Mysterious electrical phenomena during tornadoes

[Casuarina Head]

I didn’t take him to be suggesting it was a firefly... just comparing the movement to that of a firefly.

You are correct.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Think we can put this in the ground now

So uh, Alex Sizemore from NWS Birmingham was out surveying the Rolling Fork tornado. He confirms via eyewitness account that the lights orbiting the tornado shown in the videos from Adam Lucio, Max Olson, and co. are indeed vehicles.

 

[Casuarina Head]

Think we can put this in the ground now

And I, with a similar degree of confidence, feel obliged to state my objections to this conclusion. Please take a look at the following sequence of frames from the Olson footage. The white circle denotes a tree that can be used as a landmark:

Starting in the following frame a faint secondary “orb” can be observed at the lower centre-left, to the immediate right of the tree:

The fact that the secondary “orb” at the lower centre-left, which is apparently a house, does not vanish suggests that the primary “orb” is not that of vehicular lights. If the house is still lit, why would the vehicles’ lights still be functional, especially under such extreme conditions? Also, as mentioned previously, the “firefly-like” manner in which the “vehicle” moves, and the spacing between its “headlights” at such a distance, suggests that the “vehicle” is actually something else.

Even the author of the film himself questions whether the “orb” is indeed a vehicle, and also expresses doubt as to the “drone” theory:

Another observer adds:

 

[ColdFront]

Occam’s razor would be it’s a car. I know that tweeter stated tornados don’t throw cars hundreds of feet… but New Wren & Smithville would debunk that.

I know its definitely eerie and has a mysterious aura to it, but if this was an electric phenomenon that tornados were causing, I think we would have more evidence other than just Arabi and Rolling Fork.

 

[Casuarina Head]

@ColdFront

Video by Danielle Henke, tweeted by James Spann, taken at Edwardsville IL on 10 Dec 2021

 

[ColdFront]

@ColdFront

Okay, so there are more examples, but aren’t we making this into maybe something it’s not?

Like the whole flying rod deal. There could be a ton of explanations for each of these events. The Rolling Fork one is interesting, but I’m not sure we can say each of these “orbs” are the same thing each time.

 

[Casuarina Head]

Okay, so there are more examples, but aren’t we making this into maybe something it’s not?

Like the whole flying rod deal. There could be a ton of explanations for each of these events. The Rolling Fork one is interesting, but I’m not sure we can say each of these “orbs” are the same thing each time.

Please look at the example above from Edwardsville. The “orb” appears very suddenly at 0:03 and executes a semicircular movement around the funnel for about six seconds before vanishing. For a time it becomes quite luminous. I think that the present state of knowledge allows for the possibility that tornadoes and anomalous electrical, or electromagnetic, phenomena are linked. The nature of the relationship may be tenuously asserted, but the relationship itself clearly seems to exist, at least under certain circumstances. Rather than simply dismissing it, scientists should look at this phenomenon with a prospective mind.

 

[JayF]

Please look at the example above from Edwardsville. The “orb” appears very suddenly at 0:03 and executes a semicircular movement around the funnel for about six seconds before vanishing. For a time it becomes quite luminous. I think that the present state of knowledge allows for the possibility that tornadoes and anomalous electrical, or electromagnetic, phenomena are linked. The nature of the relationship may be tenuously asserted, but the relationship itself clearly seems to exist, at least under certain circumstances. Rather than simply dismissing it, scientists should look at this phenomenon with a prospective mind.

Ok, so let's go with it is an electrical or electromagnetic phenomenon and not a car that is lofted in the air. Why haven't scientists pointed this out before, and what is the scientific explanation for it? If we have a rational explanation that can be told to us by science, then fine. I do not see that explanation though and even in James Spann's retweet of the Illinois tornado, no explanation of the lights or what they could possibly be.

-Jay

 

[Casuarina Head]

Ok, so let's go with it is an electrical or electromagnetic phenomenon and not a car that is lofted in the air. Why haven't scientists pointed this out before, and what is the scientific explanation for it? If we have a rational explanation that can be told to us by science, then fine. I do not see that explanation though and even in James Spann's retweet of the Illinois tornado, no explanation of the lights or what they could possibly be.

