Saint Petersburg Kazan Cathedral was not built when they say it was...

I believe this is one of those cases where the global censorship and historical assignment committee failed to do its job properly. They still did an awesome job, but with the amounts they had to deal with, they were prone to have certain objects slip through the cracks.

It appears that a certain Russian historical marvel located in Saint Petersburg, and called the Kazan Cathedral is one of those missed buildings. And we have a certain Swedish artist to thank for this. His name was Benjamin Paterssen.

Kazan Cathedral
Saint Petersburg, Russia
kazan-cathedral-saint-petersburg.jpg

constructed 1801-1811
Kazan Cathedral or Kazanskiy Kafedralniy Sobor, also known as the Cathedral of Our Lady of Kazan, is a cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Nevsky Prospekt in Saint Petersburg. It is dedicated to Our Lady of Kazan, probably the most venerated icon in Russia.

Construction of the cathedral started in 1801 and continued for ten years under the supervision of Alexander Sergeyevich Stroganov. Upon its completion in 1811, the new temple replaced the Church of Nativity of the Theotokos, which was disassembled when the Kazan Cathedral was consecrated.

The information we need is this:
  • Kazan Cathedral was officially built between 1801 and 1811
  • Andrey Voronikhin was the architect
Benjamin Paterssen
mystery-Man.jpg

1748 - 1815
Fortunately for us, there was this Swedish-born Russian painter and engraver; known primarily for his cityscapes. Unfortunately, the history did not preserve his own image, but it did save quite a few paintings of his.

Around 1800, on a commission by Tsar Paul I, he created a series of works depicting the banks of the Neva, which earned him an appointment as court painter. Most of his works are currently held by the Hermitage and the Pushkin Museum.
What's interesting, out of the above English language sources only one contains the painting we need. But there are quite a few I was able to locate via Google Image search:

View of Kazansky Cathedral as Seen from Nevsky Prospect
1800
Basically, what we have is the Kazan Cathedral fully built, with no signs of recent construction allegedly painted by Benjamin Paterssen in 1800. Meanwhile, the official version states that the Cathedral construction started in 1801, and was not finished prior to 1811.

kazan-cathedral-saint-petersburg_paterssen.jpg

kazan_cathedral_1800.jpg kazans_cath.Jpeg
Remarkable, but for whatever reason the above painting had to be redone. It is titled "View of Kazansky Cathedral in 1821". I was not able to figure out who did the 1821 painting, so if you figure it out, please let us know.

Kazan_Cathedral_1821_1_1.jpg


1800 vs. 1821
kazan-cathedral-combined.jpg

Do you see anything different in the above images. I only see one major difference not related to a few missing people and an extra dog. Those are two different types of crosses on the obelisk.

The Crosses
1800 Cross
kazan-cathedral-saint-petersburg_paterssen-crosses.jpg


1821 Cross
Kazan_Cathedral_1821_cross.jpg

I do not know how significant the cross difference is, but here are some different types of crosses out there.

Cross_(PSF).jpg


The Kazan Cathedral Floors
I am not going to elaborate much on the 3D original marble floors, and solar symbols inside the Christian Cathedral. I doubt every single marble floor professional of today would be able to make a floor like this. Here are some pictures of the floor.

kazan-cathedral-floor_4_1.jpg

kazan-cathedral-floor_1.jpg kazan-cathedral-floor_2.jpg kazan-cathedral-floor_3.jpg kazan-cathedral-floor_4.jpg

Good old Freemasons?
kazan-3.jpg


Obelisk vs. Fountain
For whatever reason the original Obelisk had to be replaced with a water fountain. I do not know why it had to be done, but it appears there was a reason for everything.

kazan-cathedral-fountain_1.jpg


KD: I think we have this "leftover" building, which came with the city later named Saint Petersburg, Whatever the original purpose of this building was I do not know, but it sure was not a Christian Cathedral. Of course, this is only my opinion. Yup, I do not think it was built by the officially reported individuals. Tartarians?
 

Turpinhero

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
6
Reaction score
22
And in a city that was possibly dug out, on the left, by the guardhouse, we have a gentleman apparently descending some steps to access the door to the building that is... below street level.
 
  • A Avatar
    Info

  • Joined
    Oct 29, 2020
    Messages
    1,103
    Reaction score
    3,315
    The gold colored Freemason symbol above the main entrance behind the obelisk is not there in the older painting.
    And if it is there, it sure is invisible. I wish we had a better quality image.

    Found this interesting piece published in 1809. I keep on thinking that there is more to this column than we are allowed to know. Wondering if it had anything to do with the Alexander Column.

    col-1.jpg
     

    Inquisitor

    New member
    Joined
    Jul 18, 2021
    Messages
    1
    Reaction score
    1
    The second "painting" looks to be an engraving after the actual painting. Great finds.
     

