Chaser Irresponsibility

[Dennis Sherrod]

I apologize I'm jumping in here late, but here's my two cents, for what it's worth...

Not only were "Team Ramora" acting irresponsibly, but they were among many others that day giving false reports. My fellow chaser-friends and I were on the cell further southwest of the two that eventually hit Kearney and heard and read many reports that simply were not valid.

In fact, if my mind serves me correct, Team Ramora was one of many also giving false reports of tornadoes and funnel clouds on May 26th (near and east of Greensburg, KS). There's a huge difference between a rotating wall cloud and harmless scud being pulled into an updraft. It's too bad there are so many that don't understand that difference.

I've got plenty of pictures and little video (there was nothing to video!) to likely disprove many of the reports between these two days.

Matthew,
I must ask you..
How do you know it was Team Remora that was giving the so-called "false reports"?

Unless you are directly next them, looking exactly where they are, and at exactly the same moment, how do you know exactly what they see and you don't?
I have been standing directly next to others in the past looking at a different part of the storm and they or myself will see a funnel or other feature that the other does not.

I do not like false reports either, but, I do not see how you can absolutely place blame on someone you were not with and may not have seen exactly what they may have seen. In fact, your post seems to contradict itself somewhat, although you may be speaking of two seperate days.
First, you say they (Team Remora) were among many others giving false reports.
Next, in your very next paragraph, you seem to be unsure as you say, IF your memory serves your correctly, Team Remora was one of many also giving false reports.

 

[Greg Ansel]

Getting tired of this

Thanks Dennis for the back-up. I have to say that when we are seeing a rotating funnel cloud and DIRECTLY below it are power flashes and debris spinning, i have to say that I would call that a tornado any time and report it as such. I was not in Greensburg and did not report anything but a possible funnel near Pratt on May 26th, so Matthew, don't accuse us of doing something we did not do unless you have proof, which I would like to see, since we did not see a tornado on May 26th, in fact we were coming up from Woodward like a lot of other chasers and missed the whatever tornado was reported. This is just getting slanderous and unnecessary. If anyone has a problem with me, write PM me and keep the vicious and petty stuff off of these threads.

Greg Ansel
Team Remora

 

[Matthew K. Hartman]

Greg,

If you want to take my post as a personal attack, then go right ahead... I did not intend it to be a personal attack on you, as an individual. I was under the impression that "Team Ramora" was a "Team," as in being comprised of several individuals. If that is not the case, you should make that clear.

All I'm saying is that we (I had three others with me that could very well back up my claims - I won't ask them to do it, but they were there) had SN up on GR3 and clearly saw "Team Ramora" show up when we were between Cullison and Pratt and saw, at least, one or two reports that had the same in the "notes" portion. I'm sorry that I don't take photos or video of GR3. (Who does that?) But, if I had, I would gladly share it with you.

Also, in defense, no we were not right beside "Ramora," and I'm not saying the false reports were strictly from Ramora - if you read my previous post carefully, I was merely saying they were just one of many that were putting out false reports.

I'm just as disappointed with everyone else and if their names were included here, I'd probably be making the same claims.

 

[Greg Ansel]

false reports

Again Matthew you are saying "false reports" when you don't have proof. Show me the proof or stop saying it, that's all.

Greg

 

[Greg Ansel]

As for Team Remora, I can call myself whatever I want, if you don't know what or who we are, it is not my responsibility to "describe" myself, it is yours to get the facts straight before you start writing about things you do not know of.

 

[Jim Saueressig]

Not only were "Team Ramora" acting irresponsibly, but they were among many others that day giving false reports. My fellow chaser-friends and I were on the cell further southwest of the two that eventually hit Kearney and heard and read many reports that simply were not valid. I swear, for as often as chasers say they do it for "public safety" and "for their community," many of them desperately need to sit through an Advanced Skywarn course once or twice. I re-certify every year, even though I really don't need to.

If you were on a cell SW of the ones that "Team Remora" or the "many others" were on that day how in the hell would you know what "Team Remora" or the "many others" were seeing? It would seem to me the rain from your cell would be blocking what might be going on in a cell NE of you. Were you tracking all these chasers that day to see what they were looking at?

In fact, if my mind serves me correct, Team Ramora was one of many also giving false reports of tornadoes and funnel clouds on May 26th (near and east of Greensburg, KS). There's a huge difference between a rotating wall cloud and harmless scud being pulled into an updraft. It's too bad there are so many that don't understand that difference.

