One of the most mysterious incidents of the 19th century is undoubtedly the event that historians called the Patriotic War of 1812. Such an abundance of lies and falsifications cannot help but lead to the idea that since something was so carefully camouflaged, then it certainly has extremely important significance for history. Something happened at the beginning of the 19th century that humanity should not remember. This means we have the right to assert that there was something turning point in the fate of our civilization, a transition from something to what we have now. What could it have been?
Quite a lot has been written about the “miracles” of this monument, but I found the most similarities with my own conclusions in Igor the Greek, and I strongly recommend reading his article “Monument to Mine and Fire?”
http://igor-grek.ucoz.ru/news/pamjatnik_mine_i_pozharu/2012-03-26-200
Agree, there is something to talk about. Therefore, further I will try to outline other, to put it mildly, oddities that remained outside the scope of Grek’s article.
This is what makes your brain boil normal person, but invariably finds ridiculous explanations from historians:
1) In the Patriotic War of 1812, the Russian people defeated the indomitable beast named Napoleon in a difficult battle, but it is necessary to call a spade a spade; Russia did not fight with France, but with all of Europe. And whether it was a war in the usual sense is a very big question. Leo Tolstoy's "Immortal Work" is fraught with such absurdities that even sworn skeptics have no doubt that the work was created to order, with a specific purpose - to present, in the right way for power versions, events of the war with Napoleon.
Many experts come to the conclusion that the novel “War and Peace” was created by a team of authors, if only because Tolstoy himself took part in hostilities, served in the Crimea during another war between Russia and Europe, and with another, Napoleon. He simply could not write monstrous nonsense about army service that could only be written by an amateur, a complete layman, or an exalted college girl.
Now let's take the official history of this war. Every day is documented. The places on the map, the names, the colors of the horses and underpants of the soldiers who took part in each of the battles are known. A historian - a specialist in imperialist (First World War) or civil war. War is first and foremost chaos. Constant loss of documents and living witnesses. It is for this reason that in the history of any defunct war there are so many mysteries and secrets, and generally gaps. And the Patriotic War of 1812, described in hundreds of thousands of sources, is known every minute! Isn't it strange?
And here comes the understanding that if the state used all available means to create a myth about the War of 1812, then, in fact, there was something to hide.
2) What causes great bewilderment is the fact that having ended with victory the hardest war in the history of the Russian people (at that time), for some reason all the sculptors and architects seemed to go berserk, go crazy en masse, and began erecting monuments all over Russia in honor of the events of another epoch-making year . Also on the twelfth, but not eight hundred, but six hundred. Wonderful! Imagine this situation: The echo of the Victory salute on May 9, 1945 had not yet died down, and sculptors unanimously rushed to sculpt monuments to the heroes of the Russian-Turkish war, for example. This is fine? No. Then why, after the end of the War of 1812, no one thought about perpetuating the memory of this war, and everyone was immediately preoccupied with the events of two hundred years ago!???
And that's not it! Just in the middle of the 19th century, and in its second half, a boom in perpetuating the memory of the heroes of the War of 1812 swept across Russia! Well, what did the heroes of the war of 1853-1856 do wrong? But no! Monuments are erected and erected all around, triumphal arches, churches named after the Archangel Michael, and all this in honor of those long-standing events when they fought not with the third Napoleon, but with his uncle - the First boa-na-parte.
The conclusion suggests itself. In 1812, something truly global happened, and monuments were erected in honor of this event. But then the policy changed, and these monuments were renamed in honor of the events of 1612, about which no one among the people remembered anything for a long time. It is the creations of the masters of those years that most likely have no relation to those persons to whom authorship is attributed.
And this is where the fun begins. First, look closely at the temple, built in memory of the soldiers who died during the capture of Kazan in 1552.
The photo is clickable. I recommend viewing it in original size.
Guess what year it was built? You will die laughing. In 1813!!! Those. there is war in the yard, all the people are tense in the name of victory over the invaders, they are running through the forests with pitchforks and rakes in search of lost monsieurs and chevaliers, and at the same time Ambrose of Sretensky is building such a pyramid, decorated with Masonic symbols. and even in honor of the events that died down two hundred and fifty years before. Well, this is obvious nonsense!
This monster was built in full accordance with the level of technology of the second half of the 19th century. And the vessels were decorated in memory of the same event to which all the other temples were dedicated, on which the “all-seeing eye” began to be depicted everywhere. Events of 1552 - a pathetic excuse. However, it is obvious that this nativity scene was placed in Kazan for a reason! This means that Kazan was related to those hidden events that are disguised as Patriotic War 1812
If everything is so, then the presence of this masterpiece in the neighboring city on the Volga finally becomes clear:
Be sure to watch in original size and enlarged.
This stele was allegedly installed on Minin’s grave in Nizhny Novgorod. And again there is a nonsense with the date. 1818 According to the official version, it was cut down in a quarry on the Karelian Isthmus. Aha... The arrows indicate different types of granite. Inside, it is obviously Karelian granite, and it is very fresh, made using modern equipment, and obviously not brought on horseback. But the obelisk itself differs radically from the pedestal. It is very ancient. Made of granite of unknown origin, according to all the canons of ancient Egyptian architecture, and even split. Don’t go to grandma, they found him somewhere nearby, washed him, set him up, and called him “Minin’s grave.” But Egyptian sacred architecture just doesn’t fit in with a Russian city on the Volga.
