 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |  |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
The One Book The Vatican |
Has the earth existed for billions of years? The first humans allegedly appeared on Earth between five and seven million years ago. If these assumptions are true, it should be accurate to state that in 1840, the human population ought to have been up by billions. But there's something really intriguing about between 1840 and 1860s. This was all about the history of lost Earth when there seemed to be not enough individuals on a few photos taken. Actually, some photographs were empty. For instance, photographs taken between 1840 and 1860s in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and in many other parts of the world like Brazil and Germany show no signs of people. Though taken at a close range, the photographs show no signs of humans. Despite the fact that at this time, the population of Saint Petersburg was 500,000, not a single soul was in the city when the photographers took the shots. This is a fact so hard to believe, but it's evident in the photographs. Where were they?
There's again something intriguing about the history of the earth. If we look back at how humans used to survive and the tools they used, we develop many questions that we might not answer. For instance, the transportation system moved from walking, riding, driving, and then to peak oil. But look at the architectural designs of structures in the 1840s and think about their tools. Do you think they had enough resources to execute such skills? Perfect columns, strong buildings, exquisite windows, etc. The mainstream historical narrative is great to listen to, but when you look at the buildings in the 19th century, you'd certainly sense that something is off. San Francisco's 1877 image will help you understand what we're trying to talk about. In 1846, only around 500 Mormon settlers were living in the area we currently call San Francisco. Between 1848 and 1849, the population had grown to 25,000 people and then 200,000 people 28 years later. By then, the city had grown massively, and it didn't even look like a place inhabited by only 200,000 people. And then there's something else in the photos of San Francisco in the 1870s; no people. Just beautiful structures are standing with no signs of humans.
Based on the long shadow of the Alexander Column, we can only think that the photographers took the shots in the morning. Based on the position of the shadow, we're compelled to believe that the picture was taken in the morning. But it's strange that no one has shown up yet. It's usual that in such a large city, you should at least find someone at dawn, but here's a case where the sun is up, and there's no sign of a person. The same thing happens in Moscow around the same time, despite having a population of 500,000 individuals at the time. The only difference is when you travel to London and Paris. Here, you'd find people very busy with their horses and donkeys in the cities. What was really going on in different parts of the world circa the 1840s? But again, we can't rely on historical narratives because some of them are just lies agreed upon.
A keen look into the historical photograph would show a clear contract between the lack of population and the size of various cities. The cities are huge and should be densely populated, but that's not what you would see when you look at the photographs. Also, the city sizes don't match the populations that lived in such places between 1840 and 1870. Even the photographs of Moscow and Saint Petersburg depict enormous cities with infrastructure that could support millions of individuals. Why would the cities be so huge when the populations are hardly 500,000? Again, something is not adding up, and it's clear to see. Mark, you, the architects, constructed the buildings you see in the photos many years before the photographers took the shots. What does that tell you about historical narratives? But the truth is, there were no people in most cities, and that takes us back to the history of lost earth.
There has been a lot of confusion regarding the Millenial Kingdom + Mud Flood and the 7000 Year Timeline. People want to know the truth, but they don't know where exactly they can find it. While history has been there with us for many years, the modern world has only been in existence for around 200 years. Therefore, it's accurate to mention that knowing the truth is vital. However, based on the writings in the Bible, Jesus will come back; the only problem is that the same information has changed a lot through the years, which has only led to confusion. Based on intellects, Benedictine Monks and Jesuits have played a huge role in the distortion of important information, but Joel Joshua Hadley put up something to help interested individuals understand what is yet to come. In his book, the Millenial Kingdom + Mud Flood and the 7000 Year Timeline Deception, he mentions most of the things that you might find helpful in understanding what is yet to come, just as mentioned in the book of revelations.
It's true that keeping records is not an easy thing to do. If you read the scripture, you'll find something to work with, but many believe that the information right there is not enough. Also, if you go through the generations and how people gave birth to children in the families, some of those dates fail to match up. There's also evidence that someone might have scrambled up the numbers, making everything hard to understand. If you asked, some might tell you that someone scrambled the numbers so that we don't realize how fast we're approaching the year 6,000. And that Israel is perfect proof of that. If it's that way, then that particular person is wrong. The Millenial Kingdom of Messiah had already happened. You only need to follow the available facts, and you shall believe.
