Exposing an alternative history - why there are no old trees in the forests. And the forest is mysterious Why the forests of Siberia are not older than 200

One of the arguments against the fact that a large-scale catastrophe could have happened 200 years ago is the myth about "relic" forests that supposedly grow in the Urals and Western Siberia.
For the first time, I came across the idea that something was wrong with our “relict” forests ten years ago, when I accidentally discovered that in the “relict” urban forest, firstly, old trees older than 150 years are completely absent , and secondly, there is a very thin fertile layer, about 20-30 cm. It was strange, because reading various articles on ecology and forestry, I repeatedly came across information that a fertile layer of about one meter forms in a forest over a thousand years, then yes, millimeters per year. A little later it turned out that a similar picture is observed not only in the central city forest, but also in other pine forests located in Chelyabinsk and its environs. There are no old trees, the fertile layer is thin.

When I began to ask local experts about this topic, they began to explain something to me about the fact that before the revolution, forests were cut down and replanted, and the rate of accumulation of the fertile layer in pine forests must be calculated differently, which I do not understand anything about and better not to go there. At that moment, this explanation, in general, suited me.
In addition, it turned out that one should distinguish between the concept of “relict forest”, when it comes to forests that have been growing in a given area for a very long time, and the concept of “relict plants”, that is, those that have been preserved only in this place since ancient times. The latter term does not mean at all that the plants themselves and the forests in which they grow are old, respectively, the presence of a large number of relict plants in the forests of the Urals and Siberia does not prove that the forests themselves have been growing in this place invariably for thousands of years.
When I began to deal with the "Tape Forests" and collect information about them, I came across the following message on one of the regional Altai forums:
“One question haunts me... Why is our tape pine forest called relic? What is relic in it? They write, they say, that it owes its origin to the glacier. The glacier came down more than one thousand years ago (according to the tormented ones). Pine lives for 400 years and grows up to 40 meters up. If the glacier went down so long ago, then where was the ribbon forest all this time? Why is there practically no old trees in it? And where are the dead trees? Why is the layer of earth there a few centimeters and immediately sand? Even in three hundred years, the cones/needles should have made a larger layer... In general, it seems that the ribbon forest is a little older than Barnaul (if not younger) and the glacier, thanks to which it arose, did not descend 10,000 years ago, but much closer to we are on time ... Maybe I don’t understand something? ... "
http://forums.drom.ru/altai/t1151485069.html
This message is dated November 15, 2010, that is, at that time there were no videos by Alexei Kungurov, or any other materials on this topic. It turns out that, independently of me, another person had exactly the same questions that I once had.
Upon further study of this topic, it turned out that a similar picture, that is, the absence of old trees and a very thin fertile layer, is observed in almost all forests of the Urals and Siberia. One day I accidentally got into a conversation on this topic with a representative of one of the firms that processed data for our forestry department throughout the country. He began to argue with me and prove that I was wrong, that this could not be, and right there in front of me called the person who was responsible for statistical processing. And the man confirmed this, that the maximum age of the trees that they were registered in this work was 150 years. True, the version they issued said that in the Urals and Siberia, coniferous trees basically do not live more than 150 years, and therefore they are not taken into account.
We open the reference book on the age of trees http://www.sci.aha.ru/ALL/e13.htm and see that Scotch pine lives 300-400 years, in especially favorable conditions up to 600 years, Siberian cedar pine 400-500 years, European spruce is 300-400 (500) years old, prickly spruce is 400-600 years old, and Siberian larch is 500 years old under normal conditions, and up to 900 years in especially favorable conditions!
It turns out that everywhere these trees live for at least 300 years, and in Siberia and the Urals no more than 150?
How relic forests should actually look can be seen here: http://www.kulturologia.ru/blogs/191012/17266/ These are photographs from cutting down redwoods in Canada in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the thickness of the trunks of which reaches up to 6 meters, and the age is up to 1500 years. Well, then Canada, but here, they say, sequoias do not grow. Why they don’t grow, if the climate is almost the same, none of the “specialists” could really explain.


