Talk:Oregon Vortex

message: 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)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Are there any books/articles to reference regarding this? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  add images of most prominent "illusion" ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  Very biased and lacking in data 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Posting removed bad link in case someone has a correction to offer on it.  

message: 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)
thread_title:  An Illusion? No Way 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'Expired' Link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "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." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Illusion debunk 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Real distortion