Examples posted earlier in these articles:
- Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8 - Part 9 - Part 10 - Part 11 - Part 12 - Part 13 - Part 14 - Part 15 - Part 16 - Part 17 -
***
I want to devote this part to an analysis of the main arguments from skeptics in this topic, indicating the arguments refuting their doubts.
1. Shrinkage of old buildings
Many skeptics who do not perceive this topic argue in the comments that old houses covered with clay are houses that have settled evenly over the course of 100-150 years of their existence. But in old photographs, which were taken 5-10 years after their alleged construction, many are already included or look like this. Let us turn to a modern example of what happens with a catastrophically rapid shrinkage or uneven shrinkage of houses with piles (not to mention old houses on a rubble stone foundation). We look:
Promotional video:
The house still collapsed:
yuri_shap2015:
Topographers have a reference point. This is a kind of permanent landmark. Which you can focus on.
By the way, in many old buildings, they are built directly into the buildings.
And most of the buildings are constantly being surveyed. their subsidence, as a rule, does not occur, sometimes zero, sometimes 0.1 mm per year !!! If the fact of subsidence is recorded. that building can be considered emergency.
But subsidence is also excluded, there is no such strong and even subsidence of ALL buildings, different masses of different areas, to the same depth ???
There is also a concept - complete shrinkage after construction. It lasts up to 3-5 years. After that, the shrinkage of the foundation practically stops … And there is shrinkage of the foundation over time …
99% that if it shrinks by more than a couple of cm per year, cracks will go through the building. It is on the load-bearing walls that will lead to the destruction of the entire building.
In heaving and water-saturated soils, you can only build on piles … There are really many such buildings …
But the piles are driven into the bearing layer … not watered.
That, on the one hand, additionally excludes subsidence, (since the foundation rests not on the ground, movable, but on the pile field).
Suppose the piles rotted, and then here it is your victory hour - there is a reason for subsidence….
The piles will not rot simultaneously and uniformly throughout the pile field … That means there will definitely be distortion and destruction … They can rot only in the absence of moisture in the soil, and access to oxygen …
BUT! Most of the foundations are precisely tape, pileless, with backing, or from blocks …
They will definitely not sag evenly, because the shrinkage of the foundation from time to time occurs due to the washing out of the soil by groundwater, from under the foundation, the formation of voids, etc.
Can you imagine a uniform washout or the formation of identical voids?
Around the entire perimeter of the foundation? No builder can imagine this. To sink 3-4 meters in 150 years? This is a nightmare for any architect.
2. Inclusion of buildings by cultural layers
Cultural layers are layers of heterogeneous soil, organic matter, waste, humus, black soil, waste, pavements, etc. etc. These are the only cultural layers. And in all the examples that are shown here - abiogenic homogeneous clay, which lay in one go!
If you try to side with the skeptics and opponents of the version of the filled up old buildings of cities, then the logic here comes down to the fact that construction waste, soil from the construction of new buildings was simply thrown out onto the roadway. People were drowning in mud and rains and that was the norm.
But those layers in which the first floors of old buildings are located are located in such clay, sandy loam homogeneous layers:
Kazan.
3. So they built
Sergei Ignatenko found information in old books that yes, it was necessary to build - below the depth of freezing the foundation. Check out its arguments:
But if the building is on piles, why lower the floor with full-fledged windows and doors below the freezing depth. A shallow strip foundation is sufficient, which rests on piles. In general, this information does not clarify the whole picture of the issue.
Polytechnical Museum. Moscow.
Why would the allegedly basement floor be given architectural elements, sophistication, as if this facade was on view above the ground?
By the way, brick in wet soil without waterproofing is the height of the construction absurdity. The builders of that time could not help but know that moisture will destroy the masonry in tens of years, maximum 150 years. And now modern builders have to do the reconstruction of buildings, strengthen the foundations of these buildings, digging them out to the foundations. Make waterproofing (as in the photos above).
More arguments from skeptics: a tribute to fashion, this style, storage of food in cold basements, the place of residence of the servants. Perhaps all this took place. But even these arguments do not fully explain everything.
yuri_shap2015:
A lot of houses have a basement and a first floor made of meter-long brickwork, and the second one made of wood or shingles …
Sort of economy … House of the 18th century, i.e. almost 250 years. Moreover, according to the lifespan of the tree - the extension is no more than 150 years old, the tree is larger in dust …
The question is why they threw so much money into a basement with windows (having built it against all laws of building science), and saved money on the second floor - which is extremely dangerous, from a fire point of view.
Why, in the 18th century, most stone buildings do not provide heating - NO.
summer TEMPLE type! Summer palaces, summer houses….
And this is in a country where from November to April, a full winter….
There are two conclusions - either our ancestors possessed construction cretinism, or they did not know how to count at all, or at the time of the construction of THESE buildings, the problem of winter did not exist, such as now in Greece or Egypt.
4. Lack of documentary evidence of the events
Yes, there are no references at all in the 17-18-19 centuries. about the flood, about the fallout of dust, ash in the cities of that time on different continents. But there is a fact of the year without the summer of 1816. A huge number of observed in the 19th century. comets. Large-scale flood in St. Petersburg in 1824 Large-scale fires of the 19th century. in cities on all continents that can speak of catastrophic winds and dry climates in different parts of the world. This led to soil erosion and dust transport. And this was considered the weather norm. The clothes of that time speak about it: hats with huge brims for both women and men. Veils in women's clothing. Walking sticks, probably to test the chilliness of dust (so as not to fall through), which have grown into fashion. Etc.
All this can be described in one phrase:
That is why there is no mention of the cataclysm, because dust transfer and fallout phenomena were considered the weather norm.
***
If we continue to think like a skeptic, then I have the following explanations for this picture:
1. Shrinkage of buildings into plastic, water-filled clay soil, which has not yet dried out after the flood of the 16th century, the water has not left. And it was in such soils that the building settled evenly like a spoon in a dough.
Building in Irkutsk.
Even light wooden buildings were settled. But this process stopped in the 19th, early 20th century. The clay was caked, the water was gone, and many swamps dried up.
Yes, this version is a stretch, because there should be cracks in the walls, but it explains everything. But we need modeling and calculations of this possible phenomenon.
2. Dust storms
As an analogy:
Shoyna village by the White Sea.
Photos speak without comment.
This is the picture we see in the Donbass in the study by John Hughes The Flood and Black Archeology!
Perhaps at some period in the 19th century. (remember a year without summer) vegetation and forests were destroyed by cold and then drought. Catastrophic soil erosion began. Dust storms began and clay dust covered the cities. They did not have time to clear them, to take out the clay - they were left like that, brought up to the second floors. The minus of the version is that it is not in the written sources.
3. Flood
The rise of water along the rivers from the north. Some kind of powerful tsunami caused by an asteroid crash or a pole shift.
This version, in fact, is discussed by many. Period of the incident: the end of the 16th century. - early 19th century Time of Troubles, a year without summer 1816 But it doesn't explain many of the oddities. Why were there windows and doors in the underground parts of buildings? Why are the clay layers located on the hills together with the buildings covered with the same clay? And actually, why didn't the mudflow destroy the buildings?
I expect new objections and arguments from skeptics.
Continued: Part 18