Now yes, now they do not grow. But it turns out that similar trees grew with us. The guys from our Chelyabinsk State University, who participated in excavations in the area of ​​Arkaim and the "country of cities" in the south of the Chelyabinsk region, said that where the steppe is now, in the days of Arkaim there were coniferous forests, and in some places there were giant trees, the diameter of the trunks was which was up to 4 - 6 meters! That is, they were commensurate with those that we see in the photo from Canada. The version about where these forests went, says that the forests were barbarously cut down by the inhabitants of Arkaim and other settlements they created, and it is even suggested that it was the depletion of the forests that caused the migration of the Arkaim people. Like, here the whole forest was cut down, let's go cut down in another place. The fact that forests can be planted and grown anew, as they did everywhere since at least the 18th century, the Arkaim people, apparently, did not yet know. Why for 5500 years (Arkaim is now dated to such an age) the forest in this place did not recover itself, there is no intelligible answer. Didn't grow up, well, didn't grow up. It so happened.

Here is a series of photographs I took at the local history museum in Yaroslavl this summer when I was on vacation with my family.




In the first two photos he sawed down pine trees at the age of 250 years. The trunk is over a meter in diameter. Directly above it are two pyramids, which are made up of saw cuts of pine trunks at the age of 100 years, the right one grew in freedom, the left one in a mixed forest. In the forests, in which I happened to be, there are mostly just similar 100-year-old trees or a little thicker.




These photos show them larger. At the same time, the difference between a pine that grew in freedom and in an ordinary forest is not very significant, and the difference between a pine of 250 years and 100 years is just somewhere around 2.5-3 times. This means that the diameter of a pine trunk at the age of 500 years will be about 3 meters, and at the age of 600 years it will be about 4 meters. That is, the giant stumps found during excavations could have remained even from an ordinary pine tree about 600 years old.


The last photo shows saw cuts of pine trees that grew in a dense spruce forest and in a swamp. But I was especially struck in this showcase by a cut down of pine trees at the age of 19, which is on the right at the top. Apparently this tree grew in freedom, but still the thickness of the trunk is simply gigantic! Now trees do not grow at such a speed, even in freedom, even with artificial cultivation with care and feeding, which once again indicates that very strange things are happening on our Planet with the climate.

From the above photographs it follows that at least pine trees at the age of 250 years, and taking into account the manufacture of saw cuts in the 50s of the 20th century, born 300 years from today, in the European part of Russia there is a place to be, or at least met there 50 years ago. During my life I have walked through the forests for more than one hundred kilometers, both in the Urals and in Siberia. But I have never seen such large pine trees as in the first picture, with a trunk thickness of more than a meter! Neither in forests, nor in open spaces, nor in inhabited places, nor in hard-to-reach areas. Naturally, my personal observations are not yet an indicator, but this is also confirmed by the observations of many other people. If one of the readers can give examples of long-lived trees in the Urals or Siberia, then you are welcome to submit photographs indicating the place and time when they were taken.

If you look at the available photographs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, then in Siberia we will see very young forests. Here are well-known photographs from the site of the fall of the Tunguska meteorite, which have been repeatedly published in various publications and articles on the Internet.










All the photographs clearly show that the forest is quite young, no more than 100 years old. Let me remind you that the Tunguska meteorite fell on June 30, 1908. That is, if the previous large-scale disaster that destroyed the forests in Siberia occurred in 1815, then by 1908 the forest should look exactly like in the photographs. Let me remind skeptics that this territory is still practically uninhabited, and at the beginning of the 20th century there were practically no people there. This means that there was simply no one to cut down the forest for economic or other needs.

Another interesting link to the article http://sibved.livejournal.com/73000.html where the author gives interesting historical photographs from the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. On them, we also see only a young forest everywhere. No thick old trees are observed. Another large selection of old photos from the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway here http://murzind.livejournal.com/900232.html












Thus, there are many facts and observations that indicate that in the vast territory of the Urals and Siberia, there are actually no forests older than 200 years. At the same time, I want to make a reservation right away that I am not saying that there are no old forests in the Urals and Siberia at all. But precisely in those places where the disaster occurred, they are not.

