"Amazing Growing Person"

[Gulliver]

Get out your ruler

To my measurement, neither individual changed height in the pictures that Gr8wight so kindly provided. (Thanks!) The background creates an optical illusion that a ruler defeats.

Which line is longer?
>---------------<...............................


......................................... <--------------->


I believe that I've already expressed concern about slouching. I suggest that the protocol require at least a 10% delta to allow for this.

I also beg for education. If we define height as the longest possible measure of a person (as opposed to the vertical distance), why do we need to be concerned about leveling? I'm 5'5" standing up, reclining, or standing on my head (just don't ask me to stand on my head, okay?).

Finally, I offer that if we can't ensure that platform will not rotate (or otherwise change the distance of the subjects from the camera), we should measure the distances at the time the picture is taken.

Curious Regards,
Gulliver

 

[Ashles]

Re: Get out your ruler

To my measurement, neither individual changed height in the pictures that Gr8wight so kindly provided. (Thanks!) The background creates an optical illusion that a ruler defeats.

They definitely do change height.

Finally, I offer that if we can't ensure that platform will not rotate (or otherwise change the distance of the subjects from the camera), we should measure the distances at the time the picture is taken.

I already asked that, and that has already been agreed.

I don't know if this helps, but here are the two photos with some comparative height lines and relative figure heights.

 

[Winny]

Re: Re: Get out your ruler

I don't know if this helps, but here are the two photos with some comparative height lines and relative figure heights.

I don't know if this helps either, but I notice that if you were to draw a vertical line from the middle of each guy's heel through the top of his head, and note where that line would pass through the roof of the shack, the guys are clearly standing in different positions.

Winny

 

[Pup]

Re: Get out your ruler

To my measurement, neither individual changed height in the pictures that Gr8wight so kindly provided.

By measuring on my monitor, the khaki shorts guy is the same height in both pictures, and the navy shorts guy is a smidge shorter than him in the first picture, and a smidge shorter yet in the second picture. He goes from about 2 1/2" to about 2 3/8".

 

[Gayle]

Verticle Measuring

I measured each guy from top of head to sole of shoe and compared from one picture to another. There is no measured change of height, except for a smidge that could be attributed to the changed posture of the chap in khaki shorts.

Is there a reason to use humans rather than 2x4 lengths of lumber, other than the applicant declines?


[edited to sound less like Igor]

 

[Gulliver]

Rotation...

I already asked that, and that has already been agreed.

This distance must be measured for total accuracy prior to each photograph being taken.

Originally posted by Gulliver
Finally, I offer that if we can't ensure that platform will not rotate (or otherwise change the distance of the subjects from the camera), we should measure the distances at the time the picture is taken..

Let me try again. I apologize for not being clearer. You (and Kramer) are saying prior to each photograph. I'm saying at the same time of each photograph. We need to avoid rotation after measurement but before taking the photograph.

Regards,
Gulliver

 

[Gulliver]

2x4s Again (I promise to drop this now.)

I measured each guy from top of head to sole of shoe and compared from one picture to another. There is no measured change of height, except for a smidge that could be attributed to the changed posture of the chap in khaki shorts.

Is there a reason to use humans rather than 2x4 lengths of lumber, other than the applicant declines?

Hi Gayle!
Thanks for the question. I did ask a similar question and got the following answer:

Originally posted by KRAMER
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.

I believe that the Kramer's opinion about the human subject requirement is probably correct.

That said, I can't imagine any reason for the limitation. Perhaps we could have each subject stand in front of an eight-foot 2x4.

By the way, here's how I imagine this all got started.

Person A (who holds a number of paranormal beliefs, has read on various woo websites about JREF's challenge, and has just paid a sum of money to witness with his own eyes the Vortex)

Person B (who owns the place, knows it's just an optical illusion, just received a sum of money based on this shameful scheme, and wants to get even more people to come to pay him/her money.)

