There is a lot of historical evidence that the forests of Russia must have a much older age than they really are today. Foreign travelers who have been to Russia in
At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the antiquity of the mighty Russian forests was described many times. But there are also older sources! An example is the well-known writer Alberto Campenze (1490-1542), in a letter to Pope Clement VII, wrote about Muscovy such lines: “They have much more forests than ours. The pine trees are incredible in size and thickness, so one tree is enough for the mast of the largest ship. Muscovy at that time designated the entire territory of Russia … a natural question arises - where, then, are trees more than 200 years old? And they are not at all.
Skeptics of course will immediately say, but how then, for example, the so-called Peter's oaks in the Moscow museum-reserve "Kolomenskoye", which are about 500 years old? But it is quite simple to answer it, in case of any, even the most terrible disasters and cataclysms, something has remained intact - and this is an indisputable fact.
Another striking proof of the youth of modern forests is the widespread distribution of birches, the average life span of which is 100–120 years. If we start from the average age of forests of 150 years, then it turns out that most of the forests of Russia underwent one-time catastrophic destruction around 1800-1820, and after their destruction the entire territory of Russia was a burned-out zone, and only after the 1840s a full-scale restoration of vegetation began. In the place of the so-called deforestation, new young growth has grown.
The version of natural total fires does not stand up to criticism, it does not even make sense to consider it.
For example, when in 2010 fires completely destroyed more than two million hectares of forest, in fact, pointwise, in many regions of the country, experts then dubbed this event a disaster, and alternative researchers said that the forest was set on fire artificially, including from space satellites.
This is how the consequences of a severe fire on a large area look like.
And the landscapes of old photos on burning are not similar. Well, they are completely different. Something necessarily remains in any fire, including the "survivors". In the photo, the spaces are completely lifeless. Cutting down? I can't believe it either. It was physically impossible to clear such areas with the human resource available at that time, and even with complete uprooting on the ground. Fires could not occur artificially throughout the entire territory, because most of Siberia at that time was not yet inhabited.
Promotional video:
Another serious argument for raising the question "where did the old forests go" is a very thin fertile soil layer. After all, if trees were conditionally on these territories always, then the fertile layer should be tens of meters thick - this is obvious and discussion of this fact makes no sense, but … almost everywhere the fertile layer is on average 30-50 cm, then there is more often clay, less often sandstone … it is very likely that the very tens of meters of fertile soil lie under it. In forests, a fertile layer of soil from fallen leaves, needles, breaking off twigs is formed at a speed of ~ 1.5 cm in 10 years … does this fact lead you to any thoughts?
Krasnoyarsk, in Gostiny Dvor the entrances to the underground are clearly visible, apparently the underground floor was once the first floor.
Official science recognizes the youth of forests in Russia. The study of the boundaries of the age of trees today has shown interesting results: trees up to 50 years old - 25%; 51-100 years old - 60%; 101-200 years - 10%; over 200 years - 5%. The age of the main mass of larch growing today is 80–180 years, but according to the table of ages, Siberian larch is listed in long-livers, much less other tree species are subject to destruction in fires and under normal conditions should reach an age of 700–900 years. Where are these centenarians?
city of Mariinsk, Tomsk province.
There is no unequivocal answer to the question "where did almost all trees over 200 years old go?" But explanations such as fires and logging sound completely unconvincing. As I have already noted, in case of fires, even the most fierce and widespread, “survivors” should remain, but we see absolutely bare spaces with an area of hundreds and thousands of hectares, nonsense. Deforestation, too, cannot be so total and comprehensive. Sorry gentlemen, historians, I don't believe it..
Yaroslavl.
It is certainly impossible to confidently assert what exactly was the reason for the complete destruction of forests in the endless areas of Russia today, but the only conclusion is that it was some kind of global and catastrophic impact, which entailed a whole chain of changes and events - a probable flood or at least a very powerful and all-encompassing flooding, alluvial flows or falling out of the atmosphere of huge amounts of clay, destruction of forests in gigantic territories, climate change and who knows what other irreversible consequences for the planet and humanity. And this event happened at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The point has not yet been set and whether it will ever be raised is a very big question. But one thing is completely clear - there is no more faith in official historians and archaeologists (themselves trained in lies and fraud) and will never be,they have discredited themselves entirely.