I have already drawn readers to the fact that there is no real evidence in favor of the official version of the "construction" of St. Isaac's Cathedral in the first half of the 19th century. As there is not a single construction drawing of this building from that period. The only real document - a sketch of the dome of Isaac with the seal of the tsarist office and the visa of the Russian emperor, suggests that Montferrand is at best related to the reconstruction (restoration?) Of this dome, but not to the construction of the cathedral itself.
And the analysis of the drawings of the "Montferrand album" allows us to conclude that they were not drawn from nature, but are "artistic fiction" of this, undoubtedly, a talented artist, but by no means a well-known architect. I must say that the implausibility of the plots of these pictures of him causes frank laughter from techy engineers and many independent researchers of real history. A detailed analysis of these drawings, as well as the "drawings of St. Isaac's Cathedral" available in the network, I did several months ago and I will not return to this topic. I just wanted to acquaint you with the opinion of the historian D. Belousov, who also drew attention to the implausibility of the official version of the construction of Isaac by O. Montferrand.
In his speech on "People's Slavic Radio", he literally said the following about it:
It is a pity that, like many other official historians, even exposing the lies of pseudo-historical myths, D. Belousov takes a "half-hearted position." On the one hand, he says that Peter did not build the city on the Neva "from scratch", and on the other, he begins to "expose" the version of independent researchers that some of the buildings of St. Petersburg in its historical part were not built by the Romanovs, but were dug out after the previous cataclysm. At the same time, he himself does not notice that his position is quite contradictory.
So, in his speech, he said:
Well, he himself admits that here, at the mouth of the Neva, there was an ancient ancient city, from which these megaliths have survived. He also came very close to solving how these megaliths "destroyed" the Romanovs. They used them for new construction, as they used structural elements of destroyed ancient buildings. But since some buildings of this city, nevertheless, suffered less from the cataclysm, the Romanovs did not disassemble them, but used them after restoration and reconstruction, and they attributed their construction to themselves with the help of foreign architects who allegedly built these buildings "from scratch" …
But the chest opens simply. In the early period of the Romanovs' reign in the inter-Flood civilization, buildings were built of red brick. Therefore, all such buildings are no longer antique. But the high technologies of processing granite and marble in those days were already lost. Therefore, of course, neither the Alexandrian Column, nor St. Isaac's Cathedral were built under the Romanovs, although on the latter they restored the dome destroyed by the cataclysm. The same, by the way, can be said about the "bronze horseman" standing on the ancient megalith, made in an obviously antique style, to which a new head was attached under the Romanovs in order to also ascribe its creation to itself, as well as the St. Isaac's Cathedral and the Alexandria Column.
And one more argument in favor of this version is the orientation of all these architectural objects to the antediluvian pole, which was located in Greenland. So, with such an orientation, given that the last pole shift occurred no later than the turn of the 17th-18th centuries, they could not build St. Isaac's Cathedral under the Romanovs, although they "adapted" this ancient temple to a Christian one. But inside this "Christian" cathedral you can find Vedic swastika symbols.
So I disagree with D. Belousov on this issue, especially since there are no real construction drawings of that time, no realistic paintings, which would reflect the stages of construction of all these objects. This means that not only individual megaliths have survived from the ancient ancient city, but also individual buildings and structures, for example, one of the most beautiful buildings of modern St. Petersburg - St. Isaac's Cathedral. And the presence of "underground vaults" in it, which D. Belousov himself mentioned in his speech, also organically fits into this version.
michael101063 ©