P.S. And this is another article about "relict" forests

In Russia, the Council for the Preservation of the Natural Heritage of the Nation in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation launched the program "Trees - Monuments of Wildlife". Enthusiasts all over the country are looking for trees 200 years old and older with fire during the day. Two hundred years old trees are unique! So far, about 200 pieces of all breeds and varieties have been found throughout the country. Moreover, most of the trees found have nothing to do with the forest, like this 360-year-old pine. This is determined not only by its modern proud loneliness, but also by the shape of the crown.

Thanks to this program, we are able to fairly objectively assess the age of our forests.
Here are two examples of applications from the Kurgan region.

This is, at the moment, the oldest tree in the Kurgan region, whose age is set by experts at 189 years old - a little less than 200 years old. Pine grows in the Ozerninsky forest near the sanatorium "Pine Grove". And the forest itself, of course, is much younger: the patrirah pine grew for many years alone, as can be seen from the shape of the tree crown.
Another application was received from the Kurgan region, claiming a pine tree older than 200 years:

This tree ended up on the territory of the arboretum - it was preserved along with some other native species that grew on this territory before the laying of the arboretum. The arboretum was founded during the organization of a forest nursery for the Forest School, established in 1893. The forest school and forest nursery were necessary for the training of forestry specialists who were supposed to carry out work on the allocation and evaluation of forests during the construction of the Kurgan section of the Trans-Siberian Railway at the end of the 19th century.
Let's note: the forest school and forest nursery were founded about 120 years ago and their purpose was to evaluate forest lands that already existed by that time.
These two trees grow in the Kurgan region, this is the south of Western Siberia - it borders on the Chelyabinsk, Tyumen, Omsk regions, and in the south - on Kazakhstan.
Let's pay attention: both trees began their lives not in the forest, but in an open field - this is evidenced by the shape of their crown and the presence of branches coming almost from the very base. The pines that grow in the forest are a bare, straight whip, "no hitch without a hitch" with a panicle on top, like this group of pines on the left side of the picture:

Here it is, smooth as a string, without knots, the trunk of a pine tree that has grown next to other pine trees:

Yes, these pines grew in the middle of the forest, which was here until the early 60s of the last century, before a sand pit was organized here, from which sand was washed by a dredger onto the highway under construction, which is now called "Baikal". This place is located one kilometer from the northern outskirts of Kurgan.
And now let's make a sortie into the Kurgan forest and look at the terrain of the "arrangement" of a typical West Siberian forest. Let's move away from the lake for a kilometer into the thick of the "ancient" forest.
In the forest, you constantly come across such trees as this pine in the center:

This is not a dried tree, its crown is full of life:

This is an old tree that began its life in an open field, then other pines began to grow around and the branches began to dry from below, the same tree is visible on the left in the frame in the background.

The girth of the trunk at the chest level of an adult is 230 centimeters, i.e. the diameter of the trunk is about 75 centimeters. For a pine, this is a solid size, so with a trunk thickness of 92 cm, the age of the tree in the next picture was set by experts at 426 years

But in the Kurgan region, perhaps, more favorable conditions for pines - the pine from the Ozerninsky forest, which was discussed above, has a trunk thickness of 110 centimeters and an age of only 189 years. I also found several freshly cut stumps, also about 70 cm in diameter, and counted 130 annual rings. Those. the pines from which the forest began are about 130-150 years old.
If things continue in the same way as the last 150 years - the forests will grow and gain strength - then it is not difficult to predict how the children from these photographs will see this forest in 50-60 years, when they bring their grandchildren to these, for example, pine trees (fragment photograph placed above - pines by the lake).

