Today there will be an interesting topic of the second Alexander Column, which most people have never heard of at all.
When I was writing an article about inconsistencies with the "great" Samson Sukhanov and many objects of St. Petersburg, I came across information about the second Alexander Column.
As confirmation, a small interview is given, if you can call it that, the architect Anatoly Chernov, who was engaged in the reconstruction.
In a small video, he says that not far from the Alexander Column itself, under the cobblestones, there is another one exactly the same, only supposedly with a crack. And all this is noted on the lithograph. Moreover, the column is also on the official maps of that time, but, of course, they don't talk about it too much.
It is known from the diagram that the column is the same as the one currently existing. That is, a monolith, granite, ideal shape and height over 20 meters.
According to the schemes, the second column was buried somewhere at a distance of 400-500 meters from the Alexander Column itself. And many researchers are wondering why it was dragged so far, if it could be buried right next to the installation site of the column itself?
Promotional video:
This is not a bad question, but I have many other questions when the picture seems to start converging, at least in my opinion.
Let's skip all these pictures of how the Alexander Column was cut down, polished and somehow miraculously transported more than 100 kilometers from Finland.
But in the case of the second column, it turns out that all these processes and, most importantly, transportation, were carried out 2 times, polishing and processing everything to an ideal state?
Already many specialists have not approached the study of the Alexander Column and all these "drawings", claiming that this is impossible for many reasons. But it turns out this was done as much as 2 times.
But seriously, I thought about something else. All alternatives and researchers, when they wrote about the second column, for some reason did not note, as it seems to me, the most important thing - these are the images of the Alexander Column before the official start of its construction.
On the lithograph of Karl Beggrov in 1830, that is, 4 years before the official installation, the column was already standing. And there are several such images.
Lithograph by K. P. Beggrov, 1830, 4 years before the official erection of the column.
I used to wonder how the column stood before the official erection? This could only be explained by a completely alternative history, but now everything is simpler, there was a second, or rather it turns out, the first column.
And that same column has already been replaced by the current Alexander Column. But in any case, then many questions remain. Where did the first column come from in 1830 and earlier? How long did she even stand there? And how could it be processed?
Already who just did not write that it is impossible to do this with primitive tools, as in the “drawings of the construction and processing of a column”. For such a column, more or less high-tech machines are needed.
By the way, let me remind you that in our time almost all columns are made in parts and connected, since it is simply not possible to make a monolith of 20, 30 or 40 meters, or at least a simple exercise.
Again, I don’t know at what time, that I don’t think that 200 years ago people could not do anything and everything remained from the previous civilization. Everything could be done, but the technologies had to clearly surpass those described in the official history.
Some researchers believe that the first column was damaged by a small flood and was replaced, a possible, but questionable version. Others believe that then there were simply much more developed technologies, similar to modern ones, and not processing with hammers and chisels.
Here I wrote specifically about the second column, but I also have an article about the Alexander Column itself, where some facts about the column that exist now. These facts basically speak only about the absurdity of the official history and the impossibility of creating it in the way it is described and documented officially.
Now you can only build different versions about the existence of two columns, their appearance and processing, but the truth is difficult to find out. Although it would seem that this happened some 200 years ago.
In general, in the end I will add that I am a little surprised by those people who adhere to absolutely the entire official history, although they rewrite history even now, forgetting and changing all the details of World War II. Although it was only 75 years ago.