ring was awarded to the pupil of the painter E. I. V. Venetsianov Denisov, for his picture representing the stage arranged to lift the AK”.

As you can see, he was awarded precisely for the stage, they are the focus of the picture, and he was wrong in the stage and made a mistake! In the fence on the stage, I was half mistaken, in the horizontal crossbars I was mistaken to the full extent. Why give a medal? For the fact that on the bottom right to the scaffolds I attached a green gate that Montferrand does not have on page 62? Where does this gate lead? To the stage? And what without a giant green gate 7-8 meters high - almost a three-story house with a house can not be passed? Is it a gate for giraffes?

Denisov drew another fence from above. But he has a fence around the scaffold near the ground half that of Montferrand. Compare with human and horse growth. On the left are two human and horse growths, on the right is one. Why is this new giraffe entry needed at all? After all, there is a sloping overpass nearby, along which a column was stretched. On it is not a soul in the figure of Denisov. Does the royal retinue prefer to climb to the observation deck under the scaffolding along some internal stairs than to walk like people along an inclined plane? At what, on it it is possible to call directly in the carriage.The story was falsified not by people but by polar bears. Everything is not like people do.

An interesting biography of this ingenious artist. I painted this picture at the age of 21. In the next 1833, A. Denisov, on the highest command, went on a retirement trip to Berlin to improve his art. A year later, he died in Berlin from consumption. All this is suspicious. He languished and died.

The fact is that Denisov is the only one besides Montferrand who confirms the official version that the column was installed by people in 1832. Although it confirms clumsily, he has too many differences with the drawings of Montferrand. But, most importantly, the fact of raising the column confirms.

The fact is that there is another picture of another artist Grigory Gagarin, claiming to confirm the official version, which depicts a column in the woods.

But what is the difference from the drawings of Montferrand and Denisov? The fact that there is no hint of installation and, accordingly, the manufacture of columns. There is no inclined wooden flooring, ropes, capstans, that is, all that is associated with the lifting of a stone 600-ton structure. This picture shows only the scaffolds that are used for repair work, and not for the installation of the column. This corresponds to my version, according to which our primitive civilization only did repair of the column installed by the previous high-tech civilization. So, Gagarin is not involved in the falsification.

The question is, what is this structure under the column? Let's say this is a temporary brick structure for supporting wooden tower posts. But why is she so dilapidated? In theory, it should be disassembled last, when the forests are completely removed. After all, forests rely on this structure.

Also mysterious is the construction and hoisting of the 11-ton angel figure. Here is the official timeline:


March 29 - Montferrand presents a new project of sculptural completion with two figures of angels supporting the cross.

April 12 - five options are offered for consideration: with one or two figures (B. I. Orlovsky); with figures of Alexander Nevsky or Archangel Michael (I. I. Leppe); with figures symbolizing Faith, Hope and Love (T. Jacques).

April 22 - The Academy of Fine Arts Council chooses a one-figure composition: an angel with a raised hand trampling the cross of a serpent curled at its feet.

April 26 - August 31 - casting of bas-reliefs in bronze at the factory of C. Byrd. May - B.I. Orlovsky begins work on a new model of sculpture of an angel. He completed 14 options in different sizes.


January 5 - the plaster model of the statue of the Angel is finally made.

February 24 - Casting of the statue in bronze at the C. Byrd factory was started. The body, cross, arm, and wings were cast separately. The height of the statue is 6 arshins (4.3 m), the weight of 696 pounds is 16 pounds (11.14 tons). April 4 - after lengthy discussions, it was decided to abandon the gilding of the sculpture and the cross. On August 30, the monument was unveiled.

When the angel was hoisted, science does not know. But, this is not so important. It is important HOW. How to lift 11 tons by 40 meters (13 floors)? I never found a description of this process. Although this can be dealt not only by gods but also by people. Even the Kyshtym humanoid. It's almost 60 times lighter than the column. If the column was raised by 60 capstans, then for an angel one is enough.

Question - why did they start to work on the top of the column six months after the installation of the column? After all, they could simultaneously make a column and cast an angel. And put it at least on the same day when they installed the column. Why artificially delay the opening of the column?

The pedestal has even more problems.

According to the official version and in reality, the length of the side of the pedestal is 6.3 meters and the height is 2.85 (// What is its mass? 6.3 X 6.3 X 2.85 X 2.6 (granite density) = 291 tons.

On the 76th page of the album shows a section of the column stand:

The largest part, let's call it a pedestal, should be the size according to the official version 6.3 X 6.3 X 2.85. The ratio of width to height is 6.3 / 2.85 = 2.21. But, if you measure pixels from a picture using any image processing program, then the ratio of length and height is not that, and 619/213 = 2.9 is almost 3: 1.That is, either the height is not enough, or the width is too much.

If we take its real width as a reference point, that is, the only value measurable nowadays is 6.3 meters, then its height is not 2.85 m, but 6.3 / 2.9 = 2.17 m. Then the mass of this block is 6.3 X 6.3 X 2.17 X 2.6 = total 224 tons.

But, if we take the height of this brick 2.85 m as the reference point, then the width, in accordance with the figure, is 2.85 * 2.9 = 8.3 meters, 2 meters more than the declared one. Remember this figure - 8.3 meters. In this case, the mass of this brick is 8.3 X 8.3 X 2.85 X 2.6 = 510 tons.

Now the fun begins. We have an exact value that we can measure not in the picture, but in reality - the pedestal is 6.3 meters wide. And the figure is 8.3 meters. Maybe Montferrand made a mistake once? It happens to everyone?!

Nothing like this! In his album, this block of pedestal is found already 5 times and always has such a value - more than 8 meters.

Here is a fragment of the first drawing from the 52nd page of the album, where the block is still in Vyborg in a quarry:

To roughly measure the length of the side of the monolith, I cut out the figure of a person and applied it along the side of this megalith. At least 5 human growths fit. At least, because the left edge of the brick did not enter the drawing. If we take an average height of 1.75 m, then we get a minimum length of 1.75 X 5 = 8.75 meters. But the height of the stone in this figure is 2 of human height, that is 3.5 meters.

In this case, the mass of the stone is 8.75 X 8.75 X 3.5 X 2.6 = 700 tons. But maybe an extra 2 meters on each side will be cut off from this piece, and a monolith of modern size will be taken to St. Petersburg? Nothing like this. Further in the album there are 4 more drawings of this stone, 1 on the barge and 3 already in St. Petersburg - and everywhere it is the same size. And now we read:

At the same time, Vasily Yakovlev began to search for another monolith - for the pedestal of the column. Such a stone from red granite was discovered in the Letsarma area, also not far from the Gulf of Finland. 500 workers began cutting down a block weighing about 25 thousand pounds (about 400 tons).

But, after all, we counted 224 tons if the width is as it is now. Or 510 tons if the width is such that corresponds to the drawing of Montferrand and a height of 2.85. Or 700, if it matches the picture in the quarry. How 3 more wagons of granite stuck to the monolith in the first case, or where 2 wagons evaporated in the second case and 5 wagons in the third, is not known to science. How to combine a snake and a hedgehog? It also states that the stone for the base of the column was found in Letsarma, separate from the stone for the column itself in Puterlax.

But, we read the official version in another source:

After the masons, having examined the rock, confirmed the suitability of the material, a prism was cut off from it, which significantly exceeded the future column ... After separation of the workpiece, huge stones were cut from the same rock for the foundation of the monument, the largest of which weighed about 25,000 pounds (over 400 tons).

How to combine a snake and a hedgehog? The pedestal was cut down in the same place in Piterlaks or in another, in Letsarm? Here is a more complete view of the picture from the album:

He who is not blind sees that the stone for the pedestal (on the left border of the figure) is cut down in the same place as the stone for the column. But, we just read that they were mined in different quarries a few kilometers from each other. I wonder where this stone was originally located? Before a monolith for a column, under or above it?

500 workers began cutting down the block ...

How many men can stand near each side? To wave sledgehammers, you need 1 man per meter. 6.3 men on each side if its size is the same as in the official version. The block has 4 sides, but at least one outer. (A smart engineer will find some kind of angular block, so that he has to cut only from 2 sides). And there are 19 men. Let them work there in 3 shifts, 57 men. What did the rest 440 do? Well, boss, deputy chief, party organizer, accountant, secretary, cook, cleaning lady, and who else? Maybe there were 22 bosses for every meter of the block and for one worker? And they told 22 hours, for an hour, each party leader about how Samson Sukhanov at the age of 16 years old failed two 1600 kilogram polar bears. What does the polar night in absolute darkness. And this inspired the hammers to new labor feats. Sukhanov movement.

500 workers began cutting down a block weighing about 25 thousand pounds (about 400 tons). Three months later, the block was recaptured and dragged to the shore of the bay, where a special pier was built.The stone was loaded onto a ship, also specially built for this occasion.

And why is it not described how this bandura was dragged to the pier? They rolled the column, but how did they drag 400 tons over rocky terrain?

It is a pity that they did not write that this stone also fell into the water, but did not drown. How without it? Why was a special vessel built for this stone? Why build 2 ships if only one is enough for a column and a pedestal? They were not simultaneously transported.

Official chronology:

October 20 - November 9, 1831 - sea transportation of stone for a basement (subsement), broken out in Letzarm 5 miles from Puterlaks, and 6 granite blocks for a pedestal in St. Petersburg. The stones were delivered to the Palace Square, where their processing began.

(I remind you that the convoy was transported by sea later almost six months later). Here is how it was:

In this illustration, from the 53rd page of the album, about 4.25 human growth. Why not more than 5 growths, as in the previous quarry? Because here we see the side face at a large angle to the plane of the picture. At an angle of 45 degrees, the projection of the line is shorter than the line itself up to 30%. And in the quarry, the side face was almost parallel to the plane of the drawing. Plus, here I chose the tallest man standing on a stone. He is perhaps taller than the man we measured in the previous picture. All these are approximate calculations. But, in any situation, the size of the cobblestone is noticeably larger than the one that now lies under the column.

For fidelity, we take 3 more drawings of this monolith:

This is the 54th page of the album. 5 human height, More than 8 meters.

This is a drawing from the 55th page of Montferrand's album. The width of the stone is 4.5 human height, 4.5 X 1.75 = 7.85 m. Most likely the chosen peasant is above average and then the stone is more than 8 meters. But, do not forget about the projection and the permissible error of the artist.

Moreover, the stone is not at the end point of the installation of the column, but on the way to it. To make sure of this, look at the final location point relative to Zimny:

And below is a more complete picture regarding the Winter:

They built a roof over the pedestal and surrounded it with scaffolds. That is, they are going to process it for a long time. Most likely, grind the top surface.

Why is this stone not standing on any rollers for further transportation? How are they going to drag him further? That's how:

This is a fragment from the 57th page of the album. The width of the stone is almost 4.5 human height, that is, almost 8 meters. Do not forget that in fact, the side is longer, because we see it at an angle. And the peasant with whom we are measuring is a few meters closer to us and looks bigger than if he was near the stone itself.

What is the height of the pedestal? Again 2 human height, that is 3.5 meters. As in all other figures. And what do we see? This block rolls in just 5 logs. That is, more than 120 tons per log or 16 tons per meter of log length. But, pay attention, the logs do not lie on a flat surface but on wooden skids, the distance between which is equal to the width of these skids. This means that half the length of the log sags, and the second half of the log experiences a double load. That is, 32 tons per meter of log length.

Thin logs are commensurate with a person’s head. 20-30 cm.

Logs are compressed under the stone, this is normal. But, with a certain load, the tree is destroyed. This parameter is called the "compressive strength." It shows how much mass per unit area the wood can withstand to failure.

A tree has fibers. The load can be directed along the fibers or across. Fibers stretch along a tree trunk. Below are 2 tables of tensile strengths of wood along and across the fibers // //

The tensile strength at a load across the fibers is 10-15 times approximately lower than along. The logs under the stone are pressurized across the fibers. For every meter of log length, 32 tons act. Or 320 kg per 1 cm of length.

What should be the width of the contact area so that the wood does not flatten? From what material the logs are not known. Let's say pine.Then we divide 320 by 34 = 9.4 cm. With a log thickness of about 20 cm, the logs will become oval, and something will become difficult to roll over them. And most likely, after making a half turn, the log will crumble.

When we roll out the dough, then if you just click on the roller from the dough, it will just flatten, and if you roll it, it will spread. Moreover, the logs lie on a lattice of boards. Each log lies on 9 square runners, that is, it has 18 points of increased voltage at the borders of runners, where sagging with overload is adjacent. In fact, the log under the stone looks like a chain of sausages. Thickening in the gaps between the runners and compression over the runners.

But that is not all. Exactly the same deformation under the logs will occur in runners. They are also wooden. Even if they are not logs, but steel shafts.

When the stone is pulled, the first log will fall out - after all, the stone stands on the edge of the springboard. The entire weight of the stone will fall on 4 logs. But, at the same time, the last log will be behind the stone. Already all the weight will fall on 3 logs. Then by 2 and at the end by one. What is the point of them?

On November 2, 2015, I separately published everything that I dug up on the topic of the pedestal //

By the way, what kind of figure is this in the picture? Why is the pedestal inside some kind of brick wall of some long corridor in the middle of an empty Palace Square? What kind of jokes?

Here is a more complete view:

Previous 56th page:

Now attention. Wall thickness ... Attention ... drum roll ... 2 meters! In the thinnest part. And at 2 adjacent corners of the square part around the column installation site, the wall thickness ... 7 (SEVEN) meters!

Now let's find out how this building is oriented on the palace square? The stone was unloaded at the nearest pier to the installation site of the column. On the 54th drawing of the album, which shows the beginning of the pedestal from the pier, the Peter and Paul Fortress is visible to the right of it and the facade of the Winter Palace from the Admiralty to the right. So, the stone was dragged along the same path as the column. That is, a 30-meter corridor, inside which a stone was dragged, starts from the Admiralty.

Where did this huge building come from? Either it was built long ago by the previous civilization, or it was built immediately before the installation of the column.

According to the official version, of course, there was nothing up to the pillar in the square - there are several old art paintings with supposedly empty palace square to confirm this. So, according to official bear cubs, Montferrand built this structure for temporary technological purposes, and then it was dismantled in bricks.

The only reason why it was necessary to build was for the supports of the future lifting tower. (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 start from the ground itself, but 9-10 meters higher.

But, in this case, it is not clear why build an entire wall if it would be enough to build several stone supports, like supports for a bridge? And why build the long walls of the corridor where the lifting tower will not stand at all?

The square part on the right in the drawing for these purposes can be represented, and the long 30-meter corridor with 2-meter walls does not apply to this.

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

So, this structure with 2-meter walls did not play any role for the tower's towers.

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

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

Figure caption: Plan du grand échafaudage en charpente avec l'indication du massif en maçonnerie qui lui servait de soubassement

Google translation: Plan of a large construction scaffolding indicating massive masonry, which served as the base

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

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

My conclusion is that this structure, along with the internal walls, was there before the reconstruction of Montferrand, and for us they painted a poppycock to explain why this building was supposedly built.

Why did they draw us that at first there were supposedly no internal walls? To explain how they dragged the stone of the pedestal. He wouldn’t have passed through the walls.

Compare with the above image of Gagarin:

We see this with high windows on the side of the structure where the thin part of the column was turned. A long corridor is on the left side of the drawing, from the Admiralty. From there they dragged a stone and a column. This corridor is partially disassembled, like a square room. And still this construction is drawn on the 66th page of the Album:

It is difficult to understand from the drawing what kind of stairs these pieces are. The distance between the steps of the "stairs" is comparable to human growth. Too large to be used as stairs.

Here is the full image from page 66:

ALL INCLINED Masts REACH THE EARTH. There are 3 on each side.

Now get ready for a sharp turn.

Before us is the 35th drawing from the album of 1832 from the aforementioned site of the French national library // To the site of fr. library album posted in 2012. A copy of the album is here //

As you can see, all inclined elements abut against a stone structure, not one reaches the ground. Inclined beams are not 3 on each side as in the new album, but 7.

The extreme inclined beams rest on additional walls built at right angles to the external walls. In this old album, again, the outer walls do not carry any significant load. Only the third row of pillars furthest from the column rests on them. Moreover, even for these supports only a small central part of the external wall is required. The third part of the length. Why build another two-thirds is not clear. And 7-meter corner walls generally do not carry any load. What were they built for?

The conclusion is unequivocal - Montferrand did not build the external walls. He does not need them. But they didn’t interfere. There is no sense in them, as with 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 indicated 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 the ancients could use the building from which these external walls remained? A stone corridor of 30 meters and a square room with a column in the center and with very thick walls. It looks like an ancient spaceport. The column could be used as a guide beam for a large rocket.

It might also have been a nuclear reactor. On top of the walls was a heavy lid that tore off after an uncontrolled reaction, like in Chernobyl. Who has other hypotheses - write.

What we see in the drawings and drawings of the movement of the stone inside the high thick walls is described, for example, here: "Encyclopedic Dictionary of F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron":

the monolith was dragged on the rinks along an inclined plane onto a platform built near the foundation, and then dumped it on a pile of sand poured under the platform; the earthquake was so strong that passersby felt an underground blow in the square.