Ivan Petrovich Martos (1754-1835) And what did he want to tell us by pointing to Pallas Athena?
It is necessary to talk about him separately, because everything that was established in Russia certainly has something to do with this character with a simple Russian surname.
Incredibly, Martos is credited with authoring thousands of works scattered throughout the Holy Roman Russian Empire. Here is a list of his most famous creations:
Bronze statue of John the Baptist, decorating the portico of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg.;
Bas-relief “Moses pours out water from a stone”, above one of the passages in the colonnade of this temple;
Monument to Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna, in the palace park of Pavlovsk;
Sculpture in the pavilion “To Dear Parents” of Pavlovsk Park;
Monument to Minin and Pozharsky (1804-1818);
Marble statue of Catherine II, in the hall of the Moscow Noble Assembly;
Bust of Emperor Alexander I, sculpted for the St. Petersburg exchange hall;
Monument to Alexander I in Taganrog;
Monument to the Duke de Richelieu (1823-1828) in Odessa;
Monument to Prince Potemkin in Kherson;
Monument to Lomonosov in Kholmogory;
Tombstone of Praskovya Bruce;
Tombstone of Turchaninov;
Monument to the book Gagarina, in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra;
Monument to secret adviser Karneeva (Lashkareva) Elena Sergeevna, in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra;
- “Actaeon”;
Monument to Lomonosov in Arkhangelsk in front of the ASTU building;
Tombstone S.S. Volkonskaya (1782)
Tombstone of M.P. Sobakina (1782)
Tombstone E.S. Kurakina (1792)
Tombstone of K. G. Razumovsky in the Resurrection Church of Baturin
Are you impressed? Me too. It is very likely that if the authorship was unknown, or it had to be hidden, then it was attributed to Martos. As in that saying: - “Who knows? So Pushkin knows everything!” So Martos was something like Pushkin, only in sculpture.
The first line on the list of creations is the statue of John the Baptist. Let's look at it:
As you can see, the normal Roman-imperial style. Now let’s compare it with other statues that adorn the Kazan Cathedral:
Alexander Nevskiy. S.S. Pimenov.
Prince Vladimir. S.S. Pimenov.
They were sculpted by a whole team, but without a signature you won’t be able to distinguish whose creation is in front of your eyes. The unity of style and workmanship are amazing. These are real masterpieces. Let's look again:
Duke in Odessa. Yes... Unsurpassed skill, and if you don’t know that this statue previously crowned the Alexandria Column on Palace Square in St. Petersburg, you can believe that it was also created by the great Russian sculptor Martos.
Monument to M.V. Lomonosov in Arkhangelsk.
Stop, stop... So what... Was this squalor also created by the great Martos? On what basis do we believe this? Just because the man with the guitar is wearing a sheet? Have mercy! Why is there such a difference!
And Prince Potemkin in Kherson, also the work of Martos? Something doesn't work out...
It’s incredible, but Martos also cut stone on weekends, so he created such a Moses. However, universal!!!
And for some reason this inscription was not made by Martos. Well, or Martos, but in a state of terrible hangover, otherwise there is no way to explain this ugliness. On such a magnificent monument, it’s so primitive!” It doesn’t fit in any way with the level of execution of the monument itself. By the way, let’s look at it.
What? Someone didn't understand what was in front of their eyes? Let me explain that there are two such monuments. One in Moscow, on Red Square, the second in Nizhny Novgorod at Torg. This one is Nizhny Novgorod. View at maximum magnification. Special attention on a pedestal. It is made of blocks, most likely Karelian granite. And then..... tra-ta-ta-ta-ta!!! (drum roll sounds)...
Ale....OP!!! Click on the picture to enlarge, and make sure that the pedestal is made of three parts: a lid, a bottom made of two blocks, and between them.... MONOLITH!
And the most important thing...
We click, enlarge, and make sure that in the center of Moscow there is a unique artifact, which modern industry is unable to replicate! This is what we, lovers of ancient cobblestones, admire so much - 3D cutting of granite. In the monolith, in a way unknown to science, a niche was made into which the bas-relief was placed, by excavating the material in three planes.
Andrey Sklyarov travels to distant foreign countries to see such a miracle. Why go to the other side of the world if all you have to do is walk out the front door and take a minibus! And here she is a sensation! In the center of the capital of our Motherland is a unique evidence of the use of alien technologies! What... No one sees?
Having realized what I had seen, I came to the following conclusion: Our immediate ancestors inherited a unique collection of artifacts from the past. The whole of St. Petersburg is a gigantic exhibit that has only an indirect relation to modern civilization. We restored and preserved what we were able to preserve. But each object must have a logical explanation in order to answer the unreasonable questions: - “Who is this in sandals on a horse? And how was this pillar made? And what are these two in front of the Kremlin doing here?”
And Catherine’s historians began to give out new names to those whom they themselves did not know. So the “Bronze Horseman” became Peter, the “Emperor” in Odessa received the nickname Duke, the Monument to Mars at the cemetery of the same name in St. Petersburg received the label of Suvorov, etc. But whether it will be possible to identify all these objects in accordance with their true origin seems now to be a very controversial issue, unfortunately. Well, at least we can discern something in this wild pile of lies called “Science History”.
