# The Mystery of 1000 years Missing from Galleria Umberto



## dreamtime (Jan 22, 2022)

**Update*: The main assumptions of this article are likely false, see the following comment and replies in this thread*​The huge gap between ANNO and DCCCXC. If you look at the whole design of this building - its perfection and symmetry - it makes no sense in my view to arrange the letters in such an unbalanced way (as a graphic designer by profession, I would never think of something like that in my life!) Especially since at the other entrance the lettering GALLERIA UMBERTO I was perfectly inserted into the free space.​​The next would be the picture of October 23, 1887. From the text in the corner I take that there the ruins of the destroyed houses are shown, which had to give way for the building of the gallery (demolizione per la costruzione).​​If 1000 years were added to our time calculation (which I also assume) it makes for me somehow no sense to take a map from the 15th century and to look for the gallery on this. The map would have to be from the 5th century? There are of course only similar streets and not the building itself to see.​​Then the "mysterious" picture, which shows the gallery from the view of the opposite theater. This is not a realism work but a kind of technical drawing to represent the building. You can tell because it has no vanishing point and all the vertical lines are 100% straight. So here one has simply "thought away" the theater to depict the gallery in full splendor.​​The following picture from the year 1890, which shows the building without scaffolding and with already installed sun roofs for the stores is also not so unusual. The fact that the building was not inaugurated until 1891 means that at that time the construction work was fully completed. In 1890, the main work on the facade and dome was apparently already completed, and construction was still going on inside (which makes sense when you consider the complexity of the interior). The stores were already open, so that the financiers could already make money - which is still common today.​​Castel Nuovo gives me the impression that the two towers are from the 13th century and the middle part, which visually does not fit at all to the two towers, comes from the time of the construction of the gallery. After all, these are two completely different architectural styles.​​Likewise, the painting of the theater on which you can see the buildings that were demolished for the construction of the gallery, as well as the absence and disregard of the gallery in the photographs before 1890 speak mMn already very much for the official narrative.​​I have a suspicion that the letter M may have been detached by a storm(?) and destroyed, then the photo was taken, which points to the year 890, and then replaced by a new letter - but in the wrong font. If we look at the M of Umberto above the other entrance, we notice that it looks different from the current M of MCCCXC. This Umberto M would also fit the year much better than the restored one.​​Even though the architect thing is quite strange. Maybe it was a foreign architect who was banned because of Italian patriotism?​

Original Post:


The Mystery of 1000 years Missing from Galleria Umberto​​Foreword​The purpose of this article is to show that nothing is as it seems. Drop your assumptions, then even this random building in Italy, becomes an adventure. While my last article only took 15 minutes to write, this one took about 20 hours of research, wading through hundreds of old photographs, maps and historical archives. At times it felt like I was on a wild goose chase, at other times I knew I was on to something. If you like detective-work and mystery as much as I do, you’ll enjoy this article.

Continue to article: The Mystery of 1000 years Missing from Galleria Umberto


----------



## Huaqero (Jan 22, 2022)

Awesome research!


----------



## suspicious (Jan 22, 2022)

Great article, detective!
Apparently architecture and literature were the best tools for creating desired narratives.
Was the lack of an "M" evidence that there were factions that did not agree on a new dating?
Or would they just leave it there for their amusement, knowing that in the future the discrepancy would be seen and yet denied?


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 22, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> By all appearances, 1000 years were added to the building. Or someone wants us to believe there were.


To be fair Italy doesn't need to add other crap to the vast amount there is already. The only thing good to say is that this could be a hint to a different timeline still used in the 19th century. Historians obviously will say that the M for the 1000 fell or was not placed for some 'mistake'... whatever!
Fomenko has talked about a common Italian practice to call the periods in the last millenium by its centuries. In other words the 11th century is called _cento_ meaning _a hundred_, the 12th century becomes _duecento_, _two hundreds _and so on. Therefore the monument was made in the _ottocento_, the 19th century.

IMO

Edit: I made a mistake in calling the centuries. the 12th (1100-1200) century is called _cento,_ the 13th (1200-1300) is called _duecento_ and so on. I don't really know how the 11th should be called!


