1901: Pan Am Buffalo and why these Pan Ams were as insane as they look

[anotherlayer]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2018-07-12 03:03:35
Reaction Score: 0

When was this built, did it take 18 months for starters

Photo says July 19, 1900. So, that's 10 months before the show started and just under a year after construction started. Buffalo was bumpin'...

Why don't you tell me where you think you see lathe in this picture, because there is not much visible. Also just what it is you think those guys are doing.

i was thinking this resembles lathe. and maybe those guys are posing for the photographer. it's photography 101. look busy, boys!

Haha. I don't need to be told what construction is. If this is what you think it looks like you are dead wrong.

i do have to ask again then, what do you think is going on here with this Pan Am. what am i dead wrong about, that we built this? you think these buildings were there and they just decided to throw a party there and then after the party was over, take pictures of the demolition but make it look like they are constructing it so that people on the internet in 100 years won't be able to tell Atlantis was actually in the suburbs of Buffalo?

without asking me back a question, what is your take? call it like you see it.

on edit: just so we're clear, you could be absolutely correct if you are thinking this is actual demolition and not construction. they sold all the valuable remains. they had money to re-coup! however, this was in the "construction" bin section of photographs like i said, there are 20 more that show the workforce. i ran out of time and only got to the first initial photos. there are photos of those crazy 4 pillars and the electric tower in multiple building stages. i was shocked.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ISeenItFirst
Date: 2018-07-12 04:02:50
Reaction Score: 1

Photo says July 19, 1900. So, that's 10 months before the show started and just under a year after construction started. Buffalo was bumpin'...

i was thinking this resembles lathe. and maybe those guys are posing for the photographer. it's photography 101. look busy, boys!

View attachment 4370

I keep butchering the reply buttons.

Yep that's the lathe. Not a pose, not likely. It is very unusual construction in several ways. I've got some other comments but I've got a lot more than three guys doing a whole lot less work on a way way smaller job with a super incredibly aggressive schedule, and it's still gonna take a month and there isn't even any structural work or statues involved, in the coming hours.

Great talk, I was hoping someone would show up with the goods on one of these topics, and we can get closer to the truth, one way or the other.

i do have to ask again then, what do you think is going on here with this Pan Am. what am i dead wrong about, that we built this? you think these buildings were there and they just decided to throw a party there and then after the party was over, take pictures of the demolition but make it look like they are constructing it so that people on the internet in 100 years won't be able to tell Atlantis was actually in the suburbs of Buffalo?

without asking me back a question, what is your take? call it like you see it.

on edit: just so we're clear, you could be absolutely correct if you are thinking this is actual demolition and not construction. they sold all the valuable remains. they had money to re-coup! however, this was in the "construction" bin section of photographs like i said, there are 20 more that show the workforce. i ran out of time and only got to the first initial photos. there are photos of those crazy 4 pillars and the electric tower in multiple building stages. i was shocked.

Dead wrong that this one picture is conclusive evidence of a monumental construction project. I don't have a theory. Korben posted a lot of anomalous info about these expos that I found interesting and compelling and still do. This picture in context could prove the records true, absolutely. It actually corroborates a whole lot of it by itself. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just applying my experience to the info presented.

What do you think about the anomalies he has presented?

 

[anotherlayer]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2018-07-12 04:47:19
Reaction Score: 1

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just applying my experience to the info presented.

oh no way, no drama. i think we're both coming off as if we're sitting next to each other at the same bar. which is comfortable, if we both agree this would be a much better discussion in person where we can razz each other back and forth, naturally.

so yeah... i'm confused, lol. i dunno. when i go back to my "be normal, AnotherLayer, these people think you are crazy" mode, i just assume this was just pomp and circumstance. this was America's way of going around showing off their boom, boom pachyderm. we're gilding everything. we're commercializing everything, we're capitalizing everything.

when i take my normal hat off (in private and on internet forums), i think it's a little more sinister. i think it was a way to show the world "we can build what you see, watch!". they put lipstick on pigs. they covered balloon framing with gorgeous plaster and paints. we threw a ball and the world focused on the marvel of it all. and now, the odd buildings (the real ones downtown, the ones we truly can't explain) seem normal. we did that! but we didn't. we didn't build the Erie canal, we didn't build whatever the heck was going on over at the Niagara Power Station, we didn't build our harbor and our breakwalls and our inlets.

