Table of Contents
1. Built, then torn Down
2. The new Los Angeles
3. The old Los Angeles
4. UCLA: Built or Excavated?
5. Hidden Grand Architecture
6. Old Maps Fake and Real
Built, then torn Down
Beautiful, structurally flawless buildings made in the late 1800s and torn down in the early 1900s. Done in hundreds of cities around the world.
It makes no sense.
People are myopic. They didn’t know it was happening everywhere. They may have known about the building demolished in their neighborhood but weren’t aware of the worldwide mass-demolition.
I reject the mainstream assertion that hundreds of millions of sturdy rock buildings were cut between 1880 and 1899. There is no credible evidence for this worldwide, sudden mass-building project. The photographic and design evidence is woefully insufficient. It’s even less likely in the “wild west” because the manpower wasn’t available (according to official records).
They are older. They represent the old world – an civilization erased from public consciousness.
Los Angeles is no exception.
This is Los Angeles City Hall, created in 1888 and torn down in 1929:
If you look at this and think “that’s not Los Angeles vibe”, you’re correct.
The alleged date of building, MDCCCLXXXVIII (meaning 1888) scribbled on the right side doesn’t look native to the building, it looks like it’s been added because the background shade differs from the rest. I wouldn’t have noticed if it weren’t for previous research uncovering fake dates added to buildings. It’s unclear why the west-coast folks used Latin numerals. The first settlers of Los Angeles were farmers. Notice the bottom of the photo, which reveals deep-level excavation beside the street.
On this photo we see a third line below the first two. It’s too blurry to make out. If these are letters, they are removed on later photos.
This 1890 photo below, reveals the letters originally had white background or white plates on which they were inscribed. These are missing in other photos.
I see three alterations of the inscription within a fairly short time span. What was their problem?
Another 1890 photo:
In 1890 this building was supposed to have been brand new. Does it look new to you? Take a close look.
The signs of wear are obvious.
Why does a newly erected building, torn down shortly thereafter, look like it’s been around for hundreds of years? Why are they saying it was built in 1888?
This is the enormous “Hall of Records” on the right and the old Los Angeles courthouse on the left :
The Courthouse was allegedly built in 1891 and torn down in 1936. If it’s the first time you’ve seen Los Angeles like this, that’s because they did a good job of keeping public attention away from it. Do an Internet-Search on who the first settlers were and they’ll tell you it was “farmers”. Yeah, I’m getting some real farmers vibes here.
The Hall of Records was supposedly built in 1909 and torn down in 1973. I found no construction photos of this fantastic undertaking.
Below, the gigantic “Hall of Records” in a photo from 1926. To the left of it, the old court house no longer exists, even though official sources say it was torn down in 1929. Someone is getting their dates wrong.
There’s a building beside it, also referred to as a “court house”. I notice a tunnel below:
By the time they demolished this building, in the 1930s, the subterranean tunnel had already been buried underground, covered by street:
This serves as an example of city-planners burying parts of buildings beneath the ground. Many old buildings are actually taller than they appear and go several stories below. They were covered by a flood of mud or buried in new construction. If people saw how tall they really are, they’d start asking questions.
The massive building to the right of the the court house is the Justice Hall, supposedly built in 1925. A Google query for construction photos brings up…nothing.
Very old pictures do reveal there was a time the building wasn’t level and some of the bottom windows were submerged underground:
It’s strange how much lower the street level on the left is, compared to the Hall of Records:
The uneven levels derive from a catastrophic event, the city wasn’t built this way.
The old “court house”, the ones with the tunnel below, was built in 1891 and demolished in 1936. I’d expect to find the “Hall of Records” beside it, but it’s missing. This is valid evidence that it the hall of records really was built in new-world times (or, if not, it was moved there from elsewhere).
This is one of hundreds of “courthouses” around the U.S. built and then torn down shortly after.
And if you don’t believe they moved entire buildings around in L.A., consider this:
The list of torn down structures in Los Angeles alone, goes into the hundreds.