From the comments:
Here's what else is interesting. Why did the Russian elite speak French? I don’t think that they all went with their heads like Russia and Europe. Colonial administration? And why did they all run to Paris in 17th? to your historical homeland? Not to Rome, not to London, not to Berlin. Of all the emigration, as is known, only Kisa Vorobyaninov left for Berlin. But the current counterintelligence officers are already in London.
First inconsistencies
The first doubts arose in the fall of 1947, when Ivan Dobrobabin, one of the list of “dead” Panfilovites who were awarded the title of heroes, was arrested by the military prosecutor’s office in Kharkov for treason. It turned out that he voluntarily surrendered to the Germans and entered their service; he was the chief of police of the German-occupied village of Perekop in the Kharkov region. After the liberation of the village Soviet troops, was arrested as a traitor, but escaped and again went over to the Germans. During Dobrobabin’s arrest, a book about Panfilov’s heroes was found and it turned out that it was about him too. During interrogations, he admitted that he had not performed any feats, and everything that was written about him in the book was untrue. Subsequently, Dobrobanin was sentenced to 25 years in the camps for his service to the Germans. After this Home military prosecutor's office The USSR conducted a thorough investigation into the history of the battle at Dubosekovo as described by journalists. It turned out that all this was their invention. However, the results of the investigation were classified and became known only much later.
This text is an introductory fragment. From the book 70 days of struggle for life author Pinegin Nikolay Vasilievich From the book of Hercules author Stepanova MarinaChapter 2. First successes. First failures Amphitryon's house was filled with great happiness when his twins were born. Yes, exactly the twins - the elder Alcides and the younger Iphicles. The future hero of Hellas Hercules, named Alcides at birth, was born a handsome and strong boy,
From the book From Barbarossa to Terminal: A View from the West author Liddell Hart Basil HenryFirst battles When Operation Barbarossa began on June 22, 1941, the challenges facing the German invading armies were enormous. During the Battle of France in 1940, the Germans made a risky bet on the rapid maneuver of their tank divisions and won. Russian
From the book The Way of the Warrior [Secrets of Japanese Martial Arts] author Maslov Alexey AlexandrovichTHE FIRST PROHIBITIONS AND THE FIRST COMBAT TRAINING There is a traditional version, found in almost every book on the history of karate, about how the Okinawans first began to study martial arts. This was allegedly motivated by gun bans and harassment
From the book Mysteries of Old Persia author From the book Life of Jesus author Renan Ernest Joseph From the book The Largest Tank Battles of World War II. Analytical review author Moshchansky Ilya BorisovichThe first battles The plan for covering the state border in the 5th Army zone was to be put into effect upon receipt of a telegram on mobilization or a conditional telegram signed by the commander, a member of the Military Council and the chief of staff of the district: “Proceed with the implementation
From the book On the Flank of the Mannerheim Line. Battle of Taipale author Yakimovich Kirill VladimirovichFirst attacks, first disappointments While at the headquarters of the newly formed group of troops Grendal was developing plans to defeat the enemy, the 19th Infantry Regiment, which took a bridgehead on the northern bank of Taipaleen-joki, drove the Finns back to a sufficient
From the book Myths about Belarus author Deruzhinsky Vadim VladimirovichINCONSISTENCES 1. A candidate of political science should know that not only in the Middle Ages, but also in the 19th century, the bearer of the national consciousness of the people was not the “common people”, but the nobility (in our country - the gentry) and the townspeople (philistines) - that is exactly those social
From the book Mysteries of Old Persia author Nepomnyashchiy Nikolai NikolaevichFirst meetings - first secrets In 1332, when the French king Philip VI conceived a new crusade In order to return the lost holy lands, the German priest Brocardus wrote a treatise, offering the king unique rules of conduct in this crusade.
From the book Stalin's Neonep (1934-1936) author Rogovin Vadim ZakharovichXI First versions and first forgeries Having gone to Leningrad together with Molotov, Voroshilov, Zhdanov, Yezhov, Yagoda and Agranov, Stalin did not include Ordzhonikidze in this group. Meanwhile, it was no coincidence that Ordzhonikidze’s name appeared second after Stalin in Kirov’s obituary.
From the book Demyansk Massacre. "Stalin's Missed Triumph" or " Pyrrhic victory Hitler"? author Simakov Alexander PetrovichIn the first days Coverage of the course of hostilities in the initial period of the war is not within the scope of this book. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to individual comments. On the first day of the war, the enemy advanced 30–50 km. Two intact bridges over the Dubissa River were captured. Enemy
From the book The Last Rurikovichs and the Decline of Muscovite Rus' author Zarezin Maxim IgorevichThe first clashes, the first victims In March 1490, Ivan the Young died unexpectedly. Suspicions that immediately arose that people close to Despina Sophia were involved in the death of the co-ruler of the state had good grounds. Shortly before the illness and death of the heir
From the book Skopin-Shuisky author Petrova Natalya GeorgievnaChapter Four FIRST VICTORIES AND FIRST DEFEATS And it would be good if you went against the Turk or the Swede, otherwise it’s a shame to say against whom. A. S. Pushkin. Captain's
From the book Ukraine 1991-2007: essays modern history author Kasyanov Georgy VladimirovichChapter 2 First steps, first lessons State building: the problem of elites and leadership. How to share power? Politics: the art of the impossible. Constitution: before and after midnight. "Economikarantier": shock without therapy. Social problems: Poverty is not a vice? "Island of Crimea":
From the book At the Great African Lakes [Monarchs and Presidents of Uganda] author Balezin Alexander StepanovichThe first buildings and the first reforms Now the tavern had to build a new capital. Each tavern, as a rule, built more than one capital throughout its life. Mutesa also had several of them. He built the first one in Nakatema. At the same time, Mutesa ordered the construction of another
In Andrei Sklyarov’s film “The Very Best Baalbek,” Mrs. Dudakova complains that historians attribute the construction of the megaliths of Baalbek to the Romans, but there is no documentation about the construction of such an epoch-making structure, although, according to her, ancient Rome everything was carefully documented and many sources have survived to this day. But it’s the same with aqueducts. Since they don’t know exactly their age, it means that documents about their construction have not been found.
