The World's Fair
- Thread starter genero81
- Start date
BHelmet
The Living Force
A Jay, good valid point about admissions vs attendance. So if we take one standard dev of repeat goers maybe that’s 9 mill and not 27 million. That is still 15% of the total population. And if you subtract those too old to travel and those too young to travel and those with pressing needs to stay home and work and manage their affairs, it still equates to a Giant percentage of the population that is also worthy of doubt. Don’t discount the panic of 1893. If the dollar cratered tomorrow and 5 or 6 more mega banks blew up while several large retail chains called it quits, would you go zipping off on a joyride with the fam?
BHelmet
The Living Force
I’m going to try to finish this off in as few more posts as possible. I think I have a solution that sidesteps a lot of the issues for both sides: I can see and feel what I am seeing and it makes no sense vs. I don’t see what you are seeing and doubt what you are saying.
Or, the delusional vs the blind. Now there’s an even match up! Place your bets!!
Or, the delusional vs the blind. Now there’s an even match up! Place your bets!!
People still went to Disney World, the Olympics, regular sporting events, fairs, casinos, beaches, and other events or vacations during 2008/2009 despite the financial problems of the time.
Like Joe, I wouldn't get too hung up on this issue because there doesn't seem to be any grand mystery going on. Just some nefarious types looking to assert and show off their growing dominance.
Well, why the need for the appearance of such opulence and grandeur and who is really paying for it and for whose benefit. I would say, follow the money.
Don't we still have something called the Olympic games? Only today they seem to take up to 4 years to build the appropriate venues at huge costs to the taxpayers and after the event some structures end up repurposed or sold 'cheaply' to private owners who sell them as appartments or whatever.
Aren't these Games allocated to countries via a form of competition? And there is often an air of political agenda as to who wins them, while they provide bread and circuses for the masses.
Maybe. I think I'll wait and see
Credit cards are an amazing thing. Until they prove to be something else.
I guess you could say the same about the bible and historic records in general, then.
This is kind of what I think the disconnect is on 19th century Architectural History vs. Ancient History.
When we're looking at the "Added 460 Years" thread, we're seeing a complete break following the Plague of Justinian. Possibly 90% of the population dies. Europe burns. The Ancient World is gone. 2-300 years later, piles of documents in forgotten libraries are discovered/sought out and have to be reconciled against the accepted world view of a new culture emerging out of the Dark Ages. They try to translate what they find but can barely read Latin and are illiterate in Greek. They attempt to create a history that must match their worldview of Christianity (which is unassailable at that point) all the while entrenching their hegemonic position.
When you read Bede/Gregory of Tours they have no understanding of Rome - only of the empire's relationship to Christianity. If you read the Ancient City you can see it took hundreds of years of research to finally get some sort of idea as to what Roman life actually was and it is radically different than what the early medieval writers suspected.
All of this is understandable with a complete break through total destruction and the death of a civilization. But supposing that the same type of thing is possible in North America is a completely different proposition. Especially in terms of forging records/interpolations and creating a new history.
The first issue is that there are almost no detailed written records before the late 1500's. Secondly, mass deaths of North American peoples occurred concurrently at the Plague of Justinian and at the time of Black Death. Add to that De Soto's expedition in the 1540's which introduces European diseases that wipes out the majority of what was left of the mound building culture as there are no stratigraphic or carbon dating of the major mound centers having construction work after that.
So outside the Southwest USA (which lies on the periphery of Mexican cultural influence) the order of events from the 1600's remains consistent for almost every new territory settled. European settlers arrive and expand west. As they come into contact with North Americans, they hear stories from them of older civilizations with varying time frames of relatively recent ancestors, to races of giants, to re-peopling of the continent after a global flood/disaster. As the North Americans don't calculate "the past" like the Europeans - no one really knows the chronology.
What the European/European descended people find up until the early 20th century are thousands of earthen mounds. None really in use except for occasional burials and known to strike awe/fear into the native people they encounter. Many of these mounds are connected to another world in a way that other places aren't. Whether this a bad memory of the past or an unpredictable portal linking a potentially deadly phenomenon, the native people of the 19th and 20th centuries want nothing to do with them.
(We have a local report from here of natives desperately pleading with a local amateur archeologist in the 1860's to leave a particular mound alone as they believe opening it will unleash something really horrible. Disturbing them is a serious violation)
Also located at that time are anomalous stone structures that may or may not be related to the mound culture. Either way, the structures are rarely intact and their overall purpose is not known. They are not in use by the native North Americans the settlers encounter.