ABOUT! Again, the impossible is easy for them.What does it mean "dumped 700 tons"? What is it like? How to make a giant brick lying on the platform fall? Who will push 700 tons from the platform? Or even 291 if you take the official sizes? If you pull it off the platform slowly, which is real, then the monolith will first roll over on one side and rest against the sand in an angle, and then you won’t move it anywhere. And you will not feel any blow to the ground. Outweighing will be gradual. So, it is necessary to push so that 700 tons fly off the platform at high speed. As from a springboard.

It seems that these officers mixed up a rectangular flat brick with a round column. They could have pushed her. Pull to the edge of any platform, pull, and she really would have collapsed with a roar. And it’s not possible to push a brick like that.

There is, however, one way. Catch all polar bears, tie to a brick and release Samson Sukhanov on them. But how then to stop them? They will drag this block to the North Pole!

But this method is not suitable. In the drawing of Montferrand, it is clear that the brick will slowly roll over and lie on an inclined plane:

No sand is visible. Again they write one thing and draw another.

Then they brought up the supports, raked out the sand and put the rollers in place; when this operation was completed, the supports were cut, and the stone sat on the rollers on which it was rolled onto the foundation.

What are these props? If they are thin and can be cut, how did they hold 700 tons? And if they are fat, how can you cut them? It is still possible to cut, but how to cut down a meter-thick support, for example? And it’s not clear why backups are necessary at all? Rake out the sand and immediately substitute the rollers. Why complicate it?

And in general, some kind of nonsense turns out. The monolith was originally on the rinks. Then they lifted him up on an inclined plane on these rollers in order to drop them onto the sand again, substitute the supports, cut up the supports, and put them on the rollers again. From where they left, they came there. He was at the rinks, made complex pertubations, and he was again at the rinks.

But what happened next can be compared in idiocy with the victory of 17-year-old unarmed Samson Sukhanov over a white bear in the polar night.

But this did not end there: it was necessary to remove the rollers and correctly install this colossal monolith.

Using ropes, blocks and nine capstans, he was lifted three feet (1 meter), the rollers were pulled out and then put on the foundation

What does it mean planted on the foundation? To lift it, it was necessary to stretch a bunch of thick ropes under it. About hundreds. How then pulled these ropes from under the stone? It's impossible!

The same moment on Wikipedia:

After laying the foundation, a 400-ton monolith was brought to it, brought from the Pyaterlak quarry, which serves as the base of the pedestal ...

Do not forget that at another office. versions of this monolith were cut down not in Piterlaks, but in Letsarm.

The stone was rolled onto the foundation. The ropes thrown over the blocks were pulled by nine capstans and raised the stone to a height of about one meter.

Again, holy simplicity. Raise 400 tons per 1 meter. And, in fact, 600 tons. And immediately the question arises - why did they attach the ropes to raise the stone? To the clouds? To the stars in the sky? What a grandiose structure and when erected over the foundation, so that it does not collapse under a weight of 600 tons?

They took out the rollers and added a layer of slippery, very peculiar in its composition solution, on which the monolith was planted.

And ropes from under a stone how then to pull out? In order to pull the rollers out from under a 700-ton brick, the brick must hang on something. Either the UFO held it, or the ropes. How else? UFO invented by ufologist Vadim Chernobrov. Ropes remain. And then how to pull the ropes? Or did they stay under him forever?

I asked to remember that a column weighing 600 tons was lifted using as many as 60 capstans. 10 tons each. And now we read that only 9 capstans, 77 tons each, were enough to raise a pedestal of 700 tons. Why is such a difference 8 times? The column is one and a half times lighter than the pedestal, and capstans used 7 times more. Why? Again does not grow together!

Recently, another useful miracle hater has appeared. In LJ, he has the nickname ig-kuv. He found the old 1936 magazine Building Industry No. 13 (September) 1936, pp. 31-34

The author of the article is a certain prof. N.N. Luknatsky (Leningrad) // Someone (probably he) posted the same thing on the Yaplakal site // The author of the article is prof. Lucknath did not indicate the sources. Apparently, he takes everything from French texts from Montferrand's album.

2. Pedestal for the column

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

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

The stone under the pedestal was located 75 m from the foundations of the column, it was covered with a canopy and until January 1832, 40 stone cutters trimmed it from five sides.

In order to turn the stone upside down with its bare unfinished face up, we arranged a long inclined wooden plane, the end of which, forming a vertical ledge, rose 4 m above the ground; under it, on the ground, a layer of sand was poured onto which a stone was supposed to lie when falling from the end of an inclined plane;

On February 3, 1832, the stone was pulled up by nine capstans to the end of the inclined plane and here, after hesitating for several seconds in equilibrium, fell one edge on the sand, and then was easily turned over.

This version is more believable. The stone did not fall flat on the sand, but fell over, having passed the equilibrium point. Although no sand is drawn.

After cutting the sixth facet, the stone had to be laid on the rollers and pulled on the foundation, and then the rollers removed; for this, 24 racks were brought under the stone, about 60 cm high, then sand was removed from under it, after which 24 carpenters, working in a very coordinated manner, simultaneously hung the racks to a small height near the lowest surface of the stone, gradually thinning them; when the thickness of the racks reached about 1/4 of the normal thickness, then a strong crack began, and the carpenters moved to the side; the remaining uncut part of the racks broke under the weight of the stone, and it sank a few centimeters; this operation was repeated several times until the stone finally sat on the rollers.

To install the stone on the foundation, they again arranged a wooden inclined plane along which it was lifted by nine capstans to a height of 90 cm, first lifting it with eight large levers (wagons) and pulling the rollers out from under it; the space formed under it made it possible to lay a layer of solution; since the work was carried out in winter, in frosts from -12 ° to -18 °, Monferand mixed cement with vodka, adding one twelfth of the soap; cement formed a thin and flowing dough and it was easy to turn the stone on it with two capstans, slightly raising it with eight large wagons, so that it could be perfectly horizontally installed on the upper plane of the foundation; work on the exact installation of the stone lasted two hours.

St. Isaac's Cathedral was also built by Montferrand. According to the official version, there the columns weighing 114 tons were raised using 16 capstans. From wikipedia:

To raise the columns ... On the side were installed 16 cast-iron gates-capstans, each of which employed 8 people. The column was sheathed with felt and mats, tied with ship ropes and rolled into one of the spans of the forests, and the ends of the ropes through the block system were fixed on capstans. Workers, turning the gates, brought the monolith upright. Installation of one 17-meter column weighing 114 tons took about 45 minutes.

This is only 7 tons per capstan. That is, 11 times less than when lifting the base of the Alexander Column. Why is that? Were these capstans the little fingers? Could it be capstans for children? Or ladies?

I wonder what kind of ropes were used to lift this block? 700 tons with 9 capstans means 9 ropes if without blocks.It turns out 77 tons per rope! If the rope was pulled through the block, then the load on the rope was halved. But 38.5 tons are also many. This is where such ropes did? After all, then there were no metal cables!

And by the way, what did the lifting tower look like for such a block? After all, this monolith is heavier than the column! Who designed this tower? Who collected it?

On the 48th page of the album, Montferrand painted a finished column on a pedestal. In this case, there are no discrepancies with the modern monument. The size of the pedestal is 3.5 people, that is, one and a half people less, corresponds to the actual size at present 6.3 meters, and the size of the steps is about 6 people, that is, 10 meters:

When Montferrand drew a lifting tower, then all of his drawings have different towers with several options for the number of horizontal crossbars. There are no two identical towers. And all 4 drawings of the pedestal, before the hoisting on it, the columns are the same and all together show the same size - 8-8.5 meters. Against 6.3 real. That is, the difference is almost 35% of 6.3 m. Why did he draw the same wrong pedestal 5 times? So that we do not think that he accidentally made a mistake once. Although even a 1 time mistake by 35% is impossible for a serious artist. I'm not talking about such a titan as Montferrand. He couldn’t do this to the tower - to draw equally wrong on several drawings, because we won’t know which one was right. The tower is a temporary structure. Therefore, in order to show falsification, I had to draw it in different ways.

On the 71st page of the album, another Montferrand crossed out all the efforts of the previous Montferrand:

For a change, I displayed the picture in negative. This Montferrand has vertical supports stretching all the way to the ground, although on the previous diagrams of the first Montferrand the supports rested on stone walls, which he wrote about in the album in French, and Google translated into Russian. In the Album on the site of the French library, too, the supports do not reach the ground, but to a stone structure.

Who doesn’t understand anything, look at both pictures next:

As for the strange construction in the middle of the Palace Square, there is a hypothesis that this was once a large church building, which appears in even older drawings when the Winter Palace of the third version stood. According to one of the official versions, now stands the fifth version of the Winter. Apart from the temporary wooden, built at the time of the construction of the latter. If we consider a temporary wooden fifth, then the current sixth. The first was built in 1711, the last in 1764. Imagine, in 53 years, 5 palaces were demolished and 5 more were built! Not a hut in the village, but the palace of the largest state in the world! Without cranes and bulldozers. These palaces not only built, but also painted with paintings from floor to ceiling, decorated with all sorts of statues, stucco moldings, gilded, silver, etc.

So, here’s some kind of Winter, either the second or the third, or the fourth:

The figure I slammed from here //

This is a drawing of Makhaev from the book of K.V. Malinovsky "Mikhail Ivanovich Makhaev." Edition 2008, in the previous edition of these figures are not. The drawing was miraculously preserved in the collection of S.E. Choban.

Here it is scanned in a larger close-up:

The painting dates from the 1749th year. In support of a fragment of the 68th page of Malinovsky’s book:

But in another picture, this church is already missing:

Taken from there. It is a pity that this picture is not written in what year. I need to find out.

Another picture where only the domes of this church are visible:

Signature to the drawing: "Petersburg. View of the Neva embankments downstream. Paris, first quarter of the 19th century." But at the beginning of the 19th century Zimny ​​did not look like that at all. At the beginning of the 19th century there was a modern Winter Palace. And in the background, just to the left of the center of the picture, St. Isaac’s Cathedral of the second version (the current one is the fourth according to the official version). I don’t remember where I downloaded this picture from and the search yielded nothing. Who knows, tell me.

Here are some more drawings with this church on the Palace Square:

Signature of the last black-and-white engraving: "View of the Winter Palace of Anna Ioannovna from the Neva. Engraving by G. A. Kachalov from a drawing by M. Makhaev. 1750s."

Here is a more accurate date of writing, or paintings or engravings on it - the 1753th.

But, it is not clear when the painting itself was painted by Makhaev? Not earlier than 1753. On Wikipedia, the list of Makhayev’s main works contains: “1745-1753. Plan of the capital city of St. Petersburg with the image of the most notable avenues”.

In short, this church with domes existed in the interval from 1745 to 1753, according to Makhaev and the dating in the signature.

And in this figure of the same 1749 building still / is no longer there:

Perhaps the church with domes was completed after 1749?

In another picture of Makhayev, in the place of the future column and the former church, some kind of structure is depicted, similar to a fountain with statues, to which steps lead, and access to which is limited by a fence at a great distance. And on the sloping roof of the Winter Palace itself, some small domes stuck, which are usually called the "house church" (on the right in the figure):

On Wikipedia, this is called the "Third Winter Palace". But in other sources, this is the fourth, after which there was a temporary fifth wooden for the time of converting the fourth into the sixth modern.

Signature for this picture on different sites:

"The Third Winter Palace in St. Petersburg. 1750-53" //

"View of the Winter Palace of Anna Ioannovna from the Admiralty Meadow. 1753" // "View of the old Winter Palace from the side of Palace Square. 1750

State Russian Museum "//

Here is a close-up of this structure:

Various sources mention that Catherine arranged for the people wine fountains in front of her palace. Perhaps this is one of them. But, at the time of writing the picture, Catherine has not yet ruled. And about her predecessors did not come across such information.

Here's what one of the fountains looked like or the only one:

I did not remember where I found him.

It appears that Montferrand did not set up a column, but rather, dismantled the structure, leaving only the column, which was in the center of it. The tractor was filed and the plane turned out. They just removed the excess.

In general, according to the official version set out by Makhayev, it turns out that that church was demolished by 1753, and a fountain was put in its place. But then what kind of building was later painted by Montferrand and Gagarin - it is not clear.

Here is some more interesting information. "Proceedings of the St. Petersburg Archaeological Expedition of St. Petersburg State University":

The outbuilding of the Winter Palace of the time of Empress Elizabeth was built by F.-B. Rastrelli in 1746-1747 It was L-shaped and located at the southwest corner of the modern Winter Palace.

During the construction of the latter, in the mid 1750s. the outbuilding was dismantled (except for the church, which stood for another 10 years). //

It turns out that this church could be demolished in the mid 1760s. And in the picture of 1749 it is already gone.

Now we will analyze some of the mistakes of our main guru Alexei Kungurov. He wondered if this stone could be a modern pedestal for a column. And he decided that he couldn’t. Because, according to him, the modern pedestal is too small, approximately doubled. //

According to him at a time of 1:50, the base of the pedestal is 4 meters. Then he corrected himself and named the width 4.5 meters, and the stone that we see in the paintings of Montferrand is 8 meters.

How did he decide that now this part of the monument is only 4.5 m? He compared the width of the column by eye, and it seemed to him that this stone was only 1 meter wider, that is, a third wider than the diameter of the column. But he was let down by the eye. If you take a high-quality photograph of the column and directly on the computer screen measure the ratio of the column thickness at the base, which is 3.5 meters and the pedestal, then the latter is slightly smaller than the two column widths. That is, about 6.5 meters. And in all official sources its width is indicated almost like that - 6.3 meters.

The mistake of the eye of Kungurov about the width of the pedestal pulled an error about the width of the steps around the column. He was guided by this drawing from the 86th page of Montferrand's album:

The steps are approximately twice as wide as the pedestal. It is right.Then Kungurov multiplied his erroneous 4 -4.5 meters by 2, and it turned out about 8 meters, which coincides with the size of the pedestal in the first drawings of Montferrand. Therefore, he decided that the stone was driven into the ground. But, in fact, if the actual size of the pedestal is 6.3 meters multiplied by 2, then you get more than 12 meters. So, 12-meter steps - this is not the upper part of the 8-meter stone pedestal.

But, in any case, the dimensions of the pedestal before the column was placed on it are 2 meters larger than its dimensions after, in later figures. Where these meters have fallen and hundreds of tons of weight with them is not known to science. I take this to Montferrand’s next hint that he is being forced to mystify history, and he is forced to lie, hiding something very important.

By the way, in this picture St. Isaac's Cathedral stands ready-made. Although the album was released a year before they began to build the foundation of the future dome. But, I do not perceive this picture as an unequivocal confirmation of the existence of Isakia before its appearance according to the official version. After all, Montferrand could draw how it will look in the future. He knew what project of the future cathedral was approved. He did not capture a specific event here, like a parade in honor of the opening, when the cathedral was clearly not visible and there was no point in drawing it. It’s one thing to paint a landscape where it’s permissible to paint how the place will look in the future, it’s another thing to paint a specific event in time, where it’s inappropriate to paint what was not during the event.

However, even in this picture there was a hint of forced falsification. At the top, an angel is drawn in a vertical reflection.

That is, the left and right sides of the angel are interchanged. In the figure, he holds a cross in his left hand, but in reality - in his right.

Another video clip look:

Kungurov dated this picture in 1834, deciding that it depicts a parade in honor of the opening of the column. We see in the center of the picture in the background the St. Isaac's Cathedral, whose dome could begin to be built according to the official version no earlier than 1837. But when was this picture painted?

Information about this diverges.

On the website of RIAN (Russian News Agency of the News) // this picture says:

Reproduction of the painting "The parade of troops on Palace Square in St. Petersburg on the occasion of the inauguration of the Alexandrian Column on August 30, 1834." Watercolor. Unknown artist, 1836. Original in the State Historical Museum.

Of course, in 1834 no cathedral could be seen. However, another source // indicates 1855. And the author is known here, and not oil and oil (as in that joke - he did not win, but lost, not in chess but in cards, not with Count Sheremetyev, but with the chimney sweep Akaky Svinarenko):

The parade on Palace Square in St. Petersburg. Artists A.I. Ladurner and E.D. Tideman. 1855 oil on canvas

The only inaccuracy is the initials of Tideman. Must not be E.D. and P.D .:

Tideman, Peter Danilovich, Academician I.A. X. (since 1857), painter of the battle family; genus. 1812, † 1887, March 20 (source).

Here // another name for the picture is indicated:

Platoon of the Life Guards Cavalry Regiment in front of the Winter Palace. 1855 year.

In the lower left corner is a signature on which the date is either 1835 or 1855. The penultimate figure is blurred:

It seems that there was a triple but it was smeared under the top five.

An inscription in French says that Ladurner began painting and finished with Tiedemann. This coincides with their official biography. The first died in 1855, and the second in 1881. I do not know how much this is true, but there are no contradictions.

And one more argument in favor of 1855. If this picture is dedicated to the parade in honor of the opening of the column, then why didn’t they draw the column? This is some other parade.

In short, there is nothing special about this picture. Another error of Kungurov:

And this mistake is repeated more than once in his various speeches. It is very strange that none of his many fans except me notice this.

A little bit about the bas-relief.

2 drawings from the 74th and 73rd pages of the album, and under them a real bas-relief. A million differences from everyone.