Los Angeles in the 1800s had two distinct architectural styles: “Old world” – beautiful, high quality and sophisticated and “New world” – low quality, simple wood huts (with the exception of possible new-builds such as the “hall of records” and the “new city hall”).
One would expect the old buildings to be of lesser quality, but in general, it’s the other way around, just like elsewhere.
The New Los Angeles
Let’s first look at the simple buildings made by newcomers. Images are sourced from historical webpages at waterandpower.org. It’s frustrating that these are the focus of many mainstream publications. They cater to the fact that people were already taught, in school, that this is the way the “wild west” looked.
This style is commonly shown in:
School Textbooks
Hollywood Movies
History Documentaries
The grand architecture you’re about to see was rarely shown.
The Old Los Angeles
These look nothing like what the settlers of the 1800s built. They don’t match the rest of the city.
Did you think settlers found empty plans and hills with palm and orange trees? I remember watching a documentary about the early days of Hollywood, from around 1910 to 1930. There was no hint that Hollywood execs found a city of bold architecture when they arrived. The documentary made it look like they were the ones who developed untouched land.
As in other cities, the buildings stand without paved roads. People in horse carriages are supposed to have built these. At the time the photos were taken, they are supposed to have been “new”.
In the upper left image from 1872, an eerie absence of people. Los Angeles was said to have been populated from the 1880s onwards. If that’s true, for who were these buildings made? Why were they already standing in 1872? As I will later show, the propaganda-posters about Los Angeles History show that 1872 L.A. was primarily farmland.
Why don’t they look new? The third photo, lower left, shows “new world” simple barracks in the foreground and an “old world” stuff in the background. And the old world buildings do look old. But official records say in 1850, Los Angeles had a population of around three hundred people.
You could argue that they were building the city in preparation for migration, they were developing it for future habitation. But none of this looks planned, it looks disjointed and old. And where did they get the workforce?
In the second image above, upper right, it looks like the rest of the building is underground. Check out the lower left photo. Is this a “new development”?
The first and second images above show a building atop a hill. It looks like it was dug out, since all the vegetation around it is missing. A temporary wooden staircase was made to reach it. The flimsy staircase does not match the quality of the building.Why was it already looking old and worn out in 1870? The buildings looks burnt:
There are other decayed and hollowed out buildings around it:
Whatever they are, they are not newly built. The people saying Los Angeles was being “developed” during this time, are lying. Sure, a new Los Angeles was being developed, but the old Los Angeles was being destroyed at the same time.
In the first image here (upper right), we see an unevenness in the street and building. The building is being swallowed by the ground on it’s right side and in the back. Nobody builds like this. The structure was overtaken by the same mud-flood we find anywhere else.
Notice the remains of a Cathedral in the upper right photo above, as well as the ancientness of the church in the photo beside it. Notice the existence of train tracks and electric contraptions already in the 1870s.
The first photo below – more signs of mud flood.
And this is the official timeline of Los Angeles. We learn that between 38 000 B.C. and 1781, nothing much happened. By 1841, the official population was 141 people.
There is no mention of who built it all or for who it was built. No construction photos, construction plans or designs. Instead, we have road-less ghost cities full of grand architecture.
UCLA: Built or Excavated?
I found “construction photos” for one area only: UCLA, which was “gradually developed” between 1881 and 1927. This is the Powell Library part of UCLA:
Was UCLA “built” or excavated? The vehicle in the photo upper left is an excavator. In the next photos we see see the completed building surrounded by piles of dirt. The last photo, lower right shows that excavation is yet to be completed. The photo beside it shows people shoveling.
An old aerial view of UCLA:
I found exactly ONE photo of the construction of the Powell library:
I’m willing to concede that this proves the building was constructed in the “new world”. But having only one construction photo leaves doubt. The texture of the photo doesn’t resemble the look I’m familiar with from having viewed tens of thousands of photos from the era.