Beyond early fur trading records, the first written reports from all these new settlements are local newspapers. Reports written by locals. Hundreds of these reports exist that tell the same story. Mounds, earthworks, well-crafted artefacts and unusual stone structures (not necessarily buildings or remnants of). Occasionally there are giant skeletons found. For the people settling west of the Appalachians (following the Revolutionary War) this same pattern is repeated over and over again. For those settlers they are amazed at what they find and can't reconcile it with the state of the scattered tribal native people still living in the area. Unknown to them at the time is that through disease/war/extreme climate, the native population had been in their own kind of entropic Dark Age for hundreds of years.
By the middle of the 19th century "mound builder" lost civilizations theories arise. Phoenicians, Egyptians, Welsh, Lost Tribes of Israel. Nothing really sticks as the artifacts don't fit close enough. But the mounds are so prevalent that the Smithsonian Explorations into Earthen Mounds organization is formed.
This is the beginning of the creation of North American pre-Columbian history narrative as well as archaeology. My community in Canada was isolated (no rail connection) and in another country, yet our first "mound explorer" was working for the Smithsonian in the 1860's, sending our mound artefacts and reports back to Washington. Mound exploration wasn't a minor undertaking, it was all across North America and the focus of archaeology at the time.
So if we look at "spinning a narrative" this is where the official narratives start. At this time in North America the dominant world view is western European Christianity. So when you read all these original reports, they interpret their findings to match the biblical narrative.
Giants are fine, as they are in Genesis. Trans-Atlantic Phoenicians, Israelites and Welshman are all fine as well. It all matches the biblical chronology and world view. No one really knows anything, as Archeology is in its infancy.
Slowly but surely, the world view of those that direct the Smithsonian switches from Christianity to Darwinism. By WW I - there are no more giants - and natural history (animal fossils) become the focus to support the new Darwinist outlook. No one still knows who built the mounds, but it definitely has nothing to do with giants.
So the falsifications begin (Jim Vieira covers this extensively in Giants on Record) at the top level of academia. The Smithsonian destroys or hides the hundreds of giant skeletons, and any artefacts that don't fit the narrative. The problem is that all the local newspapers were archived, as were all the local historical society records of the original excavations. So what does the Smithsonian state? All those hundreds of detailed reports by local professionals and accepted by the Smithsonian at the time - were mis-measured. All of them. There were no giant skeletons.
The point I'm trying to show is that the original records aren't falsified, nor are they being altered. The PTB just regularly change their spin on the meaning of what was found. Oh they were unprofessional, dimwits in the 1800's, let us impart the new and better truth in this NYT article debunking actual evidence.
Sorry for the length of this post and I know is generally quite boringBut I think it's important to recognize that almost every one of the thousands of 19th century North American settlements that were founded contain unbroken chains of records up to this day. Personally, I've spent hundreds of hours poring over these type of archives (both locally and in other places). Local historical societies and local papers at that time tend to strive for accuracy in their reporting. But are often way off base in their interpretations.
All the spinning and lies that existed then tended to be in the big papers which were the organs for the PTB to entrench their power and expand the social controls that they needed.
Back to what directly relates to this thread, in everything I can find from original, primary source records, is that there is nothing even hinting at building new structures on old ones (with the exception of some earthen mounds). There are reports of weird EM anomalies associated with mounds and earthworks. There are out of place artifacts of very fine quality. There are carbon dates going back to only 2 or 3 thousand years after Younger Dryas. There are even Sasquatch and "little people" with futuristic weapons emerging from mounds.
But there is nothing I've ever come across remotely resembling "Lost Tartary", "Mud Flood" ruins or anything pertaining to pre-existing masonry structures near Expo buildings before or after excavation. The other thing is the relative recent arrival of these theories. Does anyone know when these 1st showed up? 10 years ago? 15?
Part of this issue does hold a personal element for me. If I've done all these years of research on North American pre-history and if I completely missed something this big, then I'll have to completely re-evaluate my research methods (not looking forward to that)!
Just wanted to say that I didn't think your post was boring at all, quite the opposite!