And these are the bas-relief images from the 48th and 73rd pages:

Even the tape around the sheaf is twisted in different directions. And many other differences.

On the left is a photograph of an angel near Al. the columns. Date of shooting March 30, 2003. For some reason, he has female breasts, traditional for antique statues. And a woman’s face. Although, by OB this is the face of Emperor Alexander. But nothing in common.

And on the right, for comparison, an antique statue from a museum in Istanbul. Even folds on clothes. I don’t know why, but restorer Vladimir Sorin, who was at the chest of the angel, claims that she is a man. But, in addition to the type of chest, clothes and folds on clothes coincide with clothes on female statues.

The most important event is the erection of a column on a pedestal. It happened on August 30, 1832. And the grand opening of the finished monument took place on the same day exactly 2 years later.

By office version named Alexandrovskaya in honor of Tsar Alexander 1, who defeated Napoleon. However, the date of August 30 is the day of remembrance of another Alexander, Nevsky:

The relics of the blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky were transferred on August 30, 1724 from the Nativity Monastery of Vladimir to the Trinity Monastery in St. Petersburg

On Sunday morning, August 30, 1724, the entire Nevsky fleet (even the boat of Peter I was withdrawn) went up the Neva towards the gallery with relics. Peter I went to the galley, where he himself stood at the helm, and the dignitaries who were with him sat down at the oars.

With a cannon salute and a bell ringing, the honest relics of the Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky were met on the banks of the Neva, near the Monastyrka River. From the shore, the holy relics were transferred by the king and dignitaries to the monastery and placed in a new church, which was consecrated on the same day.

After the transfer of the relics of the Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky, Peter I ordered "to celebrate on August 30 instead of the service that was formerly used for this holy November 23rd.

The compilation of the new service was entrusted by the Synod to Chief Hieromonk of the Fleet, adviser to the Synod, schools and printing houses, Protector Archimandrite Gabriel (Buzhinsky).

The content of this service, in addition to church worship, includes historical material about the events of the beginning of the 18th century. The text of the service gives thanks to God for the victory over Sweden granted to Russia, for the long-awaited peace, Russia is glorified as a country of the Orthodox faith and its new capital dedicated to the Apostle Peter.

The newly compiled life of St. Alexander Nevsky is also a brief historical reference on the history of the Northern War and the transfer of the relics of the holy prince from Vladimir to St. Petersburg. //

So, under Nicholas I, the column was erected on the day of memory of Al-Nevsky in 1832, and in 1834 the monument was solemnly opened again on the day of memory of Nevsky. So what does Tsar Alexander I have to do with it?

Moreover, we saw above that according to one of the projects, Al. Nevsky should have stood at the top of the column (pictured first): The fact that this is Nevsky is also confirmed in the official version:


April 12 - 5 options are offered for consideration: with one or two figures (B. I. Orlovsky); with figures of Alexander Nevsky or Archangel Michael (I. I. Leppe); with figures symbolizing Faith, Hope and Love (T. Jacques) //

And the pedestal of the column is full of weapons and armor from the time of Alexander Nevsky:

What does Alexander the First have to do with it?

Well, if the column is named after Nevsky, then, quite possibly, it stood even before Tsar Alexander the First was born. That is why the column with the antenna appears on the engraving of 1820. At least 12 years before it was installed according to the official version. Next to the column is the Neva River, and Alexandrov Nevsky Avenue overlooks the General Staff through the arch. Everything around the column breathes Alexander Nevsky. But in order to hide the fact of the presence of the column before its official installation, a white-and-white bike was launched stating that it was built in honor of the war of 1812 and Tsar Alexander. But the words are one, and the bas-reliefs on the pedestal are different. The tongue is boneless, and the bronze bas-relief with the armor of Alexander Nevsky is solid.

Details here: the Alexander Column is named after Alexander Nevsky, and not in honor of Tsar Alexander as it is considered according to the official version //

According to all official sources, such a legend walks:

Petersburgers were very afraid that she would fall and tried not to get close to her. These fears were based on the fact that the column was not fixed. To dispel fears, Montferrand made it a rule every morning to walk with his beloved dog right under the pillar.

I wonder how many more dogs were walking there and whether Monferrand was pooping for his beloved dog. Did he collect it with a bag or a scoop and a whisk? It is good that Samson Sukhanov did not walk polar bears there.

On this link you can see a similar Montferrand in 1845, dedicated to St. Isaac's Cathedral.

Let me remind you that on the 98th page of this album, Montferrand painted cubic protrusions on the column trunk:

These cubes are smaller here, because the columns are 5 times lighter than Aleksandrovskaya.

But the problem is that in all other figures these protrusions are not. The columns are visible close-up in the quarry and on the embankment after unloading. The surfaces are smooth. And here they appeared suddenly. And at the next stages they disappear. The protrusions are made to lift the column, but in the figures with the elevation of the protrusions just do not.

On page 96 is a drawing of a quarry where columns for the cathedral were mined. Here is a snippet of this picture:

There are also no vertical lines from driven wedges to the entire fault height, as should be according to the method of Samson Ksenofontovich Sukhanov, the son of Semyon. Three times born, twice dead.

On the 97th page of the same album the same thing - in St. Petersburg, stonecutters all drank with circular or cable saws or laser blasters:

None of the traces of the method of Samsoshi Ksenofontovich Sukhanov, whose father is Semyon. Compare again with modern scattered block fragments:

All of them are indented with Sukhanov lines.

If there are no traces of the method of Sukhanov on the stones of St. Petersburg 200 years ago, then what traces are there? After all, "a holy place does not happen empty." Maybe there are traces of alien technology in the holy place of traces of the method of Sukhanov?

Pay attention to a series of notches on the surface of the cliff. Due to their remoteness in the background, their shape cannot be determined even with strong magnification:

But, with the world's largest megalithic complex in Baalbek, some more details are associated. Here is the 70th page of the Isakiev album:

The signature in French says that it is a view of the bureau of the "Chief Architect".

But on the site of the great official clever men "" the signature is completely different: "A barrack for workers and farm buildings on the construction site of St. Isaac's Cathedral." Benoit lithograph by a drawing of Montferrand. 1845. Not a word of truth, not a word of truth. They can not lie.

On the ancient ruins near the bureau, fragments of two types of stones - white and dark. In Baalbek part of the structure is made of white limestone, and part of reddish granite.

Here is a short video about this from Zinur Khabibullin:

This stone rubbish in the center of St. Petersburg is the same as on the ruins in Baalbek.

Besides the fact that there and there are stones of two colors, pay attention to the lying ribbed white column. There are many of them in Baalbek. For example:

But, most of all, the ornament surrounded by red frames is interesting. On the left is a pattern resembling a swastika and on the right is an ornament from a sequence of cubes.

Here is a photograph from Baalbek, where both types of stone debris ornament in the center of St. Petersburg successfully fell into one frame:

And, by the way, on the right in the far megalith are two classic rectangular notches, as on a blank for the column.

In general, either from Baalbek the garbage was brought to St. Petersburg or in both places and times by one Chief Architect. Where is Peter and where is Baalbek! When was Peter built and when is Baalbek! And the debris from Baalbek was collected in St. Petersburg from the Chief Architect.

This pattern from the swastika, the Chief Architect laid out on the floor Isaac:

The same ornament was copied at the temple of Hadrian in Ephesus (Turkey) (built in the 2nd century new era):

And at the theater of Ephesus:

But that is not all. The largest temple in the temple complex of Baalbek is called the temple of Jupiter. From wikipedia:

The Temple of Jupiter is a rather large structure. Some base blocks weigh 800-1000 tons. To a certain extent, this structure surpasses the Cheops pyramid, the largest granite blocks of which (the ceiling of the king’s chamber) weigh “only” 50-80 tons

This temple consisted of 52 columns, of which only 6 remained. Their height is more than 20 meters (this is 3 meters higher than St. Isaac’s Cathedral), 2.5 thick (half a meter thicker than Isaac’s).

And the square holes are right there, like on a monolithic column in Peter’s drawing. Only the supports under the columns are comparable to a person’s height.

So, while we found 2 signs that combine St. Petersburg technology with the ancient high technology of the "gods" and at the same time differ from modern technologies:

1. Cutting giant pieces of granite without the modern "Sukhanov method", which consists in drilling holes and then driving in bursting wedges. After cutting, a smooth surface remains both on the remaining rock and on a piece separated from it.

2. On the blank for the column there were rectangular holes, as on all ancient megaliths. There is no explanation for these holes.

3. The growths or protrusions from the column trunk are the same as on ancient megalithic objects.

4. Baalbek construction debris in the Palace Square of St. Petersburg. The garbage is two-tone, the ornament is the same as in Baalbek.

Another brainchild of Russian architects-engineers Augustow Augustovich Montferrand-Betancourt - St. Isaac's Cathedral, on the basis of OB began to be built in 1819, and opened in 1858.

But there is a picture of 1840 with the current Council before its opening:

Lithograph Charlemagne.

He was then 16 years old.

Source // ...

If you remember, Augustus Betancourt had a son Alfonso, who has 2 dates of death 1863 and 1875. This Alfonso was familiar with Pushkin. How is it known? Because they were seen together. Where? In St. Isaac's Cathedral. When? This is the main question. © Copyright Rukhlich Roma Abramovich ([email protected]) My daughter Asa Rukhlich (Cohen) is gratefully dedicated.

A T L A N T I D A (Narration of two generations of the noble family Betancourt)


On January 10, 1837, Georg Karl Gekkeren (Dantes), who served as a lieutenant in the regiment of the Cavalier Guard of his Imperial Majesty, was married in Yekaterinburg Cathedral with Ekaterina Nikolaevna Goncharova. The guarantors from the side of Dantes were the captain of the cavalry guard regiment Alfanso Betancourt and the viscount D "Arishak, and from the bride's side - count G.A. Stroganov, the lieutenant of the life guard of the Hussars regiment I. Goncharov, the colonel of the cavalry guard regiment A. Poletika and the Dutch envoy Baronek. A.S. Pushkin was present at the wedding, which makes it possible to assert with confidence that the son of Betancourt Alfonso was familiar with A.S. Pushkin.

And here is even more interesting //

Ekaterina Nikolaevna herself wrote in her first letter to Sultz to her father-in-law: "... Our wedding took place on the last Sunday, 22 of the current month, at 8 o’clock in the evening, in two churches - Catholic and Greek." eleven

Schegolev pointed out that "the marriage was performed on January 10 according to the Catholic rite - in the Roman Catholic Church of St. Catherine and according to the Orthodox - in St. Isaac's Cathedral.

Witnesses at the wedding signed: Baron Gekkern, Count G. A. Stroganov, Captain of the Cavalier Guard regiment Augustine Betancourt (he was resurrected again! Most likely, they mixed up with his son Alfons Betancourt - a note by Leo the Thin), Viscount d'Archiac, L.-G. Hussar Regiment Lieutenant Ivan Goncharov and Colonel of the Cavalier Guard Regiment Alexander Poletika ".12

And he publishes a letter from Gekkeren to Verstolk: "... on the 10th (22nd) of January the marriage was completed in both churches in the presence of the whole family ..." .13

At the end of the XIX century. The marriage record from the book of St. Isaac's Cathedral was published. 15 In TsGIA SPb. The marriage book of the Church of St. Catherine with the registration of the marriage of Dantes and Goncharova with witnesses is kept.


Record in the metric book of St. Isaac's Cathedral 1 In the metric book of St. Isaac's Cathedral for 1837, part II, in Art. 1 in the column “When and who exactly is married” on January 10, 1837 reads: “On the tenth of the day, the Dutch Envoy Baron Hekeren is here, Baron Karl Gekeren adopted by him, serving as a lieutenant in the Cavalier Guard Her Imperial Highness regiment and belonging to the Roman Catholic confession , 25 years old, the Court of His Imperial Majesty the maid of honor maid of honor Ekaterina Nikolaevna Goncharova, 26 years old, both with their first marriage "... The wedding was performed by priest Andrei Raikovsky, deacon Philip Shishkov." 2

Footnotes to page 173

11 Schegolev P.E. Duel and the death of Pushkin. M., 1928.S. 115.

12 Ibid. S. 115

13 Ibid. S. 325.

14 Chereysky L.A. Pushkin and his entourage. L., 1975.S. 54.

15 Russian antiquity. 1880.V. 9.P. 458.

Footnotes to page 174

1 The first publication of this marriage record (with abbreviations and inaccuracies) was made in 1899 by V.V. Nikolsky, who received its text from the secretary of the St. Petersburg Consistory, Ivan Timofeevich Kamchatkin. See: Nikolsky V.V. The ideals of Pushkin. 3rd ed. St. Petersburg, 1899.S. 126-127.

Footnotes to page 175

2 TsGIA SPb., F. 19, op. 111, No. 282, l. 48 (Consistory copy). Raikovsky Andrey Ivanovich (1802-1860), archpriest, rector of St. Isaac's Cathedral.

So, the wedding was performed by Andrey Ivanovich Raikovsky (1802-1860), archpriest, rector of St. Isaac's Cathedral. Here is a list of rectors of St. Isaac's Cathedral. There is no Raikovsky there. As there is no clerk Philip Shishkov, who participated in a wedding with a couple of Raikovsky. Interestingly, in this list the abbots of the third cathedral exist at a time when the third cathedral was destroyed and the fourth in its place has not yet been built, which is basically normal. This is a formal abbot, not acting. And at the time when Dantes was married, Archpriest Aleksey Ivanovich Malov appears as rector. About which it is said there "died on October 31, 1855", which does not appear on either side of the wedding of Dantes.

But here // there are articles about him in three encyclopedias and dictionaries, and the year of death 1885 is indicated everywhere. And he lived in that case 98 years! The difference is 30 years compared to the date of death on Wikipedia. And what about Raikovsky, who carried out the wedding? Where did he come from? It turns out that he is the rector of the Kazan Cathedral and not St. Isaac! List of rectors of Kazan Cathedral on Wikipedia:

1848-1860 Archpriest Andrei Ivanovich Raikovsky (1802-1860)

Another source. Biographical Dictionary, 2001:

Raikovsky, Andrei Ivanovich archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral, professor of theology in St. Petersburg. University genus. 1802; † 29 Oct. 1860 {Polovtsov} //

Here // he is credited with a strange year of birth: Andrei Ivanovich Raikovsky, born. OK. 1798, Archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral

In general, they fooled so that I do not know how to unravel. On the one hand, the wedding took place in St. Isaac’s Cathedral, which was recorded in the archives of St. Isaac’s Cathedral, on the other hand, the priest who crowned them was rector of the Kazan Cathedral.

The most reasonable explanation was this Raikovsky rector of St. Isaac's Cathedral. But, when they falsified history, they made him "rector of the Kazan". But the truth came out in the sources that did not address this issue directly, but only indirectly.

But that is not all. Here from the posthumous biography of Pushkin, who was also buried in January 1837:

The funeral service, appointed in St. Isaac's Cathedral, was transferred to the Stable Church.

And here //

In the summer of 1821, in connection with a radical restructuring of St. Isaac's Cathedral, it was decided to build a temporary place of worship in the Admiralty building, which was done by architect Monferand, the author of the new Isaac's project.

On December 12 of the same year, on the occasion of the Sovereign’s birthday, the church was consecrated in the Admiralty in the name of St. Spyridon. And another chapel was dedicated to the Monk Isaac of Dalmatia.

So, during the restructuring of St. Isaac's Cathedral, he was temporarily transferred to a separate part ("side chapel") of the new church in the Admiralty.

But what did the rector of the Kazan Cathedral Raikovsky do there? And why at the wedding of Dates was not the official rector of St. Isaac's Cathedral, Archpriest Alexei Ivanovich Malov? It’s not possible to understand. One thing is obvious - the ends do not meet. This happens when they twist, stir up, so much so that they themselves can not unravel their web. When trying to fake a lot of events, overlays are necessarily obtained, which are not possible to unravel. There is no other explanation.

Most likely, on the one hand, the rector of St. Isaac was artificially rector of Kazan, on the other hand, St. Isaac's Cathedral was artificially driven into the Admiralty and assigned to this cathedral a fictional rector, because the real one is already "occupied".

But, can there be a very simple explanation - in 1827 the Cathedral was not yet officially opened, but actually built, and there they could sometimes hold services for important persons as an exception? The answer is no!

Montferrand’s album dedicated to the construction of St. Isaac’s Cathedral can be viewed here. (Published in the year 1845).

The 116th page of the album shows the cathedral under construction. Under the figure is the date - 1838.

That is what the cathedral under construction looked like in 1838. There were no domes yet and the cathedral was all in scaffolding. There was no question of any wedding the year before.

And this is an engraving by Karl Sabbat. Very similar to the previous one, but there are differences around the cathedral in the images of animals and people. Also, windows appeared in the basement of the building on the left.

Taken from here // ...

However, on the 86th page of the album dedicated to the Alexander Column (published in 1836), we again see a contradiction with the OB and with the picture of Montferrand himself from a later album: All pictures click and enlarge.

On the left we see the finished St. Isaac’s Cathedral, which by the time the album was released did not yet have upper floors and a dome. The caption under the drawing is translated from French "the view of the Monument on Admiralteyskaya Square with the new (nouvelle) Cathedral of St. Isaac in its full (acheve) form."