----------



## Lightseeker (Jan 22, 2022)

Hmm my post was deleted but here is a more sensible one: just as Silveryou duely noted, historians and/or shills are quick to point out that the lack of an M is a coincidence, just like we are told (we ah told) that the J in front of dates means 1000 or 1.


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 22, 2022)

This is Galleria Vittorio Emanuele in Milan: it's identical and NOT built in the 9th century, IMO.


----------



## trismegistus (Jan 22, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> This is Galleria Vittorio Emanuele in Milan: it's identical and NOT built in the 9th century, IMO.
> 
> View attachment 18838​



This is the Infomart in Dallas Texas.  It is identical to the Crystal Palace in London and NOT built in the 19th century, IMO


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 22, 2022)

trismegistus said:


> This is the Infomart in Dallas Texas. It is identical to the Crystal Palace in London and NOT built in the 19th century, IMO


Dude, Italy doesn't need other crap, believe me. I already see Roman fanatics believing in this stupidity. How is it possible that Pompeii is really from the 16th century while this Galleria is from the 9th?


----------



## trismegistus (Jan 22, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> How is it possible that Pompeii is really from the 16th century while this Galleria is from the 9th?



How does the date of the burial of Pompeii have anything to do with the construction of this galleria?  If there is a prime target for historical obfuscation and messy/assumptive archeology it would be Italy, no?  Does Fomenko (for better or worse) not point the finger many times at the blunders of Vatican historians when it comes to "Roman" works?  Has a convincing argument been made for the burial of Rome in dozens of feet of mud?  How many times have older structures been repurposed or stripped to its core and rebuilt?

I am not a "Roman fanatic" by any standards, but I find this article to provide an interesting, if not fully compelling look into the subtleties of historical revision.  

If nothing else I'm jealous you italians get such lovely looking places to shop


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 22, 2022)

trismegistus said:


> How does the date of the burial of Pompeii have anything to do with the construction of this galleria? If there is a prime target for historical obfuscation and messy/assumptive archeology it would be Italy, no?





trismegistus said:


> If nothing else I'm jealous you italians get such lovely looking places to shop


Have you ever been in Italy? By your standards I assure you that everything should be dated to _at least _the 9th century. And if this is 9th century then the Vittoriano (Victor Emmanuel II Monument - Wikipedia) belongs to ancient Rome. Desn't it look ancent?

P.s. the list goes on and on and on...

On the other hand the fact that the date was written without the M could be a hint to a different chronology still used when it was built (not the 9th century).


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 22, 2022)

My totally serious guess is that they renovated/rebuilt the building, but there were no "M"s in stock in the letter factory, so they had to wait for a couple weeks. Everyone was buying up "M"s after the addition of the Millenium to official chonology, so there was a big "M"-shortage. 

When you change the contrast, it looks like this:


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 22, 2022)

This kind of buildings were built roughly between the 18th and 19th century all over Europe. Here we are talking about the freemasons from Savoy unifying Italy (early form of globalization) and building something (among other things) to try to put together different people under the same banner. Did they take a slightly older building and converted it (erasing the date which contained a glimpse of how people looked at chrono before the 19th century)? Maybe, I cannot rule that out, but if we are talking about a truly ancient building then my answer is NO.

Feel free to believe in what you want though. I'm not going to comment any more.


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 22, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> Did they take a slightly older building and converted it (erasing the date which contained a glimpse of how people looked at chrono before the 19th century)? Maybe, I cannot rule that out, but if we are talking about a truly ancient building then my answer is NO.



I think this is what the article says - author says rebuilding is most likely, but the evidence for 890 vs 1890 is not so clear.

But remember that the implication is not that the building is ancient and more than 1,000 years old, but that there simply was a recent calendar change, adding 1000 years to the calendar, so that 890 became 1890. 890 would still have been more or less 130 years ago.


