This was submitted to Reddit today with no explanation. Anyone know what’s up with this thing?
It looks like it might have been used for grain storage, with the outlet being in the foundation to the right of the picture (that inverted triangle). It also looks the foundation might been more substantial at one point.
No idea why it’s cantilevered like that now.
Why is it not just Photoshopped?
I agree, looks to be photoshopped.
:rolleyes: OK, assuming it’s not photoshopped, any ideas how it got that way? Reddit thinks it’s topsoil erosion.
I’m still gonna go with photoshopped. I doesn’t even look like it could support it self like that.
If not Photoshopped… it looks like it might be like a train hopper. Run a wagon under it to pour out grain. Doesn’t seem plausible tho. It’s barely viable empty, fill it with grain and there’s no way it stands.
There are definitely some artifacts around the edges of the barn that make it look edited. That and the physics of the thing.
If it were the result of soil erosion, why would a barn have been built on such an elaborate foundation? That would have cost much more than the barn itself.
I’m trying to see how this could come to be but I just can’t make the physics work. Considering where the only place the foundation seems to be attached to the barn is situated, and assuming there is no ballast in the far end (not that it would do much good with the fulcrum point so close to that end) I just can’t see any way that thing can stay upright. It looks like there must be just as much weight pulling that thing down at the near end as there is bearing directly down on the foundation, and the whole thing looks like it’s made out of pretty flimsy material. (Flimsy or not though it still looks like it weighs a few tons.) It looks like there’s some sort of structural support on the other side – a couple of (wooden?) beams, but they don’t look like they’re anchored to anything – and they look none too stout in any event.
I’m going to have to go with “Photoshop.” A pretty good one, given how well the scenery underneath the structure was reconstructed (assuming there was more than just support beams or legs holding up the near end in the original)
Any visual evidence of Photoshop use apart from how unsupported it looks?
Here’s a link to another photo of the same building. Both this photo and the one that started off this thread are from a user named Kyryl. If you read down through the comments section there is a comment from Kyryl on June 23rd back to someone named *hmlaplata * where he states he did indeed use Photoshop.
Ah, but he used a photoshop: could’ve been Fotomat.
There are a lot of artifacts along the metal foundation of the barn, for starters.
Like where, and what are these artifacts specifically. From which of the two images posted in this thread?
So, he used Photoshop. It’s the most popular image processing tool out there. he didn’t say, “I used photoshop to make the building look like it was floating.”
Does it seem odd to anyone that the exact same building has photos from two different angles, and that they look extremely similar?
This certainly doesn’t look like renderings of 3D models.
And, that base is steel. The wood that is on it looks substantial, but it doesn’t weigh diddly compared to that steel base. I don’t know what that building might be used for, but it doesn’t strike me as too odd.
Seems like a lot of work in photoshop to create a picture of a barn.
Until I see an image of the original barn, situated on the ground, and perhaps the steel foundation in a separate photo, I’m going with “real”.
Has legs, I’m guessing the original
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4565227
Check this photo out there are a couple of supports that are “missing” in the other photos.
This photo looks at least plausible.
Damn you wolfman
::: shakes fist:::
I think the legs look photoshopped in.
J/K. That’s good enough for me.
The first photo looks totally plausible to me, if it’s in the Deep South. Barns there don’t need to be as sturdy as barns up North, hence the Janky-ass stucture and Tin roof. Ya just need to have some shelter from rain. This looks like buildings I remember in Mississippi, although this is a weathered poor one. You just don’t have to build barns as sturdy there, and this one looks like the leastmost functional in order to load grain.
Rick’s photo above is in accordance to what I’ve seen in Mississippi. If you are in the mindset of sturdy Northern barns, it’s not the case in the poorer South, and doesn’t need to be because of the climate. Tin-tops work well there.