Mysterious electrical phenomena during tornadoes

[Lake Martin EF4]

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.

No

 

[notsoencrypted]

There's also been some discussion on Twitter about how another option with headlights, but much lighter-weight would be a ATV or UTV. Some of these are almost like a small car (my dad's neighbor has one like that), though I'd be even more sure any passengers in one of those would not survive that experience. The shape of the headlights makes me think car, but could be similar to some ATVs.

Another aspect with the light seeming constant--it's not. In the clearest video, there are periods when you can tell the car (I'm pretty sure it's a car, though reflection was my first thought as well) turns at an angle relative to to the camera and there's dimming or a change in the "shape" of the lights. I believe part of why we're able to see the light so well even when the vehicle is not necessarily directly aiming at the camera is the nature of the condensation funnel. If you've seen headlights in thick, pea-soup-like fog, it's similar to what I think is going on here. There's so much condensation (and smaller debris, possibly) that the light reflects back to the camera even without the headlights being aimed at the camera.

My big question is this--have human remains been only found in/near buildings? Or have there been "unmoored" remains that could have been removed from a vehicle (or straight up remains found in a vehicle)? I had previously thought that any vehicle with lights on would have to be recently occupied, but the discussion here re: electrifying makes me wonder if it would be possible for the electronics (and thus lights) of a car to be turned on by electrical charges or similar phenomena, which would then not make bodies of a car's occupants (or a survivor's account) necessary to prove if it happened. But if there are people still missing or remains in a car or that seem to have come from nowhere, I would feel that would be possible supporting evidence of a lofted vehicle.

 

[TH2002]

My big question is this--have human remains been only found in/near buildings? Or have there been "unmoored" remains that could have been removed from a vehicle (or straight up remains found in a vehicle)?

That's how the TWISTEX team died in El Reno. Tim Samaras was found still strapped in his seat while Paul Samaras and Carl Young were sucked out of the vehicle and their bodies were found elsewhere.

 

[notsoencrypted]

That's how the TWISTEX team died in El Reno. Tim Samaras was found still strapped in his seat while Paul Samaras and Carl Young were sucked out of the vehicle and their bodies were found elsewhere.

Right! I meant specifically with this tornado, where we have video of what appears to be car circling the vortex with lights on. Obviously people have been killed in/by thrown vehicles in many tornadoes over the years. The question here is more about a car getting as high as these lights and remaining in the tornado for a decent amount of time. Sorry for being unclear.

 

[TH2002]

Right! I meant specifically with this tornado, where we have video of what appears to be car circling the vortex with lights on. Obviously people have been killed in/by thrown vehicles in many tornadoes over the years. The question here is more about a car getting as high as these lights and remaining in the tornado for a decent amount of time. Sorry for being unclear.

Based on the damage this tornado left behind it clearly was violent enough to hurl and loft vehicles great distances - as for why the vehicle remained in the circulation for as long as it did, I'm again inclined to say (the lack of) debris impacts.

In the famous video of the Elie tornado a van is seen being hurled out the side of the funnel and subsequently spiraling towards the ground; obviously at that stage of its life the tornado was quite debris-filled leaving the wind itself less opportunity to catch the vehicle like a sail after it was lofted off the ground. The footage from Rolling Fork was filmed before the tornado hit the town, and thus had hit very few if any structures.

Just my theory, so one should take it with a grain of salt…

 

[UncleJuJu98]

Guys... It's just Harry Potter trying to get to Hogwarts nothing to see here. He got caught in the tornado while trying to make it there that's all the headlights are.

 

[JayF]

Max Olson put together a good video about this idea of the vehicle flying around the vehicle. Take a look and lets discuss the ideas put together in this video.

 

[Casuarina Head]

Max Olson put together a good video about this idea of the vehicle flying around the vehicle. Take a look and lets discuss the ideas put together in this video.

Strangely, his video seems to rebut his earlier statements on Twitter. Previously he had expressed doubt as to whether a vehicle was involved and seemed to rule out a drone. Furthermore, the video does not really present new evidence, but merely reverts to a “default” explanation. Basically, the video claims that a vehicle must have been involved because it is the only “naturalistic” explanation that is at least somewhat plausible. Yet for some reason the film does not actually analyse the footage in depth, frame by frame. Presumably the distance between each headlight could be calculated based on perspective.

Furthermore, commentators have pointed out that the “headlights” are uncharacteristically bright for a vehicle at such a distance, and that the stability of the lights suggests a considerable amount of mass involved. Some viewers have compared the lights to LEDs. There is also this video:



Some people have used this as evidence to support the “vehicle” theory, for in this film the “headlights” do appear to flash as though turning over themselves. Nevertheless, the question must be posed: why would one camera show the flashing yet another show a remarkably stable source of emission? This observation suggests that the Olson footage, which shows no flashing, is more realistic.

At the very least, therefore, the jury is still out on this.

 

[JayF]

Strangely, his video seems to rebut his earlier statements on Twitter. Previously he had expressed doubt as to whether a vehicle was involved and seemed to rule out a drone. Furthermore, the video does not really present new evidence, but merely reverts to a “default” explanation. Basically, the video claims that a vehicle must have been involved because it is the only “naturalistic” explanation that is at least somewhat plausible. Yet for some reason the film does not actually analyse the footage in depth, frame by frame. Presumably the distance between each headlight could be calculated based on perspective.

Furthermore, commentators have pointed out that the “headlights” are uncharacteristically bright for a vehicle at such a distance, and that the stability of the lights suggests a considerable amount of mass involved. Some viewers have compared the lights to LEDs. There is also this video:



Some people have used this as evidence to support the “vehicle” theory, for in this film the “headlights” do appear to flash as though turning over themselves. Nevertheless, the question must be posed: why would one camera show the flashing yet another show a remarkably stable source of emission? This observation suggests that the Olson footage, which shows no flashing, is more realistic.

At the very least, therefore, the jury is still out on this.

Agreed. I posed a question on Max Olson's video about clarification. I asked this question:

"The question I have to maybe assist in this, since we can conclude that this had to be a vehicle. The vehicle had its lights on which means that either the vehicle was running when it was lofted or at minimum had the key in the ignition with the auto lights on. Were any of those killed by this devastating tornado found in a vehicle? If so then we can possibly look at where Chris says this car may have landed and pinpoint if the individual and vehicle could have been this car that was lofted."

 

[Kragg]

We’ve all felt how much more a strong wind affects a car while it’s in motion vs when it’s parked and I’ve also felt strong head winds really lighten the front end of an un-aerodynamic motorcycle at speed. That makes me wonder if a vehicle in motion may contribute to it being lofted.