Talk:Oregon Vortex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Stub This page is rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oregon Vortex article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] POV

This page is so heavily POV that it doesn't even explain what the Oregon vortex is. The author needs to describe the alleged phenomenon before presenting reasons to debunk it. --Chris Thompson 08:21, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] wtf

All those photos show is a girl and a shorter boy with a stick slanted from the top of her head down to the top of his. The article says that when they switched places one of the photos would show the stick straight rather than slanted. It doesn't. They just switched spots.

[edit] This article is not objective

This article seems to assume that it is certian that the oregon vortex is an optical illusion. But there are some things that set this apart from other things such as Gravity hillls which are explainable as optical illusions. One is the reported phenomena where two individuals stand on a certian spot, facing each other, an equal distance from the camera, and when they switch place apparently the one on the left (previously who was on the right) shrinks by a foot and the one on the right (who was previously on the left) gains a foot of height. If both people remain an equal distance from the camera, as it appears they do, how is this explained? I have also seen versions of these photographs the background whited out, to remove any possibility that the background might be confusing the mind. One can measure the height of each individual with a ruler on the photograph to verify they do change height. Given that each individual is standing an equal distance from the camera, it shouldnt matter what side they are on, they should both appear the same height.

It would certianly be interesting to see objective research on this to see if there is paranormal activity, to verify that each individual is standing the same distance from the camera and that there are no other tricks going on. Unfortunately, so many "scientific" people are so biased that they automatically assume that there MUST be some kind of trick or optical illusion behind anything paranormal, and go into an investigation bent on determining this outcome and no other, rahter than letting the evidence take them where it leads them. Too many assume there is no possibility that there could be a local variation in the laws of physics, no matter if they saw evidence to the contrary.

I think the views that the skeptical views on this page "it is an optical illusion", should be prefixed with the words "many believe".

--user:millueradfa

I dabble in magic and illusions, and saw absolutely nothing that couldn't be explained by traditional illusions and good crowd-patter. In fact, most of the illusions come right out of classic texts about optical illusions. It's a great $5 magic show, but nothing more, and I bet if you talk to the owner "off stage", he'll tell you the same. --Randal L. Schwartz 00:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above statement sounds awfully POV to me. Is this an encyclopedia or a place for you to vent your own opinions? 70.186.172.75 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To the guy above, if you think you can explain it, then do it. But check out the site oregonvortex.com first or try to visit it in person. Other experts who tried to explain it failed and failed to reproduce it too. You skeptics are all talk and no action.

Please tell me you're joking; I've been there, clearly the "affects" are attributable to well known optical illusions.

[edit] Are there any books/articles to reference regarding this?

It seems to me that nothing will be resolved if the only edits made are POV (regardless if they are skeptical or supportive of the notion of real phenomena occuring) ... We need more references to real published books or articles about this, and not simply opinions. I should also mention that I would have never believed it were true had I not been to this location personally and recorded the noticeable change photographically. I still have yet to read an explanation for how this works. To clarify, what I am talking about is this phenomena:

When two people stand a certain number of feet apart (say, 5) on a flat surface (you can check it yourself with a water-based level of the same length) -- the person on one side will appear smaller, noticeably, than their actual height. If the camera is placed on a tripod aligned to the perpendicular axis of the plane (with the two subjects standing on the far right and left of the frame), and placed in alignment with the center-point of said plane, then it logically follows that the subjects would be equidistant to the camera, regardless of which side they stand on. Yet, for some reason, there is a noticeable size discrepency of the subjects when switching locations.

If someone could explain to me how that can possibly be an optical illusion, I would be grateful, but I suspect it is impossible to define as such. I have personally recorded this effect taking place as I'm sure thousands of others have, yet nobody has offered an adequate response. I have scanned many skeptical pages on the internet, and all of them are extremely POV, showing no evidence of even having visited the location in question, let alone attempting to reproduce the experiments there in a scientific setting. If someone can find such a website, please place it in the links on the main article, because it would be great for a critical/skeptical site that actually bases their critique on scientific testing (actually visiting the location and performing scientific tests, which the company welcomes).

You never really get to take a picture that is "equidistant". I tried to do that, and they said "why don't you stand over here: you'll get a better view". And I think I even caught a wink from them, as if to say "OK, you're smarter than most, but if you want to fool your friends, move over here so the pictures come out like ours". --Randal L. Schwartz 00:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree-- I have been there and taken "equidistant" photos. The workers did not disturb me whatsoever during my photography and in fact encouraged it. So, assume for the sake of argument that the photo is in fact taken "equidistantly." In other words, assume that you set up a tripod exactly in the center and facing a completely level plane, and the effects observed are as reported. (people on one side are noticeably smaller, on the other side noticeably larger) ... How do you explain this phenomena? I have read about the Ames room and so on, but it is nothing like this. I don't know how people could even compare the Ames room. In this case, the background does not matter, the people are standing on a level plane and the perspective is head-on, ie: with the camera forming a triangle using the 2 subjects as the other points. It is certainly not explainable as the Ames room, which so many so-called skeptics find it all-too-easy to explain as... 24.18.35.120 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] add images of most prominent "illusion" ?

Would it be appropriate in this case to add images of the most prominent illusion, ie: the appearance of a relative change in height when people stand ostensibly closer or further away from the vortex? eg: 2 pictures from http://www.oregonvortex.com/photographs-northend.htm 24.18.35.120 22:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Randi thinks he's solved the mystery

Paranormal debunker James Randi claims to have solved the Oregon Vortex. Yet none of the diagrams he gives explains any of the observable effects there. Take a look. What is he smoking?

http://www.randi.org/jr/101003.html

So... which effect, exactly, would you say that he fails to explain? TomTheHand 12:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Please learn to read. He explains the effects perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raidzuo (talk • contribs)
Actually, it's quite different. Imagine a triangle with equidistant lengths. One subject stands on corner A, another subject stands on corner B and a tripod is set at corner C, facing the exact midpoint between points A and B. This is the configuration which is used to demonstrate the Oregon Vortex effect (for lack of a better term), whereas Randi reproduces an entirely different configuration. 24.143.70.245 08:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary/original research

I have visited the Oregon Vortex. The staff were quite sincere that the effects were real, enhanced by the odd angles to promote the business (which they freely admitted), but nonetheless real and not covered by current scientific theories. Survey equipment, compasses and any other investigation were openly encouraged by the owner, who related the effects to a confluence of ley lines. There was no "wink", the man believed this was a genuine anomality and was well informed about it. The absence of birds and the twisting of trees are objective data.

One of the articles posted at the site described Albert Einstein's visit. I do not remember the exact quote, but his response was along the lines of "there are many things that we do not understand". Our growth as inteligent, spiritual beings would be greatly enhanced if more people took that attitude. David 208.238.205.141 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)