There's this thread discussing anti-life architecture, in case you haven't seen it:
Why modern architecture is making us sick
I found this article very interesting - the author cites studies that document how modern architecture literally makes us sick and unwell, and gives some reasons why. He also mentions an alternative to modern architecture developed by Christopher Alexander in the 70ies. Very well-written...
cassiopaea.org
Not so sure about that.
This 'adventurer' captured quite well the size of the project, the history of its construction and all the extensive required infrastructure, etc. as it has been told to us. Oh, and they decided to move the whole thing to another location than its original position.
Just wanted to point out that C's mentioned a couple of things; that the insertion of history was done in two waves and that some of the fires during the 19th century could be attributed to the atmosphere still settling (but from what event and when).
A really good post, by the way, IMO.
As a comparison, I thought it would be interesting to look at the construction of the Eiffel Tower which is well documented.
Here's some basic data from this site :
The assembly of the supports began on July 1, 1887 and was completed twenty-two months later. All the elements were prepared in Eiffel’s factory located at Levallois-Perret on the outskirts of Paris. Each of the 18,000 pieces used to construct the Tower were specifically designed and calculated, traced out to an accuracy of a tenth of a millimetre and then put together forming new pieces around five metres each. A team of constructors, who had worked on the great metal viaduct projects, were responsible for the 150 to 300 workers on site assembling this gigantic erector set.
The tower was assembled using wooden scaffolding and small steam cranes mounted onto the tower itself.
The assembly of the first level was achieved by the use of twelve temporary wooden scaffolds, 30 metres high, and four larger scaffolds of 40 metres each. "Sand boxes" and hydraulic jacks - replaced after use by permanent wedges - allowed the metal girders to be positioned to an accuracy of one millimetre. On December 7, 1887, the joining of the major girders up to the first level was completed. The pieces were hauled up by steam cranes, which themselves climbed up the Tower as they went along using the runners to be used for the Tower's lifts.
Oh, and the original plan was to dismantle the Eiffel Tower after 20 years:
Here's a video with photos of the construction:
So, looking at this it appears that one of the 'problems' we might have with these marvelous constructions from the 19th centruy is, to put it simply, that these guys had helluva lot more know-how than we think (or at least what I thought previously) !
Here's some basic data from this site :
The assembly of the supports began on July 1, 1887 and was completed twenty-two months later. All the elements were prepared in Eiffel’s factory located at Levallois-Perret on the outskirts of Paris. Each of the 18,000 pieces used to construct the Tower were specifically designed and calculated, traced out to an accuracy of a tenth of a millimetre and then put together forming new pieces around five metres each. A team of constructors, who had worked on the great metal viaduct projects, were responsible for the 150 to 300 workers on site assembling this gigantic erector set.
The tower was assembled using wooden scaffolding and small steam cranes mounted onto the tower itself.
The assembly of the first level was achieved by the use of twelve temporary wooden scaffolds, 30 metres high, and four larger scaffolds of 40 metres each. "Sand boxes" and hydraulic jacks - replaced after use by permanent wedges - allowed the metal girders to be positioned to an accuracy of one millimetre. On December 7, 1887, the joining of the major girders up to the first level was completed. The pieces were hauled up by steam cranes, which themselves climbed up the Tower as they went along using the runners to be used for the Tower's lifts.
Oh, and the original plan was to dismantle the Eiffel Tower after 20 years:
Here's a video with photos of the construction:
So, looking at this it appears that one of the 'problems' we might have with these marvelous constructions from the 19th centruy is, to put it simply, that these guys had helluva lot more know-how than we think (or at least what I thought previously) !
Jtucker
Jedi Master
Thank you, @stellar.
The 19th century Chicago and Peshtigo Fires (2500 killed) and the related ones that burned a whole lot of Michigan were most likely due to a comet breaking up. Laura did a really good article on it in 2008.
Comet Biela and Mrs. O'leary's Cow.
The EM atmosphere settling I think you're referring to is the "Bell Witch" C's session from a few years ago. That was in relation to the New Madrid MO earthquakes of 1811-12. They may have a relation, but I think the evidence of Chicago's rapid incineration by cometary fragments is pretty solid.
On the insertions of the 460 years added to the timeline, yes you are correct - according to the C's there are two separate insertions.
They said something like - if there are any villains, then it's the Flavians and the Carolingians. I take that statement to mean that villainy isn't the only cause of the insertions and it may not be the main cause. I'd say that this thread at times is looking for the master villain that isn't there.
