In one of his videos, an independent researcher of the secrets of the real past O. Pavlyuchenko drew attention to the clearly antique appearance of the nine-arch bridge in Sri Lanka, which is located between two railway stations - Ella and Demodara. It is about 30 meters high and is the largest bridge in this country. It is located at an altitude of 945 meters, and therefore it is also called the "Bridge to Heaven".
And, indeed, when you look at him, you immediately remember the so-called. "Roman" bridges and viaducts, analogs of which can actually be found not only throughout Europe, but also in Russia, North America and even in Asia, ie even in places where the notorious "Romans" could not build them. Therefore, for each of these bridges, a kind of "legend" has been invented within the framework of the official history. So the legend about the construction of this bridge says that it was allegedly built in the period from 1913 to 1921, Why “allegedly”? Because a careful study of this bridge and the history of its construction again reveals various and very suspicious "oddities".
When you look at this bridge, you realize that this is a real masterpiece of engineering art. Moreover, it was built completely without a single metal part, only of brick and mortar (concrete). But this is exactly how the united ancient civilization built. It's just, as I think, that since here, well, it didn't work out to attribute the construction of this masterpiece to the so-called. "Roman Empire" (Dalek, after all), then they decided to make it "the legacy of the English colonial period." By the way, have you ever wondered why officially all buildings of the same antique style, located far enough from the borders of this very "Roman Empire", were called "buildings of the colonial style"? Yes, all for the same reason.
But back to our nine-arch engineering masterpiece in Sri Lanka. According to a local legend, this bridge was built by local residents under the guidance of the local engineer Appukhami, who, to create such a unique project, only "consulted with English engineers." Well, yes, it is very logical, the British engineers must have seen "Roman bridges" in Europe. But, nevertheless, not everything in this legend is so smooth. And the most important thing is that this legend, set out in tourist brochures, does not stand up to any criticism at all. Therefore, I began to search for information about this bridge in Wikipedia.
The most interesting thing is that in the Russian-language section of Wikipedia, I did not find information about it or its construction at all. But then I found a small article in the English-language segment. Here is its translation:
It would seem yes, everything is clear and logical. The British, who were very busy at first with the World War, and then with the intervention in Soviet Russia, needed steel so badly that they did not allocate a single kilogram of it to the locals for the construction of this bridge. Well, those - don't be fools, but they took and built a one-to-one bridge according to the now forgotten technologies of ancient civilization. Well, they probably had specialists in the so-called. "Roman bridges" and "Roman architecture". Or did they not exist?
Well, since everything was already under construction in the twentieth century, then for sure there should be a photo of the construction of this bridge. Let not during World War II, when the British could drive all photographers with cameras to the front. Or simply prohibit photographing the "strategic object", despite the fact that this bridge is located thousands of kilometers from the fronts of the First World War and from the opponents of the British Empire. But the grand opening of the bridge, according to the official version, took place already in 1921. By that time, the world war had ended for several years. Is it possible that nobody bothered to capture the fact of opening the largest bridge in the country for history?
By the way, I could not find on the network a single photo of either its construction or even its official opening, which is rather strange if you blindly believe the official "legend". Therefore, of course, I was delighted to read the text from Wikipedia about that. that this bridge was created by the great Ceylon inventor and engineer Vilamasurendra and there is even an English author of the project - Marwood. It is said that there is also a detailed "Report of 1923" entitled "Construction of a reinforced concrete railway viaduct in Ceylon" …
Stop. Is it like this? Where did reinforced concrete suddenly appear if it is said right away that not a single gram of steel was used during the construction of the bridge? Yes, and modern photos clearly show that the bridge was built of unique bricks. Please note that its surface is not flat, like modern bricks, but convex. And the inner lining of the arches is generally made of concave figured bricks. I wonder where in Sri Lanka such a brick was made? Well, the British did not take it from Britain from their brick factories, in exchange for confiscated steel, spitting on all the military difficulties? In general, again, some kind of "misunderstanding"..
So maybe the notorious "Report of 1923", which for some reason with all the drawings and projects appeared two years later, after the bridge was officially opened, will still help us deal with all these "misunderstandings"? But my hopes turned out to be unrealizable, because the link in the Wikipedia article to this report actually led nowhere. To a page that doesn't exist. And here, maybe, there are two options. Or this page never existed. Either it did exist, but the falsifiers, who were hastily creating an evidentiary base after the railway communication opened across the bridge, as always, "screwed up", like O. Montferrand with his drawings. And just in favor of this version is evidenced by the fact that in a hurry they called this bridge "reinforced concrete viaduct".
This bridge has one more oddity: it is a strange "soot" on its supports and even on the inner surface of the lining of the arches, where soot could hardly have flown, and most importantly, soot from locomotive furnaces could settle. The trajectory of the fallout of this soot would have turned out to be too intricate: first, vertically downward along the bridge supports, and then from there - upward and sideways to get to the surface of the inner lining of the arches. And why then did it not fall from these surfaces downward under the influence of gravity, wind and vibration experienced by the bridge during the passage of trains. But it has been in operation for almost a hundred years, according to the official version..
Considering all this, one might say. that the official "legend" of the construction of this bridge, even the one that is presented in the most plausible form in Wikipedia, does not inspire confidence at all. And therefore the version about that. that this bridge could have been built by a single ancient civilization, which perished in the cataclysm of the late 17th century, has a right to exist. Well, in colonial times, this ancient bridge, most likely, was restored and began to be used as a railway, having laid a new branch here, or even - by restoring the previously destroyed road.
Of course, there are still a lot of questions about the construction of this bridge. And it is possible that the ASPIK channel expedition to this area will be able to answer some of them. I also draw the attention of all other alternative researchers to this unique masterpiece of engineering thought of the past, because I am almost completely sure that the real history of its construction is very different from the official "legend" that we are given as the real one.
michael101063 ©