I found this construction of Royce Hall, across from Powell library:
It doesn’t look like it’s being newly built. It looks like a dirty, half-destroyed building that’s being restored. This is precisely what it would look like if it had been dug out from the ground.
An aerial view of UCLA today:
An aerial view of 1929:
Notice anything unusual?
Royce Hall and Powell Library are mostly “completed” here. But check out “Kaplan Hall” on the right. Look at the bottom row of windows. The building is still partially submerged underground!
And then look at the building at the bottom. Notice how the bottom windows are touching the ground. This isn’t how construction works. You don’t construct a building and leave it half buried under the earth while finishing the rest.
Construction work involves cranes. Excavation work involves excavators. Where are the cranes on these photos?
This may be the reason people on reddit talk about multiple subterranean levels and tunnels below UCLA.
Hidden Grand Architecture
I call these buildings “hidden” because it took a while for me to find them, even after having researched old Los Angeles for over a week. I had already completed the article when I decided to search old Los Angeles by singular words such as “church” and “synagogue” or “courthouse”. That opened a world of hundreds of other buildings that had been invisible to me up to that point.
This is St. Vincent Cathedral, Los Angeles. The architectural style is utterly alien to the mindset of the farmers populating the place.
It’s claimed to have been built in the 1920s, but a Google Query brings up only ONE construction photo. Why?
The roof resembles the styles used in other anomalous buildings of L.A. (see for example my article “The Secrets of Los Angeles Library“).
This is the B’nai Brith Temple, a synagogue said to have been “built in 1873” when there were hardly any people in L.A.:
Another Bnai Brith Lodge, also in Los Angeles of the 1800s:
In those days, Bnai Brith was a Jewish secret society. Why does it have two lodges in a scarcely populated town? And why does the first building feature an inverted pentagram? I asked AI if this is a “symbol of Judaism” and it responded that it isn’t and never was. Was this building repurposed?
More of 1800s L.A.:
The Simpson Methodist Episcopal Church:
The image above is said to have been taken in 1920. The one below is dated to 1890.
I puzzled over these two photos, thirty years apart. Looking at all the photos I could find, the two main changes are: A front section was added later. Was it brought in from somewhere else? Lifted from underground? And the pentagram was removed. Why do churches and synagogues of the 1800s prominently featured pentagrams? A contraption at the top of the left tower was also removed. Another pentragram at the center window of the main building was removed. Christian crosses were added.
This has all the usual signs of repurposing. Rather than “being built” by the Methodists, it was repurposed by them.
Venice Beach, Los Angeles of the 1800s. More old-world vibes:
This is Beverly Hills City Hall, allegedly built in 1932, in new-world times:
It’s said to have been constructed by Herbert Baruch, who built 400 other amazing buildings in the area and then committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest. I’m amazed at how many of these alleged architects end up killing themselves.
Close up:
If you read my article “Secrets of the Los Angeles Library” you see the same design style as the roof of that library, including the eight-sided star. Except that the library wasn’t constructed or designed by the same people, so we’re told.
Searching for “construction photo” and “beverly hills city hall” I came up empty in Google Images. Digging deeper, I found only one construction photo, which is odd considering that, in 1932 it was common to photograph new grand constructions.
The caption is funny if you know fake history. It’s like their telling you that they didn’t build it, but it “arrived” meaning it was planted there.
Why is there only one construction photo? And why does it look like the restoration of a very old building? Close-ups:
Attention to detail reveals that this is not a new-build. The walls are dirty and the windows damaged.
This is Pasadena City Hall, claimed to have been built in 1927:
Above the entrance two fasces pillars are prominently displayed. They are today known as symbols of fascism. Are we sure these were built by the L.A. crowd?
In 1927 it was brand, sparkling new:
So new that it showed signs of water-damage (mold and mildew) that show up after decades of rain:
The Los Angeles Orphans Asylum. The website I screenshot this from says it was built in 1890 and the photo was taken in 1899:
Official sources say the Orphanage began operating in 1856 – you know, at the time there were only a few hundred people living in Los Angeles.