As for the Carolingians, poor comprehension of Latin and no comprehension of Greek in the early middle ages contributed to their historical reconstructions as well. Also the "Carolingian" gang emerged out of the Dark Ages with Dark Age Christianity. Their version of Roman History had to fulfill the needs of the Dark Age version of the religion. They had strong assumptions based on their own world view - and with no way to disprove them at that time - the re-discovered records could have been interpreted by finding a combination of both what worked - and bolstered their dominance.
The Flavians are traditionally dated a few decades after Caesar. I don't think they added the 400 years between themselves and Justinian. Someone else did that. I think the insertions and alterations on their part have to do with the rapidly declining empire falling into Civil War. They had to Judaify all of Christianity in a rapid hurry for some political reason at the time (something to do with the Jewish Wars). Caesar had to be removed from the state religion and the revolutionary "James Gang" had to be overlaid as peaceful tyranny fighters.
Laura covers this extensively in FPTM. But now with the C's removing the 460 years, I can't really be sure where the Flavians fit and how exactly the Flavian "final" version of ancient Christianity came about. I do believe their "insertions" are more theological and relating to political events at the time or the recent past that required radical changes to protect their interests. This definitely played a role that lead to the bogus/mis-read history of the late empire by the Carolingians.
I think the discussion above is a good example of why this thread is problematic. There are enormous amounts of records from the days of the Roman Republic to Justinian. Some faked. Some mistranslated. Some altered enough to make them very confusing. But the wealth of those documents provided enough info for Laura to spend years putting together 600 pages of detailed analysis.
Now look at thew 19th century in Europe and major North American cities. How many of those records exist? A factor of 1000 or 10000 x more than what is left from Rome? Photos exist in the many thousands, if not more.
What evidence do we have that the Crystal Palace or the Chicago Columbian Exhibition were built using magnificent technology or repairing ruins that pre-existed on those sites? Are there any contemporary 19th century "anomalous" reports hinting at that? I can't find any. Maybe someone else can.
Are there volumes and volumes of planning documents, named builders, architects, budgets, government correspondence? Of course. And in regards to the "thin" or sketchy architect bios - architecture wasn't considered art in those days. Architects were employed by building companies. High ranking ones - but rarely celebrities like they are today. No one cared what their credentials were, they worked their way up in the company and if their ideas panned out, they became head architects. They were artisans from the working and middle classes.
Even Frank Furnass (check out his buildings in Philly) and Louis Sullivan were only recognized a lionized decades later. I've read two books on the Chicago Columbian Exposition. No gaps, no magical appearance of new technology. No mention of archaeology. I'll add that when I read these books, I'm looking for High Strangeness and faked history.
Is there Corruption? Greed? Political psychos? Yes - everywhere! Just like any major project.
These were gargantuan undertakings that required the resources like building an Olympic village today. Of course millions of people visited them. What else was there to do in 1880 other than work? There weren't huge sporting events, concerts or any media beyond local newspapers. Not attending would seem crazy. Also, these aren't skyscrapers or government buildings. They're essentially movie sets. Just like Disneyland or any theme park. They weren't intended to be permanent structures. The industrialization of the western world allowed for rapid utilization of iron and wood. Excess labour was everywhere, or there wouldn't be cities - everyone would be on the farm.
What's the evidence that we're dealing with on the other side of the "official" narrative? YouTube videos made in the past ten years where YT'ers are in awe of those constructions and how they were built. They deduce an alternate explanation for the constructions based on their emotional reaction to the grandiosity of the expos. They cherry pick info to back up their theories mostly through deduction and not investigation of primary source records. Bombastic architectural styles from that period are common. And a lot of it has exotic Central Asian influence - hence Tataria.
A smoking gun for the alternative side would help. One document showing the previous structures in question? One headline like, "Mysterious Pyramid discovered during the building of ____"
Giant skeletons seem to come up frequently in newspaper articles of the 19th century. Where are the structures specifically located on World Fair/Expo sites articles? Didn't the Tatarians have writing? Jewelry? Inscribe something on metal or stone? They just left the buildings empty with no artifacts? No worker ever found a ring or a coin? I just can't find it anywhere. If there's an Atlantean ruin, it would be so far beyond our tech and engineering skills, it would be similar to digging out a UFO from the mud. Wouldn't it?
@stellar, if you were to speculate, what exactly do you think existed on those Exposition sites beforehand? What culture built them?