You understand: pine trees at 200 years old will cease to be a rarity, in the Kurgan region alone there will be unmeasured, pine trees over 150 years old, grown among pine forests, with a trunk as smooth as a telegraph pole without knots, will grow everywhere, but now there are none at all, that is, no at all.
Of the entire mass of monumental pines, I found only one that grew in the forest, in the Khanty-Mansiysk Okrug:

Given the harsh climate of those places (equated to the regions of the Far North), with a trunk thickness of 66 cm, it is fair to consider this tree much older than 200 years. At the same time, the applicants noted that this pine is a rarity for local forests. And in the local forests, with an area of ​​at least 54 thousand hectares, there is nothing like this! There are forests, but the forest in which this pine was born disappeared somewhere - after all, it grew and stretched among the pines that were even older. But they are not.
And this is what will prevent those pines that grow, at least in the Kurgan forests, from continuing their lives - pines live and for 400 years, as we have seen, our conditions for them are ideal. Pine trees are very resistant to diseases, and with age, resistance only increases, fires for pine trees are not terrible - there is nothing to burn down there, ground fires of pine trees are easily tolerated, and riding ones, after all, are very rare. And, again, adult pines are more resistant to fires, so fires destroy, first of all, young growth.
Anyone, after the above, will argue with the statement that we did not have forests 150 years ago at all? There was a desert, like the Sahara - bare sand:

This is a fire pit. What we see: the forest stands on bare sand, covered only with needles with cones and a thin layer of humus - just a few centimeters. All pine forests in our country, and, as far as I know, in the Tyumen region, stand on such bare sand. These are hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest, if not millions - if this is so, then the Sahara is resting! And all this was literally a hundred and fifty years ago!
The sand is blindingly white, with no impurities at all!
And it seems that you can meet such sands not only in the West Siberian Lowland. For example, there is something similar in Transbaikalia - there is a small area, only five by ten kilometers, which is still "undeveloped" taiga, and the locals consider it a "Miracle of Nature".

And he was given the status of a geological reserve. We have this "miracle" - well, heaps, only this wood, in which we had an excursion, has dimensions of 50 by 60 kilometers, and no one sees any miracles and does not organize reserves - as if it should be so ...
By the way, the fact that Transbaikalia was a continuous desert in the 19th century was documented by photographers of that time, I already laid out what those places looked like before the construction of the Circum-Baikal Railway. Here, for example:

A similar picture can be seen in other Siberian places, for example, a view in the "deaf taiga" on the construction of the road to Tomsk:

All of the above convincingly proves that about 150-200 years ago there were practically no forests in Russia. The question arises: were there forests in Russia before. Were! It's just that for one reason or another they were buried by the "cultural layer", like the first floors of the St. Petersburg Hermitage, the first floors in many Russian cities.
I have repeatedly written about this very "cultural layer" here, but I will not be able to resist once again publishing a photo that has recently spread around the Internet:

It seems that in Kazan the "cultural layer" from the first floor, which for many years was considered a "basement" was stupidly removed by a bulldozer, without resorting to the services of archaeologists.
But bog oak, and even more so, is mined without notifying any "scientists" - "historians" and other archaeologists. Yes, such a business still exists - the extraction of fossil oak:

But the next picture was taken in central Russia - here the river washes away the coast and centuries-old oaks, uprooted at one time, are born:

The author of the photo writes that the oaks are straight and slender, which indicates that they grew in the forest. And the age, with that thickness (the case for the scale is 11 cm) is much older than 200 years.
And again, as Newton said, I do not invent hypotheses: let the "historians" explain why trees older than 150 years are massively found only under the "cultural layer".

The videos of the group of history lovers caused a lot of controversy among the townspeople and experts. The questions they raise seem to lie on the surface, however, not only the townsfolk, but also recognized historians and local historians are driven into a stupor.

What has been wiped off the face of the earth?

One of the most controversial was the series of films "Disappeared Tyumen". In it, amateur local historians put forward a hypothesis that in the 18th century the regional capital was practically wiped off the face of the earth. In their opinion, then the West Siberian Plain was flooded, and the city literally disappeared. In favor of this they give several facts. For example, we do not have pine trees older than 150-200 years, and the soil under a small fertile layer contains a lot of sand and clay, which are considered alluvial rocks. It is under them that you can find the city that once disappeared. As another proof, the researchers cite the fact that there are no houses in Tyumen built before the 18th century.

Recognized researchers have also tried to find answers to these questions. So, Tyumen naturalist Pavel SITNIKOV noted that there are no old houses, since every hundred years the city sinks into the ground by about half a meter. This is partly due to weak soils, partly due to dust, including space dust, which settles between houses, but we simply do not notice it.