Again how would you know what they are seeing? Are you stalking them all and watching what they are looking at?

I've got plenty of pictures and little video (there was nothing to video!) to likely disprove many of the reports between these two days.

I want to see that multi angle multi storm camera because it must be one fantastic little camera to watch all the storms and chasers at the same time.

Anyhow, to stay more on topic, IMO, I feel that if anyone thinks they can disregard the law or "rules" just because they're a chaser - maybe they shouldn't be one.

That part I dont disagree with, its based of fact...

I've never understood what's so damn important about severe weather that makes people want to be right in it, or as close as possible. You don't have to be a half-mile away or a quarter-mile away from a tornado to report it by phone or HAM to the NWS. And cameras do have these things called telescoping lenses. If "up-close-and-personal" is what you're after, I'd recommend investing in one of these, rather than you're own life.

Maybe if you are staying that far away it would explain you not seeing what they are seeing? Obviously your not as courageous or disturbed (in a few cases) as a few other chasers who get closer but that means you just choose to play the game a little differently.

If someone wants to drive right up the ass of a tornado I don't care unless they are endangering others doing it. There are a lot of thrill seekers that choose parachuting, base jumping, bungee jumping etc that feel the need for a dangerous thrill that I would myself not do for any reason but would hesitate to condemn them for it even if I thought it idiotic.

This thread was about irresponsible actions and they took credit for that and stated that they would change how they chase to reflect a more common sense "safe" approach.... It was not about calling them liars or false reporters because thats a serious accusation that you better have a little more proof about before making on a public forum.

It would seem you have some issue with Team Remora that is not related to this thread to make such statements.

 

[MatthewCarman]

If someone wants to drive right up the ass of a tornado I don't care unless they are endangering others doing it.

If someone did drive into a tornado (accidental or on purpose) I would care because they could get seriously hurt and they are still a human being. I am not saying you do not care and mabey I just missunderstood your post. That is just how I took it.

Greg Ansel made a mistake, was called on it and apologized. We all make mistakes. Nobody is perfect. The important thing is we learn from our mistakes and I think Greg and team Remora learned from thier mistake so there is no more need to put them down. It is time to move on now.

Ps. Greg thankyou for apologizing and admitting you made a mistake. I respect that.

 

[Joe Acord]

The jury's decision....

After reading all the posts/replies in this little thread. I have determined that someone drove through some little town a little faster than normal, but under the circumstances, their priority was safety. This person took responsibility for their actions immediately, which some people would not do, and apologized.

The jury has found that people need to stop complaining about an incident that happened over a week ago.

On a personal note. There are times that you are put in situations that require quick thinking, and if I was put in a dangerous situation and bent the rules a little, so be it. I would later apologize for my actions, but at least I would be alive to do that..

I commend Team Remora for taking the sword on this one. It just sucks that this is still getting debated more than a week after the apology.

OUT

 

[Jim Saueressig]

If someone did drive into a tornado (accidental or on purpose) I would care because they could get seriously hurt and they are still a human being. I am not saying you do not care and mabey I just missunderstood your post. That is just how I took it.

Nah it means if they "choose" to do so for a thrill that I wont condemn them for it as stupid as it may or may not be. I am all for personal freedoms like that as long as you are doing it alone and only you would be the one hurt if it goes bad.

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

Greg,

If you want to take my post as a personal attack, then go right ahead... I did not intend it to be a personal attack on you, as an individual. I was under the impression that "Team Ramora" was a "Team," as in being comprised of several individuals. If that is not the case, you should make that clear.

Also, in defense, no we were not right beside "Ramora," and I'm not saying the false reports were strictly from Ramora - if you read my previous post carefully, I was merely saying they were just one of many that were putting out false reports.

I'm just as disappointed with everyone else and if their names were included here, I'd probably be making the same claims.

Matthew,
What you did is a personal attack. When you use a team or person's name with lame accusations, that is personal. I made a personal attack when I first told Greg I thought his issue with traffic lights was bad and the same as I am telling you that you are wrong as trying to say what Greg did or did not see. There is no way feasible to be sure of what he saw or did not see. I was probably within 3 -5 miles of Greg at times and did not see what he saw, but that sure does not mean the events did not happen. I bet you did not see what I saw either, but does that mean I gave false reports also, just because I was close, maybe closer to that area too?
You further stated that you were "under the impression" that Team Remora was comprised of several individuals. Team may be one person per vehicle, with more than one vehicle, or two or more people in one vehicle. It does not have to be several to constitute a team. This, along with your other False Impressions, is what is the problem here. You are making allegations that you are not and cannot show proof of.

