Talk:Oregon Vortex

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)

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.

Very biased and lacking in data

If the intention of the article is, as I am assuming it is, to present a comprehensive overview of this place and its phenomena, then I must say it's seriously lacking in information.

Firstly, I am no expert, but even I know that there was a man called Lister who first brought this place to the attention of the public; apparently he lived there for 30 years - and yet I see no mention of him at all.

Secondly, the entire article seems to be based on - unreferenced - assumptions, like the apparent difference in height being due to "optical illusions" due to the "forced perspective". Well, that doesn't explain why people regularly report FEELING the difference in height during various experiments; also, there is considerable photographic and taped evidence that seems to contradict the "conclusions" of this article.

Really... this phenomenon deserves much better treatment. And Mother Nature definitely deserves a tip of the hat. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.201.212 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Katr67 (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You want an explanation for why people "feel" a difference in height? The power of suggestion! I was there just today, and where two pairs of people went before me, switched places, and were asked by the guide: "Does he seem taller", both women exclaimed: Yes, he does! I then did the same experiment with a stranger, at the request of the guide, and she seemed exactly as tall to me regardless of which side she stood. When I expressed this, the woman agreed she also did not see a difference. So you see, whatever is suggested first is what people will likely agree with; a willing suspension of disbelief. Similar, skeptical of another optical illusion, we were all asked which of two bars seemed level. While I called out: the bottom one obviously, everyone behind me, at the same time, called out the top one. Needless to say, the bottom one was the actual level bar. If you stand straight and do not allow yourself to be distracted by surroundings, all of this will be completely obvious, which is why the house has been successfully replicated in other locations that have no known "vortex".76.115.176.109 (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Posting removed bad link in case someone has a correction to offer on it.

Removed this link because it only links to one of those domain sales placeholder pages. If somebody has a correct link to substitute, by all means go for it.

• Oregonians for Science and Reason - Investigation (with pictures illustrating illusions and an animated Ponzo demonstration)

--Here.it.comes.again (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

An Illusion? No Way

The height change is NOT a Ponzo illusion because the phenomenon still occurs when the background is blocked/covered (or removed in pictures).

The height change is NOT an Ames illusion because the participants stand fairly close to each other and the phenomenon still occurs even if there is equal distance between them and an observer.

The height change is NOT caused by a plank illusion (or an upgrade in the ground) because there is no significant upgrade between each participant, and the height change can be observed in person (not just on film).

John Litster (or Lister) owned the property at one time, he was a geophysicist. His theory was that the height difference was an optical illusion that acted like a giant refracting lens bending light in a circular or vertical motion. Einstein supposedly theorized that this phenomenon was caused by mass change.

I give James Randi credit for exposing a few frauds but I don't think the height change phenomenon at the Oregon vortex is caused by a man-made illusion (as skeptics suggest) and there are scientists that would support my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.146.57 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

'Expired' Link

This link no longer works, 'expired': Oregonians for Science and Reason - Investigation (with pictures illustrating illusions and an animated Ponzo demonstration)50.53.20.80 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)William Bjornson

"The attraction is the inspiration for the Mystery Shack, a tourist trap and the main setting for the Disney Channel (later Disney XD) original series Gravity Falls."

Uh...no, it's not. It's clearly inspired by Confusion Hill in California. There are plenty of sources available online, but you can clearly see that Confusion Hill has bill cypher statues and a shop that looks exactly like the Mystery Shack. There is also a poster in their window signed by the show's creator, Alex Hirsch. The show was objectively inspired by Confusion Hill.

Where does this come from? The linked source to the House of Mystery page contains no information about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maestrogeicho (talk • contribs) 23:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Illusion debunk

While there seems to be disagreement over what kind of illusion causes the height change phenomenon, fact is it can be easily debunked by the simplest test of all: holding a tape measure next to each of the participants. If the spot is really “expanding or contracting the distance between our molecules“, as the owners claim, then their measured height should change depending on position. (It does not). Why none of these experts have ever thought to do this simple test, is beyond me. 47.38.105.53 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Real distortion

I've been here during a full moon. No optical illusion because I couldn't see very well anyway lol.

This has an effect on gravity. I had not walked into the building and was very dizzy and could not see clearly. The guide knew what he was looking for and used me as a demonstration. When I started to get a little queezy, I couldn't be in the center. I believe this is a simple anomaly in the magnetic field around the planet that's no different than a knot in a tree. There are a few other spots around the planet with a similar effect. If you want to experience this at its strongest, I suggest a full or new moon. 2601:1C2:97F:A9E0:4CC6:5D78:6251:D7E1 (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)