Maybe this is just a project of the future. Hard to say.

But, we can definitely say about the last picture of the Album (p. 89):

"Opening of the monument." A specific date is even indicated - August 30, 1834. And in the background to the left of the column is visible St. Isaac's Cathedral with a dome and belfries. This can no longer be a project. The picture shows a specific event and the date of the event is signed.

On the penultimate page of the album is another Montferrand picture depicting this parade from a completely different point from where the Cathedral cannot be seen.

The Montferrand Album has a signature in Russian and French "Parade of the 30th of August 1834."

But, the most amazing thing is that this picture is "prophetic" - published a year before it could be written. This picture is on the 12th of the 23 pages of the album "Costumes and Views of St. Petersburg" ("Souvenir de St. Petersbourg") - 1833; St. Petersburg: Edition by A. Prevo (Lithograph by M. Tyulev).

The album can be viewed here //, here // or here //

What does the picture in the 1833 album do with the event that will happen in a year - with the parade in honor of the opening of the column of August 30, 1834? And why is there no signature under this picture, unlike others? By the way, there is one more picture with a column already open, which may be a sketch of the future view. But, the parade in honor of the opening of the column is an event, not a sketch. It can only be displayed after the event. If the event was.

In general, for the time being, according to the first version, the column was open until 1833. Then the version changed to the modern one.

For comparison, in the painting by another artist, Ladurner Adolf Ignatievich, the appearance of the parade corresponds to the official version - there is no cathedral yet:

The most interesting thing is that Montferrand placed this picture in his album on page 83.That is, there were either 2 Montferrand, or one who consciously gives a sign that this is all a lie, and he is forced to lie, although he is not happy about it. Lies because either St. Isaac's Cathedral at that time was or was not. It cannot and cannot be at the same time on the day of the ceremonial opening of the column.

Another painting by the same author of Ladurner:

Either he did not draw St. Isaac’s Cathedral, that is, the participant in the hoax, or again vile mystifiers were obscuring under the clouds. Unclear. If you believe OV, you will have to believe that Montferrand, a hoaxer, invented the existence of St. Isaac's Cathedral in its finished form in 1834.

In 1842, the album "Picturesque Journey to Russia" was released in Paris in a very limited edition. At the invitation of Prince Demidov in 1839, Andre Duran, a French artist, lithographer and traveler, traveled to Russia and painted from nature the views of many Russian cities and villages. Based on the travel sketches, he later completed 100 lithographs that were included in the album.

Here is one of the pictures:

"St. Petersburg. St. Isaac's Cathedral and Senate Square" Painter Durand Andre Duran 1839. (taken from here // According to other sources, the album was released for the first time already in 1839 // And the journey itself was possible even earlier.

For example, here is another picture of Duran, dated 1838, of course, from the same trip to Russia. True, here he is for some reason named M. Duran. But his name is Andre. Most likely a typo. I did not hear other Durans.

For comparison. Here is what the future cathedral was supposed to look like in 1840 on the 117th page of Montferrand's album (the 1840th year is indicated in the caption to the drawing on page 117):

Here the signature is "St. Isaac's Cathedral in 1840. Lithograph with the tone. Bishbois, V. Adam, original O. Montferrand."

Below on the same page is a very similar picture in the color of the Russian artist Sadovnikov (I bleached it to facilitate comparison of the drawings):

These 2 pictures are very strange. Under the latter there is no signature "according to the original Montferrand." Maybe Montferrand slammed at Sadovnikov?

In the image of the object under construction itself, I found only 1 difference, which I circled with a red circle. In the previous picture there is a solid panel, and on this panel, it is peeled in the form of steps.

And the paintings are distinguished by secondary details (people and animals in the square). Moreover, mostly in the paintings the same characters are almost in the same position but in different places and some in the same place.

Images of a building object do NOT match when overlaid. I checked with the program. It is possible to superimpose layers of images from different pictures, playing with their transparency and stretching, compressing and moving in any direction. These paintings turned out to be very similar to 98-99%, but it was not possible to achieve a complete overlap of all points. I didn’t count all the boards and bricks individually, but selectively counted some elements. All that I considered coincided. But I didn’t check everything. Overlaying two images on top of each other, I came to the conclusion that in both pictures, each and every detail matches the availability but slightly different in size. He circled the only otlichich.

My opinion is that one picture was copied from another by some technical method, not artistic by hand. Slight discrepancies in the dimensions of the details occurred, possibly as a result of the digitization of the paintings. It is not known which way these paintings went from the wall in the museum to the Internet. Whether they were scanned with a conventional scanner or photographed with a digital camera is not known to science.

If these paintings were painted by high-tech forgers, then they could specifically distort the image using their Photoshop, so that no one would guess that the paintings were originally of computer origin. That is, in an alien autocad, a supposedly standing cathedral was painted, printed on canvas, and then painted.

And here is a picture of K. F. Sabat //

Hello from the big hangover! The cathedral is in the same condition.Some people and horses are the same, but in a different position, but the area is tiled, some antenna appeared on the right above the roof, next to which I put a question mark. Let me remind you that once on the Alexander Column there was also an antenna instead of an angel.

This antenna is very similar to the Admiralty’s spire with a boat on top. But, the Admiralty is 90 degrees to the right. It can not be in the place in which is shown in this figure.

Here is a view in reality from this point on to Isaac and the Admiralty //

But, most importantly, surprise, surprise! BUILDING RIGHT ALL OTHER!

The correct building was in the previous 2 pictures. Here is his photograph from the same angle:

This is the house of Lobanov-Rostovsky, aka the “house with lions” in terms of warfare was built in the years 1817-1820 according to the project of Montferrand, that is, 20 years before the moment of painting, it still stands today.

I want to note that the third picture I accidentally met somewhere 2 months after the second, daily shoveling mountains of pictures and texts on the history of St. Petersburg. So I do not exclude the possibility that sometime there will be another 10 paintings with the same view from the same point, but on behalf of other authors.

Why duplicate one picture by issuing it on behalf of different authors? In my opinion, it was important to leave more "historical facts" that the cathedral was being built. Look how many different artists confirm this fact! What could be falsification ?! What are you what are you! How could you think that ?! Look here - the cathedral under construction. What don’t you see ?! Please help identify this building, if anyone understood where its real location is. Nevermind! Hang up! Thanks to all!

It turns out that this building is located at the intersection of the Moika River Embankment and Voznesensky Prospekt. Address Voznesensky Avenue, 70. At a distance of about 500 meters from St. Isaac's Cathedral and on the other side of the Moika River from the Cathedral.

New appeal to readers.

1. When was this building built?

2. Who designed it?

3. What is this building famous for?

4. Why do you think the Sabbat drew it to another place - instead of the Lobanov-Rostovsky building near Isaac?

On the last point, I have these explanations:

1. Sabat wanted to hint at falsification. There is no cathedral under construction without domes, nor is there a building near the cathedral.

2. Sabat or someone on his behalf painted a picture under a certain OB of the appearance of this building. But, for some reason, this version was canceled, but the workpiece remained. Or, most likely, a copy of it. According to the failed version of the forgers, the Lobanov-Rostovsky building was built, for example, in the 50s on the site of an old building. This version was replaced with a new one - that the building was supposedly built on an empty place in the year 1820.

3. Maybe under Sabbat there were such high technologies that they could move buildings. In the 20th century, this is sometimes practiced. There are many publications on this topic on the Internet. I do not want to go deep now, but whoever hears for the first time, google. Useful

Only in the 20th century were there serious cars. But, most importantly, the buildings were not rearranged with each other, they were not transferred across the Moika River for half a kilometer, but, only, they were moved back a few meters to expand the streets, for example.

4. A mystical phenomenon, such as the "movement of graves." There are publications on the network that people complained to the police that the graves of their deceased relatives disappeared in one place and appeared in another, and untouched soil appeared along with the trees and bushes in the place of the graves without any signs of shovels. Again, I do not want to delve into this topic. To whom it is interesting, rummage.


From 1810 he lived in Russia. Since 1815 he served in the Directorate of the Imperial Theaters as an artist-decorator and actor.

In the 1820s he participated in the publication by the Society for the Promotion of Artists of the lithographed series of views of St. Petersburg and its environs. Worked with S.P. Shiflyarom, K.P. Beggrov, performing the architectural part of the drawings. Painter, draftsman, set designer //

I don’t understand which society was encouraging anyone for what? For the lies of artists who decided to draw what they would be told?

Another source claims that he died 30 years later // Samsonosukhanovshchina some sort. Maybe this Sabat brought down white bears with his bare hands?

More details on the issue of this building in a separate article //

But the version of the cathedral in the forests, dated a year later, 1841, also from Sadovnikov: V.S. Sadovnikov. "Departure of the stagecoach from St. Isaac's Square." Watercolor. 1841 g

But, there are 2 paintings from Sadovnikov himself, where the Cathedral is visible before appearing according to the official version and from his later paintings:

Signature: "View of Palace Square from Millionnaya Street"

Author: Sadovnikov V. S. Date of creation: 1830s.

Link //,com_lightgallery/act,photos/cid,1992/Itemid,218/

The same thing here //

And here //

And here // the year 1840 is indicated. What doesn’t change the essence of the matter.

St. Isaac's Cathedral stands ready-made in the late 1830s. But we just saw that in other paintings of even Sadovnikov himself in the early forties the cathedral still stands in the woods. So, Sadovnikov did not start playing to the tune of counterfeiters immediately.

The truth is here // on some anonymous site, it is not clear to whom it belongs, it says "The beginning of 40 years." Then, in principle, it will fit into the OM. Because it is not clear exactly when the forests were taken and what is the "beginning of the 40s"? Is it the 40th or 44th? For this picture, you need to make additional inquiries.

The question is why did the French Montferrand and Durant painted the St. Isaac's Cathedral in finished form before it could appear in a bearish version, but Russian artists like Sadovnikov didn’t? I think the secret is very simple. History was mystified in Russia, and Montferrand's album and engravings from Duran's paintings were not published in Russia, but in Paris, where there was no censorship of Russian mystifiers. That is, it is important not who painted, but where he published. In Russia, they did not give the opportunity to publish truthful drawings.

Although their power is not absolute, whatever one may say, the truth comes out.

Another prophetic picture:

"K. Beggrov. View of St. Isaac's Bridge and Peter's Square. 1830s. Colorized engraving." The source is not anyhow, but the site of the Pushkin Museum //

According to the official version, as we already know, even in the late 30s the cathedral was all in scaffolding. Unfortunately, the picture is low resolution. But this quality is enough to notice that the cathedral is ready-made, but the belfries are empty. They have no bells. Suppose the artist decided to draw it in a future finished form, since the design of the cathedral was known. But why then did the artist not draw the bells? Why did you leave empty belfries? Controversy, however.

But everything falls into place, assuming that the cathedral was not built, but restored, including changing bells. Or it was a traditional Roman temple dedicated to pagan gods, for example, Zeus. Indeed, in architecture this is not a traditional Orthodox church, but an antique Greco-Roman one. But in this culture, bells are not provided. But they decided to remake it under Orthodoxy, and in the future they will set the bells. But the artist spotted the moment when this building has not yet "proclaimed".

Empty belfries are clearly visible in a higher quality picture:

Taken from here // Author - Sadovnikov. "View of St. Isaac's Bridge, 1830".

In both paintings, St. Isaac's floating bridge is also visible. This is a bridge that does not rest on the bottom of the river, but on floats, holding on to the surface of the water. For winter, it was dismantled so that the floats would not be crushed by ice and not taken down in the spring at the beginning of the ice drift. And people walked on the ice of the river. But, in the last picture, this bridge is painted standing in the winter. And people walk along it as well as along the path on the ice next to it. Here // is a copy of this engraving, made in 1841, and the crosses on the Cathedral are clearly visible on it:

To the right, I added for comparison a photo of a real cross on top of Isaac. The difference is obvious. The shape of the “cross” is very similar to the shape of the antenna on the Alexander Column. The main symptom is the lower crossbar is larger than the upper. On normal crosses, including the one that is now installed on Isaac, there is generally no second horizontal crossbar.By the way, the cross that really stands now is also shown in all drawings by Montferrand in St. Isaac's album. That is, according to the official version, no cross changes were foreseen. Not only the shape of the cross, but also the direction of the crossbars should be perpendicular to what is drawn on the engraving. What is painted does not correspond to the Orthodox tradition and the real crosses at the Council today. If you look at the cross from the side of the Bronze Horseman, as in this engraving, then the crossbars are not visible. For example, compare with this photo // taken from about the same angle. The crossbars of the crosses are not visible. That is, it was painted before the reconstruction, when the crosses were not yet installed, and the artist added a gag. Or, there were antennas as on the Alexander Column, and the antennas do not have to correspond to Orthodoxy. Mr. Aleksey Kungurov created and is developing a theme called "Distortion of history as a way of controlling consciousness."

This picture with a floating bridge in winter confirms that it is right. I explain.

The fact that the bridge for the winter should be dismantled is known not only to dogs and cats, but also, for example, a blogger under the nickname "kavery". She writes in her journal //

In the center is St. Isaac's Bridge. It was floating, opened only in the warm season.

But this fact, written by herself, did not prevent her from inserting this picture with an active floating bridge into her page in an NOT warm season as an illustration. And she did not express any surprise. This is the Kungurov effect of distorting history on consciousness. From all these historical manipulations of the blogger, the balls rolled behind the rollers. She had already stopped believing in herself. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

She was copied this page with great admiration in her journal by other bloggers under the nicknames "Bochka Meda" and "Kulema". Neither the bloggers themselves nor their commentators notice anything surprising. They write one and draw another. Consciousness is manipulated.

In addition, note that on the same page of her blog, she noticed that the same artist painted 2 mutually exclusive paintings in 1803:

B. Patersen. View of St. Isaac's Bridge and Senate Square from Vasilyevsky Island. 1803. It is interesting that this artist in one painting also painted exactly the design of St. Isaac's Cathedral, and the real building on another.

Of course, such a balancing act of falsifiers of history tying the brain of an unprepared person into a sea knot.

Another painting dated 1830: Taken from here //

This picture is in a paper album. I asked for clarification from Elena Parshina from the website HelloPiter // Contact her for excursions, if that. She is not only beautiful, but as it turned out, a good person.

She even sent a scan of explanations to this picture:

So, the building of the Senate and the Synod. Thanks to Elena Parsheva for such an unexpected turn of events. I could not have thought of this object if not for her hint.

Is it possible that the old building was also fantasized, so that the ordinary repair of the old building of the past civilization would be passed off as the construction of a new one? After all, this is exactly what they wanted to do with the “house with the lions”, for which the artist K. F, Sabat or someone on his behalf painted in his place a completely different building next to the allegedly under construction Isaac.

Here's what the Synod and Senate building looks like now:

Taken from the website HelloPiter //

According to the official version, earlier buildings replaced each other with an incredible frequency earlier.


1) The first building on the site of the current buildings of the Senate and the Synod was the half-timbered house of His Grace Prince Menshikov.

After his disgrace, the house on the Neva embankment passed into the ownership of Vice Chancellor A.I. Osterman, and in 1744 was granted by Elizaveta Petrovna to Chancellor A.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, for whom a baroque-style building was erected.

2) In 1763, after the accession to the throne of Catherine II, until

Bestuzhev-Ryumin moved to the treasury, and the Senate moved to this building, rebuilt by architect A.F. Vist.

3) In the 1780-1790s, the baroque house of Bestuzhev-Ryumin was again rebuilt, and its facades received a new architectural treatment, typical of Russian classicism.

The name of the author of the building reconstruction project remains unknown. Judging by the drawing of the western facade of the building, preserved in the collection of the Museum of the Academy of Arts, the project was developed by architect I.E. Starov.

At the site of the current Synod building in the 18th century was the house of the merchant Kusovnikova. With the construction of the Admiralty in 1806-1823, the old buildings no longer corresponded to the new look of the Senate Square. There was a need for reconstruction, and a competition was announced to develop a project for new buildings of the Senate and Synod.

4) on August 24, 1829 the building of the Senate was laid; in 1830 - the building of the Synod. It was completed in 1834. The construction was carried out under the direction of architect Alexander Staubert, designed by Carl Rossi.

That is, the current building is already 4th. The first 3 hypothetical buildings stood on average for 40 years, and the last, real, has been standing for 200 years and plans to stand forever.

Here's how we are painted the old second building, which shows a parade in honor of the opening of the monument, that is, 1782:

The author is the famous Bertuch, Friedrich Justin, who painted a column with an antenna on top in a German children's encyclopedia.

Taken from here // - page 577 of the 1807 children's illustrated encyclopedia.

The inscription on the stone in Latin. Although, on this side of the statue to this day, the inscription is in Russian, and on the other side of the pedestal - in Latin, but also in block letters.

Here, compare with the real caption in the photo:

According to the official version, the inscription on the stone from this side has always been in Russian since the opening of the pedestal.

Note for now that this building has 6 windows on either side of the colonnade.

