The Fake History of Melbourne


1. Intro

2. The Grand Architecture of Old Melbourne

3. The miraculous appearance of Melbourne

4. Old Australia was destroyed in a War

5. Where are the building materials from?

6. Buried Houses

7. The Cathedrals

8. The Parliament Building



Once upon a time, around 1838 there was nothing here, except trees and meadows. Then there was a gold rush in 1851 and within only a decade, Melbourne magically morphed into the large city you see in the photo above.


If you’ve read my articles on Chicago, San Francisco, Montana and others, you recognize the now familiar narrative:


Then “gold rush”.

Then city.

It remains unexplained, undocumented and unverified how this sprawling mega-city was built, who built it, how many masons were employed, where the stones were quarried from, what building techniques were used, how many were needed to build it etc.


The Grand Architecture of Old Melbourne

Historians demand, without flinching, that ALL these buildings were built in the mid to late 1800s by a low-population band of settlers to Melbourne, Australia.


All of the houses in the image above were demolished not too long after they were supposedly built. Academics insist that several buildings supposedly erected in the 1850s, were taken down in the 1880s.

These shown in the photos above, were also demolished within decades after they were built. Why?


The photos above, are ascribed to the 1850s.

What’s wrong – did you have a different idea of Australia in 1850? You’re not the only one.

Australian school teachers, museums, education programs, television show producers, the ministry of education and many more firmly state that all this was accomplished without high-tech cranes, excavators, bulldozers, graders, pavers, compactors, dump trucks, trenchers, drum rollers, loaders, pavers, boring machines etc.

Just with horse carriages, hammer and chisel.

The post office, upper right, was already there in the early 1850s, when Melbourne was only a village, supposedly.

A whole city built between 1850 and 1870 but no documentation on it.How strange.

Before that, the Aboriginal people lived in the area for 30 000 to 50 000 years but in all that time they did not build or accomplish anything. In fact, they still walk around naked, as hunter-gatherers, just like 50 000 years ago.

At least that’s what the foremost experts in the fields of History, Archaeology and Anthropology insist.

Do you believe that? Do you believe that these human beings didn’t develop or build anything for 50 000 years?

I certainly don’t.


The Parliament Building on the right and the Library of the 1850s on the left.

In 1851 a census counted 23 000 inhabitants in Melbourne.

If Melbourne was nothing more than a town in the vast wilderness of Australia, I wonder: Who all built this? The city must have been a permanent construction site from 1835 onwards.


Where are the designs and construction photos?


The upper right photo is from 1850. What is a Roman-looking building doing in newly settled Australia?



The miraculous appearance of Melbourne

This is supposed to be a bird’s eye view of Melbourne, drawn in 1855:

The artist was viewing it from a hill behind Yarra river. If we consider that only 15 years earlier there was “nothing”, the accomplishment is almost miraculous.

The drawing is accurate inasmuch it aligns with the official map of Melbourne from 1855:

It’s impressive for all its sophisticated building. Even so, I suspect it was even more than shown here.

A close up:

Melbourne was founded in 1835. That means, everything you see above, would have been set up in only twenty years. Not impossible, of course, but very impressive. The official timeline:

How did all of this develop so quickly? Ah yes, it was through the gold rush in 1851, they say.

They use the same excuse for cities arising out of nothing in America. That’s how they could afford to build it all. If the gold rush started in 1851 it gave them only 4 years to achieve what we see on the image above.

Notice how the timeline makes no mention of the gigantic construction projects we find completed by 1855.

The reason can only be because there’s no reference data on when, by who and why all of it was built.

Some close-ups. This one is St. Peter’s Church. It still stands today.

The Jewish Synagogue.

The Exhibition Building

St. Paul’s Church at Princes Bridge.


Here’s a drawing 7 years later that shows St. Paul’s Church with the pointy roof removed:

The large black structure is apparently the Post Office, No. 28 is St. Francis Catholic Church, 27 is the Hospital and 29 the Supreme Court. Not bad for a village of 23 000!


This is the famous Flinder’s Street Station in 1900. I’m showing it because I believe this is the real house building skill of the settlers:


They’re telling you that the people who built this tin-shack of a train station, also built this:


Historians say during the Gold Rush, Australian people lived in what is called “Canvas Towns”. They built up tents around Melbourne because there was nowhere to sleep, no food and no drinking water. For reference see Video Melbourne’s Notorious Canvas Town of the 1850s.

Imagine that! No water, no food, nowhere to sleep.

Now contrast that information with the excessively luxurious buildings I just showed you.

It doesn’t add up, does it?

