Ft. Leonard Wood tornado picture perplexing

[James Hammett]

It may not be a second vortex (though it looks like one) but I'm pretty well convinced it's at least cloud material. I saved the pic and played around with the curves...the object in question appears to indeed be interacting with the main vortex and is the same color:

http://stormdig.com/images/forums/2011/ftwood3-2.jpg

The videos don't help much as they're further away and of poor quality (and even a small difference in perspective could render the object invisible)

 

[Donovan Gruner]

I'd like to know what the picture was taken on... could be a number of camera-related issues. I highly doubt that is any type of vortex, or cloud material for that matter.

 

[Keith Wilson]

It may not be a second vortex (though it looks like one) but I'm pretty well convinced it's at least cloud material. I saved the pic and played around with the curves...the object in question appears to indeed be interacting with the main vortex and is the same color:

http://stormdig.com/images/forums/2011/ftwood3-2.jpg

The videos don't help much as they're further away and of poor quality (and even a small difference in perspective could render the object invisible)

I played around with it quite a bit before deleting it. Nothing that I did to it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was real and interacting with the tornado.

 

[Bob Hartig]

At this point the only thing any of us can say with absolute certainty is that each of us has an opinion and reasons for holding it, and we're probably pretty well lodged in our thinking. But there's no unarguable proof one way or the other thus far that demonstrates conclusively that the feature is a vortex, as some maintain, or a smudge, as others including me believe. Unless some form of unassailable evidence comes in one way or another, this discussion seems destined to play out as a ping-pong game of rationales that will end when the last person in lets the ball go by without retrieving it. It's been fun, though!

Six weeks to go till storm season. What's next on the list to keep us occupied? I've got it: My new theory of tornadogenesis. It has to do with cycloids and monsters on another planet. I figure that Stormtrack is just the forum for some serious discussion on the matter. Anyone interested?

 

[Dennis Dennison]

So my fianl display of why I think its a secondary vortice being wrapped around is based upon my enhancing methods.

Added better links so one can see what I was trying to point out

The NWS site had a picture showing the tornado from a bit of a distance, but that picture shows some details if looked at closer.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/sgf/events/December%2031%202010%20Tornadoes/FtLW2.png

A closer look at the above pic shows the following details as shown below
[img=http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/3504/fullwx.th.jpg]


Now the Photo in question enhanced to show details of MAIN Tornado
[img=http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8741/enhancedmainfunnel.th.jpg]

Closeup of Ground Suction/Circulation
[img=http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9580/picclose1.th.jpg]

And detail of 2nd and 3rd vortices
[img=http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5151/enhanced2.th.jpg]


For me, this is enough to allow me to believe in Xtra vortices and the wrap around of the smaller thin tube from the ground position of in front of main tornado path, wrapping around the main tornado in a counter clockwise manner extending to the translucent portion extending out towards top right- or- the northern rear of the main tornado. But without anything else-its all speculation on an oddball feature


[img=http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/5720/enhanced1.th.jpg]

 

[Jordan Hartley]

I agree with Mikes opinion and have since I first saw this thread but was too lazy up to this point to comment. Looked too natural to be camera defect.

 

[Skip Talbot]

If you connect the dots, the feature is bound by parallel linear lines. There is nothing natural about that. These lines do not bend to the will of the main vortex, they are not perturbed by the adjacent turbulence. Look at the debris cloud and and the edges of the main condensation funnel. They are very turbulent. I'm not sure how a smooth, laminar feature exists right next to all of this chaos.

 

[Bill Tabor]

Good find! This one is interesting. It is odd that it is so straight and may appear to go through the other vortex - or that part could just be an illusion and it is really in the foreground or background. One reason why I might think such a thing is possible is because of some of the behavior of my Goodnight Tx tornado on 4-22. After it crossed the highway it exhibited these external wrap around vortices that at times were horizontal and outside the main vortex. They seemed to be caused by crazy turbulence that kicked / formed the vortices outside the main shaft but I am unsure of the complete process. One that is for sure is it was seriously cool to watch. Likely this was my best video footage ever. Here is a snap from the HD video when it was doing this:

 

[James Hammett]

If you connect the dots, the feature is bound by parallel linear lines. There is nothing natural about that.

This is a bit like the blind men and the elephant but I actually see it like this, Skip:

As Bob alluded to this is "the speculation zone" and there would be no way to definitively say one way or the other based on this one image. That said...

The arrow follows the cyclonic interference I see in the main vortex. This cyclonic folding or "diffraction" appearance of the main vortex shows up better in the contrast-enhanced version I linked to above.

 

[Bob Hartig]

I just saw the identical photo on Jon Davies' blog site, with one striking difference: The feature in question isn't present. Here's a link to the photo: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ix7lJf4jQ...I5-eb04c/s1600/123110tbn-rollaMOtors_anno.gif.

 

[Skip Talbot]

Wow, great catch, Bob! Its definitely the exact same photo. If you look at the pieces of debris they are in identical positions, which means its not two photos taken one after the other, but the same photo. If you ask me, that's the nail in the coffin for this tornado myth. If the photos varied in time you could argue that the feature just dissipated rapidly. However, because the feature is gone in one version and there in the next, it means it was added after the fact. How was it added? I'm guessing the photo was copied somehow, either its a picture of a picture or a scan, and something got botched in the copy process. Either that or someone accidentally (or intentionally) dragged the clone brush across the image when they were editing it in Photoshop. I find it interesting that the photo source is labeled NWS SGF, and yet when I contacted SGF the person that responded didn't know about this unaltered version and thought it looked legitimate.

 

[Jason Harris]

Bob mentioned monsters earlier, which made me realize here was the answer:
http://www.sff.net/people/doylemacdonald/L_damned.htm

the key quote:

The human eye is an imperfect instrument; its range is but a few octaves of the real 'chromatic scale.' I am not mad; there are colours that we cannot see.

"And, God help me! the Damned Thing is of such a colour!"

 

[Greg Stumpf]

Look closely. It is the version without the feature that has been photoshopped. Note the smudging where the secondary vortex was.

 

[Bob Hartig]

Hoo, boy, now we get into a whole new realm of speculation regarding motives. First, I have to say, I don't see what you're talking about, Greg. The photo looks unretouched to me. But then I'm no Photoshop expert, though I use photo editing fairly often and have made my share of erasures, or sloppy attempts thereat. So, second, let's say you're right and the photo without the smudge/vortex is a copy. Why on earth would someone make such an alteration? It makes more sense to me that the reason would be to remove a known defect from the photo rather than to erase an essential feature of the storm and thereby perpetrate an inaccuracy. But like I said, now we're getting back to pure speculation, and my guess is neither better nor worse than the next guy's.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

On the upper right, graininess and debris bits are smudged away where the vortex was. Also, just below the center of the picture, a portion of the debris cloud is clearly smudged.

From the first time I saw this photograph, I was pretty much convinced that this was a legitimate secondary vortex. Now, if we could only find video during the same time to slam dunk this.