There’s an older, related article titled “The Roman Empire never existed“. This article focuses on the city of Rome exclusively.
Table of Contents
1. When was Rome really built?
2. A thousand years missing?
3. Antiquitech
4. Mudflood
5. Anomalous Paintings
When was Rome really built?
I’ve recently been walking through Rome, wondering about Roman Dating.
No, not romantic dating, but Rome antique dating.
I shot a few videos to show what I mean. Use the pause button to examine:
I saw more places where “modern” buildings (if you can call 1800s modern) seamlessly merge with, connect to or were of the same materials as the ancient buildings some of which are supposed to be more than 2000 years old.
Without tourist blinders you get the impression the whole city was built as one chunk, around the same time and not piece-by-piece over 3000 years. There’s probably not one tourist asking who built thousands of these apartment blocks or when they were built. A tourists focus is on the buildings labeled “ancient Rome”, not on “modern” apartment blocks.
Testaccio, Rome
You could ask this about any European city. Rome is a hundred square miles of these massive rectangles. We always speak of Giza Pyramids as the greatest feats of building but I’m more impressed with European city-scapes. What kind of hypnotism makes people think the three Pyramids are greater than millions of blocks across thousands of kilometers through Europe?
Notice the red roofs.They go way back.
Two paintings of Rome, dated to 1600:
Red-roof was a global style. Many old maps of towns and cities show the red roof style. There are many colors you could use but red caps dominated the world, with some blue thrown in here and there. I’ve heard it said that royals lived in blue roof housing to represent the sky but most roofs were red to represent the earth or the “lower realm”. Because this style was global it points toward a global empire rather than the nation-states we have today.
Because of the red-roofs around the world, I believe there was one global empire rather than nation-states as we have today.
Even with the best research tools known to humankind – Google, ChatGPT, Wikipedia, DeepSeek, waybackmachine, etc. I couldn’t determine when the large apartment blocks were built. I found only generalized statements – the kind when someone has no clue what really happened.
Officialdom makes these general claims (quoted from Grok AI):
So we have parts of town called Prati and Testaccio (see image further above) that arose in the 1870s. If you’ve read some of my older articles, you already guessed they’d say these parts of town were built in the late 1870s. That’s what they say about all places. Everything miraculously arose in the 1870s, apparently! If I wrote an article focusing only on what was built in the 1870s, you’d find that the entire modern world was built in that time.
The claim is not made openly by any Historian because it would sound lunatic. There is no photographic evidence, no documentation, there are no construction plans and no reports of people that document this massive worldwide undertaking. So they call this phase of History “the second industrial revolution”. But giving it a name doesn’t change the lack of documentation.
Articles on this website prove, beyond doubt, that many of the buildings were around much longer. I expect no different in Rome.
In the 1920s they allgedly created a neighborhood called Garbatella (image below).
Red roofs again. I was able to trace back the red roofs a thousand years, thanks to old maps and paintings.
I don’t see much of a difference between Garbatella and Testaccio. Here’s more from Testaccio:
And Garbatella:
And Testaccio:
It doesn’t look or feel like one part of town was made in the 1870s and the other 50 years later.
And Quartiere Coppedi within the neighborhood Parioli, another neighborhood that magically sprung up between in the late 1870s. These particular buildings however, are claimed to have been built as late as the 1920s:
The building above is called Palazzi degli Ambassadore, said to have been built between 1915 and 1927. I found exactly two construction photos of it, both from the same angle, both from 1920. Here’s one of them:
In both photos, the bulk of the structure is already standing. And here’s a photo of it just a few months later, in 1921:
I found no other photos from the time between 1915 and 1927 so I can’t say what state the building was in those years. I also found no film footage.Why would these beautiful buildings lack any real documentation? This one looks complete on the 1921 photo. If it took 12 years to build why do the photos look like it jumped from incomplete to complete within months? What was happening the rest of the years?
The construction photo has hints of photo-manipulation at the top, where we’d expect to see the towers. Look closely and you’ll see evidence of blur, whiteout, cut-off and paste.
Here’s what I mean by cut-off:
Trees, background buildings and construction pickets all happen to stop at the same height, regardless of how far away or close they are.
See the architectural style in the photo below? There’s a real difference. It feels modern and I have no problem accepting it was built in the 40s or 50s. This neighborhood is not in downtown, aligning with antique maps that show no building outside of the walled city.
An 1880 photo of downtown Rome, a time when the apartment blocks of this style were supposed to have been brand, sparkling new.
Things don’t only have a “look” to them but also a “feel”. Even if my eyes didn’t show me the building here is not new, I pick it up intuitively and so should you. Check out the signs of flooding or being buried under mud on the side of it:
Here’s a picture of downtown Rome in 1857. Notice the apartment block behind the obelisk. These are exactly the style of apartment blocks with shutters on their windows and red roofs, which were supposed to have been built between 1870 and the 1920s.