    Wil-I-am

    Member
    Joined
    Jul 11, 2021
    Messages
    51
    Reaction score
    94
    It is interesting that the controllers like to hide obelisks. Understanding how the tartarian technology works is key to defeating the new world order. The words of DIELECTRIC are hard for me to grasp but I think he is very close to understanding how free energy works; here are some of his quotes:

    "Still I would caution about becoming sidetracked with technologies using officially approved methodology because the science underpinning these technologies is fundamentally corrupt and will consequently lead to dead ends, which is why it's corrupted science in the first place, and because nature doesn't seek approval from anyone; it dictates how it really works.
    Nature is the master at transduction and transmutation and for anything to do something it has to be in a dynamic environment. Take for example a white light passing through a prism; ask what creates a dynamic environment which creates the light in the first place, and then what separates the light in to a spectrum of colors? We already know and understand that it is the crystalline patterns in matter which dictate the outcome. It's not just magnets that show us this as evidenced by the other material posted.
    Ultimately, why specific material do what they do is a product of the geometric formations of the crystalline patterns in them.
    Here is where Aryan Tart is right about missing something. Transmutation and transduction of energy is a two way street: Nature can convert one thing to another like magic. Nature does this in ways which have not be been extensively studied. Phillip Callahan studied how nature was doing this but not many others inside official circles. Nor does official doom want you gaining that concept either.
    Cause and effect is a product of a reaction to something. For light to exist it has to be reacting to something; and which tells us that light is a part of an energy field. You cannot have a light bulb light without the input of energy. Knowing that, understanding it, tells us that where there is darkness there is nothing to react with; there is no energy so you have darkness. This is what Eric Dollard is telling us and why hes said that in deep space, if you can get there, there is no star light: The stars cannot be seen.
    See light doesn't travel. The dielectric energy field travels. If that field is concentrated into lines, as in a magnet, then there is no dielectric energy between those lines and the result is darkess. It's unclear to me whether that darkness is even real or just a shadow cast off by the energy. If it's not real and is a shadow than whatever distance is thought to exist as space is an illusion, just as your own shadow is an illusion. Your own shadow is good example of this because, as the sun rises it's energy fills the void where your own shadow was, and then your shadow shrinks till it's at the base of your feet. So if you were to have had eyes in your toes and looking out at that shadow you would have thought, holy shit~ it's darkness forever. Reality is that it's a shadow and an illusion.
    If that's a little hard to comprehend than think of our own night sky. Our planet is in a sea of hypervelocity energy and has a shadow on the side which is opposite, just like your own shadow, there is no real difference. As the Earth rotates it continually cuts off the quantity of energy on it's dark side. Light is therefore a part of this counterspatial energy field and like any other thing we know about light, if you dim the energy the light dims, so dark space is either a void without energy, or shadow cast off from the existence of energy and which is more likely since this is what a magnet shows when seen through a ferrocell lens.
    OK, so after all this what does it tell us about the nature of light and the prism: Right? Well it says that light is produced by induction, and which means it can only exist where the counterspatial energy exists, and where there's not enough energy you don't have light: That's one thing, and then there is this other thing, which is a freaking crystal bTW, and it's called a prism which by some means is filtering a bandwith of energy and we know that's right because we know the color of light has different energy values.
    We already know that the crystalline patterns (geometry or geometric patterns) result in how energy reacts, including magnetic energy, especially motional magnetic energy. Thus whatever the pattern of a cut crytalline prism, the subsequent outcome of diffracted light separated into color must have a secondary angle, otherwise the light would not be partitioned and that angle is the angle of the prism's exterior surface. Thus you have both the crystalline patterns themselves which make up the prism and then the actual angle of the cut sides of the prism, and together these enable, I'm gonna say that word again "enable" the outcome. Either one alone won't do it.
    Now then, imagine that instead of a prism we have the wings of a dragonfly or a bumble bee, though any other insect may suffice, and I want you to think about why it is that these critters buzz. Introducing a 3rd element into the dynamic is the idea."
    "All energy is dielectric energy and magnetism is cycling dielectric energy. As near as we can tell right now, a liquid crystalline superfluid with a finite geometric form shaped as a tetrahedron is what fills the Universe, and this geometric shape is what theoretically constitutes the building blocks to reality. Now refer to that video about the mystery of where power comes from in magnets. Reason being there is only one force in the Universe and it is magnetism.
    Power is produced when these rays (magnetic lines of force) are put under tension. The dielectric rays will follow various conductors and when they do the result is the ray is being stretched which is tension and that's when we see electrical power.
    All around us is this dielectric energy but it isn't coherent like the flux lines of a magnet, it's in an incoherent form caused by this medium passing through matter, which perturbs it's flow causing an inwards curve to the center point of mass before exiting and going on its way. This creates weight in mass where the dielectric flow is incoherent caused by matter breaking the flow of this hyperspatial medium into different orientations, meaning that as mass/matter moves it's continually causing flow changes out of every bit of matter and this creates a turbulent space where collision's between flows results in an incoherence, or a state of hyper vibration. Thus it would seem that theoretical Woodward Mach Effect is produced because of the hyper state of local vibrating dielectric flux.
    So an electron really appears to me to be a part of dielectric ray but in a chopped up state, like a sausage slice, it's a sectional piece of a dielectric ray of energies which permeate our universe but is an incoherent part of this dielectric field. We are really going to have to re-think how our Universe really works as well as what is power and so on.
    Historically the Aether was made up of rays.
    Virtually everyone who was anyone from Tesla to Faraday to Farnsworth and whom created all we have today did not believe in electrons. Even J.J. Thompson whom came up with the idea didn't believe in them. He only validated the idea after he was bought off. Philo Farnsworth who invented the electron gun (elect television) refused to say electrons existed and insisted they were rays. He too was forced to capitulate and go with the electron theory after his employer put pressure on him, or so the story goes.
    The real reason we have this story of electrons was almost certain to be tied to free energy and antigravity and which became part of the national security state as classified information and with it the invention of Einsteinian Physics, electrons, and space time. If we can't put a meter on it then we don't want it is what J.P. Morgan told Tesla."