A: Wow! This is really great. I'm convinced. I'm sure glad I paid the money. This was really worth it.
B: I'll glad you're seen that the Vortex is real. Please tell your friends.
A: You know what, there's this $1,000,000 prize for something like this. You should apply.
B: (knowing that it's a trick, doesn't really want to apply, but can't think of a better excuse not to) I would welcome any test, but I don't have the time right now.
A: No problem! I'll take care of everything.

Now A goes home and applies.... and here we are.

Regards,
Gulliver

 

[Gayle]

2x4

I like Gulliver's suggestion ...

Perhaps we could have each subject stand in front of an eight-foot 2x4.

I can easily change two inches in height by adjusting my posture from debutante tall to comfortable slouch. It's all in the lower back and hips. I'm sure other limber people can do the same thing.

I had read Kramer's post saying the applicant definitely would not accept a protocol measuring a 2x4 rather than a living person.

I'm not clear on the details of the paranormal claim or why the claimant insists on human subjects. Does the Vortex supposedly work only on humans and not on non-living matter?

Humans and lengths of 2x4 lumber could satisfy both sides. Maybe. Good suggestion, Gulliver.

Gayle

 

[-42-]

Here's to hoping they get the wanted publicity enough to get people in their area to pay $2.






Test? lol...

 

[BPSCG]

Re: 2x4

I'm not clear on the details of the paranormal claim or why the claimant insists on human subjects. Does the Vortex supposedly work only on humans and not on non-living matter?

If that were truly the case, there would be a lot of embarrassing incidents involving the rupture of polyester pants as their occupants grew and the clothing didn't.

Hmmm... pretty babe in a tight polyester tank-top...I'd pay two bucks for that...drool...

 

[webfusion]

uphill/downhill

Obviously, we are dealing with an illusion (as Randi demonstrated one possible way to show the illusion) but in this case, I think other influences that trick the human mind are at work. This might be just a hillside, that runs uphill but appears to run downhill.

There was a classic example of this in Florida, where an entire street looked to the eye to be going downhill, but the gravitational forces were such that cars in neutral rolled UPHILL.

The 'shrinking person' illusion probably is similar -- the vortex is really a place where the angle of the hill makes you believe it runs down (to the right in the photos), but due to the true gravitational incline it is going up (to the right). If you place a ball on the ground, which way does it roll? I would imagine that it appears to roll UPHILL (to the eye it seems to go uphill --- of course, it is not a paranormal ball and is not violating the laws of gravity).

By the way, because of this tilt, you need to use a person, not a piece of wood, because people compensate for the tilt of the incline, by leaning naturally (due to our inner-ear balance mechanism). This leaning (where we hinge our posture by tilting of the ankles, either forward or backward, depending on the direction of the incline) results in the effect we see.

That's my guess, anyway.
You can sorta see that in the photos.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: uphill/downhill

Obviously, we are dealing with an illusion (as Randi demonstrated one possible way to show the illusion) but in this case, I think other influences that trick the human mind are at work. This might be just a hillside, that runs uphill but appears to run downhill.

There was a classic example of this in Florida, where an entire street looked to the eye to be going downhill, but the gravitational forces were such that cars in neutral rolled UPHILL.

I ride my bike to the railroad station in the morning, and there's a stretch of street that, when first entered, appears to be going slightly downhill before it turns more sharply uphill towards the end.

If the appearance matched reality, I should therefore find myself accelerating slightly as I enter the street (assuming I keep my exertion level the same), and then decelerating as I reach the upward incline.

But I find that's not the case. As I enter the street, I find that pedaling at the same exertion level barely keeps my speed constant (I have a spedometer), until I arrive at the upward incline, at which point, I have to really labor hard, and my speed decreases accordingly.

Coming home, the situation is reversed. When I enter the street from the opposite end, I quickly accelerate going down the (now downward) incline, and then things level off and I again have to exert myself to maintain speed.

Conclusion: The apparent slight downhill incline I first enter in the morning, despite its appearance, is actually level. No, I haven't done any rigorous testing of this hypothesis, and I'm open to the possibility that if I did, I'd be surprised at the outcome.

Maybe I'll take some pictures of it and post them.