I’ve previously suggested that the “gold rush” in North America was not about suddenly discovering Gold somewhere and then mining it. It was about excavating and looting from the ancient buried civilization.

I believe the same thing happened in Melbourne. The Australians did not make Melbourne. They did not build it. They did not own it. That’s why there were extremely impressive buildings but no food, no water and nowhere to sleep.

Here’s a Melbourne map of 1858 that shows the city much bigger and more developed than on the 1855 drawing:

All this change in just 3 years? I don’t think so. It was already that way when the settlers arrived.

His-story tells us that in 1835 the Government issued a ban on settling in Melbourne. Anyone attempting to settle would be considered a trespasser, they said.

But if nothing was there, what were they trespassing on?

It is said that the people defied Government orders and settled there anyway. So eventually the Government gave up fighting immigration and began districting the area.

The story makes little sense to me. If the Government told me I am banned from visiting a certain place, I’d try to go settle elsewhere. Who wants to invite trouble? So why did people settle there anyway? This was 15 years before the gold rush. Did they know there was something of value to find there?

On many old photos the roads are dirt and mud. What a contrast to the buildings.

The Oriental Bank of Melbourne in 1857:

Just like elsewhere, it’s easy to suspect Melbourne wasn’t built, it was excavated under the guise of “gold rush”.

Let me ask you: Do you recall any “Gold Rush” around which entire cities were built in more modern times?

Me neither.

Old Melbourne was full of “Telegraphy Poles”. I have my doubts about what these really are as well, as you can imagine.

They say this is Melbourne in 1939:

Even though photography began in the 1820s, no photos are offered to prove this is what Melbourne looked like. The oldest known photo was taken in 1858, at a time when it was “safe” to show Melbourne fully developed.

I’ve noticed the same pattern in other places around the world. We have thousands of photos from the 1820s, 30s and 40s but none showing us what the small-versions of these big cities looked like. How unlikely.


Old Australia was destroyed in a War

Previous articles showed mysterious ancient grids, ruins and star-forts in the Australian desert. I’ve also shown that Australia was once part of a fertile and green Antarctic, split off in a cataclysmic event.

I believe Australia was attacked and destroyed. The destruction was still ongoing in the late 1800s, as shown by the “great fires” that broke out across Australian cities around the same time.


These are only a few of the many “Great Fires” that engulfed Australia in the 1800s, as if entire cities being razed to the ground is something common. Have you ever heard of similar, in modern times?

People argue that it’s “because they built wooden houses” but we still build wooden houses and even entire wooden villages today. They don’t just burn down for no reason.

And have you heard of fires that hollow out and destroy buildings made of brick and stone? Or that destroy rock?

Some argue that it’s because our ancestors used candles for lighting. So I ask again: What kind of fire leaves houses in a pile of rubble?

Image: Sydney Garden Palace, broken to pieces by “The Great Fire”.

1879 was not the only year Mel burned. The city experienced another fire in 1889, much larger than the one before it. Why? I believe most of the old world was burned down so that it be erased from our memory. If too many had been kept standing, people would ask the kind of questions I am asking here.

The Aborigines have oral stories about “fire devils” coming from the sky. A lunar eclipse in 1859 was taken by aboriginal tribes to mean the arrival of bad “fire spirits” out of the sky. I’d be curious to learn what else they had to say about ancient cities but my bookstore offers only new-age drivel when it comes to Aborigenes.

Where are the building materials from?


There’s a video by fake-history researchers Auto Didactic, asking where all the bricks to build Melbourne came from.

I’m only going to show a small part of the Video here, follow the link if you wish to learn more.

Historians actually admit they don’t know how these buildings were built. Here’s a sample of the official position:

Here we’re told that the basalt plains of Victoria is where stonemasons got their materials. As making basalt is a slow process, brick makers filled the gap. But then the key point of the article is revealed:

This industrial heritage has been lost. The brick kilns are now gone. But the bricks remain. They are everywhere”.

In plain English:

We don’t know how these buildings were made in such a short time, industrially. The tools are lost, even though there are Brick buildings everywhere.

I hope the reader grasps the gravity of this. The British loved to document everything: Who built it, when it was built, how it was built, with what it was built. But they can’t tell you how their cities were built.

A brick kiln is an oven that turns clay into bricks. How is it possible that all the brick kilns “are gone”?

If they’re gone I have to assume they never existed.


Buried Houses

An article in the mainstream Australian newspaper “The Age” is titled “It’s a bit Pompei-like. The unexpected buried blocks of Melbourne“.