Well Greg, you were right. You did not have to keep the Golden Bonehead Award for long before someone did the next bonehead thing.
Time to pass it on.

 

[Matthew K. Hartman]

Listen guys, I'm not going to get into some battle to see who's thingy is bigger here... That's what this has seemed to have turned into.

All I'm saying is there were several people out there on May 26th and 29th that were relaying false reports - mainly through SpotterNetwork. I saw it, the three other guys I was with saw it, and apparently that dude in the black Corsica (that's what it looked like, anyway) saw it. The person that whom (I'll bite my tongue this time...) this topic was focused on, just happened to be one of them. That's the only reason this person, group, or whichever, appeared in my initial post. Given the immediate history of said person, and what I experienced that day I felt it appropriate to bring it up. On that account, maybe I did wrong. I apologize...

Either way, the storms that were being reported on were to our immediate east that day (they had actually propagated overhead of our location) and if a rotating wall cloud was really there, it would have been right over us. There were 20-some chasers on this thing and a particular person or group, just happened to be the one's we noted on one or two of the reports. There was no wall cloud on this storm - therefore it was a false report. The entire storm had become outflow dominate, in fact. This should answer your first couple of questions, Jim... I have pictures of this, but no official report. SPC logs don't have it, so no, I do not have the "official" proof that you guys are requesting. It was on SN in our GR3, though... and whether you want to believe me or not, is all subjective.

I don't have an issue with Ramora... I have issues with people in general, reporting things that don't exist (chasers or not). I'm a strong advocate for Skywarn, so I'll once again recommend anyone that decides to chase to, at least, sit through an Advanced Skywarn course. You really can't use the excuse there isn't one nearby much anymore, as nearly all offices do this now.

And Dennis, there is a feasible way to know, if you're sitting directly under the feature that is being reported. If I look up and see no rotation whatsoever, feel cool outflow, and a whale's mouth extending a mile or two to my east, what's that mean?

I'm off the soapbox for now and this will be the last post from me... If anyone wants to personally respond, PM me, E-mail me or whichever. I'd be more than happy to explain myself further.

Agree to disagree...? Is that how it goes?

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I'm not sure what storm you're referring to and at what times, but it sounds as if you're talking about the storm that impacted Kearney. I too saw no wall cloud until the storm approached Kearney, but I'm almost certain there was a wall cloud as the storm approached the town. This was shot from the I-80 Kearney exit, looking west-northwest:

Earlier, hower, the storm had a much more outflow dominant look to it -- I think, though, what it was doing is transitioning to HP. This is looking north from just east of Elwood as the updraft base drifted by:

To be honest, the restructuring of the storm caught me by surprise as I opted to drive right under the base on I-80. It certainly wasn't outflow dominant by that point, which was about 10 to 12 minutes before it impacted Kearney. I didn't have time to look for wall clouds (it would have been right above me, anyhow), but I would be more surprised if there wasn't one.

*edit* changed the direction I was looking the first pic. Obviously, I was looking northwest, not north east. Brain fart.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

Awesome pictures, Ryan.

 

[Max Iselin]

Those are nice pictures... I think some of you just need a hug. some points to make. 1) You should be aways looking to do the right thing. 2) Some of the stuff you are rambling about is apples to oranges. 3) If a junior members car hits me or a Senior members car hits me I am dead. 4) I am neither new or old, rookie of vet, I enjoy the drive and the action of natrue. I am teacher by profession and you all sound like quibling 5th graders. You are passionate but you are getting too personal and clickish. I joined to learn and stay out of your way but you are getting in the way talking like this. You all have as much right as any other tourist to be on the roads. If you are making money great but so are truckers and taxi cab drivers. They follow the rules... ? Lets relax and play nice.

 

[Darrin Rasberry]

Listen guys, I'm not going to get into some battle to see who's thingy is bigger here... That's what this has seemed to have turned into.

There's no need for that kind of illustration. I know for sure that at least one female Stormtrack poster, who is likely keeping up with this thread, will not be pleased to read this sort of reference, and a lot of other posters aren't going to appreciate it, either.

