"Amazing Growing Person"
- Thread starter Steven Howard
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nick nelson
Sorry if I'm covering something that was discussed day before yesterday, but I confess to skimming the forums when I'm in a hurry. Perhaps this has already been posted and discussed when I wasn't looking.
http://www.randi.org/jr/101003.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/101003.html
Instead of all this speculation about what shape the board might be, or if it might be tilted, or what the true horizontal is as opposed to what it appears to be in the picture, might it not be useful for a skeptic or two go and check the thing out? It looks like it's not too far from Medford, Oregon - could easily be a nice day trip on a pleasant spring weekend day.
Frankly, I'm still puzzled why this challenge is being accepted. If the challenger says it could be done by an optical illusion or magic trick, why isn't it the challenger's duty to prove it is indeed a paranormal phenomenon and not a trick or illusion? JREF has no obligation to prove - or disprove - a damned thing, but it appears to me that that's what is going on here. What am I not understanding?
Frankly, I'm still puzzled why this challenge is being accepted. If the challenger says it could be done by an optical illusion or magic trick, why isn't it the challenger's duty to prove it is indeed a paranormal phenomenon and not a trick or illusion? JREF has no obligation to prove - or disprove - a damned thing, but it appears to me that that's what is going on here. What am I not understanding?
It seems that there are inherent problems using human subjects. There is the possibility of small changes in posture (especially if it is known which end of the platform makes you shorter), leaning off of the vertical, or small changes in rotation - all of which could be unintentional.
Why are Kramer and Randi not insisting on 2x4's with attached levels in order to eliminate bias unrelated to the proposed phenomenon?
I am also skeptical that there are scientists that have apparently examined the phenomenon and are baffled. There is nothing more tenacious than a Baffled Scientist in seeking an explanation. Nobody would walk away from something that ground-breaking (no pun intended?) simply shaking their head.
Linda
Why are Kramer and Randi not insisting on 2x4's with attached levels in order to eliminate bias unrelated to the proposed phenomenon?
I am also skeptical that there are scientists that have apparently examined the phenomenon and are baffled. There is nothing more tenacious than a Baffled Scientist in seeking an explanation. Nobody would walk away from something that ground-breaking (no pun intended?) simply shaking their head.
Linda
Maybe, as a poster mentioned above, they are looking to get publicity by claiming how even the mighty JREF turned them down becuase they were scared of losing their money.BPSCG said:
By taking them up on the challenge they demonstrate it to be not paranormal and therefore there will no publicity on the back of the JREF.
They are unlikely to crow "We were tested by the JREF... and failed when Randi explained the trick we're using."
Ripley Twenty-Nine
Muse
- Joined
- May 2, 2005
- Messages
- 849
Ashles said:
Ashles, I think you've got it exactly right. I think this claim will be easily debunked, but I would imagine that they were HOPING it would never be tested. Either that, or they're hoping that JREF is not smart enough to figure out the illusion and hand over the $1,000,000 cheque to them. Unlikely.
But I think the most important point is that right now Kramer is simply talking to the 'go between' between this tourist trap and JREF. This guy may or may not actually believe that something unexplainable is happening. He very well may bring back the terms of the protocol to the owners of the site and have them turn it down because it will expose the illusion.
-Ripley 29
Blackwell
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,293
I think Ashles pretty muched nailed it with his post (nice diagram!)
An oddity in the applicant's last email to Kramer is his claim of proof of a gravity anomaly using the pendulum method (whatever that may be.) I know that their challenge claim is that the "vortex" causes a person to grow, NOT to experience a change in weight, but couldn't someone test this simply with a scale? A 10% reduction of gravity's power, as they claim, would be fairly obvious using nothing more than a bathroom scale.
An oddity in the applicant's last email to Kramer is his claim of proof of a gravity anomaly using the pendulum method (whatever that may be.) I know that their challenge claim is that the "vortex" causes a person to grow, NOT to experience a change in weight, but couldn't someone test this simply with a scale? A 10% reduction of gravity's power, as they claim, would be fairly obvious using nothing more than a bathroom scale.
I'm not sure if it's been dealt with already but...
Has anyone decided on the degree of accuracy by which the subjects are measured? In other words if one person is 1 mm taller in one photo compared to the other is that going to count as a "result" or not?
Has anyone decided on the degree of accuracy by which the subjects are measured? In other words if one person is 1 mm taller in one photo compared to the other is that going to count as a "result" or not?
Good point. How much of a difference would be sufficient to consider as significant?edthedoc said:
By the way, did you guys read what Nick had to say about the force of gravity in the Oregon Vortex? Whoa! This is Nobel Prize winning stuff!
Do you think a pendulum-swinging experiment (comparing the number of swings/minute at two different points in the area) might be a method more trickery-proof than all this photography business with standing people?
The problem is, while this would work (similar to Randi's spice bottles explanation), it would be immediately apparent to everyone who looked at it and it would be obvious there was nothing paranormal going on, even to the casual observer. If the tourists visiting the place had to be told that on switching, they do not switch places exactly, they'd shrug their shoulders and say, "Big deal. What's so paranormal about that?"Ashles said:
In that case, the only possible answer would be, "Nothing, but when you take a picture of it, your friends back home will be amazed and wonder how it's done."
Yeah, but the purpose of that is to disallow the use of anecdotal evidence as proof of the claim - not disproof.Squidd said:
If the only people to whom the illusion appears real is people who were not there at the time, if everyone who participates in the photo session knows it's a hoax and understands why, then where's the paranormal claim?
And if I understand this correctly, the challenger wants only photographic evidence as proof of the claim. Why? And he wants only human subjects. Why? Or am I misunderstanding something?
I think I understand why Randi may want to debunk the Oregon Vortex. From the October 10, 2003, commentary:
Randi explained the photo used on the website. Others have explained or dismissed the vortex, too, including the Curator of The Museum of Unnatural Mystery.
http://www.unmuseum.org/unmain.htm
Then along comes Nick Nelson, actually double-dog daring Randi to officially debunk the Vortex by way of the Million Dollar Challange. Nick's motives are probably publicity, as others have mentioned here several times.
I've visited the Oregon Vortex and, to me, it's not worth debunking. Even children see it as entertainment and they have fun trying to figure out how it's done. But the new owners are charging $8 for admission, and I guarantee you that the Oregon Vortex is not worth $8.
However, I don't expect Randi to turn away from a double-dog dare concerning a supposedly paranormal site that he's already unofficially debunked from a distance. He's now been invited to officially debunk it. That's just plain fun.
I'm eager to see what happens.
Gayle
Randi explained the photo used on the website. Others have explained or dismissed the vortex, too, including the Curator of The Museum of Unnatural Mystery.
http://www.unmuseum.org/unmain.htm
Then along comes Nick Nelson, actually double-dog daring Randi to officially debunk the Vortex by way of the Million Dollar Challange. Nick's motives are probably publicity, as others have mentioned here several times.
I've visited the Oregon Vortex and, to me, it's not worth debunking. Even children see it as entertainment and they have fun trying to figure out how it's done. But the new owners are charging $8 for admission, and I guarantee you that the Oregon Vortex is not worth $8.
However, I don't expect Randi to turn away from a double-dog dare concerning a supposedly paranormal site that he's already unofficially debunked from a distance. He's now been invited to officially debunk it. That's just plain fun.
I'm eager to see what happens.
Gayle