Archaeologists (and journalists) are befuddled about houses buried below structures that were built in the 1850s and 1860s because they don’t understand there was a city there before Melbourne was founded

Quoting from the article:

What they must have wondered, nearly a century ago, when a metre down in Melbourne clay their shovels found a picket fence, its planks still hard and neatly rowed.

At its base emerged a wooden track and, nearby, the stump of a long-ago chimney.

There was no ready explanation for the workers, digging foundations for what would be Swanston Street’s famed Capitol Theatre, as the building they had just demolished had stood since 1865. Melbourne as a European settlement had existed only 30 years before that.

But little else has ever been said or explored, even as other Pompeii-esque finds, far too deep for such a young city, accumulated across Melbourne’s CBD in more recent decades.

Archaeologists were no more confounded than in 2017, when they unearthed a preserved neighbourhood block, the size of four or five tennis courts, metres below the grounds of Lonsdale Street’s Wesley Church.

Someone remembered the photo in Annear’s book and the archaeologists tossed around theories, namely that they were digging into basements. But how then to explain the evidence of gardens, windows, fireplaces and that picket fence discovered by Whelan’s workers so long ago?

The article solves the mystery by saying that house owners “were ordered to bury their houses” because they were on low lying swampland. After their houses were buried, they simply built a new Melbourne on top of them.

As you might have guessed, this is where the articles views and my views diverge, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the solution to low lying houses on swamp land is to lift them, not bury them. Secondly, if it were swampland then the council wouldn’t have determined that this part of town should be the center of Melbourne and proceed to build downtown there.

Here’s what really happened, in my view: The same thing that happened all around the world. A flood of mud, followed by excavation of buildings, demolition of other buildings and plenty of looting under the guise of “gold rush”.


The Cathedrals


St. Paul’s Cathedral is said to have been completed in 1891. It’s impressive how many Cathedrals were built in the 1890s around the world, if you believe the official story.

Wikipedia informs us that…

The cathedral was designed by the English Gothic Revival architect William Butterfield and completed in 1891, except for the spires which were built to a different design from 1926 to 1932. It is one of Melbourne’s major architectural landmarks.

The old 1855 map shows there was a place called St. Paul’s Church at the exact location where they built St. Paul’s Cathedral 36 years later. What a coincidence.

Historians claim that the original St. Paul’s didn’t have a spire, but this drawing shows otherwise.

The Government websites tell us that St. Paul’s was built between 1848 and completed in 1852. It took only 4 years to build!

Then it was inexplicably demolished in 1885, only 23 years later. How wasteful!

Things being built in the 1850s and demolished a little later makes no sense to me. It sounds like Fake History.

To add to the confusion, this is an 1858 drawing of another Cathedral in Melbourne, St. Patricks:

It looks nearly identical to St. Paul’s.

St. Patrick’s today:

The two Cathedral’s are replica’s of each other.

Historians tell us that one of these was built by Anglicans (St. Paul’s) and the other was built by Catholics (St. Patrick’s).

Imagine that!

“Look, the Catholics have a really nice Church. Let’s make one that looks just like it!”.

St. Patrick’s was also said to have been completed within a few years in the 1850s.

None of this makes much sense.

There are actually photos that proof there was a different structure – St. Paul’s Church – before St. Paul’s Cathedral was there.

This is a 1874 photo:

This photo was marked 1885, the year it was said to have been demolished:

So I guess my claim that the Cathedral was there earlier is…debunked?

Not quite.

Here’s a painting of the new St. Paul’s Cathedral (without the spires) in 1889, found on a historical website:


Wait…what? 1889? I thought the Church was demolished in 1885 and a Cathedral was built in 1891. Why is it already complete here in 1889?

Swanston street looks much different than it does in two photos before it. What’s going on here?

Here’s a photo of the same, dated “ca. 1880”:

You could argue “well, you’re not proving fake history, you’re proving that these websites are not very exact with their dates”. And maybe you’re right. The Swanston street and Church we see here is not the one we see in the previous photos.

Here’s a postcard specifically dated 1885, showing the new Cathedral:

With photos dates are easy to mistake, but the same is more difficult with postcards.

This one can still be found on Google-Image search but it has been removed from the blog it links to.

So we have 1885 photos of the old Church and the new Church that was supposedly built years later, at the same location.

One of the photo-series has to be mistaken or manipulated. They can’t both be real.

I found no photo of old St. Paul’s being demolished or new St. Paul’s being constructed.


I found only one photo of the alleged construction of St. Patrick’s church in 1861:

Why only one angle and why only one photo?


