Impossible "Historical Timeline" of L.A., California (& rest of the Pacific Coast Cities)?

For your consideration:

Let's examine the Mainstream Go-To source (Wikipedia)

HISTORY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

Key Excerpts (re: Population)

quote:

---

The official date for the founding of the city is September 4, 1781. (Definition of "Founded" = "Oooh, lookie what WE found!!" - as in, *ALREADY EXISTING.*)

In the 1870s, Los Angeles was still little more than a village of 5,000.
By 1900, there were over 100,000 occupants of the city.

---

The following buildings in Los Angeles CA are said to be taken in the 1880s:

Examine the settings. And details. Do these L.A. City-Scapes and Buildings seem "New-ish" to you?

Early Los Angeles Historical Buildings (1800s-1890s)

>

>

>




They built this grand building *before* building stone streets?

Do any of these city structures and street layouts look....almost new? Or newish?

OR, do they appears as though they've already been there for several decades -- if not hundreds of years?

At first this question seems preposterous. Afterall, we've "learned" and studied our "History" well. And Scholars surely examined and know our past -- and passed it along to the rest of us. They wouldn't or couldn't lie about it....OR WOULD OR COULD THEY?



Let's review another "Historical" inconsistency:

According to this same Wiki Page on LA (quoted up-thread), it is said to be a "village of[i] 5,000" in the 1870s (Out of a population of 5,000??)

Moving on...

Is it possible Los Angeles went from a "Village" of 5,000 inhabiants during the 1870s to a city of 100,000 by 1900? Absolutely.

BUT...

HOW was it possible that during the Timeline claimed by the Mainstream Narrative that the above buildings, infrastructure, Trolly Car systems, rail, electric, water & sewerage systems, layouts of roads, etc were all built -- in just a matter of 30-odd years? (akin to claiming New Orleans' population was 5,000 in 1971 and by 100,000 in 2000 most of its city roads, street layouts, huge stone buildings, rail etc -- sprung up during 15-20 years!)

How IS this possible?? (then again, those who claim to have "founded" Los Angeles, also *then* controlled and wrote its books and "History."

THE "official" account of Los Angeles (as well as San Francisco, Portland, OR and Seattle WA) and accompanying Timeline seems also to have been doctored up and contrived (if ONE historical account is "adjusted," they must ALL be adjusted.) If this is te case, the question is WHY?? And obviously, what is gained (OR lost) by coming clean with the truth regarding these "American" cities? Would they Lie to us?

L.A. is hardly the exception to the case; PICK A CITY. ANY MAJOR AMERICAN CITY.

In case after case after case, plausible explanations, details, documents, photos, during the supposed Historical Timeline of exploding growth and construction are woefully and coincidentally...UN-AVAILABLE. Or...coincidentally Destroyed -- mostly by "Major Fire."

We see this very same phenomena played out of un-explained city planning, logistics & blueprints for infrastructure and lack of documentation & evidence for proving our old, "founded" larger cities and structures were indeed built in the Time-Frame claimed by our "Historians." Why aren't any details or photographs available in various stages of construction? Or city plans and blueprints? By 1870s -- and certainly onward, clean photography was available to document "progress." Yet. NADA.

So many tangents, so much to unpack from this "History" and "Narrative." Mostly how incomplete and duplicitous is was *then* (and well and *now*.)

History as usual is repeating itself.