Another scientist, but already in the field of dendrochronology - Stanislav AREFIEV, Professor, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Head of the Sector of Biodiversity and Dynamics of Natural Complexes of the Institute for the Study of Problems of the Development of the North of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, explained that 200-400 years ago, trees in the south of the region grew old, like now, about twice as fast as in the north.

He confirmed that he really did not meet trees older than 250 years. The oldest pines, just about 250 years old - from 1770 - were noted by him in the Tarman swamps, near the village of Karaganda.

According to the scientist, this situation is primarily due to the fact that the regional capital is located near the southern border of the forest zone, where conditions for tree growth are not particularly favorable. The area as a whole is water-deficient, and some years and even entire periods over the past 400 years have been very dry.

The consequences of this were forest fires and invasions of forest pests, as a result of which the forest died over vast areas.

Lost 200 years

And history buffs have found quite a few such "blank spots" in the history of the city. Why, according to them, the entire past of the regional capital is one big mystery. You just need to look a little wider and more carefully ...

For example, in our city there are wooden houses with stone foundations, in which windows half stick out of the ground. Why is that? - asks a question Dmitry KONOVALOV, head of the creative association "Tur-A". - When you start looking for an answer, you understand that there is no information anywhere about this. It is known for sure that they did not sag, because this process would be uneven.

There is an assumption that there was a serious cataclysm, and a huge part of the house was destroyed. These buildings simply did not begin to be restored, and wooden houses were placed on a stone foundation.

Another question that has not yet been answered is Tyumen's birthday. The countdown has been going on since 1586 - then the city was allegedly founded. But this fact is not confirmed by anything. In fact, the regional capital is mentioned as early as 1375, and there is a stele hanging on the embankment, on which this date is indicated. And on the map of Anthony Jackinson (an English diplomat and traveler - Ed.), the city was marked as Great Tyumen back in 1542. Where did two hundred years of difference go? - amateur local historians are perplexed.

All materials and maps used by the guys are from open sources. These are not only books on history, but such publications as the Bulletin of the Geographical Society, scientific works and even works of art.

Dostoevsky, Karamzin wrote a lot of interesting things about Siberia, including Tyumen. You can find many interesting facts in their works. We also use the work of our local historians. I have deep respect for Alexander Petrushin, but he has been studying the history of Tyumen since the beginning of the 20th century. He has a lot of interesting facts, while researching various topics, we often rely on his works, - says Dmitry.

However, by and large, those who are trying to find answers to the mysteries of the Tyumen history have no one to rely on. According to history lovers, the publications of local historians are based on the works of each other and they describe well-known facts.

Have you lost your mind?

In search of answers to curious, and sometimes "uncomfortable" questions for some, the members of "Tour-A" faced misunderstanding and rejection rather than support. Convincing and well-founded arguments were not found by everyone, and many twisted their heads.

We do not argue with anyone, we only ask questions that we ourselves are trying to find the answer to, they start arguing with us. I had to hear that we went crazy, doing nonsense. But all the information that we have is available to anyone who wants to think and look at the history of the city more broadly than history textbooks offer, Dmitry emphasizes. - Over time, there is less and less criticism of us, and the audience is becoming more and more interested in history. And this is probably the highest rating for us.
Every fact that the guys talk about in their stories is rechecked more than once and goes through a whole “examination”. Amateur local historians are advised by professional historians. But even some of their "blank spots" in the history of Tyumen lead to a stupor.

The common interest brought together people of completely different professions - builders, lawyers, chemists, physicists, oilmen, military, former employees of the internal affairs bodies, etc. According to them, they all share one goal: to preserve their roots and history.

Everyone has long known: without knowing the past, you can’t look into the future. The Internet space is full of various historical information. And it is not always clear whether it is true or not. Therefore, in our videos, we try to communicate with the viewer, we want to know his opinion about this or that information. How would we ask questions, which are always interesting to get answers, - says Dmitry Konovalov.

Videos about the mysteries of Tyumen can be found on the official channel of the creative team.