Here is another picture with the same version of the building but not quite:

The picture wanders on the Internet, but has not yet found the author and date of creation anywhere. Who knows - tell me. It is only known when an engraving was created on it. "Engraving by E. Ruargh. 1853. Etching on steel, hand-painted. 16 x 12 cm." //

The windows of the first floor are slightly larger than the windows of the second floor. But the roof is completely different. On the right was a triangular roof, now it has evaporated. The triangular pediment was much higher to the top of the roof and now shrunk. But a stone white fence appeared on the roof. To the right of the colonnade there are only 4 rows of windows, but there were 6! NO STONES ON STONE!

The same building can be seen from a large angle in the painting "Opening of the Monument to Peter the Great. Engraving by A. K. Melnikov from a drawing by A. P. Davydov, 1782":

Please note that there is no inscription on the pedestal! (This is a view from the other side of the pedestal). Here is what it should look like if it were at the time the monument was opened, as the official version tells us:

Behind the colonnade with a balcony, if you zoom in and take a closer look, you can see not 4, not 6 but 5 windows! I stretched the image horizontally to accurately calculate the windows:

So, this mythical building in 3 pictures has 3 different options for the number of windows. But it was the 2nd building. By 1799, a third was allegedly built in its place:

Paykov A. "Petrovskaya (Senate) Square". 1799 //

Let's pay attention to the fact that the windows of the second floor are small, three times smaller than the windows of the first.

Here is a picture of Benjamin Patersen from the same 1799th year: //

The windows of the lower floor are slightly smaller in height than the windows of the upper floor. But the previous artist painted them on the contrary, three times as big!

We see around the right colonnade of the old building with 6 windows.

And one moment. He painstakingly shoves us the version of the builders of our civilization - supposedly primitive wild builders pull a block weighing about a ton with a winch (capstan) ON LOGS. But what a problem. In all such figures, the falsifiers do not take into account that a man should stand near the block and lay another log in front. Otherwise, the block will fall down and then it will be a lot of problems to raise the logs to drag. A similar situation with logs in almost all pictures on this topic.This suggests that counterfeiters have never seen such block drags. And here is his picture from 1800:

Taken from here //

The windows of the lower floor are again smaller in height than the windows of the upper floor. In this wonderful building, a year later, between the colonnades, another row of windows appeared. Now there are 7. And on the right colonnade two balconies "on the first and second floors" grew up. How did you go out onto this balcony? Through the windows, or what? The inscription on the stone is not legible.

Patersen not only does not remember how many windows on the building, but also does not remember how much he himself painted a year ago. But he "remembered" that this building still had basement floor windows. Appeared from the earth.

Such a contradiction with his own picture can only be if he was credited with the authorship of the paintings or even invented.

What is this statue above the colonnade? As far as I can see, this is Minerva, which also adorned the building of the Academy of Sciences, visible to the right of the Bronze Horseman on the opposite bank of the Neva. His picture is of a higher quality on another site dated 1806. //,com_lightgallery/act,photos/cid,2005/Itemid,218/

Our old acquaintance by the name of Svinin paints a picture in the year 1816. Windows is now not 6, but 5:

Patersen had a pediment with Minerva, now instead of her some kind of banners.

The balconies have disappeared. The windows of the lower floor made about a quarter more height than the windows of the upper floor. (In Patersen, on the contrary, the upper ones are larger). And at Paykov, the lower windows were three times larger than the upper ones and there were 6, not 5. All three of them painted the building in close proximity. I would understand that they differ in the number of windows of some building in the distance, if there are many windows.

For some reason, the inscription on the stone was made in capital letters and in Latin. Although, from this side to this day the inscription in block letters in Russian.

Signature to the picture //


According to the original P.P. Pork Etching, cutter. 240x202; 165x195 mm.

Bottom left: Paul Svignine pinxit .; Right: Gravé par Galactionow.

Under the image: Le monument de Pierre le Grand Monument to Peter Valicago. Origin: collection D.A. Rovinsky (St. Petersburg); Rumyantsev Museum (since 1898); in the Pushkin Museum since 1924 Inv. GR-6481

References: Rovinsky D.A. A detailed dictionary of Russian engraved portraits. SPb., 1886 - 1889.Vol. 3, stb. 1732, No. 704;

Rovinsky D.A. A detailed dictionary of Russian engravers of the 16th - 19th centuries. SPb., 1895. T. 1, stb. 197, Nos. 70 - 91/2;

Morozov A.V. The catalog of my collection of Russian engraved and lithographed portraits. M., 1912.Vol. 2, stb. 928, No. 463

The engraving was done to the 1st volume of P.P. Svinin "Memorials of St. Petersburg and its environs" (St. Petersburg, 1816 - 1818, v. 1 - 5)

The author of the picture is Pavel Svinin, who is seen on the creation of the biography of Samson Sukhanov. He is also a nerd. Let me remind you why:

To all art lovers Samson Semenovich Sukhanov is known in St. Petersburg for a very skilled stone-sculptor ... His father Xenophon ...

Samson's father Xenophon, and middle name, for some reason, is not Ksenofontovich, but Semenovich. Either a nerd, or gives a sign to future generations that he is forced to write all kinds of nonsense under duress.

Please note that in the Svinin painting, the columns rest on long steps. And in the picture of the English artist Morney of the 1830s, under each column there is a separate cubic base:

The windows on the right again are 6. On the left, 7 as in the second picture of Patersen, and on the first Patersen there are 6. The inscription on the stone was again licked by polar bears. Above the colonnade are not flags, like Svinin’s in 1816, but Minerva’s, like Patersen’s in 1800 and 1806. But there are no balconies like Svinin’s.

The upper windows are larger than the lower ones as in Patersen since 1800. In 1799, Patersen had the opposite.

I quote the source //

Morney (Morne, Morne). Picture of St. Petersburg. London. 1830s The book has no date. On the engravings, the date is 1815, on the watermarks of the text - 1825, on the watermarks of the images - 1831. Nothing is known about Mornay. The text first appeared in the Une Annee de Saint-Petersbourg ou douze vues pittoresques ... Paris, 1812. Engravers by John Heaviside Clark and Matthew Dubourg from Mornay drawings.

The old building of the Senate and the Synod appears in the watercolors of the 1830s by KI Kolman Uprising on Senate Square in St. Petersburg on December 14, 1825 ":

The roof of the right side of the building is not triangular, but trapezoidal.

This error was corrected in another version of the same picture:

The roof of the right side of the building was leveled to fit the rest of the picture, now it is clearly triangular. To the left of the leftmost colonnade in the first version there are 4 rows of windows, in the second version - already 6. Now the windows of the first floor are elongated from top to bottom, and the windows of the upper floor are square several times smaller in height than the lower windows, like Paykov:

Who is the author of this picture? Karl Ivanovich Colman Colman (1786-1847).

Wikipedia: born in Augsburg, worked all his life in Russia. Coleman collaborated on the descriptions of the staging of the Alexander Column and the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral published by architect Montferrand.

Another interesting picture (more precisely, a fragment of it):

"La Statue equestre de Pierre le grand 1800s" (My free translation "Equestrian statue of Peter the Great"). Taken from here // It dates from the 1800s. Author unknown yet.

In this picture, the right colonnade cannot be visible and therefore it is useless to consider windows. But we see almost completely the roof behind the statue, and this roof without any pediment above the colonnade. This contradicts all other paintings, where the pediment and statues or flags above it rise above the roof.

But that is not all. To the right of the statue on the opposite bank of the Neva you can see the building of the Academy of Arts. On the roof of the building is a dome. There should be a statue of Minerva above the dome, which was removed according to one official version in 1819, and then placed, and re-removed in 1860. That is, in the 1800s, Minerva should be. Most likely, the picture was invented after 1819.

In 1785, a wooden statue “Minerva, the crowning of art and science”, carved from linden according to the model of the sculpture, was placed on the dome of the AH building. I.P. Prokofiev by the master I.F. Dunker (demolished in 1819 by a storm) (Source: Krivdina O.A., Tychinin B. B. Sculpture and sculptors of St. Petersburg. 1703-2007. - St. Petersburg: Logos, 2007. - 768 p.) Sincerely, Center for Petersburg Studies

According to another official version, it was removed from the roof only in 1860. The painting by an unknown author dates back to the alleged 1800s. And with an increase it is clearly visible that the statue is already / not yet:

In all other pictures with the second building, this Minerva is visible. But I cut off this part of the drawings as unnecessary.

And there is no inscription on the pedestal, although, according to the official version, the inscription appeared along with the monument itself. The date is right in the inscription "To Peter I Catherine II of Summer 1782" - this year the monument is unveiled.

This means that this inscription was made much later when they invented a new story. Initially, the monument was dedicated to some Roman or Greek (most likely Alexander the Great). And in order to dedicate it to Peter, it was enough to write, as on a fence, necessarily indicating the date retroactively.

There are a number of paintings without this inscription.

For example, the picture of 1844 "St. Isaac's Cathedral and the monument to Peter I". Author: Vorobev Maxim Nikiforovich.

Type of stone in this picture and photo:

The inscription should be clearly visible. By the way, the bells in the belfries are perfectly visible. And in the 30s there was empty.

Here are 2 more antique engravings without inscriptions on stone from 1838 and 1840: // // shop / catalog.php? cat = KAT36 & lang = ENG & product = P005356

So, in the same place stands the modern building of the Senate for 200 years. And in the same place there were 3 predecessors, often succeeding each other in the 18th century. And the real building costs 200 years and is not going to leave anywhere.

The same situation with St. Isaac's Cathedral. 3 semi-mythical predecessors succeeded each other in the 18th century as mad. And the modern real St. Isaac's Cathedral has been standing for 200 years and is not going to be rebuilt.

On 2 pictures of St. Isaac’s album on pages 101 and 102 are painted stairs that can only be drawn, but in reality they cannot exist.

Due to the curved bend, the walls of the stairs cannot rest on the cornice. In reality, they rely on air. And lead to nowhere. In the left figure, the staircase is even away from the window. I attribute this to another hint of a hoax under duress.The shadow on the wall from the lower end of the stairs on page 101 (left picture) coincides with the end of the stairs. But this cannot be, since the lower end should hang in the air at least a meter from the wall.

Imp-art (Eng. Imp-art from impossible - impossible and art - art) is an independent direction in op-art, aimed at depicting impossible figures.

The most prominent representatives: M.K. Escher (Holland), Oscar Reutersward (Sweden), Sandro del Pre (Switzerland), Jos de May (Belgium)

And another absurdity on the 110th page of Isaac’s album:

The signature in French says that it is under the roof of the cathedral. About 100 meters. Pay attention to the bridge over the abyss, on which 2 men are talking nicely. On the right, the bridge rests at the very end on an awkward round surface. And on the left, in general, the top of the absurd. Leans on a round board. To make it easier to fall. And for reliability, 2 men climbed onto this flimsy bridge without a railing right away. And then suddenly one bridge can withstand and no one will fall. And so - immediately 2 corpses. Beauty! Falling together is more fun.

On the same page, Ekaterina Dmitrievna Budolak, fifth-generation St. Petersburger, noted several absurdities in a letter to me.

The shadow on the small pipe from the ledge of the large pipe is too short (circled in red oval). It is not for nothing that the sun's rays are drawn, in the direction of which you can easily draw how the shadow will lie down (on the right side of the picture).

The shadow from the board attached to the pipe should be curved in the opposite direction. A simple laboratory experiment conducted by Catherine in the figure on the right:

She also noticed that a stone rectangular column and a metal round one in the foreground cast a shadow in more than one direction. And the edge of the column from which the shadow lies is lighter than the others, although it should be the darkest.

This cannot be the primitive childhood mistakes of such a professional as Mr. Montferrand. This is a deliberate distortion with a subtle hint of fat circumstances.

And now the brass horseman:

The most famous Russian Tsar Peter is dressed in Roman toga. Why is that? Is he a Russian tsar or a Roman?

Instead of treads in which he is usually painted. shod in some strange shoes, similar to Roman sandals on bare feet, because toes are visible on the statue. I used to think that these are sandals, because I saw them only from below. Top view rarely comes across. It turns out that these are not sandals, but boots made of so thin leather or fabric that it looks like long socks with soles:

Peter sits without stirrup. The stirrup was invented in the 4th century. Those. these riders lived no later than the fourth century.

Another possible fake with "Louis XIV" engraved in 1744. He is also depicted here in Roman hoodies, sandals and WITHOUT A STREEP!

There is an article entitled "Peter the Great and Louis XIV - the hidden opposition in Russia in the 18th century."

Here are the images of the real Peter with stirrups and in Russian clothes of that time: // // // www / art / t / tanauer / img / 2.jpg

According to the official version, the monument was opened in 1782 and it was written on this date from both sides.

Nevertheless, the painting “Allegory of Victory over the Turks” of 1777 hangs in the Hermitage.

Source // The author of the painting, Heinrich Buchholz, died a year before the opening of the monument. On the right side of the picture is a finished monument. The image is small, therefore, with increasing quality is poor. The stone looks different.

Behind it is visible St. Isaac's Cathedral of the third version, which was designed in this form, but was never built like that. In 1796, according to the OM, it was redesigned in a more simplified form, in which it was built and consecrated in 1802.

There is another old painting, written before 1817.

The stone is completely different, not the same as it is now, and on the horse is a rider in a headdress and with a vertical spear in his outstretched arm:

Perhaps he spears into the snake like George the Victorious.

The hat resembles the helmet of a Roman warrior or a cocked hat of a more recent period. But there were no copies during the triangular angle. Hacked sabers already.

In a completely complete view, the figure is here //

On the left you can see St. Isaac's Cathedral of the third version, the draft of which in this form was approved no earlier than 1796, and consecrated in 1802. The signature for the painting dates from 1817. Apparently, at the beginning of the 19th century the horseman was with a spear and a hat.

So, once, “Peter” had a different head. What does OV tell us?

Let's start with Wikipedia: The first casting of the sculpture took place in the summer of 1775. In 1777, the upper parts of the sculpture were completed, which did not work out during the first casting.

Which particular tops failed? Is it a coincidence?

Here is a fragment from the history of the monument:

When the first casting was made, Falcone happily reported this to Catherine. True, not everything was successful, but the main thing was done. We give an excerpt from this letter, which conveys all the details of the event:

"... I made a big mistake in using the work of the worker that I was brought by the caster; I found him sleeping one night when he was on duty during the furnace. Some workers watched the fire and no one looked after them; thinking about what to do, they lit the terrible flame and the upper part of the mold burnt; thus, the metal spilled in this part should have turned out to be ugly.

The result of all this is that, perhaps, there has not yet been a better casting: everything is crowded out like in wax; there is not a single hole and, with the exception of two feet, the whole casting is excellent.

Here is an explanation of this two foot flaw. "The rider’s head on the shoulders was so unsuccessful that I broke this ugly part of the bronze."

A. Kaganovich //


Taki "The Bronze Horseman" for some time was the "Headless Horseman".

Wikipedia and other sources indicate that the “Thunder Stone” moved along wooden gutters on 30 bronze balls with a diameter of 13 cm. That is, 80 or 53 tons for each ball, depending on which version of the weight of the stone we adhere to. Why do different sources indicate 2 masses of stone 2400 (Wikipedia) and 1600 tons (in other sources)? Because masonry processed the stone along the OM. Probably, at the beginning of the journey from the village of Lakhty, the stone weighed 2,400, and while it sailed to St. Petersburg, 800 tons were chopped off.

Here is a fragment of a famous painting:

2 drummers on top during transport - subtle cynicism. No drums at all. You won’t budge! And you need to put them on the stone itself, because it is too light. To not be blown away by the wind. In addition, drummers are needed for safety. The stone then flies at the speed of a courier UFO, and can crush gaping passers-by.

According to OM, the workers who beat off the granite monolith for Al. the columns. And for some reason these hammers were not stalled. It was so quiet that I had to hire 2 funny drummers, to put them right next to me on top of the stone.

The thunder-stone could not be moved without drummers, blacksmiths and a dry closet, and the bell could not rise without a draftsman.

For the same purpose of keeping the stone from taking off during a gust of wind, in addition to two drummers, several stone slabs were piled on it and some kind of melting furnace was put on them, also a stone furnace, inflated with furs. At the same time bake pies on it. And as an additional load there are also several blacksmiths with sledgehammers. Forged forged sentenced.

Vanya is sitting on the stove, hammering bricks with a sledgehammer. Chemistry Chemistry! The whole sledgehammer is blue.

Broad Russian land! Yes, there is no place for the forge anywhere except on the lower ledge of the Thunder-stone. And the land tax is too high. Blacksmiths save. On a separate cart on the ground, everyone could not place it. Do you know why? Because the stone moves too fast like a departing train. Who will catch up with him? Tu-tu!

And the dry closet in tow. Wooden toilet! And there’s no better place in the world! Wooden toilet! Did the job and hello! Wooden toilet! He will not harm you! Stands in the garden sparkles, reflecting the sun light. In a wooden toilet you will be like a king in a carriage! Seven troubles one answer - a wooden toilet. If everything is so hard, there is M and Jo for you. Not the dead or vampires. Not so dangerous to life. Like rotten toilets.

3 thick boards support the stone behind.But they are not attached to moving parts, which means that as soon as the stone moves, the boards will fall. But they stand in the picture while moving. Miracles and more.

But, if the train travels so fast, then how did the man set a ladder in front of him in the direction of his movement and climb it? The staircase is magic. "The Skeptics' Ladder."