Same with Egyptian pyramids. There, some pyramids are primitive, built late and more destroyed. Others are of complex construction from large blocks, built earlier, it is not known exactly when, but have been preserved in better condition than the newer ones.
Here is another Eagle aqueduct in Spain with an official age of about 2000 years:
It’s strange, but there is little information about this aqueduct on the Internet. It recently underwent restoration:
It’s not clear whether these square holes were made by restorers or whether they were there originally:
It’s a pity that I couldn’t find them to look at close-up. "Help from the audience" is required.
An interesting weather vane on the aqueduct spire - a two-headed bird with a crown and a cross above it:
As you can see, the spire was slightly modified after restoration and a metal cone with a ball was placed on it.
It is interesting to find out when the double-headed eagle and cross appeared. Who knows, tell me. And what could this symbolize? Really? Russian Empire? But the double-headed eagle is also a symbol of the Roman Empire.
I need close-up shots of the blocks to understand what's what. Maybe I didn't search well.
HELP FIND INFORMATION ABOUT THIS "EAGLE" AQUEDUCT!
Who was able to design such complex structures from an engineering point of view?
Who made the necessary, complex measurements and calculations?
Who created the technology for such construction?
Where did suddenly come from many thousands of engineers, craftsmen and workers of the highest qualifications who were able to produce very high quality, incomprehensibly accurately and reliably ( for centuries!) implement objects the like of which we are not able to build today?
According to modern historians, these three gigantic structures, located thousands of kilometers apart from each other, were built almost simultaneously. And they were built, as the “scientists” tell us, by slaves and legionnaires (soldiers). That's it, cheap and cheerful. The main thing is to bring in more slaves and legionnaires, and the most complex structures will grow like mushrooms after rain! And we, so smart and civilized, build houses that fall down in just a few decades? Why were “Roman” legionnaires with slaves able to build colossal objects that lasted 2000 years, while our dams collapse after 30-40 years? It turns out that the “Roman” legionnaires (ordinary soldiers) of those times were incomprehensibly smarter than today’s “docents with candidates”?
And another big question arises: where did the money come from for all this? No matter how large the “Roman” Empire was, it is very difficult to believe that it was able to finance the construction of these colossuses. We read that the “Romans” fought all the time and supposedly conquered someone, and such events in themselves are very expensive! However, as we have already seen, at the same time the Empire built many high-quality roads, comfortable cities with baths, fountains, theaters and temples, as well as country villas, bridges and many other, small and large aqueducts in almost all conquered countries. Where can a continuously warring country get funds for construction around the world?
Where did the notorious “Roman Empire” get the financial, material and human resources to carry out almost simultaneous, grandiose construction projects in different parts of Europe? Where did she recruit such a horde from, firstly, qualified specialists - managers, engineers, mid-level specialists, skilled workers, and, secondly, legionnaires and simply slaves? What an “army” it was necessary to have in order to continuously build structures of colossal complexity and scope throughout Europe!
Who fed all this horde and what? Who guarded the slaves if the legionnaires worked with picks and shovels?
So, the conclusion suggests itself: it was NOT built by slaves and NOT soldiers!
But the little-known supposedly modern aqueduct, the highest in the world, Roquefavour:
According to the official version, the construction of the aqueduct was led by a young 26-year-old engineer, Franz Major de Montrichet. It began in 1842 and ended in 1847. 5 years. In our high-tech times, the construction speed of such a gigantic and complex object is approximately the same. In this amount of time, you can only manually restore the abandoned aqueduct built by the ancient gods of Sklyarov.
Its length is 393 meters, height 82 meters, it consists of three rows of arches. It is rivaled only by the aqueduct at Pont du Gard, which is 266 m long and 47 m high, allegedly built by the Romans 18 centuries earlier. And it also consists of 3 tiers.
So far I haven’t found any information: was cement used or was everything based on word of honor? If anyone knows, tell me in the comments.
However, if you take a close-up look at its blocks, they are very similar to Mesoamerican megaliths. Here is a photo of the aqueduct struts from ground level:
Photo taken from here http://fr.academic.ru/dic.nsf/frwiki/122481
As you can see, the traditional Peruvian Machu Picchu and Ollantaytambo “nipples” on the stones are in all their glory. Here's a photo from Peru to refresh your memory:
In addition, the opening of the passage under the aqueduct supports is trapezoidal. This is the favorite shape of the builders of Machu Picchu:
Here is the very first photograph of this aqueduct, dated 1861 famous photographer Eduard Baldus:
What's the point? We do not have photographs that would show that these objects are being built and not restored. Therefore, there is no reason to be sure that they were built in the 19th century. Somehow it turns out so well that they manage to build them just before the appearance of photography. And this applies specifically to structures that are too difficult to build without machines. For some reason, the construction of such complex objects stopped with the advent of photographs and machines.
