• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Amazing Growing Person"

The applicant's claim involves human beings. He definitely will not accept a protocol that measures a 6 foot long 2x4 rather than a living person.

First let's see if he even responds to what I've written in the last 24 hours. So far, he has not done so.
 
KRAMER said:
Randi agrees that your suggestion would indeed needlessly complicate things, and we want to avoid that at all costs.
Click to expand...
Quite right. Keep it simple. A single camera, properly placed, can capture the scene adequately.
 
I'm very sorry. I assumed that Point #6 was Rule #6. Computer references are not my strong point. I'm an analogue type of guy. I've now read it, but chose not to comment.

Nick Nelson

=============================================

Hello Nick,

Can you offer any commets on anything else I've stated in my recent correspondence?

We are enormously curious about your thoughts regarding the testing of your claim.
 
This is what I think is going on here.

I can imagine a scenario in which two people stand on a platform. The platform can be measured extensively for how level it is, and I am sure it will turn out to be perfectly flat.
The two subjects stand on the platform on the marked spots and their distance from the camera is measured. They are the same distance away.
Then the photo is taken.
They then swap places and walk over to where each other were standing and a second photo is taken. Amazingly they now appear different.

My one question is this: Are their distances from the camera measured again when the second photo is taken?

If not I can think of a couple of ways to do this.

I think they are using the old magician's trick of a second way to produce an identical effect, but I can't see it standing up to a great deal of scrutiny.

I like the way we are told we have to ignore whatever the people on the platform might personally experience. I can just see that working.
"Oh these guys told us how you did it, but we'll pretend they didn't"
 
Perhaps it's just my cynical nature, but I think I see an agenda in Nick Nelson's latest response in the "Challenge Applications" thread.

He seems to be another one who wants to divert attention away from the protocol any time it seems like an agreement might be reached.

I think he wants the application rejected, so they can claim the tourist trap is "the site the JREF refused to test (because they knew they'd lose)."

I will put my own non-existent psychic abilities to the test and predict this is a claim that will never get as far as a preliminary test. (I feel confident I can later point to this as one of my few successes.)
 
KRAMER said:
The applicant's claim involves human beings. He definitely will not accept a protocol that measures a 6 foot long 2x4 rather than a living person.
Click to expand...

That's a most curious restriction. I suspect the real reason why would be enlightening, indeed. :)
 
KRAMER, I see you asked this question:
OK then.

Do you also agree that each of the two subjects must be stationed at precisely the same distance from the lens at all times?

This distance must be measured for total accuracy prior to each photograph being taken.
Click to expand...
Did you ever get a reply?

Nick wrote a fairly lengthy e-mail after that, but I can't seem to locate his reply to that question.

And it is, of course, a pretty key question.
 
Check the thread. He replied.

It seems he has taken a decidedly conciliatory tone, and seems to be encouraging testing.

Remember, however, that the Vortex people themselves still have yet to approve the entire affair, so this could all be a complete waste of time. And what else is new?

We'll see.
 
Interesting. So the two are on the same level as the camera and are the same distance away from it in both photos.

That's quite a good trick.
 
He keeps calling it the Montana Vortex. I can't find a Montana Vortex on the web. I do find reference to the Oregon Vortex having been for sale, so it could have new owners? Are we talking about two different places here?
Here are some pictures from the Oregon Vortex.
backyard1.jpg

backyard2.jpg


And here are the same images cropped down. There are several interesting things about these picture that become apparent upon close examination.

backyard1cropped.jpg

backyard2cropped.jpg



edit to add: AOL's ftp access seems to be really bunged up right now. If you can't see the pictures, try reloading a couple of times. They do work.
 
What can I say?

In my opinion, and I think I'm right (and I also think it's completely obvious), this is NOT a paranormal claim.

In Randi's opinion, however, people are being scammed and the so-called phenomenon needs a proper debunking. A claim has been made, and if the JREF can investigate it, we ought to.

"Randi, I thought we only investigate allegedly paranormal claims."

"And what might those be, if the paranormal doesn't exist? "

I guess he has a point. I guess.

And yeah, it sure is the Oregon Vortex. Strange.
 
There is a tourist attraction in the Black Hills of South Dakota (south of Rapid City) called The Cosmos Mystery Area that is an almost board for board copy of the Oregon Vortex. The similarities don't show well on the website, but I have been to both places and they could come from the same blueprint. (Frankly, I think that is exactly where they come from.)
 