What do you think about the anomalies he has presented?

i'm gutted. i wanted this to be so much more, i wanted to have a hometown twist in the layer. but i think we're just off the mark on the Pan Ams/World Expos.

however, i enjoy Korben's thought that sure, this happened, these were built and destroyed. but, maybe it's not the time we think it is.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ISeenItFirst
Date: 2018-07-12 09:57:27
Reaction Score: 0

oh no way, no drama. i think we're both coming off as if we're sitting next to each other at the same bar. which is comfortable, if we both agree this would be a much better discussion in person where we can razz each other back and forth, naturally.

so yeah... i'm confused, lol. i dunno. when i go back to my "be normal, AnotherLayer, these people think you are crazy" mode, i just assume this was just pomp and circumstance. this was America's way of going around showing off their boom, boom pachyderm. we're gilding everything. we're commercializing everything, we're capitalizing everything.

when i take my normal hat off (in private and on internet forums), i think it's a little more sinister. i think it was a way to show the world "we can build what you see, watch!". they put lipstick on pigs. they covered balloon framing with gorgeous plaster and paints. we threw a ball and the world focused on the marvel of it all. and now, the odd buildings (the real ones downtown, the ones we truly can't explain) seem normal. we did that! but we didn't. we didn't build the Erie canal, we didn't build whatever the heck was going on over at the Niagara Power Station, we didn't build our harbor and our breakwalls and our inlets.



i'm gutted. i wanted this to be so much more, i wanted to have a hometown twist in the layer. but i think we're just off the mark on the Pan Ams/World Expos.

however, i enjoy Korben's thought that sure, this happened, these were built and destroyed. but, maybe it's not the time we think it is.

Agreed, just making sure. Since you started this thread, I have felt that the buffalo pan am is different from many of the others, for reasons I can't put my finger on, and I haven't compared and contrasted them enough to know.

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2018-07-12 10:01:58
Reaction Score: 1

Just like I said. Regardless of whether it was stone or metal, constructing a complex like this one takes a lot of combined effort, knowledge, planning, skills, education etc.

Obviously heavy equipment and transportation in general.

Some things like ornaments of this quality take time as well. Then we have all the interiors, electrical, plumbing and such.

For all of the above we have 3 photos of something.

I do think that we have huge chunks of time taken out of this equation. We also have all of the real construction photographs missing.

The question is why?

Another thing is those people in the videos and photos. There is something about them which I can not put my finger on just yet.

They are too classy. And the same can be seen in a lot of different photos from similar time frame. At the same time some other photos from the same time frames are different peoplewise.

It’s like the real time is different from the suggested one.

 

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2018-07-12 14:45:00
Reaction Score: 1

AnotherLayer, I just wanted to thank you for your time and effort in getting pics for us. If you get another chance to go back and photocopy some more pics, that would go a long way in helping to settle the matter one way or the other. Thanks again.

 

[anotherlayer]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2018-07-12 15:23:01
Reaction Score: 1

AnotherLayer, I just wanted to thank you for your time and effort in getting pics for us. If you get another chance to go back and photocopy some more pics, that would go a long way in helping to settle the matter one way or the other. Thanks again.

I will absolutely come back with better photographs. I have to rely on Wednesday nights. I'll be damned if I'm sitting in the library on a saturday in the summer

I realize my folly now, I grabbed all the wrong photographs. These were the ones that had identifiable buildings in the background, so that I could properly identify time/location.

For example, this one is fantastic showing the Richardson Olmstead Complex (b.1872) in the distance. This complex is pretty magnificent and obviously one of those questionable builds. It was built for the Buffalo State Asylum for the Insane. I remember going there as a child to swim with boy scouts. It was creepy as all get out. This building should be next on my list to investigate.

And here that building is today. (Buffalo State College to the top right, Buffalo River and Canada to the upper left)

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2018-07-12 15:41:32
Reaction Score: 0

Speaking of those asylum for the insane houses. I’ve been planning on visiting one of those nearby here in Tacoma, WA.

For a long time now, it appears to me, that a lot of those asylum houses look like they were picked for a reason.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ISeenItFirst
Date: 2018-07-12 17:24:56
Reaction Score: 0

Speaking of those asylum for the insane houses. I’ve been planning on visiting one of those nearby here in Tacoma, WA.

For a long time now, it appears to me, that a lot of those asylum houses look like they were picked for a reason.

The architect on this one fits the profile we have come to expect.