Now the maximum height of the stone is 5 meters. In this figure - 8. (More than 4 human growths). Why drag an extra load of about 1000 tons?

People are sitting and walking under the stone. And on a stone sits, drumming and walking people and chopping granite. And without insurance, they are not attached at all. From the people on the stone fragments of stone are pouring to the people under the stone from a height of 8 meters. According to OV // sleds are attached from below to the stone on the ropes, on which men sit and lie and straighten the balls with crowbars! What can be done with a ball on which 53-80 tons are pressed? It’s better not to approach him. A hail of fragments from 46 stonecutters on stone from a height of the third floor is also pouring on them.

Here // a detailed description of the picture.

"The movement of a stone for the monument to Peter the Great in St. Petersburg from the vicinity of the village of Lakhty in the presence of Empress Catherine II on January 20, 1770", Lithograph by V. Timm (from an engraving of the past century). SPb., Printed in lithograph by V. Timm, 1862.

An old Russian lithography of 1862, which depicts the movement of a huge stone for the monument to Peter the Great in St. Petersburg from the vicinity of the village of Lakhty in the presence of Empress Catherine II on January 20, 1770.

Large size lithograph: 55x36.5 cm ... Image: 44.5x32 cm.

"Russian Art Leaflet" - a popular lithographed publication, issued in 1851-1862. in St. Petersburg on the initiative of the painter, draftsman and lithographer of the natural school, academician Georg Wilhelm (Vasily Fedorovich) Timm (1820-1895).

How to decipher "Academician Georg Wilhelm (Vasily Fedorovich) Timm"? Is it 1 person or 2? Or 3? If there are 2 or 3, then which of them is an academician? Anyone or just Georg Wilhelm? Wikipedia says that this is one person. It seems that the German pope Friedrich Wilhelm Timm and the unknown Russian mother gave their son different names. And where are the different middle names from? Who is Fedor, from whom mother gave middle name to son? Is polygamy flourishing there? As well as in the family of Samson Ksenofontovich / Semenovich Sukhanov.

In the encyclopedia

Brockhaus-Efron, neither Wilhelm nor Friedrich nor Georg is mentioned at all. Only Vasily Fedorovich. I quote further the description of this picture: Lithograph from the series "Russian Art Leaf". This publication is in the nature of everyday chronicle or a simple and unsophisticated genre that does not set any other goals, except for conscientious and faithful transmission of the impressions it perceives without any critical analysis of them.

How to combine integrity and fidelity with a lack of critical analysis?

A genuine lithograph, created in 1862, is interesting as a document of its era and has great historical and artistic value.

What can be the historical value of a painting written 90 years after the events depicted? Is this called a DOCUMENT? They beat themselves in the chest "we are great skeptics! We believe only in facts."

Here's what Wikipedia means: Contemporaries called it Russian Gavarni for the grace and subtle humor of book graphics. "

In general, Mr. Georg / Vasily Vil'helmovich / Fedorovich Timm painted an idiotic subtle humor picture with drummers on a stone, and fellow scholars with a clever look refer to it as a great document of great atheistic achievements. And no paleocontact. There were no aliens. There were drummers and dry closets! Scientists of the future will find the Murzilka magazine and with the same success will begin to reasonably argue how Dunno flew to the Moon with Little Red Riding Hood.

I quote OV:

The lowest part consisted of identical logs, C. 17 of which each were 33 feet (10 m) long, 14 (32 cm) wide, and 12 inches thick (27 cm).They were hollowed out like roof gutters, and the hollowed place was upholstered with copper, yet the upholstery had a bulge on the sides so that the balls would be less rubbed when wrapped in it.

The upper part of the machines was made up of two logs, of which each contained 42 feet long (13 m), 18 inches wide (42 cm) and 16 inches thick (35 cm), and, like the previous ones, were hollowed out and covered with copper ...

Thirty spouts of copper, mixed with galmey and tin (this is bronze), 5 inches in diameter, were laid in the gutters.

only these balls resisted pressure. Others, forged or cast from iron, were crushed or cracked. To protect them, so that not a single ball stops or touches one another, seven sledges are attached to each side of the stone, on which people are sitting, who must use iron poles to keep the balls in order.

The question is - what is the strength that copper can withstand so that a 13 cm ball does not completely push into it?

This parameter is called "hardness" and is the main one for checking the strength of materials:

Hardness is a characteristic of a material, reflecting its strength and ductility, determined by indenting a ball (Brinell method) or a prism (Vickers method).

A quantitative assessment of hardness is the HB hardness number, equal to the ratio of loading (H) to the surface area of ​​the print (mm2). The Brinell metal hardness values ​​are given in table 12.

The loading of H is measured in kilograms, and not in Ntons, as I previously thought. Because the authors of this article bracketed this N and mm2. Since mm2 is a unit of measurement, I once decided that H is also a unit of measurement. But, it turns out, they through H - indicated not the unit of measurement, but the quantity itself. This refinement gives a 10-fold difference. Table 12. The hardness of metals

Metal HB

Metal HB Titanium 160 Aluminum 16-25 Iron 70-80 Silver 25 Magnesium 30-40 Gold 18 Copper 40 Tin 5 Zinc 33 Lead 4

Source //

So, copper can withstand 40 kg per square millimeter to failure. The diameter of our balls is 13 cm, the radius is 6.5 cm = 65 mm. The area of ​​the circle PI * 65 * 65 = 13,000 mm2 (rounded).

Divide 53 tons (with a stone weight of 1600 tons) for each ball into this area. 53 tons = 53,000 kg / 13,000 mm2 = 4 kg / mm2.

This means that the maximum tensile strength of copper has not been reached. That is, copper gutters have a 10-fold safety margin. And the system could work.

But then it’s not clear why it’s necessary to select some special alloy for the balls. Maybe when compressed, the copper balls flatten out? What is this parameter? We need to figure out the future.

But, besides the strength of the material, there is such a parameter - "elastic limit". What it is? If you press the ball on the copper plate and then stop pressing, the plate will bend and return to the opposite position. But there is such a force, after which the copper plate remains flattened and even after the ball leaves it, the plate remains flattened forever. The very first ball will roll along the lower gutter, and the second ball will simply fail in this gutter, since the gutter has become deeper forever after the first shric.

And this value for copper TENSION is 2.5 kg per mm2

The elastic limit for metals is very different: 0.25 kgf / mm2 for lead, 2.5 kgf / mm2 for copper, 30 kgf / mm2 and more for some steel grades // htm

But we are interested in the elastic limit of compression rather than tension. I have not been able to find this parameter yet. Help! If it is less than 4 kg / mm2, then the whole system could not work. It is not possible to draw a conclusion without this parameter.

Another picture of the already little-known author Vertuh (Bertuch):

Taken from here // and, especially, from here //

In the summer green nature. Although the winter season and the previous picture were winter.

And this is // - it’s in the Bertukh Encyclopedia, the 6th volume in 1807. Neither a dry closet, nor men with poles under a stone on a sleigh to regulate balls. But the drummers at the post, the oven, a completely different one, had already been raised to the very top.Winches became very small - 4 people each. And the men began to drag the stone in tow and push it from behind. Why not attach to horses or bulls is not clear. There is no upper gutter under the stone. Only the bottom.

Here is another picture of an unknown author, contrary to all of the above:

The stone is tied with ropes. Including the bottom !!! Raised 2,000 tons and stretched the rope. And this time they pulled horses, not people. (Illustration from a book. A. Malakhov “Interesting about geology” - Moscow: Young Guard, 1969. //

The stone has front and back cracks of complex shape, behind which parts of the stone are of a lighter color:

Lightning hit the stone along the OB and made such amazing changes. Therefore, it is called "Thunder Stone". This was before the stone was found and dragged.

2 pieces chipped by lightning were applied to the stone along the OM. And how they dragged them weighing a hundred tons - science is not known and not interesting. How does official science know about this magical lightning strike? After all, science relies on facts and not on legends, like stupid ufologists. There are 2 great scientific explanations:

According to local legend, the stone got a peculiar shape after a lightning strike, which split a granite rock. So he got his name. //xn-----8kcaieged2aai0atrffgb5atnj92a.xn--p1ai/grom-kamen/

block, in ancient times, split by lightning and therefore //

In a certain kingdom in a certain state, a legend goes to distant lands ... Such is the scientific explanation. Why lightning should change the color of the stone, science does not know.

There is another atheistic explanation:

When cracks appeared on the pedestal, it caused a wave of rumors. However, modern scientists have established that an underground river flows under the monument. Once it changed its course and as a result there was a movement of soils. Only because of this, cracks appeared on Thunder Stone. //

Imagine that nearby multi-storey buildings did not crack, and a stone block decided to crack in two places into three parts and change the color! The main restorer of St. Petersburg, Vladimir Sorin, gave me a third explanation in personal correspondence:

The thunder-stone cracked due to precipitation after laying the Vasileostrovskaya metro line. In the 60s, a swindler who pretended to be a restorer washed Thunder-stone with a solution of hydrofluoric acid, which caused acid erosion of the stone's surface, more erosion on surfaces with a lesser slope, except where it went more times there is also more erosion. That's where the color comes from.

What a rogue I never received an answer. The explanation is no good, because the metro on Vasilievsky Island was opened in 1967, and the old black and white photographs of the late 19th century were already cracked. They are full on the Internet. In response to these arguments, Vladimir Sorin put forward the fourth version to me:

A through crack appears to have appeared in front of the stone during transport

Why is it not through? Who said? Why did he answer only about the front? What about the back? Finally, he inserted the word "seems." Before that, he gave his opinion as facts. But he is a mocker of a different mind. He is also a great atheist and therefore "knows everything." It turned out that he restored the whole of Peter, but does not know where the crack came from and the different colors on the stone. But he doesn’t just not know, but, like other great atheists, puts forward insane hypotheses as facts. Such is their self-confidence. Later, he admitted to me that he did not know anything about these cracks:

I am a restorer of metal works. But in these works, metal is very often combined with stone. Therefore, you have to know something about the stone, but there are specific issues that I have not had to deal with.

Sincerely, V. Sorin.


But what science knows, but does not advertise.Similar phenomena of clearly artificial origin take place on mysterious megalithic objects. Here's an example of Ollantaytambo:

To the right, part of the rock cut by Veselchak with the board of Professor Davidenko // in the form of a house with 2 windows, and on the left - a stone of a completely different color inserted into the rock by a completely different color with a perfectly fitted shape under a cut in the rock for him. (Insertion length about a meter). Also tried lightning?

And from there:

A more detailed question about the three parts and two colors of the Thunder Stone is here //

There is another Petya, less known, at the Mikhailovsky Castle, and also in sandals: and in Roman armor:

the same Roman clothes at the monument to Kutuzov (left) and Barclay de Tolly (right).

All of them, most likely former Roman statues with new heads. A study of the history of their appearance needs to be written a separate study. For the time being, I am just quoting pictures to confirm that they are in Roman clothes.

But, nevertheless, I can’t get around one important detail. It turns out that the face of Kutuzov is not the face of Kutuzov. You will laugh, but this is not a joke.

I quote:

There is also no strict portrait resemblance to the commander’s face in sculpture. The main attention in the image of the commander was drawn to his warlike pose and the gesture of the winner //

Article from A.A. Brochure Smirnova "Monument to M. I. Kutuzov", publishing house "Moscow Worker", 1986

This hvakt was recognized by Alexander A. Smirnov. Hereditary Russian officer, retired colonel, in 1982-1986. Chairman of the Military Historical Commission of the All-Union Society for the Protection of Monuments of History and Culture; until 1988, scientific secretary of the Scientific and Technical Committee of the Main Rocket and Artillery Directorate of the USSR Ministry of Defense. Cavalier of two orders of the Red Star. Currently, the scientific secretary of the State Historical Museum, heads the Circle of Zealots of the Patriotic War of 1812, the author of more than 350 articles in various journals and encyclopedias, as well as 4 books on military history.

Anyone to whom a polar bear has not stepped on his head understands that not only Kutuzov, but also Julius Caesar can have a “warlike pose” and a “winner’s gesture,” only Kutuzov’s face can only be Kutuzov’s.

Well, with the monument to Suvorov on Suvorov Square, they decided not to bother. Tired of it. Let future skeptics atheists come up with some kind of legend. See what's going on:

Only a stupid fool can not recognize in this Roman warrior a Russian commander. Even on Wikipedia they write:

The monument to Suvorov is located on Suvorov Square in St. Petersburg.

The monument to A. V. Suvorov was erected at the behest of Emperor Paul I, during the reign of which the commander made his famous campaign in Italy, for which he received the title of "Italian"

On the round pedestal of the monument made of granite there is an inscription: "Prince of Italy, Count of Suvorov-Rymnikskiy. 1801".

The authorship of the monument belongs to the sculptor M.I. Kozlovsky, who worked on the monument from 1799 to 1801. On the pedestal is the figure of a field marshal in the allegorical form of Mars, with a raised sword in his right hand and with a shield in his left, in ancient Greek clothing. The figure of A.V. Suvorov is made of bronze. It is often noted that the monument does not have direct portrait resemblance to the field marshal, but rather represents a symbolic heroic-epic image of the “great commander”.

Initially, the monument was located on the Champ de Mars, at the Moika. In the reign of Emperor Alexander I, the monument was moved to the place where it is today.

Cool! It stands on the Field of Mars - a monument to Mars (the ancient god of war). They moved Mars to Suvorov Square - it became a monument to Suvorov. Move to Putin Square - will become a monument to Putin. Why do we need portrait resemblance? People picks. If they believed in a polar bear, then they would believe in everything.

During the Qin dynasty, in 207 BC, with the rum representative of this dynasty - the weak-willed emperor Er Shi, the corrupt eunuch Zhao Gao ruled everyone at the court, and once, wanting to check who was betrayed to him and who was not, he brought the deer’s palace and said it was a horse. Some courtiers said: "No, this is a deer," while others said: "Yes, yes, this is a horse." So Zhao Gao realized who to rely on and who not to. Those who said "this is a horse" were exalted, and those who said "this is a deer" were executed.

From here came the Chinese proverb "pointing to a deer, call (him) a horse" (Chinese trade. 指鹿為馬, ex. 指鹿为马, pinyin: zhǐ lù wéi mǎ, pall .: ji lu wei ma), used to describe cases of intentional gross distortion of obvious facts for opportunistic purposes. Continuation of the quote:

Monument to Suvorov - the first monument to an uncrowned person in Russia. Prior to this, in Russia, monuments were erected only by tsars and emperors.

Engraving by engraver Nikita Plakhov:

Here is an explanation for this engraving:

1801 Etching, chisel. 623x420; 575x375 mm. Under the image on the right: Risoval and Engraved in St. Petersburg ѣ Nikita Plakhov. 1801 On a pedestal: Prince of Italy Count Suvorov of Rymnik 1801.

Below on the sides of the coat of arms: His Imperial Majesty Alexander I. Sovereign Emperor and Autocrat All-Russian. A Sa Majesté Imperiale Alexandre Ipr. Empereur et Autocrateur de toutes les Russies. Origin: collection D.A. Rovinsky (St. Petersburg); Rumyantsev Museum (since 1898); in the Pushkin Museum since 1924. Inv. GR-7702 Monument (sculptor - M.I. Kozlovsky) was opened on May 5 (17), 1801, shortly after the death of Suvorov.

Apparently, the engraving was done without the permission of Kozlovsky and became the cause of the proceedings, which resulted in the arrest of the Board of the Deanery of the board and the destruction of most of the print run.

(Source // By the way, there was no visor on the helmet - a protective shield for the eyes. Here we have the picture of the 1820s "Suvorov Square. From the drawing of K.F. Sabat and S.P. Shiflyar. - 1820s."

In the 1820s, the armor was removed, and the naked belly of Mars / Tsar Alexander / Commander Suvorov was exposed. But later it was again closed with a protective metal apron and a loincloth. Once in this form, it has reached our time. Also, in the 1820s, the helmet still had no eye shield:

And here is another image "Monument to Suvorov in St. Petersburg. From the engraving of Bashutsky."

A drawing from an engraving attached to Bashutsky’s Ponorama of St. Petersburg. Published by: Orlov N.A. The assault of Izmail by Suvorov in 1790. St. Petersburg, 1890. //

On the engraving at the bottom left, the illegible signature of the allegedly author of the drawing is “A. Schliemann” or “A. Shpiler”. It is interesting to find out when the drawing is created.

But in 1834 he appeared in the "Panorama of St. Petersburg" by Alexander Bashutsky. //

Protective shields appeared on his knees. There is no visor on the helmet, like a modern one. And there is a visor as in the year 1820. Also, in 1834, a mustache grew near the monument. Now they are shaved off again. In place of the belly armor // / pics / catalog / 318/2163.

How could an artist see a mustache and not doubt that it was Suvorov, if Suvorov did not wear a mustache?

And why was the former Tsaritsyn Lug in the center of the Christian empire named after the Roman god of war Mars?

Here is a frank explanation of //

In ancient Rome, on the banks of the Tiber River, there was a valley called the Field of Mars in honor of the god of war Mars, especially revered by the Romans, since he was considered the father of Roma and Remulus, the founders of Rome.