 

[Moose]

Re: Re: Get out your ruler

I don't know if this helps, but here are the two photos with some comparative height lines and relative figure heights.

They're not standing in the same spots, laterally. The camera appears to be stationary (by comparing what you can see through the shack), but the people are significantly not in the same places in relation to the trees behind them.

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

I have a theory on how this illusion works, and I don't know if it's been mentioned yet.

The platform is vertically level. However, horizontally, it is slanted towards the camera on the right hand side. The planks on the platform have even been cut so they are longer on the left side than the right side. This means that the person on the left side is actually standing about a foot further away from the camera than the person on the right hand side, even though the perspective of the camera makes it look as though the platform is perfectly straight.

Am I missing anything here?

-Ripley 29

 

[Ashles]

I have a theory on how this illusion works, and I don't know if it's been mentioned yet.

The platform is vertically level. However, horizontally, it is slanted towards the camera on the right hand side. The planks on the platform have even been cut so they are longer on the left side than the right side. This means that the person on the left side is actually standing about a foot further away from the camera than the person on the right hand side, even though the perspective of the camera makes it look as though the platform is perfectly straight.

Am I missing anything here?

-Ripley 29

But how come the guy in the greem shirt is about the same height in both when the guy in the white shrt changes quite noticeably?

Also this wouldn't work for the challenge as the distance from subjects to camera will be measured.

 

[Moose]

But how come the guy in the greem shirt is about the same height in both when the guy in the white shrt changes quite noticeably?

See my post above, Ashles. It's because they're not standing at the same places. Take a close look at the trees behind their heads, and compare it to the view through the shack.

The camera didn't move. They did.

 

[Ashles]

See my post above, Ashles. It's because they're not standing at the same places. Take a close look at the trees behind their heads, and compare it to the view through the shack.

The camera didn't move. They did.

I have overlaid the images. When the guy in green is standing on the right his feet appear to be in an identical place to the guy in white when he stands on the right (although the guy in green seems to be leaning forward).

I agree that when the guy in green stands on the left he appears to be a few inches further to the right than where the guy in white stands. But I don't see how this accounts for such a marked difference in height?

It seems that when he is standing on the left, the guy in green appears the same height as he did when standing on the right.
Yet when he is standing in a position just a few inches to the left of that position, the guy in white appears significantly smaller than when he was on the right.

How is that few inches resposible for such a differenc?

 

[Squidd]

I still can't believe Randi is going to let this get to a test. Even though I don't see how the illusion could work if the platform is verified as level and the subjects are placed perfectly equidistant from the camera, the logic behind the protocol still baffles me.

The Applicant admits that this effect can be acheived through trickery. He says in his initial claim letter that "the camera is neutral, only recording what is set before it, regardless of whether it be a real phenomenon, or a deliberate optical trick." And yet he says the sole factor in determining the validity of his claim will be the photographs.

What sort of sense does that make?

 

[Moose]

How is that few inches resposible for such a differenc?

Okay, I see what you're seeing, I think, and I've just spotted the trick they're playing.

Don't look at their feet (which are indeed very close to the same position in each image), that's not where the trick is.

Instead, look at their heads in relation to the shack. Their heads are "off the mark" by at least a foot.

They're both leaning to the left in the right-hand image.

They might be leaning to the right in the left hand image, but the overall illusion makes it hard to fix a proper "down". Hey, that's a good way to keep a good reference point, let something dangle from a visible string or rope.

 

[Ashles]

Okay I've got it.

I have made a diagram of how I imagine the boards would look if we viewed them from the left hand side of the scene.

The middle board not only tapers out to be much wider on the left, but tilts down to compensate for this. As far as the camera view can see, it looks like one rectangular board the same dimensions as the other two.

So position 1 is where both guys stand on the right.

But position 2 is where the guy in green stands on the left (he's about the same distance from the camera as in position 1 so he appears the same height).

Position 3 is where the guy in white stands - he is both further away from the camera and lower down. (The beam they hold on their heads is actually going down and away from the camera.) But it looks to the camera as if he is roughly in the same position (the guys could actually have done this better so their feet would have appeared in the same position on the left)