Why do we already see them in 1857?
I hear a historian sighing, rolling his eyes and explaining to me “The style of building obviously emerged gradually. Newer buildings were obviously built to match older, already existing ones. That doesn’t mean History is fake!”
Well, that’s a fair point. Just one problem: At every location red roof 1870s buildings were built, there were already older red roof buildings standing. This 1834 painting of Rome proves the point:
Complete with the window shutters:
This one is from 1683. More than 300 years ago, Rome already had large square and rectangular apartment blocks!
When was all this built? Where are the construction reports? Construction plans?
A 1700s view of downtown Rome. I see the same red roofed apartment blocks that are also there today.
A 1700s painting by Antonio Joli of Rome flooded. I knew it was flooded at some point by only one small look at one building.
Even today there are still buildings left that show signs of that flood:
What downtown Rome would look like if ruins were restored:
A late 1800s photo of the Colloseum showing an undeveloped dirt street and shrubs growing on the ancient objects.
Searching paintings of 1700s Rome, I found two types. One type, from the early 1700s, shows Rome in all its grandness. The other type, mostly from the late 1700s, shows it as overgrown with weeds, in a state of neglect, akin to a postwar city.
You’re meant to believe that human beings left the city in a state of neglect for two thousand years.
I have a different theory: Something happened in the 1700s that left Rome in ruins. This is when resets and revolutions happened around the world.
A fascinating 1600s map of Rome:
Fascinating because the Coloseum doesn’t look broken even though it’s supposed to be a ruin since ancient Rome. We see the building in it’s full height, whereas today it’s broken at the top.
That’s another indication that the damage happened after the 1600s, not thousands of years ago.
There’s an object on this map that dwarves all other buildings in height:
This is where the “Castel Sant Angelo” stands today, but the Castel is much smaller and no longer carries the antenna-like contraption. I found no old paintings or drawings reflecting this older build. It’s been successfully “disappeared” from historical awareness.
This 1700s painting truns the large tower into a small flagpole held by strings:
Maria Ara Coeli church, an 1816 painting. It still looks like this today. What was removed from the building? Why?
This painting, said to be from 1748, appears to solve part of the issue. There was a framed clock top center.
The clock is said to have been added in 1412 and removed in 1806, but the reasons remain obscure. The Wikipedia page for the Church doesn’t even mention the clock.
In this 1588 rendering, we see the clock on the left:
A thousand years missing?
Curious about what happened after the glory days of the Roman Empire, I inquired toward AI to “tell me what happened in the city of Rome in the year 300”. After that I made the same inquiry about the year 400. Then 500. I kept going until the year 1100.
AI kept telling the tale of how in the year 300 or 600 or 800 “Rome was in decline” being attacked and ransacked. An almost identical story for every century. “In 900 Rome was a shadow of its former glory”. Similar was said in every century before and after.
Soon we realize Roman History is entirely fabricated. There’s no truth to it. After being “in decline” for a hundred years, it was in decline for another hundred and then in decline for another three hundred years and then even more in decline for another hundred and so forth. If officialdom is to be believed, absolutely nothing happened in Rome for more than a thousand years, it was merely “in decline”.
I don’t wish to bore you with the whole long lecture, but I will have to provide samples of my conversation with Grok AI, if I wish to prove my point. If it’s too long a read, merely note my yellow highlights.
No matter what year between 300 and 1100 you consult, “Rome was in decline” and “Rome was decaying”. You’ll remember what I’ve written about a 1000 years being artificially added to our timeline. This is why they don’t know what happened between year zero and 999.
The official timeline of Rome, where you ask yourself “How is anything in Rome still standing?”
64 Great Fire of Rome
80 Volcanic Eruption and Three Day Fire of Rome
217 Fire Damages buildings of Rome
410 Rome is sacked by the Visgoths
455 Rome is sacked by the Vandals
546 Rome is sacked by the Ostrogoths
801 Earthquake damages Rome
846 Arab raid against Rome, Moors plunder the city
1084 Rome attacked by the Normans
But then, on later medieval maps, Rome seems to be just fine.
On my walk to the “Colloseum” I came across these famous ruins you see in my video above as well as in the 1800s image below:
They are also painted in this late 1700s picture:
The ruins are said to be 2000 years old. But I couldn’t find them on medieval maps. How odd 😉
This 1600s map by Giovanni Battista Falda doesn’t show any ruins around the Colloseum. Where the ruins ought to be, we find neatly laid fields.
Could the ruins have been dug out from under the fields? Sure. Could they have been forged and faked? Sure.