Military competitions took place on the Champ de Mars, from here the cohorts of soldiers went on campaigns, the winners who came from the war were honored here. By analogy with the Roman Field of Mars, Tsaritsyn meadow received its modern name.

In business! Is it Rome or Russia? There is a wonderful commander in the Bible and in the Orthodox tradition - Archangel Michael - "the leader of the army of the Lord." Name him after him. Why do you need Mars? Are you Martians?

"Field of Mars and a monument to Alexander Suvorov", B. Patersen, 1801:

In 1799, in the northern part of Tsaritsyn meadow, the V.-F. Brenna is a tall obelisk of Serdobol marble. The laconic inscription on it "Rumyantsev's victories" testified that it was installed in honor of the victories of the Russian troops won under the command of Field Marshal P. A. Rumyantsev in the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774.

In 1818, according to the project of K. I. Rossi, the Rumyantsevsky obelisk was moved to Vasilyevsky Island on the square near the cadet corps, in which Rumyantsev studied at one time, "to serve as an example to great feats."

For almost two decades, a monument to A.V. Suvorov stood on the Champ de Mars simultaneously with the Rumyantsev Obelisk. (See. Suvorov Square).

Initially, in 1801, it was installed in the southeastern corner of Tsaritsyn Luga, off the coast of the Moika, in 1818 it was moved to the northern part of the Field of Mars, almost to the same place where the Rumyantsev Obelisk previously stood. The same path was also made by the Rumyantsev Obelisk: initially it was also in the southeastern corner of Tsaritsyn meadow, and in 1801 it gave way to the monument to Suvorov and was moved to the northern part of the square.

I want to confuse twist and twist. Obelisks and monuments galloped like gazelles, changing places. Is that fluff? And how in those days such heavy structures drove there - here and it is not clear why?

Engraving of 1831 // is for sale on the electronic commerce site. German translation from here:

"ST. PETERSBURG. Alexander Column."

Original steel engraving from 1831. Printed by W. KUNSTVERLAG CREUZBAUER, Karlsruhe. Image dimensions: 9 cm x 13.5 cm;

Optionally, I will send you large images for easier viewing of the object.

authenticity is GUARANTEED! ORIGINALITY - WARRANTY. Lot No: N5751 Jörg Strahlendorf. Antique and Münzhandlung. Bennigsenstraße 68a. 28207 Bremen. Email: [email protected]

Here is a color version of this painting with a higher quality image of 1835. (Or here is the same engraving). Although, it is already clear that the original was painted no later than 1831:

"Guildburg mid-19th century. Steel engraving"

4 significant differences of the old monument from the modern:

1. The pedestal was three-stage, now two-stage.

2. There were no cubic curbstones in the corners of the steps.

3. At the top is not the current angel with wings, but a man very similar to Odessa Duke.

4. The modern Angel is looking at us, towards the Winter Palace, and the old creature, as far as one can judge from the small image, is turned in the opposite direction - back to the Winter Palace.

Maybe this is Samson Sukhanov, and in his left hand is a stag for hunting bears?

Or is it a gray humanoid or a green snake-man? One can only guess.

This, perhaps, is the column before the reconstruction of our civilization. 200 years ago, the architect Montferrand did not install a column, but redone it. This engraving appears in many sources, but so far I have not figured out in which museum or private collection the original drawing is stored, on which the engraving is made. Who knows - tell me. Maybe it was a draft of the figure submitted to the official competition? This is unlikely, but cannot be ruled out. On the 81st page of the Aleksanldrvo album there are 4 projects of the figure, and not one of them resembles that shown in the engraving:

All design options for the top of the Alexander Column are made in the Russian Christian style. It’s easy to determine by style what our Christian technologically backward civilization really did from what the ancient technologically advanced civilization did. Their art style is antique Greco-Roman.

In general, this engraving cannot be unambiguously attributed to the proof of falsification, since it cannot be ruled out that this was the artist’s fantasy just in 1831, when the draft of the column was already published, and what was not decided on top. And different artists painted their projects. Who knows, maybe this creature was taken to Odessa and called Duke. Do not waste good! One of the readers of my blog bought this print and sent me a high resolution photo. I attached it to Odessa Duke:

Similarities in both statues:

1. The left leg is set back,

2. The right hand is set to the side.

3. Dressed in a long cloak to the ground on the right side.

It is clearly seen that the cross does not adhere to the hand, as it seemed in fuzzy pictures. And that was the main difference from Duke. I could not understand what he had done with his hand. Indeed, on the column, the hand allegedly held a cross, while Duke turned it differently. Now it’s clear that they did nothing as unnecessary. But it can also be Samson Sukhanov's horn. A crossbar was specially placed on the slings so that the slingshot did not enter the bear completely, so that the bear reaches the hunter. Please note that the top of the cross is not flat but in the shape of a spear tip. Probably it was planned as a monument to Sukhanov during his lifetime. It’s a pity that the White Bears weren’t planted on top. And then both of whom Samsosh failed. And who, in turn, is similar to Odessa Duke?

On Octavian Augustus:

Maybe that's why Montferrand and Betancourt are both Augusta Augustovich?

By the way, where did Odessa Duke come from in Odessa? Is it from St. Petersburg by chance? Wikipedia:

The monument is a bronze statue of Richelieu in Roman toga with a scroll in his hand and three brass high-reliefs, symbolizing agriculture, trade and justice. Laid on June 30, 1827. Sculpture and high reliefs are cast in bronze by foundry master V.P. Ekimov in St. Petersburg. Pedestal of the outstanding Petersburg architect A.I. Melnikov and architect F.K. Boffo.

Q.E.D! They even dragged Duke from St. Petersburg! So, allegedly Ekimov, Vasily Petrovich, cast in Peter Duke.

Wikipedia: Vasily Petrovich Yekimov (aka Yakimov) (1758-1837) - Russian foundry master. The exact date of birth, origin and name given at birth are unknown.

Wow! Another Samson Sukhanov! He also had 3 birth dates and 2 fathers! Maybe Ekimov and white bears fell with his bare hands? I also note that the portrait of Ekimov is not available not only on Wikipedia, but also could not be found at all on the Internet through a search. 12 years old was captured in Turkey and brought to Russia, where he was sent to the Academy of Arts

1776 - graduate of "4th age in the class of copper and stamped craftsmanship."

In 1777 he casts a miniature copy of the monument to Peter I, for which he receives a prize of 100 rubles. from the Council of the Academy of Arts.

Alexander I instructed in 1799 the casting of the monument to A. V. Suvorov according to the project of M. I. Kozlovsky ... We owe the talent to V. P. Ekimov for the appearance of the most famous sculptural groups of Russia cast in bronze:

The Bronze Horseman in St. Petersburg

Fountain "Samson tearing the mouth of a lion" in Peterhof

Copies of the bronze "Paradise Gates" by Lorenzo Ghiberti adorning the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg

Statues of generals M. I. Kutuzov and Barclay de Tolly at the Kazan Cathedral on Nevsky Prospekt in St. Petersburg

Monument to Minin and Pozharsky in Moscow and others.

It is indicated here that in 1777 he cast a miniature copy of the Bronze Horseman, but it was missed that the famous statue itself had already been cast by the OB this year.

The first casting of the sculpture took place in the summer of 1775. In 1777, the upper parts of the sculpture were made, which did not work out during the first casting ... The casting of the statue was carried out under the direction of foundry by master Ekimov Vasily Petrovich and was completed in 1778.

And by the time he started casting he was only 17 years old! And the casting ended at 20. Samson Sukhanov felled polar bears with his bare hands, also at a very young age. According to another version, OB Ekimov is not mentioned at all. The caster Khaylov directed everything:

September 4, 1775 The casting of the monument to Peter I, the Bronze Horseman, began. When the melted copper was started up and the lower parts of the mold were filled, the copper burst out and began to spread across the floor. Falcone ran out of the workshop; workers followed him. One caster E. Khailov remained in the workshop, plugged a hole in the mold and began to pick up the leaked copper. As a result, the casting was successful only with small errors. This is how the first filling of the monument is described, in which, in December 1775, a metal breaking out of a mold caused a big fire.Only the courage of the caster Khaylov, who directed the smelting and filling, saved the form from complete destruction ... //

And you don’t have any Ekimova. Although taking into account the fact that Samsoshi Sukhanov had a two-father father Semyon and Xenophon, it can also be one in two persons Ekimov and Khaylov.

There is another candidate for a place at the top of the column. This is a statue of Alexander the First, installed in Taganrog in 1830.


The sculpture group was performed by I.P. Martos, rector of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, creator of the monument to Minin and Pozharsky in Moscow, and the famous architect A.I. Melnikov became the author of the pedestal.

The emperor was supposed to appear before the audience in the pose of an ancient commander, his figure towering whimsically draped in a wide cloak, from under which one could see the general's uniform.

With one hand the king held the hilt of the sword, with the other he held the scroll. Alexander’s carefully executed face was distinguished by close portrait resemblance, his foot trampled on the wriggling body of the snake, a symbol of victory over Napoleon.

Here it is not necessary La-La! A snake is a symbol of victory over anyone. Peter the first also tramples a snake, although he lived 100 years before Napoleon.

The monument was inaugurated on October 23, 1831.

Alexander the Blessed stood before the 1917 revolution. In the 20th year it was demolished.

In the late 80s, a monument struck, they decided to restore the 300th anniversary of Taganrog.

A copy (with some minor changes) was made according to the drawings preserved in St. Petersburg.

A snake disappeared from the pedestal - the Napoleonic invasion is too far an event for us to remind of it could organically fit into the artistic image. Cupids would be all the more incomprehensible - they were replaced by the sovereign eagle, protruding from the army cloak with a scream. //

What is another army cloak? This is a coiled Roman toga! But this statue is less like what is depicted in Al. column than Odessa Duke. At Taganrozhsky "Duke" the left leg is set not back, but forward. ***

Jewish skeptics have tried to solve at least the problem of dragging large masses.

An ox is a castrated bull. Castration occurs without any anesthesia. On the contrary, disinfectant fluids causing hellish burning are poured into the incision site. Alcohol for example. Say no to animal abuse! Be sure to watch the several-second castration of piglets video // from the movie Hamburger Without Love

In the Israeli "scientific" reconstruction cartoon, 12 oxen pull a stone with a section slightly larger than a person’s height, about 2 by 2 meters and 3 times longer than the width, that is, 6 meters. And they pull it not on huge wheels, but on logs:

(Taken from here // The density of granite is about 2.6, which means that the stone from the cartoon weighed 2X2X6X2.6 = 60 tons. They would try to attach a loaded train to real 12 bulls. wagons on logs instead of wheels and shoot not a cartoon but a video of a real experiment.

The reconstruction authors used the principle of chain hoists for multiple traction reinforcement. In order to pull the load with more force, it is necessary for the tractor to go as many times as long as the transported cargo passes.

According to Dahl's dictionary // a bull pulls a load of less than a ton. It is on a cart with large wheels that spin easier than logs under stones. The rolling friction force is inversely proportional to the radius of the wheel. Twice as large as a wheel - twice as easy to roll the same load. And the design of the cartwheel itself is more perfect than a log rolling on stones.

Accordingly, 60 bulls should pull 60 tons. 10 times more than in the cartoon.

Real stone in underground Jerusalem weighs about 600 tons. That is, 1200 bulls were supposed to drag him. Moreover, the rope should be not one, but a lot, so that the strength of 1200 bulls would not break it. And how to manage such a herd so as not to get entangled in the ropes?

Here is the table for your interest:

The mass of a towed cart with a load on a bad road is 600-900 kg - depending on the mass of the horse itself (second row of the table). Taken from here //

But keep in mind that this is an ordinary cart with large wheels. On logs it’s harder to drag a load.

Suppose we want to increase traction by 10 times with the help of chain hoists and stretch for a distance of only 10 meters as a reconstruction of these powders. Well, 12 bulls will reach the load to driven in stakes with pulleys at a distance of 10 meters, and then how? In this case, the bulls will go a distance of 10 times greater, 100 meters.

1. Untie the rope from 12 bulls and from the stone.

2. Pull the rope out of 2 pulley blocks - on poles and on stone.

3. Drive the stakes in a new place - 10 meters further. And now the most important thing:

4. Extend more than 100 meters of a very thick and heavy rope between all the pulleys. That is, 10 times to go the distance from the load to the stakes. At the same time, make sure that the rope is not tangled, and for this it must always be tightly tensioned along the entire length, including at previous levels. Once relaxed - and the whole rope will slide off the pulleys, and you have to start all over again. And if a person walks 10 meters each time, then he stretches a rope much longer. First 100 meters, on the 2nd turn 90, on the 3rd 80, etc. Or a person must walk with a very heavy coil with a long thick rope, which is not realistic.

5. Bulls deploy in the opposite direction, walk with them 110 meters to the stone. By the way, if the bulls were walking not in the opposite direction but in the same direction as the stone, then they would have to walk 20 meters less. After all, the stone would move in the direction of the movement of the bulls. So the great skeptical powders and in this little thing lounged in full.

6. Re-deploy 12 bulls, tie one end of the rope to them. And if we talk about real stones in underground Jerusalem, you need to deploy a huge herd of 120 bulls using a 10-fold sheave.

To stretch the stone for only 1 km, you have to repeat this cycle 100 times! And if 10 kilometers? It is easy to draw on computer animation but not possible to do in reality. That is why the great powderies could only draw, but could not shoot a documentary. They would leave the office to stretch their legs, harness 12 bulls or horses, and then they would be smart.

Here are photographs of reality 100 years ago with the same number of bulls and the real block size that they can pull:

In this real photo, the stone is about 2 X 2 X 0.8 and it weighs, respectively, about 8 tons. That is, 8 times less than in the Jewish cartoon. The stone rides on huge wheels, not on logs! And no chain hoists.

And here is a trolley and its wheels close-up:

Source: // Such a cart was called a "halamander." Quote from English: Galamanders like these were used to transport large, heavy granite blocks.

And the stone block itself is suspended from below under the frame. So Littel.

Take a herd of horses, wheels from a two-story house - please drag small stones. They are small but very heavy.

And no megaliths. It's out of the question.

Only small blocks. Here are the ones hanging on the chains:

Want to pull megaliths? No problems! 100 herds of horses and wheels the height of a skyscraper.

But in our time created megamachines that could carry megaliths. True, the smallest. They have exactly the same size wheels as carts for transporting small stone blocks.

At the top, you see the most heavy lifting vehicle in the world, Belaz 75601. 360 tons payload. This is slightly more than half of the Alexander Column. Not the one that is yellow in the foreground, but that white that is visible in the distance behind the yellow. One with a wheel as tall as yellow BelAZ.

Engine power - 4000 horses. 100 herds of 40 horses.

And this is it in front. The cabin can be accessed by elevator or stairs. He has a headlight twice as large as the logs under the megalith that was carried by virtual Jewish bulls in a fantastic video of the great sisters.

Thunder-stone can only be translated by a caravan of such monsters.

This BelAZ has 2 more competitors in Canada and Europe. The same carrying capacity. While I was writing this article, Belarusians launched an even bigger dump truck at the end of September 2013.

BelAZ was the first among other manufacturers of mining equipment to create such a machine. "We are preparing documents for submission of a dump truck with a carrying capacity of 450 tons to the Guinness Book of Records," said Leonid Trukhnov, chief designer of mining equipment at BelAZ.

This absolute record holder of all times and peoples, too, will not be able to move the Alexander column. She just crush it into a cake. The advantage will be almost 200 tons. This Belaz has a capacity of about 5,000 horses. Pay attention to the size of the wheels. Will he pull the Jerusalem megalith? It is unknown, because its thickness is not exactly known. According to various estimates, it weighs from 500 to 600 tons. The fact that he was pulled by any reasonable number of bulls is out of the question. Even after 10 times plispast. Because even the main thing is not power, but the size of the wheels. The larger the wheel, the easier it is to roll the same load. Logs are 10-20 times smaller than Belaz wheels.

Now let's see what the great Russian atheistic powders tell us. Maybe they will be smarter than Jewish?

In the album about Al. the column on page 7, Mr. Montferrand, instead of fat Jewish bulls, harnessed skinny Russian men:

Pay attention to the wheels. I repeat. How many times the wheel is, how many times it is easier to roll. Look at any textbook or wikipedia if you yourself do not understand logically. This brick on a trolley with a volume of half a cubometer weighs almost one and a half tons. Only a polar bear weighs more than him in the Brockhaus-Efron encyclopedia. In Dahl's dictionary, one ox only pulls half a ton on a cart with wheels 20 times larger than these. For this stone you need 3 bulls and large wheels. And it is pulled by 4 Russian dystrophics on miniature wheels the size of just for children's toy cars for Barbie dolls. Or like a suitcase on wheels.

And how are these wheels attached to the cart if they do not have a thick axle, like train cars? Is there a little mount like a roller skate for children? For each wheel 250-300 kg. And if one of the wheels hits a small pebble, then almost all the weight will fall on it. In shape, the wheels are similar to the wheels for rails. But something similar to rails does not pass under the wheels.

In the Hermitage there is a 19-ton Kolyvan vase (1,200 pounds = 19 tons) and the plate below it says that it was pulled from 120 to 160 horses, that is, 6-8 horses per ton.

And at Monferrand, a half tons pull only 4 men instead of 10 horses.