 

[anotherlayer]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2018-07-12 17:39:43
Reaction Score: 2

The architect on this one fits the profile we have come to expect.

50+ buildings/houses/railroadstations. the majority of them are ridiculously hyperborean. he did these 50+ in 19 years. died at 47.

Trinity Church Boston, for example:

And how about this one (there are 2 construction photos of Trinity Church *at best*, the 3rd one I see looks drawn). 19th Century pilings, of course.

 

[Dirigible]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dirigible
Date: 2018-07-12 18:40:17
Reaction Score: 0

Do construction workers just dismiss the weirdness they see when doing renovations such as this? Where windows are below ground, etc.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ISeenItFirst
Date: 2018-07-12 19:50:25
Reaction Score: 0

Do construction workers just dismiss the weirdness they see when doing renovations such as this? Where windows are below ground, etc.

Not as such, it just doesn't come up. I wish I could go back to some sites I've been on, with these fresh eyes. The inside is likely finished over, so you wouldn't know it's there. And the outside, it's gonna have some architectural detail telling you what to do, and you never really have time to consider the historical whys of the existing facade. It might go something like this:
Guy A: why they put these windows down here.
Guy B: F**king architects
Guy A: This is shoddy, it's gonna leak eventually.
Guy B: Follow the plan, if it leaks, we get more work
Guy C: I'm not paying you to stand around. Get to work.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: humanoidlord
Date: 2018-07-13 01:22:41
Reaction Score: 0

I stopped down to the Historical Society today and grabbed some copies of construction photos. There are 50+ photographs and time ran out, closed at 8. I'll go back and gather some more. All of it is there. Every bit of construction, every bit of the workers, the horses, building canals, the shanty shacks, the onsite makeshift factories, all the 2x4s, all the plaster and staff. So, let's have a look at some terrible photocopies.

The site of the still standing (and only one built to remain post-Pan Am) NY State Building (now the Buffalo Historical Society). Bottom photo is some canal dredging.

View attachment 4360

Canal retaining walls??? Bottom photo is the Machinery Building

View attachment 4361

More land/Plaster section

View attachment 4362

Some workers, Agriculture Building

View attachment 4363

Killer panorama of the panamera! This is incredible in person, I will get a better shot next time

View attachment 4364

Machinery Building plaster arches

View attachment 4365

We built it all. This was the power of Buffalo NY. I'm pretty sure if you went to the St. Louis Historical Library or the Chicago Library, you will find these Expo construction photos. I haven't even gotten to the demolition photos, but they exist. So for each YouTube'r that insists that every building demolished does not have any construction photos, you haven't done enough research to be sure. We can't assume that things don't exist simply because it cannot be found on the internet.

The Buffalo Historical Society has over 100 boxes(!) of non-digitized photographs that basically no one has ever bothered to look at. How many other Societies have the same lack of interest but are full of the goods? I can't imagine some of the truths we'd uncover if we saw the photos no one else has in 100 years.

hmmm you may be onto something here, i wonder what @KorbenDallas thinks of it

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2018-07-13 03:17:43
Reaction Score: 5

Just like I said before. For the buildings to stand, they had to be built. They were built at some point. When they were built is a much harder question.

In 12th century there were more impressive things built. The only problem there is that we do not really know who built them, and when. We are told who did.

As far as pictures go; not sure if this quality is due to them being re-photographed, or just the actual photos are of poor quality. Below are a couple of 1900 photographs. The quality was definitely available at the time.

Also a few construction site pictures from 1950

From this stand point one horse, and a couple of guys do not cut it. Could this be their construction process? Could it be the demolition activities? We have this masterpiece of a small city built in like 18-20 months. There has to be a process, and there has to be visible progress. What do those pictures really show? They show structures, and things.

Where is the equipment. They could not afford tractors, or cranes?

The problems we run into when we see pictures like below. This is a crane derrick made between 1894 and 1897. I was like, huh?

We know they were building. But we do not know who they were.

I'm sorry, but when you are riding a horse, you do not build things like Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Laon built prior to 1350.

Just like you do not build 5,600 buildings in 18 months.

We are missing crucial pieces of information here.

 

[pushamaku]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: pushamaku
Date: 2018-07-13 04:17:08
Reaction Score: 1

I'm sorry, but when you are riding a horse, you do not build things like Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Laon built prior to 1350.