But there are many photographs of restoration work.
Achtung!
SCHMACHTUNG!
BIRIBAKHTUNG!
Pay attention to the attitude of pathological liars and miracle-haters who deny other civilizations on Earth in the past and present to the documentary effect of photographs.
They say “take our word for it that everything was built by hand, there just weren’t any photographs yet to prove it. It’s not our fault!”
And for example, there are photographs confirming the antiquity of, for example, the Aswan obelisk and the “Stele of Hunger” on the island of Sehel. But, a pathological hater of the truth, the leader of miracle-haters, Professor Davidenko, ignores the fact of the existence of many photographic documents and does not mention them in any way in his speeches. Because just one photograph drives a stake into his entire theory of remakes to attract tourists. Details here http://levhudoi.blogspot.com/2014/07/blog-post.html whoever does not read is a fool.
Second example. Moscow State University professor Vladimir Braginsky claims in a newspaper article that the Soviet sorceress Ninel Kulagina was afraid of his revelations and hid from him. And that she is not a sorceress, but a fraudster. But, I found a color documentary film where she talks peacefully with him and demonstrates on his hand her ability to heat objects with her touch:
The question arises. Why, for example, is the Pondugar aqueduct not attributed to weapons in the 19th century? Because Pondugar has not been used for delivering water for a long time and therefore has not been restored. But Roquefavour is used and therefore they had to restore it in the 19th century. Otherwise, millions of people will simply be left without water.
The desire of miracle-hating scientists to explain the ancient high technologies of stone processing with a modern remake is not new. Professor Igor Davidenko succeeded most in this, shaking every human appearance. Details here
Lev Khudoy wrote:
Is it possible to be more specific? What sizes and geometry of lines do you classify as DVTs?
Sklyarov:
I don’t think so, but I think it’s worthy of attention. Rows of clearly parallel lines with a length that obviously exceeds the range of comfortable movements of a stonecutter of average height.
Further, Sklyarov refused to acknowledge and generally discuss the fact that the lines are 4–5 meters long, which is tens of times greater than the range of convenient movements of a stonemason. He began to give incomprehensible answers about some horizontal lines that did not in any way affect the essence of the matter. Especially for him, I made enlarged images of some of these lines, from which it is clearly visible that they are freely intersected by inclined parallel lines of artificial origin, so that they were not interrupted by horizontal ones and did not change their direction, as could be the case when working manually with a chisel.
- American moviegoers know the film under the title “Ivan Vasilievich: Back to the Future” - see Back to the Future.
- The Swedish ambassador does not speak Swedish, but broken German ( German should be shown as a language of interethnic communication in the German-Scandinavian countries at that time), which corresponds to the text of the play by Mikhail Bulgakov.
- Yuri Yakovlev recalled that the turning point in the role for him was Gaidai’s recommendation “not to play Nikolai Cherkasov” (in the role of Ivan the Terrible).
- Many quotes from real historical texts were transferred from the play into the film.
- In the film, Ivan the Terrible utters the phrase: “I also had one like that - I made wings. I put him on a keg of gunpowder - let him fly!” (almost the same - in the play). This has certain historical parallels. Boyar Kazarinov-Golokhvastov, who accepted the schema to avoid execution, Ivan the Terrible ordered to be blown up on a barrel of gunpowder, on the grounds that the schema-monks are angels, and therefore should fly to heaven.
- In the scene with the bells, the melodies of the songs “Chizhik-Pizhik” (performed by Bunshi) and “Moscow Nights” (performed by Miloslavsky) sound.
- The telephone extension “3-62”, which Georges Miloslavsky calls when he calls Shpak at work, represents the price of a bottle of vodka in the USSR. In the play, the extension number is 501.
- The phrase pronounced by L. Kuravlev “Citizens! Keep your money in a savings bank" was written into the script, and its continuation - "...if, of course, you have it" - was an improvisation by the actor.
- Many phrases from the film were quoted and became popular among the people.
- During the interrogation, Ivan Vasilyevich tells the policeman that he was born in 1533, which could not have happened, since during the time of Ivan the Terrible, chronology in Rus' was carried out from the creation of the world, and not from the Nativity of Christ. Therefore, the year of birth is 7041.
Historical inconsistencies in the film
It should be noted that the film is a comedy, and, as it is written in the opening credits, it is “non-sci-fi, not entirely realistic and not strictly historical,” moreover, most of it is the fruit of a post-traumatic hallucination of the main character, and this can justify many errors. Some of them cannot even be classified as mistakes, since they could have been made deliberately by the filmmakers.
- In the scene of interrogation by police officers, Ivan the Terrible, when asked about his year of birth, answers: “One thousand five hundred and thirty-third from the Nativity of Christ,” although Ivan the Terrible was born on August 25, 1530, and his father died in 1533, Vasily III, and Ivan Vasilyevich became the Grand Duke. In addition, the chronology “from the Nativity of Christ” was introduced by Peter I only in 1700. Before this, Rus' used chronology “from the creation of the world.” Thus, Ivan the Terrible’s answer should have sounded like this: “Summer 7038 from the creation of the world.”
- The scepter and orb, which Ivan Vasilyevich Bunsha holds in his hands (and which are depicted on the icon), as a symbol royal power appeared a hundred years later than the events taking place, in the 17th century. Sergei Eisenstein also presents Ivan IV with a scepter and orb during his coronation.