All I'm saying is there were several people out there on May 26th and 29th that were relaying false reports - mainly through SpotterNetwork. I saw it, the three other guys I was with saw it, and apparently that dude in the black Corsica (that's what it looked like, anyway) saw it. The person that whom (I'll bite my tongue this time...) this topic was focused on, just happened to be one of them. That's the only reason this person, group, or whichever, appeared in my initial post. Given the immediate history of said person, and what I experienced that day I felt it appropriate to bring it up. On that account, maybe I did wrong. I apologize...

The whole "false report" application here applies to an incorrect report, not a deliberate misreport (to which the term is usually applied). Even though it's clear that you mean an innocent incorrect call rather than an outright lie, there's still a feeling of an underlying accusation of Remora doing this on purpose to gain a sense of attention and/or importance by your application of the "false" tag.

Either way, the storms that were being reported on were to our immediate east that day (they had actually propagated overhead of our location) and if a rotating wall cloud was really there, it would have been right over us. There were 20-some chasers on this thing and a particular person or group, just happened to be the one's we noted on one or two of the reports. There was no wall cloud on this storm - therefore it was a false report. The entire storm had become outflow dominate, in fact. This should answer your first couple of questions, Jim... I have pictures of this, but no official report. SPC logs don't have it, so no, I do not have the "official" proof that you guys are requesting. It was on SN in our GR3, though... and whether you want to believe me or not, is all subjective.

I may be new at this whole thing, but the last time I checked, a storm cannot attain a certain characteristic by majority chaser opinion. If twenty chasers sit under a rotating wall cloud and call it by some other name (perhaps because they were in denial that they sat underneath a rotating wall cloud, say) then they still sat under a rotating wall cloud. If every chaser and their dog calls in an ominous, nontornadic structure as a rotating wall cloud, it is still nothing more than an ominous, nontornadic structure.

If there is a general disagreement of chasers on the matter, and the matter is considered worthy enough to investigate, then an independent, professional team will do their job, gather the best evidence, and issue the best-fitting description for the condition of the storm. Bringing up the contested point here is irrelevant to the argument, anyhow, since this team honestly believed they were chasing a tornadic storm.

I don't have an issue with Ramora... I have issues with people in general, reporting things that don't exist (chasers or not). I'm a strong advocate for Skywarn, so I'll once again recommend anyone that decides to chase to, at least, sit through an Advanced Skywarn course. You really can't use the excuse there isn't one nearby much anymore, as nearly all offices do this now.

No matter how many Skywarn classes you take, including the advanced ones, nothing can prepare you for actually being out in the field. From stories from just about every chaser I've met, I know that there are always new situations that present difficult decisions to make. The best thing to do in such a situation is present the danger you observe AND the reservations you have about the situation as tersely as possible in your reporting. If you are wrong, then you learn from your mistakes the next time you see it in the field. This is what science is all about.

There's a fantasy movie made in the eighties that features a character so confident in his knowledge that even the most evident and observable fact is "inconceivable!" if it does not fit into his tightly-defined structure. Some of the thoughts presented here are not unlike the behavior of this character, who dies in disbelief - because what kills him is so against his packed regimen of rules that he can't even imagine the method of his death as a possibility anymore. Certainly, chasers should know all they can rationally learn before going out in the field, and they should certainly learn from their mistakes, but if there was the slightest bit of question that people were in danger - not even despite, but in spite of other conditions present - then I commend him if he honestly reported what he thought was a danger to the public. Yes, you can thump your textbooks at him and raise the flag of righteousness, but if the report actually verified, who would be the bigger fool?

Mother Nature is the biggest breaker of your silly, insignificant little rules. If she's not going to follow your cultishly closed system, then why should we?

And Dennis, there is a feasible way to know, if you're sitting directly under the feature that is being reported. If I look up and see no rotation whatsoever, feel cool outflow, and a whale's mouth extending a mile or two to my east, what's that mean?

... probably that you're chasing in Iowa?

The day that you're 100% relaxed and content in a severe weather situation because mother nature is currently behaving in line with one of your rules is the day that you should retire. Certainly the percentages are high enough that you can pull off a storm for another, go home, scoff at scud-watchers, etc., but if you'd believe for a second that all is guaranteed just as you think, then at some point of time you will be burned. Chasing and weather have some pretty good room for responsible learning, testing, and conjecture, but Mother Nature is not a priori, like mathematics. That was probably the biggest mistaken assumption I made when I started taking this hobby seriously. Rulebreakers certainly are frustrating, aren't they?