It's as if these cathedrals and other masterpieces were crafted with the aid of some sort of other-wordly "magic". For some reason minecraft comes to mind.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ISeenItFirst
Date: 2018-07-13 09:03:03
Reaction Score: 0

50+ buildings/houses/railroadstations. the majority of them are ridiculously hyperborean. he did these 50+ in 19 years. died at 47.

Trinity Church Boston, for example:

View attachment 4404

And how about this one (there are 2 construction photos of Trinity Church *at best*, the 3rd one I see looks drawn). 19th Century pilings, of course.

View attachment 4405

Ok, I have no idea what's going on in that pic. Found in a few places mentioning exposed pilings. No piling shown in that photo, looks like a stone footer. Footer could be a piling cap, but that doesn't make much sense either.
The pipes look like a geothermal system, but not like any I ever saw, although I only got a good look at

Just like I said before. For the buildings to stand, they had to be built. They were built at some point. When they were built is a much harder question.

In 12th century there were more impressive things built. The only problem there is that we do not really know who built them, and when. We are told who did.

As far as pictures go; not sure if this quality is due to them being re-photographed, or just the actual photos are of poor quality. Below are a couple of 1900 photographs. The quality was definitely available at the time.

View attachment 4450View attachment 4451

Also a few construction site pictures from 1950

View attachment 4452View attachment 4453View attachment 4454View attachment 4455

From this stand point one horse, and a couple of guys do not cut it. Could this be their construction process? Could it be the demolition activities? We have this masterpiece of a small city built in like 18-20 months. There has to be a process, and there has to be visible progress. What do those pictures really show? They show structures, and things.

Where is the equipment. They could not afford tractors, or cranes?

View attachment 4458View attachment 4456View attachment 4457

The problems we run into when we see pictures like below. This is a crane derrick made between 1894 and 1897. I was like, huh?

View attachment 4464

We know they were building. But we do not know who they were.

I'm sorry, but when you are riding a horse, you do not build things like Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Laon built prior to 1350.

View attachment 4463

Just like you do not build 5,600 buildings in 18 months.

We are missing crucial pieces of information here.

now those a some pictures of a construction site!

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2018-07-13 14:47:04
Reaction Score: 1

I suggest taking this Trinity Church of Boston out into a separate topic. We don’t wanna kill this one with a monster of the Trinity topic.

Trinity’s architect went to École des Beaux-Arts in Paris. You guys don’t know it yet, but it appears that whoever goes there, comes back building some crazy stuff. Not gonna elaborate in this thread. Also its architect’s picture is a photograph of a painting.

And obviously for something built in 1870s, its buried in the ground beyond reason and has some weird foundation.

This picture appears to be done around 1880s. It’s impossible to account for 20 feet of dirt build up around it.

If somebody wants to start a full blown topic on this one, I will gladly join in on investigation. I’m a bit busy currently. So if someone wants to spearhead this one, just let us know so that we do not double topic, so to speak.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ISeenItFirst
Date: 2018-07-13 15:16:33
Reaction Score: 0

I suggest taking this Trinity Church of Boston out into a separate topic. We don’t wanna kill this one with a monster of the Trinity topic.

View attachment 4484

Trinity’s architect went to École des Beaux-Arts in Paris. You guys don’t know it yet, but it appears that whoever goes there, comes back building some crazy stuff. Not gonna elaborate in this thread. Also its architect’s picture is a photograph of a painting.

And obviously for something built in 1870s, its buried in the ground beyond reason and has some weird foundation.

This picture appears to be done around 1880s. It’s impossible to account for 20 feet of dirt build up around it.

If somebody wants to start a full blown topic on this one, I will gladly join in on investigation. I’m a bit busy currently. So if someone wants to spearhead this one, just let us know so that we do not double topic, so to speak.

Noticed that myself about that school. They had some program there, didn't they. The name keeps coming up.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: humanoidlord
Date: 2018-07-14 02:53:44
Reaction Score: 1

Also a few construction site pictures from 1950

ohhhh i think i know what is off about those "construction" pictures they look too clean and too inactive if you know what i mean

For some reason minecraft comes to mind.

you are onto something here, the problem with these structures is that they were made by some bizzare unreal method, think matrix tampering

 

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2018-07-14 03:18:26
Reaction Score: 1

View attachment 4484

I have a question about this pic (or rather the caption under it). Says that it was build in 2013 but the article is dated 2003 (10 years earlier). What am I missing here?