On the 115th page of the Isakievsky album, 6 Russian durlaks pull a block more than before

Moreover, they pull along the logs, and not on casters. But, in this case, someone should put the next log in front of the cart. But the log is only behind the cart.

Same thing in another source. It is not clear who the author is but the engraving by KF Sabat (the one that painted a nonexistent building next to the standing cathedral on the site of the “house with lions”).

9 barge haulers with all their might pull a block of about 5 tons, judging by the size, and in front of the log is again not laid. Now 5 tons will fall off the front log and who will lift them?

A man holds a log at the back, and there is no log at the front. For some reason, the opposite is true. Maybe the stone is pushed back with ropes? Maybe they are dismantling the temple, but not assembling? Taken from here // .... This is the only plausible drawing. Because in this figure, the men are turned to face the stone. In this position, it is easier to budge, tugging. Although you can’t reach this far - only in separate jerks.

On the 116th page of the Isakiev album a block is drawn on already large wheels:

The cross-sectional size is one and a half and a half and 2 meters long. Total 4 cubes or 10.5 tons. She will be pulled by 21 ox. Or 60-80 horses that pulled a Kolyvan vase. And in the figure, 10 Russian Wan deal with this. By the way, there is a load on each wheel of about 2 tons. This is roughly the same as modern trucks. But the wheels of this cart are not sprung and not on inflatable slopes. What happens if one of the wheels hits a pebble? Again, almost all the mass on one wheel and one axle.

Or maybe it's foam blocks?

But, if there is an excess in one place, then in another there is a lack.On the 95th page of the Isakievsky album, 2 men are pulling an ordinary thin board. This weighs about 5 kg. These poor fellows laid her on the shoulder, held with both hands. How so! 2.5 kg each. So walk - only interfere with each other.

Either they pull blocks for three oxen, or they can’t raise the board with a tiny mass.

Montferrand’s Alexandrov album on page 39 is a miniature. The signature in French reads: Un ouvrier russe sculptant la tete colossale de Jupiter dans un bloc en granit

My free translation: Russian worker carves a giant head of Jupiter from a granite block

On the same page of the album, Montferrand writes: l'on voit dans la galerie de S.E.M. le comte strogonoff, a Saint-Petersbourg, une tete colossale de Jupiter en granit Serdobolski, qui a ete sculptee avec tant d'art par un ouvrier russe, que longtemps je l'ai prise pour un bel ouvrage grec. Tel est le sujet de la vignette ci-dessous.

My free translation:

I saw in the gallery of His Excellency Count Stroganov, in St. Petersburg, the colossal head of Jupiter from Serdobolsky granite, which the Russian worker so skillfully sculpted, that I mistook this for a Greek work. It inspired me to write this thumbnail.

Guess who this Russian worker is? Samson Sukhanov himself! Source: //

An inscription in Latin is carved under this Jupiter: "The art of Egypt in Petropolis is restored. 1810." ***

Here are the remains of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi (Greece):

It turns out that there is a very similar masonry, not far from St. Petersburg, in Kronstadt:

But, until rectangular holes were found in Kronstadt. According to the information from here // stone blocks are about a meter per meter per meter, respectively 2-3 tons. This is definitely a polygonal masonry, but using a binder solution of small stones and a binder. The high complexity of polygonal shapes is combined with poor surface finish. Well visible holes on the front outer side. This is probably the holes from the Boers, into which a spacer was later inserted and a stake was hammered into it to split the stone according to Sukhanov's method. This is not Veselchak's handwriting. ***

On many sites there is a legend about a snake under the feet of a horse:

Ill Peter I lay in a fever and got a fancy for him that the Swedes were advancing. He jumped on a horse and wanted to rush to the Neva on the enemy, but then a snake crawled out and wrapped itself around the horse’s legs and stopped him, prevented Peter I from jumping into the water and dying. So the Bronze Horseman stands in this place - a monument How a snake saved Peter I

//, //

This is another minor absurdity. The snake saved Peter, and Peter tramples her with the hooves of his horse? Look at what's going on:

A poet in Russia is more than a poet. And the serpent here is more than snakes. This is a snake with a dinosaur head. Looks like a Loch Ness monster. And without scales. On the right, for comparison, a typical snake head. Did dinosaurs know 300 years ago? ***

To be continued. Many problems with the steps and lights around the column. They either appear or disappear in different forms. But more on that later. ***

My research was refuted by the greatest sage, one Alexander Yusupov. So that he was convinced of the deceitfulness of the official history of Peter, he was thrown as a bead this my research. This is what he answered. Quote:

There is a picture where the moment of lifting the column is depicted. Just the structure was built in advance, and leverage was applied. I’ll say about the rest of the article that some bears are being discussed there ... //

Chukchi is not a reader, Chukchi is a writer, however! Why read if you can write? Why study, better to learn! Why study if you are so smart?

Andrey Sklyarov is the founder of the project "Laboratory of Alternative History" - the largest network resource in the world dedicated to the secrets and mysteries of ancient history. Winner of the Golden Feather of Russia International Award, title of "Best author of the new millennium." Creator of a series of non-fiction documentaries. Born in April 1961

1978-1984 - Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Department of Aerophysics and Space Research. Worked:

1984-1989 - Central Scientific Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering (TsNIIMASH) - space industry. 1989-1990 - personnel department of the Ministry of General Engineering of the USSR. 1990 - Head of the Production Department of the central apparatus of the Soyuz Youth Aerospace Society.

1990-1991 - Vice President of the International Youth Aerospace Society "Rise".

1991-present - independent commercial activity. (since 2001 - managing director of the Foundation for the Development of Science "III Millennium").On his site there is a ban on discussing the mysteries of Peter. But, once he himself touched on this topic. In the article “The Land of Baal” // he writes:

Supporters of the official “push-pull” version most often cite the so-called Thunder-stone, a granite rock weighing 1,000 tons, which now stands on the monument to Peter I

No doubt - this huge monolith was indeed able to be transported and installed on the Neva Embankment without any modern cranes. ”

... for the transportation of Thunder-stone, it was necessary to produce special unique skids and balls from heavy-duty bronze, using all the technological developments that were available at that time. And, most importantly, it was a unique, piece-wise operation. But only trillitons in Baalbek 3 pieces. Trillitons, however, are stacked on a series of megaliths weighing five hundred tons, which are also carefully docked.

I asked on his forum the question of where did the mass of Thunder Stone come from just 1,000 tons, and not 2000, as in official sources (more precisely from 1600 to 2400).

And where is the information that not only the balls, but also the runners were from bronze, if all official sources say copper runners. Even if you enter the query “thunder stone bronze gutters” into the search site, it gives out copper gutters, but bronze balls.

In response, my topic was removed to the trash can of the forum //, writing that Peter should not be discussed on their forum. But, if not, why did Sklyarov himself mention? And I just asked for a source of his information.

Then I asked Sklyarov the same questions in personal correspondence. He answered with excuses that this was all nonsense and he was not interested. Although I just asked to name the source of information, and not to philosophize about high matters: what is nonsense and what is great wisdom.

I also noticed that at least 3 trilithons, but the Thunder-stone weighs twice as much as each.

In the last answer, he wrote at the end that many still confuse copper and bronze. But after all, the same author called the gutters simply copper without any reservations, and he called the balls copper with impurities of special metals in neighboring sentences:

Thirty balls poured out of copper mixed with galmey and tin were put in the gutters ... These balls alone resisted pressure. Others, forged or cast from iron, were crushed or cracked. //

In the end, on their forum, I suggested renaming their company "Laboratory of Alternative History" to "Laboratory of Alternative History besides Peter." My message was destroyed and Sklyarov himself personally lowered my rating by one. Some kind of kindergarten. Probably when he lowered my rating, he also waved his fist in front of the screen with a menacing look.

Later it turned out that Sklyarov was right in the last statement. Indeed, various historians, writers and engineers often call bronze copper. Pushkin, for example, called the poem "The Bronze Horseman", although this is a bronze horseman, which is noted even on Wikipedia.

More about Sklyarov a separate topic // - it turned out to be dumber than I could imagine. ***

They send me links to documents and drawings confirming the OM. Does this mean that of. right version? No. After all, the whole question is falsification of history. That is, OV was based on false, artificial documents. And it’s not surprising that they are located. The fact is that if the OM is true, then the documents and drawings refuting it should not exist in nature.

For example, mention of Betancourt is found in some Spanish documents of the 18th century. Does this mean that he existed and set up the columns of St. Isaac's Cathedral? No. After all, if they were engaged in rigging seriously, then they forged not only Russian but also Spanish documents.

For example, when university employees sell diplomas of this institute, they guarantee that the name of the "student" will be entered not only in the diploma crust, but also in all kinds of educational documents in the archive. There were such stories.

Or when a spy is introduced into a foreign country, they not only give him false documents, but also, through secret officers, write his biography in the documents of the municipalities and the local hospital. In the case of Betancourt, for example, his false biography was made not by Russians, but by the Spaniards. Therefore, in their country it is even easier for them to heap up any evidence than if the Russians did it.

Do not forget that the main alternative version of the Russian history was made by Europeans. And the Romanovs are the proteges of Europe.

If you want to refute artifacts that confirm the alternative version, then try to find an explanation for these artifacts that is consistent with OB. This is a serious approach. ***

"Was there a boy" Mon "And was there a boy" Monpheranchik? If there was a chuluvek, then his grave should be. Quote from here //[email protected]_Articles

June 8 (July 10), 1858 Auguste Montferrand died - just a month after the consecration of Isaac. The architect in his will asked for burials under the walls of his cathedral (which was not uncommon in Europe), and the tsar - already Alexander II - formally referring to the French Catholic, refused the widow.

What??? It is possible to entrust the Catholic to build the main Orthodox shrine, but it is impossible to bury in it? So why not demolish Masonic symbols and pagan statues all over Palace Square? To dress the Orthodox Tsar Peter in Roman clothes is normal, but is it a great Orthodox sin to bury the Catholic who built the most famous Orthodox cathedral in his cathedral? Maybe it’s just that no Montferrand built it, but only painted funny pictures commissioned by falsifiers, so there is no reason to bury him in a cathedral that has nothing to do with the draftsman?

It is worth mentioning separately about Alexander the Second. Of all the kings, he is the greatest man in my opinion. During the Russian war in the North Caucasus, the highlanders were led by the exuberant and fearless Imam Shamil. Alexander the second just talked to him once and Shamil will change by 100%. He became quieter than water below the grass and peacefully lived his years in Russia.

This is not the place to delve into this story, but such a power of the word of Alexander is comparable to that attributed to Christ in the Gospels. Turning enemies into friends by the power of words, not weapons. Why did I make this lyrical digression about Alexander? So you understand why it was Alexander 2 who did not allow Montferrand to be buried in the cathedral. He, as an honest man, could not allow such sacrilege in line with counterfeiters.

Or perhaps Montferrand was credited with the desire to bury there. For drawing pictures?

Or, in general, Montferrand did not exist in nature like Samson Sukhanov.

In September, Eliza had already left for Paris, taking with her a unique collection of majolica and jewelry. The body of the architect Montferrand was sent to his homeland, where he was buried in the Montmartre cemetery near the resting place of the mother of Louise Fistioni under a tombstone without any inscription, but only with the monogram "AM" - Auguste de Montferrand.

The monogram and the decoration of the tombstone in the form of a small column of granite, very similar to the stone of the porticoes of Isaac (or from the same granite? But who brought it? And who designed the monument?), Only a century later they allowed us to speculate about who is resting here.

Until now, many sources write: Monferrand’s grave has been lost. This discovery is finally approved by the cooperation of St. Petersburg and French researchers of the personality and heritage of Montferrand. In our city, this work is led by researchers at the St. Isaac's Cathedral Museum, in Clermont-Ferrand, members of the Montferrand Revival Association (last November it turned half a century), which found, among other evidence, documents about the burial of Montferrand.

The monogram AM is considered to be the initials of Augustus Monferrand. Although it could have been Alexey Maksimovich (Gorki). Who can take a larger picture in Paris, send me. Maybe something else to discern. ***

Interesting material // At the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries, old tombstones with completely different not modern Orthodox symbols were destroyed, which until recently I did not know at all.Just at that time, the official story of Peter began. ***

By office version in all sources during the construction of Isaac killed about 100,000 workers. It was built for 40 years. 300 working days a year. Total 12,000 days. Divide the number of corpses by the number of days we get 8 coffins per day. But, intensive construction lasted only half the period until the beginning of the 40s, and then there was a slow decoration. That is, during the construction, 15 corpses were taken out every working day. This is in a civilized country in a civilized era in the center of the cultural capital! Mid 19th Century! Pushkin Lermontov Gogol Tolstoy Dostoevsky Nekrasov Turgenev! And none of them writes about this horror. St. Petersburg is full of foreigners. And among this city is either the Gulag or the Auschwitz. They take out a corpse from the counter every hour! This is an average. And on “fruitful” days every 2-3 minutes. A string of coffin trucks.

During the war with Napoleon, 200,000 Russians died. And in peacetime at a construction site at one point 100,000!

Al The column was raised in less than 2 hours 2000 people. With the help of 60 jacks, each of them, according to Montferrand, twisted 16 men, and according to the drawings of Montferrand - 12.

But how did all these 60 groups coordinate their actions? After all, different parts of the column rose to different heights in the same time. Some should spin faster, others slower. 60 groups of twisters! If a group starts spinning at least a hundredth faster than necessary, then the entire weight of the column will fall on their rope only and it will break.

Another superiority of Peter over the "Most Most" Baalbek. In Baalbek, the columns consist of separate small pieces of up to 50 tons (as for example in the figure on the left). And St. Isaac’s columns are 115 tons whole. I'm not talking about Alexandrovskaya. If Sklyarov and his friends admire the Baalbek trilithon (3 bricks next to 1000 tons each), then it is worth considering that in St. Petersburg they took such a trilithon as a fluff, installed on a giant lathe and turned a smooth column with entasis from it.

If Sklyarov so firmly believes in the official, then according to this version the harvesting of the Al-column was about 7 by 7 meters across and weighed 4,000 tons. And from such a blank, the Alexander Column occupied only a quarter, because its diameter in the thickest place was 3.5 m. Of the remaining 3 parts of the blank, it would be possible to make the very Baalbek trilithon. The film about Baalbek Sklyarov called "The Most The Most" thrice used the word "most." Just once for each trilithon that could be made of the remainder of the workpiece for Al. The columns. Now take it out!

Achtung Schmachtung Berebakhtung!

Let Sklyarov be right. The gods built Baalalbek, and Peter the serfs from the Russian hinterland. But, the gods in Baalbek made columns from pieces, and the wild Russian men made even larger columns from one piece of granite. It turns out that the Russians surpassed the gods? The great omnipotent high-tech gods could only make bricks of 1000 tons each, and the Russian Vanka made columns with enthusiasm from such bricks for beauty.

It turns out that the Russian wild nightlight holders in their teeth in the cold were gods for the Sklyarov gods?

Al the convoy was carried on horseback on a barge, which was dangerous and unnatural because the barge was unstable, fell into a strong storm and for some reason did not roll over. The unfinished column was transported, i.e., it still weighed about 700 tons.

And here is the reality. Half a century later, when, in fact, technology made a giant leap, large steamboats, cranes, etc. appeared, in 1879, the Cleopatra's Needle obelisk, three times lighter, was brought in from New York to Egypt in 2479. To do this, it was necessary to lift the steamer out of the water, make a hole right in the hold, load the column there, make a hole, sail to New York, then again lift the steamer out of the water and cut the hull of the vessel. Because the cargo must be BELOW THE BATTERY LINE.

And these are cart wheels carrying a 40-ton pedestal from the obelisk: //

The old jokers with boards in Machupikchu were joined by modern jokers with gas cutters in Aswan.

I was surprised at the swastika in St. Isaac's Cathedral, coinciding with the swastika in Greek antiquities and with the Baalbek. It turned out that this is a worldwide phenomenon. This is one of the Vedic symbols of ancient civilization. //

I came up with my own way to make columns manually //

Oh, I can’t! Keep me stronger! AAAA! Mr. Sklyarov wrote for the second time that under the Thunder-stone the trenches were bronze, not copper. AAAA! This time in an article about Japan //

during transportation of the famous Thunder-stone, specially made balls made of durable bronze were used, which, in addition, rolled along gutters specially made of the same material.

The Bronze Horseman has a horse. And Peter had a mare Lisette. A lot of details about it here // ***

I found more pictures on the Finnish site. For example, a view of the Puterlax quarry (fragment). Itochnik // and //

Date - November 1839

The figure shows a column about 20 meters long and at least 2 thick (estimated by a person standing nearby). Such large ones are only on the ground floor of Isaac. And they finished putting them up until 1837.

So, the dreamers again did not hit the sky with their finger.

Maybe, of course, this is a defective column. But what then is marriage? No cracks are visible like, for example, on the Aswan Obelisk. And why should any marriage be drawn? Still from there //

1829 year. Again, flat surfaces on rectangular blocks and not a single trace from the Boers and wedges according to the method of Sukhanov. As if everything is sawn with a cable saw or some unknown tool.


Watch the video: 2020 Democratic Debate in Houston. The Daily Show (February 2020).

Popular Posts

Category Alternative history, Next Article