- Queen Marfa Sobakina died two weeks after the wedding in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, almost immediately falling ill (presumably she was poisoned). The king swore that he did not even have time to consummate marriage with her due to the ill health of the newlywed - this clearly does not correspond to the blooming appearance of the queen in the film. Moreover, she was queen from October 28 to November 13 (1571), and the film clearly takes place in the spring-summer period.
- In one of the fragments, stone paving stones are clearly visible under the feet of Georges Miloslavsky and Ivan Vasilyevich Bunshi.
- In the episode with the elevator (“Walled up, demons…”) the king crosses himself with three fingers. But until 1653, Orthodox Christians crossed themselves with two fingers.
- During interrogation, Ivan the Terrible says that he took Revel, but this is historically incorrect: Revel was under siege by the army of Ivan the Terrible for about two months, but was never taken. (Although formally this corresponds to the truth - “took” does not mean “took.”) But, listing the cities he took (“Kazan took, Astrakhan took ...”), the tsar does not mention Polotsk, although, as biographers of Ivan the Terrible note (Vladimir Kobrin, Ruslan Skrynnikov), the tsar was especially proud of this victory.
- Clerk Feofan hands the decree to the “tsar” (Ivan Vasilyevich Bunshe) for signature, and he, having broken down, still signs it. However, in the Russian state there was a tradition that forbade crowned heads to use pen and ink; the tsar only applied a seal. “So, service people, even high-ranking boyars, if they were literate, signed certain documents themselves, and the name of the tsar was written on the letter by a clerk , the tsar only put his seal on it” (V.B. Kobrin. Ivan the Terrible. - M.: Moskovsky Rabochiy, 1989. - P. 140. - ISBN 5-239-00266-5..
- The king's army consists of beardless and mustacheless archers, although in those days it was forbidden for a commoner to shave off facial hair. The servants in the royal chambers are also mostly modernly cut and shaved.
- In the film, the Kremlin is white-stone, but the modern red-brick Kremlin was built by Ivan the Terrible’s grandfather, Grand Duke of Moscow John III.
- In the old days, putting on armor was labor-intensive and time-consuming, but in the film Miloslavsky puts on armor very quickly and without outside help.
- “Overseas caviar, eggplant” was brought to Russia in the 17th century from Iran, that is, much later than the events described. During filming, what lay on the royal table was not eggplant, but squash caviar.
- As stated above, Marfa Sobakina was queen in the fall of 1571. In May 1571, Moscow was burned by the Crimean army, and songs about victories over the Crimean Khan at this historical moment would have sounded like a mockery, which would have led to immediate and serious trouble for the performers. In addition, the song “That not a strong cloud has clouded” was simply not written at that moment, since it is dedicated to the crushing defeat of the Crimean Khan in the Battle of Molodi, which took place the following year, 1572 (30.07-02.08).
- The triangular balalaika was invented only in the 19th century.
- Timofeev calls the polearm that hit the time machine a “berdysh.” In fact, this is a halberd; the reed looks different and is not suitable for throwing. In addition, the halberd appeared in Rus' only in 1605 (the bodyguards of False Dmitry were armed with it), which, however, does not prevent some archers - participants in the chase - from holding it in their hands.
In terms of borrowing, not only statues and monuments are interesting , and also some elements building structures, let's look at the building at number 35 on Bolshaya Morskaya.
A huge granite portal instead of a doorway seems alien here, it would have been more suitable for the steps and columns of St. Isaac's Cathedral, it would have looked more harmonious there, but they added it here. Either they stole it on time, or there was no place for it in the reconstruction project of Isaac. But here are the doors in the same building, which fit in logically, technologically and conveniently.
Let's look at the inconsistencies in the construction dates of Isaac.
View of St. Isaac's Square from the Senate. 1820
The cathedral is worth it! It's WORTH IT!!!
Here's a simple newspaper clipping
Take a closer look at the date - 1817.
The official version says: The first column was installed on March 20, 1828.
And the phrase “Completed in 1802 is surprising, right? Or was there a cathedral?
A couple more pictures for completeness, so to speak, falsification of history.
The inscription reads: The solemn return of the St. Petersburg militia to St. Isaac's Square. Engraving sketch, hand-colored with watercolors. 1815 Engraver I.A. Ivanov. What does this cathedral look like? ...and who to believe?
Unknown artist:
View of the Admiralty, the old St. Isaac's Cathedral, the Promenade des Anglais and the building of the Academy of Sciences on Vasilyevsky Island, 1825.
So how do we understand this? In 1768 there was a cathedral, and in 1825 there was a church in its place, how can you believe that then this cathedral was built from this cathedral
The third St. Isaac's Cathedral, completed by V. Brenna. Lithograph 1810-1830
The dates are a complete mess. Either the artists are lying without saying anything, or the historians are not telling something?
View of St. Isaac's Cathedral under construction in 1838. Lithograph with tone. F. Benoit, based on the original by O. Montferrand.
View of St. Isaac's Cathedral in the forests. Colored lithograph from O. Montferand's album, 1840.
(there are no traces of the four side towers).
View from the Neva towards St. Isaac's Cathedral, 1837-1839.
Durand's cathedral is still standing, but Montferrand's is just under construction.