-Jay

@JayF While I do not pretend to know the answers to your questions, I do believe that even scientists are not immune or conscious or unconscious biases. This topic in particular is a sensitive one, as it potentially intersects metaphysics. As you yourself conceded, this is a still-mysterious area of research. In a previous post I already highlighted some possibilities and requested feedback, but was largely ignored. Here is an excerpt from the preceding that may prove to be of value to any further inquest (the bolded portions are my own):

^ As I suggested above, I think that tornadoes, among other severe-weather phenomena, could interact with localised topographic and even electromagnetic anomalies to yield gravitational fluctuations that “bend” the visible spectra and allow observers temporary access to otherwise-invisible realms, albeit on a small scale. If one believes in the existence of other dimensions, then maybe witnesses are even being granted rare access to “invisible” worlds, strange though the occurrence may seem, which is not entirely surprising in light of fluid dynamics’ physical aspects and concepts such as string-theory. Given the complexities involved true scientists should certainly maintain a healthy degree of humility and willingness to acknowledge the unknown.

In short, a complex interplay between forces could at work. I could, however, be wrong, but am merely putting forth some possibilities.

 

[Casuarina Head]

Occam’s razor would be it’s a car. I know that tweeter stated tornados don’t throw cars hundreds of feet… but New Wren & Smithville would debunk that.

Please let me clarify: I have no doubt whatsoever that intense tornadoes are capable of lofting vehicles immense distances. This is not the main issue at stake. The main reasons as to why I question the presence of a vehicle and/or drone at Rolling Fork are as follows: a) the flighty, flitting behaviour of the object, particularly early on; b) the unusual brightness and constancy of the “orb”; c) the unchanging altitude; d) the fact that the “orb” does not roll over itself while being carried aloft; e) the constant velocity throughout, which is atypical of asymmetric, heavy debris such as vehicles; and f) normal, centrifugal forces appear to have suspended operations. Frankly, the object behaves more like the cow in Twister!: that is, unrealistically. Its behaviour is inconsistent with fluid dynamics and the known tendencies of vehicles aloft. The object looks more like a nonphysical rather than a physical entity, perhaps with its own, unique properties. As someone else pointed out, the object appears “weightless.”

 

[TH2002]

The fact that the secondary “orb” at the lower centre-left, which is apparently a house, does not vanish suggests that the primary “orb” is not that of vehicular lights. If the house is still lit, why would the vehicles’ lights still be functional, especially under such extreme conditions?

The video showing the headlights orbiting the tornado was filmed before it hit Rolling Fork, correct? Probably didn't have much debris in its circulation - and without debris impacts contributing to the vehicle's destruction (as is common in tornadoes that go through more populated areas) that would explain why the vehicle's lights remained functional even after it was lofted from the ground.

 

[Austin Dawg]

But I saw this happen before.

 

[Sawmaster]

Points to ponder:
1- The Pampa TX police video clearly shows vehicles being lofted and circulating and being ejected. There are several other videos showing vehicles in circulation too. Thus we can conclude the possibility exists and might have occurred here.
2- The clear poly-carbonate plastic lens cover is very strong. Even broken, the bulb underneath will continue to work. The older glass incandescent and halogen bulbs are quite strong and would survive awhile too. Countless night-time rally car crash footage shows lights working long after extreme impacts so again this could happen here as well.
3- The odds that a lofted amd circiulating vehicles headlights would remain constantly pointed toward any specific viewing position for even a few seconds are quite small. Even considering they might remain visible at any forward viewing angle at best gives you a 50% chance. Rain or dirt wrapping of the tornado could reduce visibility greatly. This probably explains the rarity of seeing it happen.

