Jon on arches
Jon revisits a question from his previous video: were structures commonly called triumphal arches originally entrances to larger buildings?
After examining images in which monumental arches are visibly integrated into substantial architectural complexes, he considers this idea plausible. Rather than accepting that these arches were built solely as symbols of victory or civic pride, he asks whether their ceremonial purpose is an incomplete or misleading explanation of their origins.
Examples from Milan and Vienna
Jon first refers to an image he tentatively associates with Milan, possibly showing a shopping arcade or mall. The arch appears to form part of a grand building, perhaps opening into an internal courtyard.
He argues that the surrounding structure is as elaborate as the arch itself, supporting his view that the entrance and building were conceived as a single design. However, he does not firmly identify the location or establish the building’s original purpose.
A second image is associated with Vienna in the 1870s. Jon describes an enormous arch attached to a richly decorated building and compares the complex to:
- A modern stadium
- A shopping arcade
- A large public venue
He notices figures, windows and seating within the scene and leans towards interpreting it as an advanced public venue, possibly an “old world stadium”. This interpretation is based on his reading of the image rather than documentary evidence presented in the monologue.
Columbus Union Station
Jon’s strongest example is the surviving Union Station Arch in Columbus, Ohio.
He states that the 35-foot Beaux-Arts arch, now standing in a park, was designed as part of the grand entrance to Columbus Union Station and was associated with architect Daniel Burnham.
Because most of the station was demolished, the surviving fragment can now appear to be an isolated monument. For Jon, this demonstrates how removing a surrounding building can radically change the apparent meaning of an arch.
His central observation is:
“It’s not the arch; it’s what was around the arch.”
Demolition of the station
Jon outlines a demolition history in which two matching arches originally formed part of the station arcade.
According to the information he presents:
- The southern arch and part of the colonnade were removed in 1928.
- Further remains were demolished in 1976.
- The demolition made way for a new convention centre.
- A section of the arcade was preserved and relocated.
- The station had reportedly been entered on the National Register of Historic Places two years before the 1976 demolition.
Jon finds this sequence difficult to reconcile with the craftsmanship and scale of the complex. He asks why such an elaborate building would be demolished only decades after its construction and why the architecture was not protected for future generations.
He views the station as evidence of a culture that surpassed the present in some respects. He also suspects that its demolition may have formed part of an agenda to erase the past, although the monologue does not provide evidence of an organised programme of historical suppression.
Monumental arches as building entrances
Jon uses Columbus Union Station to support the argument that some surviving arches may be remnants of demolished buildings rather than monuments designed to stand alone.
He invites viewers to reconsider apparently isolated arches by asking:
- What originally surrounded them?
- Were they entrances to larger buildings?
- Did they open into courtyards, stations, stadiums or public complexes?
- How did demolition change the way later generations interpreted them?
- Why were only small fragments of certain buildings preserved?
The Columbus example supports the narrower point that some arches were integrated into larger structures. It does not, by itself, prove Jon’s broader claim that every triumphal arch was originally attached to a building.
Lost-technology theories
Jon also responds to claims that monumental arches functioned as horseshoe magnets. He does not fully endorse this particular interpretation, although he remains open to unconventional ideas about “antiquitech”.
He suggests that poles or fixtures on historic buildings may have served technological purposes rather than functioning merely as:
- Flagpoles
- Lightning conductors
- Decorative architectural features
He speculates that they may have collected an “etheric charge”. He also argues that any technological system would probably have operated through the entire building, not only through its entrance or arch.
However, the monologue provides no technical evidence establishing that the arches were magnetic devices or that the buildings collected etheric energy.
Wider criticism of history and education
Jon extends his scepticism to conventional historical accounts and education. He argues that schooling encourages people to repeat accepted narratives rather than apply independent reasoning or common sense.
He portrays the surviving Columbus arch as a token of a much greater lost structure, describing the preservation of one small section after demolition as:
“Architectural scalping.”
He interprets such destruction as potentially deliberate, rather than considering it solely the result of redevelopment, declining railway use, changing transport needs or shifting civic priorities.
Conclusion
Jon postpones a planned discussion about lighthouses, explaining that he wants to treat the subject properly rather than rush it.
The surviving Columbus Union Station Arch supports Jon’s argument that an apparently free-standing arch may once have formed part of a much larger structure. His wider conclusions about all triumphal arches, an organised historical erasure and lost energy technology remain speculative based on the evidence presented - WDYT?