And this despite the fact that the album with drawings was already published in Paris in 1839, which means the drawings were made earlier. Here is data from “official” historians: Andre Durand’s album “Voyage pittoresque et archeologique en Russie”, published in Paris in 1839, long defined the image of Russia for the Western public, here is the link: Travel to Southern Russia and Crimea. A picturesque journey through Russia. 3 albums.
Here is another official document indicating the reconstruction of the existing temple.
It is also important that in his notes Wigel characterized Montferrand only as a good draftsman, but not as an architect...
This drawing seemed very strange to me,
not the date on it, but the appearance of Isaac, his height. I don’t think that an artist would be so carried away by his imagination, something doesn’t add up here.
There is a version that the columns of St. Isaac's Cathedral were assembled from fragments, but until you saw them, you won't understand. Monferand certainly knew nothing about this.
If you play with contrast in Photoshop, you can see the differences in the color of the stone.
Here too...(only this topic is for a separate article).
Here are some photos of the patches on the columns, draw your own conclusions.
Patch in a granite block.
The patch is on the column itself.
A chip on the column, the inside looks more like cement, interesting, right?
But Monferand knew absolutely nothing about this.
A crack at the base of several columns of the Kazan Cathedral, what is it?
Here is another masterpiece of stone-cutting art.
Column in St. Isaac's Cathedral.
This kind of joining, gluing, and polishing of granite by hand, I consider jewelry and in our time machine processing of stone, but then bearded men did everything by eye. The photo was sent by a history buff under the pseudonym Father Sergiy.
It is also strange that official historians in every possible way avoid talking about another significant monument - the obelisk at the Kazan Cathedral.
Kazan Cathedral from Kazanskaya Street, 1810
Canvas by Fyodor Alekseev 1810
Obelisk in front of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg (canvas by Fyodor Alekseev 1810)
Perhaps the official version of the purpose of the obelisks has not yet been agreed upon? And demolition, of course. Historians are still arguing about their function. And they haven’t decided on their age either.
Another surprising discrepancy is the cultural layer.
Now the building of St. Isaac's Cathedral has 3 steps. Let's look at the layout of the installation of columns, located in the temple itself - 9 steps! 6 went underground! 1.5 meters!
But buildings go into the ground not because they sink under their own weight, but because the cultural layer is growing.
Excavations of the cultural layer on Palace Square yielded a very interesting result:
Where did the 1.5 meter layer of soil come from on Palace Square? It turns out that as a result of some kind of disaster, the entire city was covered in mud, and possibly a flood. Or maybe the cultural layer grew on its own, naturally, but then more than one hundred years would have to pass and Peter would have to remain deserted, since otherwise the accumulated dirt would certainly have been removed by the janitors from Palace Square.
This photo is from 2002. made on the northwestern corner of Palace Square. The red arrow marks the black stripe, which was announced on TV as the daytime surface of the times of Catherine. But what about Winter? After all, based on Rastrelli’s design, he practically did not dive... The asphalt layer begins from the blue upward arrow. The layered structure of the sand is visible between the arrows. It cannot be recognized as a stratification of the cultural layer, starting from the 18th century, because we will have to talk about the strange layered monotony of color of the supposedly brought dirt or dust, and also again about the submergence of the Winter Palace, which is not in the drawings.
The explanation for all this may be the catastrophe that plunged the ancient Winter Palace into the sand. Layering indicates a series of small disasters or floods.
On this photo 2002, two pavements are clearly visible, one of which is covered with asphalt, and the other (lower) is covered with layered sand. It seems absurd to plunge stone pavements to a depth of more than half a meter (meaning the economic inexpediency of allowing the stones of the pavement to so easily disappear into the ground without taking advantage of the opportunity to simply relay the given pavement).
No less mysterious is the recently discovered foundation of a colossal structure, hidden under a four-meter layer of earth.
In the spring, under high pressure of water in St. Petersburg, the embankment of the Griboyedov Canal was washed, and these patterns appeared at house No. 158.
DearZigZag!
I have lived all my life (and I am 58 years old) in Leningrad-Petersburg near the Peter and Paul Fortress and spent considerable time in it. Fortress observations, as well as some other city facts, constantly haunted me and caused a vague feeling of unsaidness. Well, for example, you enter the Winter Palace into the basement (wardrobe), into the Kunstkamera - into the basement, the same goes into the Artillery Museum, and the Naval Museum (exchange), and the Zoological Museum (to the left of the exchange), and the Institute of Chemistry silicates (to the right of the exchange), and to many other buildings in the center. Everywhere is anomalous - the visitor enters through the doors, goes down and ends up in the basement. Who builds something like this?
Then, in the 70s, the Menshikov Palace on Universitetskaya Embankment (later the Faculty of Philology) was dug up, and the guides immediately began to explain that for more than two centuries the building had sunk into the ground. It’s funny both from the point of view of engineering geology and from the point of view of construction - a kilometer-long building sinks into the ground evenly(?!?).
so the entrance to the casemate inside the Sovereign's bastion was covered with earth. They explain to us that between the Curtain and the ravelin there was a ditch with water, which was subsequently filled up (as in the case of the Engineer's Castle). But the Petrovskaya curtain grew into the ground one and a half to two meters and from the inside, on the territory of the Fortress itself, where there was never water!
The Neva Gate has also grown into the ground,intended for travel to Nevskaya Prospekt
But in this case, if there is no evidence of such an event in the Post-Petrine era, then the Fortress was filled up before Peter 1 and its age is much older than what is presented to us.