4- Now comes the real fun: Was the footage under consideration filmed in clear air or was it through a window? If you watch footage filmed through glass, you'll often see reflections being picked up om the camera emanating from things beside of or behind it. If those reflected images are illuminated then that's what the camera will show. If the glass is curved any movement of the apparent images can be exaggerated, so just a few degrees of 'sweep' with a camera can move the image all the way to the other side of the picture as viewed. If you look at enough claimed UFO footage you'll come across plenty where the movement of the supposed UFO corresponds to movement of other things seen in the view. With the source of the image being behind the filmer, they will be convinced that the camera captured a "real" UFO. Taking this concept back to our tornado vids, a fixed-mounted cam in a non-moving car could show the movement of the headlights of another vehicle behind that of the filmer., and to the video viewer that could make appear that those headlights are in the tornado. With the headlight source not flipping or rotating you'd see their image continuously too.

We appear to have good eyewitness verification that the vid being discussed here does indeed show lofted and circulating vehicles with headlights on, and we know that is possible. I hope my thoughts have shined a light on the subject for you

 

[SHA]

I remember talk at the time that the June, 2010 Millbury, OH tornado supposedly lofted a vehicle in view of a surveillance camera. Haven't seen it brought up anywhere:

 

[thundersnow]

Again, I think it’s inconclusive. No one has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is or isn’t a vehicle. I lean toward it was.

As far as the frame by frame assessment- there are a whole set of factors that may explain what could be seen from headlights potentially being carried through the air… lens flare, light streaking, and glare. Look at still shots of headlights driving down the road at night, around curves, at different speeds, and different angles toward the camera, and you’ll actually see some of these same effects. But, also how much “spin” it may or may not have had. You can visualize, depending on the angle of attack when the “thing” was initially hit by the onslaught of winds, that it could be launched in a tailspin or it could be a comparatively gentle carry with little spin. Who’s to say this wasn’t more the latter and the headlights weren’t more or less pointed toward the perspective of the viewer?

 

[Casuarina Head]

@TH2002 @Sawmaster @thundersnow Firstly, I truly appreciate your input, and am grateful to receive serious responses.

The video showing the headlights orbiting the tornado was filmed before it hit Rolling Fork, correct? Probably didn't have much debris in its circulation - and without debris impacts contributing to the vehicle's destruction (as is common in tornadoes that go through more populated areas) that would explain why the vehicle's lights remained functional even after it was lofted from the ground.

This is a valid point. Based on the film’s title and description, apparently the footage was taken just prior to Rolling Fork.

Points to ponder:
1- The Pampa TX police video clearly shows vehicles being lofted and circulating and being ejected. There are several other videos showing vehicles in circulation too. Thus we can conclude the possibility exists and might have occurred here.

The main problem is that the film shows absolutely no clear signs of ejection whatsoever, but only a steady trajectory orbiting the funnel.

2- The clear poly-carbonate plastic lens cover is very strong. Even broken, the bulb underneath will continue to work. The older glass incandescent and halogen bulbs are quite strong and would survive awhile too. Countless night-time rally car crash footage shows lights working long after extreme impacts so again this could happen here as well.

This is a plausible and fair point. However, the author of the film apparently disagrees:

3- The odds that a lofted and circulating vehicle’s headlights would remain constantly pointed toward any specific viewing position for even a few seconds are quite small. Even considering they might remain visible at any forward viewing angle at best gives you a 50% chance. Rain or dirt wrapping of the tornado could reduce visibility greatly. This probably explains the rarity of seeing it happen.

Yet the bolded is clearly evident on the footage. The question is, Why?

4- Now comes the real fun: Was the footage under consideration filmed in clear air or was it through a window? If you watch footage filmed through glass, you'll often see reflections being picked up om the camera emanating from things beside of or behind it. If those reflected images are illuminated then that's what the camera will show. If the glass is curved any movement of the apparent images can be exaggerated, so just a few degrees of 'sweep' with a camera can move the image all the way to the other side of the picture as viewed. If you look at enough claimed UFO footage you'll come across plenty where the movement of the supposed UFO corresponds to movement of other things seen in the view. With the source of the image being behind the filmer, they will be convinced that the camera captured a "real" UFO. Taking this concept back to our tornado vids, a fixed-mounted cam in a non-moving car could show the movement of the headlights of another vehicle behind that of the filmer., and to the video viewer that could make appear that those headlights are in the tornado. With the headlight source not flipping or rotating you'd see their image continuously too.