This 1590 map of Rome is even more explicit: No ruins of ancient Rome.
The ruins as shown in my video would correspond to the area mid-lower left of this snippet.
All the way at the bottom you see what looks like a ramp. This is actually the staircase of Mari Arecoelia (see earlier image). Today the area in front of it and down the street all the way to the Coloseum is marked by ruins.
I do see an area on the right that appears to be buried buildings however.
This map is even older, from the early 1500s. It shows no ruins and the Coloseum is intact.
I could imagine the Historian rolling his eyes again and saying “Son. This is a the artists vision of what ancient Rome looked like. Not the reality of the 1500s”.
To which I respond: How mysterious then, that I found exactly zero depictions of what Rome really looked like in medieval times and none of the maps pre 1700s show any ruins.
One interesting thing shown on the map above is again buildings buried below Earth.
What is this a picture of, in your opinion:
Many will have said “It looks like the eastern side of the United States!”
But no. It’s Rome.
The “Appian Way” is an ancient road that cuts through Rome. But if this were a map of the eastern United States, then Washington DC, which mimics Rome with its domed Capitol and Obelisk, would happen to be exactly on the Appian Way on the map above. A strange coincidence? I don’t know. The layout of Washington D.C. mimics that of Rome with an obelisk facing a domed structure:
Rome has 13 obelisks (formerly 15). It is claimed they are imports from Egypt. These imports were said to have taken place long after Rome was fully developed. But this ancient depiction of Rome, of unknown date, shows that the obelisks may have been among the first and primary objects.
Also notice the flying chariot above the city.
Artists of bygone days have witnessed a Rome of not only Obelisks but many types of pillars.
The drawing above was made in the 1600s by Francesco Piranesi. It’s interesting that this entire area today is in ruins which are claimed to be ancient ones. Ancient as in 2000 year old, not 400 year old. There’s also a large Pyramid tucked away in this image, can you spot it? No, this is not the well-known “Pyramid Caisus Cestius” because this nowhere near this plaza. And there is today no place in Rome where two obelisks stand beside each other. This tells us the city may have had more obelisks than we know and that the story about importing them from Egypt is just that – a story, not reality.
Antiquitech
Ever since learning about ancient spires, towers and pavillions as energy antennas, I look at old pictures differently. I’m not making any claims about the things shown below, but there are many old drawing potentially point toward the generation of energy from a source unknown to us today.
1787 Capella Paolina Vatican by Francesco Piranesi:
The Historian rolls his eyes so hard that they fall out of their sockets. “But kid, don’t you know they used candles and oil lamps for illumination in those days? High-tech has nothing to do with it!”
Then my questions here are: Using that much oil and fire in an enclosed space is hazardous, so this is really impressive. But the radiance at the center is difficult to do with fire. What is it?
Basilica of St. Peter, 1820 etching. Lit by….oil lamps?
A 1636 painting:
I notice this detail:
What is it?
Inside the basilica:
St. Peter’s from another angle. Notice the star-shapes upper right side. Ornamental or energy-related?
Mudflood
Do you notice anything odd about these drawings from the mid 1700s:
They show that the city of Rome is flooded with mud instead of the paved cobblestone streets Historians report.
This is from one of my walks in Rome:
Here’s an 1829 map of Rome that reveals this place, called “Plaza of the People” as the “eye on top of the Pyramid” and the Obelisk as the pupil of that eye, from which the rest of Rome radiates. This layout is now obscured due to modern expansion of Rome.
A straight line radiates from the center of the eye. If you continue that straight line, you reach a place called “antica appia” which is the ancient “appian way” a road full of ancient ruins that goes all the way to the coast. On modern maps, including this 1829 one, the connection is obscured.
This means: When it was originally built, the road went hundreds of miles directly from the top of the Pyramid and all major sites were built alongside that road. I thought it worth mentioning as I found no mention of it anywhere.
Anomalous Paintings
There are thousands of “ancient roman” paintings that, in my opinion, don’t show what Historians claim they show. Just one example here.
If you’ve read along here so far, you will probably interpret this painting differently than the art historians. I see giant animals, including two reptilian ones attacking humans. I see what appears to be a ship hovering above ground or sea, using unknown propulsion on its back. The giant animals and the ship are the anomaly. But the Historian says this pompeii painting is about warfare of pygmies. Really? OK. Well, if we’re looking at pygmies (dwarves in Africa), then the anomaly is the roman architecture in pygmy Africa.
This article is a mere teaser on “Rome”. Any amateur researcher can poke at any part of the Roman narrative and find countless “anomalies” that are only anomalies if we buy into this fabricated history.
Also Recommended: The Fake History of Ancient Greece