    DIELECTRIC post in full link

    People way smarter that me should read through all of DIELECTRIC's posts and figure out this free energy enigma? The shill einstein has led us astray for too long. If the tartarians deciphered free vibrational energy then so can us. The obelisk looks very simmilar to...

    1628954883460.jpg
     
    Last edited:
  • A Avatar
    Info

  • jd755

    Active member
    Joined
    Jan 8, 2021
    Messages
    162
    Reaction score
    367
    Are you saying the obelisk in the drawing powered the building behind it?
    If so where is your evidence?

    Some of us on here, me included, have read an awful lot of stuff dielectric has posted since SH v1 it's a tough slog and he gets very upset if you question him, or he did he may have mellowed now, but I recommend you seek out all of his posts on all of his threads on all SH versions and when you come across the link in one or two of them please click through and do have a good read his forum thread he has been running for donkey's years on another forum whose name escapes me, sorry.
     

    Wil-I-am

    Member
    Joined
    Jul 11, 2021
    Messages
    51
    Reaction score
    94
    I believe the obelisk was part of the functioning of the building as a whole. I dont understand the tech involved, but striving to understand how free energy works. I believe the structure was built by people whom harnessed free energy. The key to free energy lies somewhere in understanding what magnetism really is and how that relates to a vibrating crystal superfluid that surrounds the air bubble we live in.
     

    jd755

    Active member
    Joined
    Jan 8, 2021
    Messages
    162
    Reaction score
    367
    I believe the obelisk was part of the functioning of the building as a whole. I dont understand the tech involved, but striving to understand how free energy works. I believe the structure was built by people whom harnessed free energy. The key to free energy lies somewhere in understanding what magnetism really is and how that relates to a vibrating crystal superfluid that surrounds the air bubble we live in.
    Thank you for your explanation.
     

    Banta

    Active member
    Joined
    Feb 4, 2021
    Messages
    196
    Reaction score
    495
    Found this interesting piece published in 1809.
    I like to look into the masterminds behind these publications. This one is alleged to have come from the Edinburgh Review:
    The third Edinburgh Review became one of the most influential British magazines of the 19th century. It promoted Romanticism and Whig politics. (It was also, however, notoriously critical of some major Romantic poetry.)

    Started on 10 October 1802 by Francis Jeffrey, Sydney Smith, Henry Brougham, and Francis Horner, it was published by Archibald Constable in quarterly issues until 1929. It began as a literary and political review. Under its first permanent editor, Francis Jeffrey (the first issue was edited by Sydney Smith), it was a strong supporter of the Whig party and liberal politics, and regularly called for political reform...

    ...It took its Latin motto judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur ("the judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted") from Publilius Syrus.
    The founders?

    Francis_Jeffrey_by_Patric_Park,_1840,_National_Portrait_Gallery,_London.jpg

    Francis Jeffrey, Lord Jeffrey (23 October 1773 – 26 January 1850) was a Scottish judge and literary critic.
    Henry_Brougham_bust.jpg

    Henry Peter Brougham, 1st Baron Brougham and Vaux, PC, QC, FRS (19 September 1778 – 7 May 1868) was a British statesman who became Lord High Chancellor and played a prominent role in passing the 1832 Reform Act and 1833 Slavery Abolition Act.
    Francis_Horner_by_Sir_Francis_Chantrey,_SNPG.JPG

    Francis Horner FRSE (12 August 1778 – 8 February 1817) was a Scottish Whig politician, journalist, lawyer and political economist.

    Sydney Smith was unavailable for a bust, for he was just a lowly cleric/writer. Seems like the Edinburgh Review was likely initially his passion project, but out of those four, who do you think the real power of the ownership group was?
     
    Top