----------



## curiousone (Jan 22, 2022)

Interesting. I am not one to jump to conclusions, especially since I've only recently become aware of date changes on buildings popping up everywhere lately. I have been seeing a lot of "proofs" telling us that we are in the year 1022 based on what this building or that gravestone would indicate based on it being contradictory the official narrative. Shrug, I don't know. As for this article, it could be possible that someone forgot to add an "M" and as we all know in modern times it takes a few years or more to fill a pot hole in the street or a decade to simply correct a misspelling on a traffic sign. The so called "architects" involved and the lack of information is definitely "sus" as my 12 year old son and all the kids these days would say. At least this article used logic instead of just thoughtlessly proclaiming in the streets that this was built in 890 just cause it sounds cool to be rebellious against the man, man! Will have to look into this a little bit more.


----------



## OutSideIn (Jan 22, 2022)

So, just to play unbiased advocate. Just as someone above mentioned; could the date on the Galleria Umberto building have been remodeled during the year 1890?  Are there any records that show a revamping? Definitely worth researching.  Your other images are interesting. The use of the symbols are indeed quite thought provoking. Thank you.  
*as a side note. I find it quite interesting a link between arches and pillars in the mason's symbolic representations.


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 22, 2022)

Couldn't resist to do a last comment about this crap.

First of all the author hints at this building being constructed in the 9th century multiple times, at the beginning and at the end of the article:


dreamtime said:


> By all appearances, 1000 years were added to the building.





dreamtime said:


> Why would anyone bother going to these lengths to make a building look a thousand years newer than it is? It’s not that easy to fathom the motives.



But he also does worse:


dreamtime said:


> If it was really built in 1891, as Wikipedia says, surely we easily could find evidence of that.


Sadly the wiki (both english and italian) says that the Gallery was completed in 1890, therefore all the following argument about the gallery without signs of construction in 1891 is utter bull. Here below a message on the italian newspaper 'La Stampa' talking about the opening of the Galleria in April 1890 (La Stampa - Consultazione Archivio):


​The wiki article also explains that the area was already densily populated at that time so it is obvious that other buildings were there before the construction of Galleria Umberto.


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 22, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> First of all the author hints at this building being constructed in the 9th century multiple times, at the beginning and at the end of the article:



The argument against the construction in 1891 is valid, but you are arguing about semantics here. The author is cleary talking about the 1,000 year of the calendar, not 1000 years of real time thad passed.

I think its a bit strange that you get so angry at something that he doesn't even explicitly state.


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 22, 2022)

Well maybe I'm not so good with english but if the author says that 1000 years were *added *to a buiding and then proceeds saying that someone wanted that building to look *newer*, he means to say that the buiding is older.

edit: and not older by some decades since he doesn't say it in his article.


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 22, 2022)

This is a good criticism I have received. In addition with the comments by Silveryou about the 1890 opening, I now think the article can be considered mostly false. I have updated the article to reflect this. (@Silveryou, you were spot on)

Let's start with the most obvious one for me:​The huge gap between ANNO and DCCCXC. If you look at the whole design of this building - its perfection and symmetry - it makes no sense in my view to arrange the letters in such an unbalanced way (as a graphic designer by profession, I would never think of something like that in my life!) Especially since at the other entrance the lettering GALLERIA UMBERTO I was perfectly inserted into the free space.​​The next would be the picture of October 23, 1887. From the text in the corner I take that there the ruins of the destroyed houses are shown, which had to give way for the building of the gallery (demolizione per la costruzione).​​If 1000 years were added to our time calculation (which I also assume) it makes for me somehow no sense to take a map from the 15th century and to look for the gallery on this. The map would have to be from the 5th century? There are of course only similar streets and not the building itself to see.​​Then the "mysterious" picture, which shows the gallery from the view of the opposite theater. This is not a realism work but a kind of technical drawing to represent the building. You can tell because it has no vanishing point and all the vertical lines are 100% straight. So here one has simply "thought away" the theater to depict the gallery in full splendor.​​The following picture from the year 1890, which shows the building without scaffolding and with already installed sun roofs for the stores is also not so unusual. The fact that the building was not inaugurated until 1891 means that at that time the construction work was fully completed. In 1890, the main work on the facade and dome was apparently already completed, and construction was still going on inside (which makes sense when you consider the complexity of the interior). The stores were already open, so that the financiers could already make money - which is still common today.​​Castel Nuovo gives me the impression that the two towers are from the 13th century and the middle part, which visually does not fit at all to the two towers, comes from the time of the construction of the gallery. After all, these are two completely different architectural styles.​​Likewise, the painting of the theater on which you can see the buildings that were demolished for the construction of the gallery, as well as the absence and disregard of the gallery in the photographs before 1890 speak mMn already very much for the official narrative.​​I have a suspicion that the letter M may have been detached by a storm(?) and destroyed, then the photo was taken, which points to the year 890, and then replaced by a new letter - but in the wrong font. If we look at the M of Umberto above the other entrance, we notice that it looks different from the current M of MCCCXC. This Umberto M would also fit the year much better than the restored one.​​Even though the architect thing is quite strange. Maybe it was a foreign architect who was banned because of Italian patriotism?​