I believe it’s a manipulated photo for one reason: If you scroll back up to the 1855 bird’s eye view map, you’ll find at the precise location of today’s St. Patricks, a large structure titled “Roman Catholic Church”. Already complete.


The photo below is of a 1835 “survey” of downtown Melbourne by a man named Hoddle.

Historians say that, while it’s called a survey, it was more of a “building plan” of downtown as Melbourne “hadn’t been built yet” (as we all know…right?).

It’s interesting that, at the corner of Flinders and Swanston street, we find 6 lots taken up by a large structure, exactly as it is today where we find St. Paul’s Cathedral taking up approximately the same space.

St. Patrick’s Cathedral is not within the bounds of downtown so there is no corresponding feature on this map.


This, by the way, is St. Francis Church in Melbourne. It still stands today:

The Church was built in 1841. Yes, it only took one year to build this Church.

More than a decade before the gold rush. During a time when Melbourne consisted of wilderness.

An interior view of St. Francis::

The Wikipedia page says the foundation stone was laid in 1841 and the first mass was held in 1842. It says absolutely nothing about how the building materials were hauled to the location, from where they were taken, who built it, how and by who the artwork and stained glass was made.

Liars are short on specifics.

This building was called “Independence Church” and still stands in Melbourne today. The fact that it still stands in pristine condition today shows there’s no need to demolish these things. Photo 1872.


Melbourne boasts many other buildings and churches like this. For the sake of brevity I won’t be going into them all.

We see no roads and no people, only one horse and a carriage. We are told that the first Church here was built in 1839 but then demolished in 1863 (so quickly?) to make way for this building in 1866. Put “Independence Church Melbourne”, “Construction Photos” into Google and, as so often, it brings up nothing. It’s all so weird.

The building uses polychrome brickwork (bricks of different color). In Europe this style was used in the 1100s, so it’s odd to see it in the 1800s wilderness of Australia.

The oldest newspaper I was able to find is the Port Phillips Gazette published Saturday October 27 in the year 1938. Here’s  a snippet:



I’ve heard the word “new buildings being erected like magic” before, when it came to Montana and San Francisco.  It’s “by magic” because they are being excavated, I believe.

The newspapers never mention how they were built, who built them or where the materials were brought from, only that they appear “as if by magic”.

Most remarkable is that the “ads” section contains every profession imaginable, except for building and construction workers.

Two samples:


There were several other ads, but none having anything at all to do with construction, masonry, architecture or design.

That, right there, debunks the notion that “Melbourne built in the late 1830s”.

It’s easy to prove that the European settlers did NOT build Melbourne.

They did not found it, they found it.



The Parliament Building

It doesn’t matter which building you examine, each one reveals similar.

The building on the left here is Parliament building at the end of Bourke Street, beside St. Peter’s Church and in front of St. Patrick’s Church:


The 1855 bird’s eye view map has the following smaller building where today we find the Parliament (item 32):

The map tells us that it was a public school in 1855.

Yet Wikipedia says the Parliament was already being built there in 1855.

I believe both are false. It was neither a public school in 1855, nor was it just being built.

I believe it was small on the drawing because it was not yet fully excavated.

The above paragraph from Wikipedia is bizarre: Why is the dome the “most well known unbuilt feature” of the building? Why would something that never existed be “well known”? And why was the building “never completed”?

There are exactly zero photos of its construction. But here we learn something very important. The site of the Parliament building was originally a hill:

The building is on a slight elevation, as Bourke street curves slightly upwards, but the building is today not on a hill.

Hence, the hill was dug away. This is why I say excavation, not construction.

There are many images of Parliament with a Dome, something that was supposedly never built but people remember, for some reason:


It was easy for me to prove there was a HILL at the site of the Parliament because all the photos taken from behind Spring street (the location of the hill, now Pariament) down Bourke street were views from the top. Here’s one from 1850.

Yes, Bourke street rises toward the Parliament, but there was obviously another elevation from which these photos were taken.

Many of the buildings, churches and cathedrals you see on this page were allegedly made by the architect Joseph Reed. 

As so many other superstar-architects, Reed died in 1890, when the repurposing of the old world city was complete. I’m not going to go into it here, here’s a video debunking “Joseph Reed the architect of Melbourne” for those who wish to know more.

I could go on and on about the fake History of Melbourne, but why continue when the point has already been made?

It appears many houses in Melbourne were demolished to hide the truth. Fortunately, we have photos of them!

In old Melbourne we find no operative masonry, only speculative masonry.



Knowledge dissemination relies on YOU. Share this article far and wide

If you enjoy this work and would like for it to continue, you can support it here:

error: Content is protected !!