ЯндексПереводчик
Remember that Chicago as a village was founded only in 1833! and then let's look together at old photos of Chicago and suddenly there will emerge familiar to all triangular roofs with columns at the bottom, the rays above the Windows and houses with cut corners?
And what we see - the old buildings of Chicago have the characteristics of "antediluvian" ancient city. And here arose a new question - if Chicago built the antediluvian civilization, why is it so wrong and built a city on a swamp? And these cities, which is built on a swamp or even in water for a few - St. Petersburg, Prague, Toronto, Venice, Alexandria in Egypt, Certain towns in Golodnii. And everywhere we see that the city is seriously suffering because of the water, and judging by the monumentality of the buildings located in the city can not say that the builders were fools. May be the thing is that before the water level of the oceans and large lakes were much lower, so the sooner these cities were further from the water and the builders, there was no question of the correct choice of the Mets for construction.
Apparently before the disaster, the water level in the ocean and lake Michigan was much lower than it is now.
Because of what the water level has risen, you need to shoot a separate film.
We go further, we study photos of the 19th century, in particular photos of the world exhibition of 1893
and we wonder who managed to build such majestic ancient buildings, fountains in just a few decades? That is, from the village in 1833 to the ancient city, comparable to St. Petersburg, it took only 60 years!
By the way in Chicago, too, there are drawbridges, very similar to those in St. Petersburg.
Who built all this? The Indians? maybe cowboys?
26 сен 2024