If it were filmed inside the chase-vehicle, oddly enough, only the “orb” shows any sign of reflection and/or distortion. The funnel itself, the clouds, and the visible landmark, the tree, do not show the slightest sign of this.

We appear to have good eyewitness verification that the vid being discussed here does indeed show lofted and circulating vehicles with headlights on, and we know that is possible.

It is definitely possible, but again, does the evidence in this case suggest that we are observing this?

Again, I think it’s inconclusive. No one has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is or isn’t a vehicle. I lean toward it was.

As far as the frame by frame assessment- there are a whole set of factors that may explain what could be seen from headlights potentially being carried through the air… lens flare, light streaking, and glare. Look at still shots of headlights driving down the road at night, around curves, at different speeds, and different angles toward the camera, and you’ll actually see some of these same effects. But, also how much “spin” it may or may not have had. You can visualize, depending on the angle of attack when the “thing” was initially hit by the onslaught of winds, that it could be launched in a tailspin or it could be a comparatively gentle carry with little spin. Who’s to say this wasn’t more the latter and the headlights weren’t more or less pointed toward the perspective of the viewer?

Personally, I lend more weight to the viewpoint of the film’s author, who himself made the following statements on Twitter:

 

[TimM]

Hi all, I'm a long time lurker here and a new member! I'm from Arkansas and live in the same county as Vilonia. So yeah, I'm familiar with violent tornadoes!

I registered just for this topic because I remember seeing a video with "orbs" seemingly following a tornado while it destroys a truck. Initially, I thought it was debris. But, it doesn't act like other debris in the video. What is everyone's opinion?

 

[Casuarina Head]

Here is another interesting case. At 0:12 a luminous white object or “flare” bounds in from the lower left. At 0:13 the object seems to massively increase its stride without changing form, which seems unnatural for an animal. During the flash of lightning, at 0:14, the object does not appear to materialise properly, resembling more a will-o’-the-wisp than a creature leaping across a barren field. At 0:16 the object actually appears to “levitate” above the ground for a moment, based on the laws of perspective. The following sequence of frames shows this:

More “high strangeness,” indeed...

 

[JayF]

@JayF While I do not pretend to know the answers to your questions, I do believe that even scientists are not immune or conscious or unconscious biases. This topic in particular is a sensitive one, as it potentially intersects metaphysics. As you yourself conceded, this is a still-mysterious area of research. In a previous post I already highlighted some possibilities and requested feedback, but was largely ignored. Here is an excerpt from the preceding that may prove to be of value to any further inquest (the bolded portions are my own):

In short, a complex interplay between forces could at work. I could, however, be wrong, but am merely putting forth some possibilities.

So lets go with this. I am saying this for clarification purposes and to ensure I understand you correctly. A tornado (and by tornado I mean the largest of said tornadoes) could be similar to a black hole in that it sucks in all light, objects, and anything that is within reach of its gravitational pull. Then in some instance light is visible because while we can state that the gravitational pull is so great that nothing can escape, science doesn't back that up. so what we may be seeing, for lack of a better word due to our current knowledge and understanding, could be a wormhole to another part of the universe or to another dimension?

 

[Casuarina Head]

So lets go with this. I am saying this for clarification purposes and to ensure I understand you correctly. A tornado (and by tornado I mean the largest of said tornadoes) could be similar to a black hole in that it sucks in all light, objects, and anything that is within reach of its gravitational pull. Then in some instance light is visible because while we can state that the gravitational pull is so great that nothing can escape, science doesn't back that up. so what we may be seeing, for lack of a better word due to our current knowledge and understanding, could be a wormhole to another part of the universe or to another dimension?

Basically, yes, but on a relatively small, localised scale.