Gr8wight said:
He keeps calling it the Montana Vortex. I can't find a Montana Vortex on the web. I do find reference to the Oregon Vortex having been for sale, so it could have new owners? Are we talking about two different places here?
Here are some pictures from the Oregon Vortex.


And here are the same images cropped down. There are several interesting things about these picture that become apparent upon close examination.



edit to add: AOL's ftp access seems to be really bunged up right now. If you can't see the pictures, try reloading a couple of times. They do work.
Click to expand...
A simple clinometer mounted on the board between them would settle all questions, rather quickly--assuming the platform they are standing on is indeed level.
 
Are People Really Being Scammed?

In the Conjuror's Corner Forum, there's a notice: For a discussion of magic and magicians, NOT TO INCLUDE THE DISCLOSING OF SECRETS.

I live in Oregon and I'm pretty sure very few people are being scammed by the Oregon Vortex. Even children see it as an obvious optical illusion.

The place is just a ratty little roadside attraction. My family stopped there during a Winter road trip and there wasn't even a charge to get in.

However, according to the posted photos, it does look as if it's had some considerable spiffing up since I visited. That's a relatively new shack, built to enhance the illusion that was originally created by hillside slippage. The posted website says there is a charge, in season. So money is being made.

But the Oregon Vortex is a magic trick, pure and simple.

Would Randi debunk every magician who sawed a lady in a half? Even if the magician charged $8 a head to see his act? Even if a few lamebrains really believed that poor lady was cut into two pieces and then put back together again? Even if the other magician dared Randi to debunk the trick?

I have no idea whether or not there's a conjurer's code of ethics. How about it? Do magic tricks deserve a proper debunking, and if so, under what circumstances?

I can think of some, I guess. Psychic surgeons pulling chicken guts out of a cancer patient's abdomen and saying the tumor is gone... Mediums spewing ectoplasm while charging big bucks to contact the dead... uh...

Nevermind.
 
Re: Are People Really Being Scammed?

Gayle said:


Would Randi debunk every magician who sawed a lady in a half? Even if the magician charged $8 a head to see his act? Even if a few lamebrains really believed that poor lady was cut into two pieces and then put back together again? Even if the other magician dared Randi to debunk the trick?
Click to expand...

If they applied to the JREF Challeng with a million bucks at stake, claiming they can prove the paranormal, you betcha. :D

Otherwise, no.
 
Re: Are People Really Being Scammed?

Gayle said:
Would Randi debunk every magician who sawed a lady in a half? Even if the magician charged $8 a head to see his act? Even if a few lamebrains really believed that poor lady was cut into two pieces and then put back together again? Even if the other magician dared Randi to debunk the trick?
Click to expand...
If the magician ever said that he actually sawed a lady in half, yes. Typically, magicians don't do that.

That's the whole point of the Challenge. There are people who call what they do "illusions" and "tricks" and so forth. And there are people who don't - who say that they are really truly doing what it looks like they are doing. The former are entertainers. The latter are liars. Big difference.
 
Looking at those pictures, it has just occurred to me that the protocol suggested by this applicant allows for checking the platform with a level. Does it also mention making sure the camera is level? Many pro tripods have a spirit level built in to make sure the camera is level. I think that should be added to this protocol. IMO, in the pictures I put up, the person on the right is standing at a significantly higher level than the person on the left. Either the platform isn't level, or the camera isn't.
 
It also looks like one of the test subjects is changing his posture. The guy in the khaki shorts looks like he is slouching in the first picture and standing a bit taller in the second shot. I agree that maybe the platform or the camera is not completely level.
 
I noticed the protocol specified, "a curtain or other opaque mono-color backdrop will fill the camera frame beside the participants."

That would eliminate the little oopsie in the picture posted in this thread. Note that the camera is apparently unmoved between the pictures, because the alignment of all foreground and background objects is identical... except for the men. They've both shifted a foot or so to the left, in comparison to the trees in the background, although their feet appear to be in approximately the same positions on the board.
 
Pup said:
Note that the camera is apparently unmoved between the pictures, because the alignment of all foreground and background objects is identical... except for the men. They've both shifted a foot or so to the left, in comparison to the trees in the background, although their feet appear to be in approximately the same positions on the board.
Click to expand...
The bloke on the right is in the same position in both photos, although they are both leaning more in the second.

I'm sure this is really simple but it's driving me nuts at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom