What I find interesting is some of the Bosslet pictures on the site seam to have been modified for arts sake by doing some line painting on old building remnants. Eberhard Bosslet is a German artist into building inspired art. http://www.mercerunion.org/archive95/257.html
I think the Bosslet pictures are by him or more likely somebody that is a admirer of his work and is imitating him.
An interesting tie in regardless of intent or coincidence. Anybody that knows the artist’s work is welcome to add what they want. I claim no expertise on this guy’s work.
As previously mentioned - those uprights may just be drainage pipes that were added or removed between the two photographs being shot.
ETA: oh, wait - you mean the ladder thing - yes, I concur that’s missing in one shot and it does look structural and essential in the one where it is present.
-This one is also inconsistent with the other two.
I’m changing my mind about this one - I believe it’s a fake - here’s why:
-In the second shot on the Museum Of Hoaxes site (this image: http://s3.amazonaws.com/bloghoax/barn2.jpg ) - we can clearly see the supporting truss structure on the end frame - it splays out, runs up the outside corner of the building, then tapers back in again to support the pent roof.
-In the other picture, (this one: http://s3.amazonaws.com/bloghoax/barn.jpg ), that end frame support structure appears absent, but we can see another one - one third of the way from the right side of the building. We can also see a similar lattice/ladder construction at the leftmost end - it just doesn’t extend down to the ground.
OK, now in the third picture (this one: Archinect | Connecting Architects Since 1997), the rightmost end frame legs are back, but the ones in the middle are mysteriously gone - except they’re not - only the part that would be silhouetted against the sky is missing - the bit in front of the hopper is still there.
The building had four identical end frames - some of these might have been removed during demolition, but some have certainly been 'shopped out.
This image highlights the bits missing from each shot
Sorry about the link - the board software parsed the closing bracket into the URL - if you delete it from your browser’s address bar, you’ll see the image - or click here:
You believe the barn’s a fake? Or just the pictures? You’ve shown inconsistencies between all three. I think the pictures have all been 'shopped a little, to make them more unbelievable, but somewhere there is a really cool barn that is unbelievable in it’s own damn right.
I think there is or was a barn (a granary, I believe) on stilts somewhere, possibly as claimed in the Ukraine. I believe part of that barn may be cantilevered - maybe the rightmost pair of hoppers in this shot.
It’s definitely been photoshopped in a couple of the images, maybe this implies it’s not cantilevered at all, but maybe there was some degree of cantilever, perhaps happening accidentally during demolition and lasting long enough for three photographs to be taken.
It’s approximately the same time of day in all three of those photographs. That might just be coincidence, but I think they’ve all come from the same person and that person has altered them before ever publishing them.
It’s cool. What I don’t understand… On further reflection, the barn, with all the steel supports, is a viable construction. A steel frame, with wood and tin roof hung from it, is doable. But why? If you build a timber-frame construction at the end with the cement footing, and an equal timber-frame construction at the other end… why isn’t that more practical than this “Falling Waters” version? If out of the Ukraine, I can’t imagine steel I-beams are any consideration of some farmer building a barn/grain hopper.
As I said, I think the building is a granary - maybe a threshing shed or something - it’s off the ground to allow vehicles to be driven underneath for loading from the hoppers (also, keeping it off the ground might minimise rat problems).
The concrete bit actually looks like it’s just a cinder block wall around one of the hoppers - as if whatever comes out of it is intended only to fill the space inside the wall. I don’t think that’s a footing at all.
I can see why it might be that the end furthest from the wall might have been cantilevered - so that vehicles of any width could get underneath, but I don’t think the whole thing would have been.
A cantilevered structure for grain and ore is not rare. The only problem with this picture is it’s shown in an extreme way that would not stay up for long. I believe it was photographed after some of it was taken down, and then the pictures have been messed with.
I concur. An originally partly-cantilevered building rendered oddly over-cantilevered by partial demolition or dilapidation, photographed and rendered implausibly over-cantilevered in the digital image.