And finally. In 2009, excavations were carried out on the outside of the Menshikov Bastion (from the Kronverk side) (no one explained why or for what purpose). Much has been written and spoken about the remains of people found during excavations, which were attributed to the executions of 1917. Personally, I doubt that the revolutionary sailors would dig a grave almost two meters deep for the executed, but now I want to talk about something else.
During excavations, artifacts were found piled up at the entrance to the Menshikov Bastion.
and a number of marble fragments, among which is a sculpture - two stylized men holding either a cross or a club.
For the Fortress, such finds are an obvious dissonance, but that’s not what I’m talking about. What is easier to assume - that these artifacts slowly sank into the “cultural” layer over the centuries and no one paid attention to them, or that the granite bath, etc., was instantly swept away by some kind of mudflow?
That's basically it. It remains to add that I will ask you to post this material (meaning photographs) on your website - it seems to me that it will be a good addition to your story.
There are two photographs here, the first is the steps of a pyramid in Mexico, covered with sand, subsequently dug up by archaeologists.
And the steps in the Peter and Paul Fortress
The depth is approximately the same, the same method of laying and... a lot of the same things. Draw your own conclusions. The most important thing is that the sand drift is the same.
Sincerely, a person who remained incognito.
I received a couple more photographs of the Neva Curtain by mail. It connects the Menshikov and Sovereign bastions. Previously, people walked here, perhaps carts or horse riders rode, but no one remembers this, everyone only remembers this:
Perhaps these arches looked like this before
Or so
But we have what we have. 
Here is the opinion of a native St. Petersburg resident, geologist, historian, professor, academician and a person very respected by me:
The facts are that our city was covered with a sandy-clayey mixture (river alluvium?), and if there is no indication of such an event after 1703, then the event happened earlier. I won’t say when and for what reason (let others fantasize - Kadykchansky, Lorenz and...), but it is impossible to confuse the sand-clay mixture with a “cultural layer”.
But this is the Menshikov Palace, compare the level of the street with the level of the excavated building.
Taking into account the basement, the real foundation of this building is located at a depth of three meters, and what’s funny is that it is laid out from perfectly polished multi-ton granite slabs intended for the external decorative decoration of the building, such as these.
.jpg)
I am publishing a few more letters from residents of St. Petersburg (without edits, as is).
1st letter.
"I am delighted with reading the blog about the mysteries of history and about “where is the city from?”, in particular. I am from St. Petersburg. My name is Antoine. Very nice. I want to add a couple of points about St. Petersburg. In the topic about antediluvian St. Petersburg, ancient name I don’t know Peter, I want to give you a couple of ideas.
I think that bridges across the Neva and all the local rivers already existed before this very Peter the Great Flood.
There were already stone arched bridges on the Great Neva. Okhtinsky, Liteiny, Isaakievsky, etc.
On the sides Ioanovsky, Tuchkov, Birzhevoy...
Some bridges, after numerous demolitions and alterations, still have stone-arched spans on their sides. Ioanovsky, Ushakov, Trotsky...
From the old Okhtinsky, observation towers came into use.
But the Gorstkin Bridge on the Fontanka is a dull remake in its purest form, for comparison.
There was also such an interesting bridge over Tarakanovka. His location has not been identified. There is only one photo circulating on the Internet. I think that this is roughly what St. Petersburg looked like before the latest “development”.
Another topic is the Alexander Column. I think that it is assembled from several blocks. Such thoughts arise if you look at the Baalbek columns. There are perhaps three of these blocks. The blocks themselves, I think, in turn, are assembled from smaller pancakes. All this is covered on the outside with “granite concrete”. A couple of finishing coats.
Do you happen to have a radio-controlled helicopter with a good camera? It would be nice to fly around the column and photograph it to see if such things are found.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HFa2s0wTfLA/Umeeb4Gr3HI/AAAAAAAAFCc/ofpOyeOl7iw/s1600/VtF6GLI3PTI.jpg
Or see the seams.
One more note. Your blog did not mention, or I did not read carefully, the fact that St. Isaac's Bridge forms a single whole with St. Isaac's Cathedral. And that it is oriented towards the ancient north-south pole. After all, not everyone knows about this.
You don’t write about the antediluvian poles that there are at least two of them. Isaac, Amphitheater of Pompeii, Teotihuacan... one option. The other is Baalbek, the Athenian Acropolis and the Roman Capitol...
Thanks for reading. I consider you and Lev Khudoy the most advanced in this topic. Good luck and all the best)."
2nd letter.
“I live in St. Petersburg, I was previously involved in renovations of semi-basements (for offices, shops, etc.), I couldn’t understand before why in the historical part of the city the windows of semi-basements initially had the same dimensions (height) as those on the floors above, over time they were covered with bricks .Old construction specialists explained that the windows were in stone or brick wells for better illumination of the semi-basement rooms, but over time, with the advent of electricity, the need for this disappeared and the window openings were walled up and filled to ground level. I always had a question for them about waterproofing or simply draining water from this well, they just shrugged their shoulders. There are houses with such wells in the city, but even with a concrete blind area, waterproofing, and asphalt covering, the premises are constantly flooded (in winter they are covered with snow to the top). But what’s interesting is that When excavating in front of walled-up windows in old buildings, neither wells nor remains of them were found."
If you believe history, in the 18th and 19th centuries so many stone mysteries appeared that you can take off your hat in front of them and stand for hours with your eyes wide open.