Look at the checkered Pyramid above the entrance and ask yourself whether this is the kind of things the cowboy ranchers of the time would build.
The historical Facebook Page “Los Angeles Relics” seems to have a different opinion on when it was built:
The photo is said to be from 1875 and it is claimed it was opened in 1858. The source given is LAPL, which is the Los Angeles Public Library.
I come across these inconsistencies of date with almost every building I look into. They really have no clue when anything was built. In a low-population town it makes no sense to build such a large “orphanage”. On the other hand, suddenly building thousands of grand structures in the 1880s and 1890s also makes no sense, from a technological point of view.
This photo shows the “Los Angeles Infirmary, Sister’s Hospital” in 1887. It’s a massive building that doesn’t resemble later photos of the place:
It’s today called St. Vincent’s Medical Center, but the hospitals Wikipedia page is unclear about when it was built. It tells us it was “started” in 1856, but the infirmary was “created” in 1869. An AI query reveals that it “moved to a new building” in 1884.
I was unable to find out more about the building. As we will soon see, 1870s “maps” of Los Angeles don’t account for such large structures.
This is Pershing Square around 1900:
There are hundreds of buildings like this in old, 1800s Los Angeles. I am not saying we are incapable of making them. I’m saying it’s unlikely we made hundreds of them within just a few years. Newspaper reports of the time are silent on what would have to be one of the greatest building projects in the History of America. You’d think journalists would have been eager to get the scoop.
Old Maps Fake and Real
Compared to the hundreds of massive buildings in Los Angeles, these old maps seem widely inaccurate, fake even.
Bottom right we see an 1850 map of a small part of L.A. – you know, the time when there were less than 200 people settled there. The other maps show already existing elaborate streets.
A map of California in the 1500s when it was an island separate from the mainland:
The sheer number of place names points to lively activity prior to “settlement”. The native American name for Los Angeles was Tovangar, which was a reference to the 4000+ square mile area of Greater Los Angeles. Foreign tribes called it Ichumash. The natives are claimed to have been around for 10 000 years without building anything of note.
Official History tells us that between 1871 and 1909 the city of Los Angeles miraculously transformed from mostly farmlands and a scattering of houses to one of the biggest cities in the world.
Let’s see if that’s true. Let’s turn back the clock a few years. This is the first aerial photo of L.A. taken from a hot air balloon in 1887. Even this limited, partial view already looks like a city here.
The photo below is taken around the same time: Does this look like a “new development”? Or does it look like a place that’s been established for quite a while?
This map was drawn in 1890. They want you to believe that everything you see here suddenly sprung up in 10 years. Possible? Yes. But…
But let’s take a closer look by turning back the clock some more.
This is a distant view of Los Angeles from the viewpoint of Santa Monica. It was published in 1877.
A close up view:
The city is already there. If they only started building big and bold in the 1880s, why does the city already appear complete in the 1870s?
This is a hand-drawn map of what it supposedly looked like in 1871:
This is where the fakery comes in. I don’t believe it went from farmland to sprawling city in just six years time. The alleged 1871 map seems to omit buildings such as the exceptionally large Infirmary Sister’s Hospital, which was claimed to have been built in 1869. Through many small errors the big lie is revealed.
Check out this vague AI-answer:
The massive building project was supposed to have begun in 1890 but we find a city before that. Who built it? Official entries always mention the “iconic Plaza Church”, which is really a mediocre little building, and omit the numerous churches that I showed in this article. By 1890 the most truly iconic buildings were already standing. When were they built? Who built them? Can you show me the construction plans and photos? No? I didn’t think so.
See also my 2021 article “The Fake History of San Francisco” which drives these points home even more clearly.
Conclusion
We are witnesses to a mass-obfuscation campaign. The guilty parties are our universities, government and media. Support and funding from them should be withdrawn from them until we receive clarification about our History.