----------



## TheImmigrant (Feb 16, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> This is a good criticism I have received. In addition with the comments by Silveryou about the 1890 opening, I now think the article can be considered mostly false. I have updated the article to reflect this. (@Silveryou, you were spot on)
> 
> Let's start with the most obvious one for me:​The huge gap between ANNO and DCCCXC. If you look at the whole design of this building - its perfection and symmetry - it makes no sense in my view to arrange the letters in such an unbalanced way (as a graphic designer by profession, I would never think of something like that in my life!) Especially since at the other entrance the lettering GALLERIA UMBERTO I was perfectly inserted into the free space.​​The next would be the picture of October 23, 1887. From the text in the corner I take that there the ruins of the destroyed houses are shown, which had to give way for the building of the gallery (demolizione per la costruzione).​​If 1000 years were added to our time calculation (which I also assume) it makes for me somehow no sense to take a map from the 15th century and to look for the gallery on this. The map would have to be from the 5th century? There are of course only similar streets and not the building itself to see.​​Then the "mysterious" picture, which shows the gallery from the view of the opposite theater. This is not a realism work but a kind of technical drawing to represent the building. You can tell because it has no vanishing point and all the vertical lines are 100% straight. So here one has simply "thought away" the theater to depict the gallery in full splendor.​​The following picture from the year 1890, which shows the building without scaffolding and with already installed sun roofs for the stores is also not so unusual. The fact that the building was not inaugurated until 1891 means that at that time the construction work was fully completed. In 1890, the main work on the facade and dome was apparently already completed, and construction was still going on inside (which makes sense when you consider the complexity of the interior). The stores were already open, so that the financiers could already make money - which is still common today.​​Castel Nuovo gives me the impression that the two towers are from the 13th century and the middle part, which visually does not fit at all to the two towers, comes from the time of the construction of the gallery. After all, these are two completely different architectural styles.​​Likewise, the painting of the theater on which you can see the buildings that were demolished for the construction of the gallery, as well as the absence and disregard of the gallery in the photographs before 1890 speak mMn already very much for the official narrative.​​I have a suspicion that the letter M may have been detached by a storm(?) and destroyed, then the photo was taken, which points to the year 890, and then replaced by a new letter - but in the wrong font. If we look at the M of Umberto above the other entrance, we notice that it looks different from the current M of MCCCXC. This Umberto M would also fit the year much better than the restored one.​​Even though the architect thing is quite strange. Maybe it was a foreign architect who was banned because of Italian patriotism?​


Sorry, but you might want to reconsider this theory once again. Take notice of the following:

1) The original photo we have (the one without the additional M) shows engraved letters while the renovated photo shows protruding letters. You can tell by the contrast between the light and shadow reflections that the original latters had some depth to them. This is consistent with ancient writing methods across different civilizations and can be seen evidently in the Pantheon in Rome for example. Nothing has "fallen" due to wind as 'Silveryou' suggested.

2) The added 'M' was clearly written using a different font to the one used back then. Look at the front side of the same building or at other structures from the same era or older and you'll see the difference.


----------

