Ft. Leonard Wood tornado picture perplexing

[Mark Ellinwood]

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.

Agreed that the newer image without the feature is photoshopped in the ways that you mentioned.

Furthermore, the caption states courtesy NWS Springfield, but the NWS site has the original photo with the feature and not the photoshopped version on the actual page: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/sgf/?n=event_2010dec31_pictures

 

[Bob Hartig]

Video evidence would be great, but so far none has emerged. But someone took that photo, and Springfield must have a source for it. Getting hold of the photographer is the likeliest way to resolve this issue. It would be interesting to hear that person's account. I don't have time to dig into things at the moment--I leave for church in a few minutes--but I'll do a little sleuthing over the next few days and see what, if anything, I can come up with. If someone else wants to beat me to the punch, feel free to do so--just let me know so I don't duplicate efforts that are already underway.

 

[Jason Foster]

Now that there is a second image....these two could be exampled in the "unmanipulated photo" thread...as a good point when NOT to photoshop!

 

[Scott Weberpal]

I am still nowhere near convinced that the anomaly to the right is at all related to the tornado. I have never seen other video/photo evidence of a vortex perpendicular to a tornado, which when compared to the main vortex, is anywhere near that size - nor that "smooth". With the violent, chaotic motions in the main tornado, how and why is the supposed 'secondary vortex' not showing some perturbations or sinuosity or anything else that would indicate it is in the same volatile atmosphere as the main vortex? Given the smooth, unperturbed nature of the anomaly in question, until I see some evidence (i.e. video or another picture) proving it is in fact related to the tornado, I will remain a strong skeptic.

 

[Andrew Pritchard]

Why are the supporters of the vortex the ones calling for someone to give them video evidence that it does not exist? Quite a few videos of the tornado have been supplied with none of them showing anything even close to this feature. I see a lot of "well that video did not show it, so it was not the right angle, or right time period". No video showing the "vortex" means that the videos are all wrong for some reason, and not that they simply don't show something that never existed beyond that photographic anomaly.

How about you the supporters of the vortex find one video supporting this vortex, either from this day or any other tornado dating back to the dawn of the camera. With so many reasons that this theory makes no physical sense at all, I'd love to see some theories supporting it existing other than tracing and connecting lines in MS Paint. Everyone here should already be aware that a tornado is not simply an inanimate object scooting along the horizon, but a complex dynamic process, and until I see some reasoning that something like this should exist in such dynamic chaos I see no reason to take blind faith.

Don't mean to come off as rude, I'm just confused why those supporting something that defies physics are the ones calling for someone to provide evidence proving them wrong.

 

[Skip Talbot]

Whether the feature was post processed in, or post processed out, I'm now 95% convinced that it was not part of the tornado or a secondary funnel. Why would you edit the second vortex out of the shot? Its like getting a picture of two Loch Ness monsters or UFOs and then altering the photo to take one of them out. The editing makes the image less credible, and also less interesting as you took out half of the content of the image. If the feature was edited out of the photo, that's pretty damning evidence that it was a glitch, smudge, or reflection in the original shot that the photographer found distracting and wanted to remove, much like how some of us take the powerlines out of our storm shots.

The more I poke at the two pictures, the more I agree that the anomaly (or smudge/reflection) was edited out instead of added:

In the top two photos, I've got arrows pointing to a suspect piece of debris that might be partially missing from the photo on the left. Although there is a dark spot which might suggest its still present. The problem with this new version is that its been sized down, cropped, and dropped from 24 bit color to 8 bit color. The graininess is a product of the GIF conversion. The larger JPEG, looks much more like an original shot that came from a camera or cell phone. Anyway, it appears you can still see the anomaly in front of the tornado as there are dark diagonal lines extending in the same direction in both shots. The editor probably didn't take the time to try and edit out the more subtle portion of the anomaly that was in front of the tornado. On the bottom image, there does appear to be pretty obvious brush marks where the arrows are pointing. The missing noise looks more like the result of the smoother gradiented sky which converted to GIF better than the more turbulent portions of the tornado, however.

Video or no video, the evidence that this was a secondary vortex is getting pretty thin and flimsy. Its exceedingly more likely that this was a distracting defect that was edited out or a post processing glitch.

 

[Wes Carter]

Forgive me for posting this photo yet again, but the original photo is not on this page yet. There is one other thing that leads me to believe that this is just something unrelated to the tornado like a smudge or a hair or something. Look at how even the color is across the breadth of the feature, then it abruptly ends. Most vortices I have ever seen in photos either are darker in the middle and fade to the outer edges or (as in the case of many landspouts and waterspouts) are darker at the edges and more translucent in the center because I assume they are a single vortex and 'hollow' in the center. This is just the same darkness all the way across. That does not jive with being a vortex IMHO.

 

[Danny Neal]

I agree with Skip......I can't explain it but label me 99.9% sure that is not involved with the tornado. If someone can show me otherwise please have the crow sent to Skip Talbot's house.

No crow for Skip!

It just doesn't make sense for it to be related to the tornado. It screamed FAKE to me from the second I saw it. As Skip said earlier in my mind this myth is busted. Of all the angles and videos of this tornado none of them have even resembled this feature.

 

[Bob Hartig]

I've emailed KSGF, giving them a quick lowdown on this debate and requesting that they either put me in touch with the photographer or else, if they don't feel comfortable divulging that person's contact info, having him or her get in touch with me. I assured them that a lot of folks on Stormtrack would really love to get the photographer's story.

Cross your fingers and hope that I get a quick and positive response.

 

[Jason Foster]

For sake of arguing, what would the smudge be on? The Camera? A piece of glass? Car window?

I personally, if going to allow a percentage of possibility it's not part of the storm (and I do allow for the possibility) I certainly think it could only be on the camera end. What piece of glass is it on (the outside lense, an internal one, on the mirror, sensor)? Let's (again...for the sake of arguing it, regardless if you believe it is or not) just discuss what smudge it could be.

 

[Skip Talbot]

Cross your fingers and hope that I get a quick and positive response.

Well, Bob don't get your hopes up if they haven't replied already. It appears we're badgering SGF:

I will probably be taking this photo off of our site since it is generating
too much criticism. I do not have any further information on the author of
the photo or about the photo than the photo itself, so I can't comment on
the validity.

I'm not sure who criticized them. I simply asked for more information, and from the sound of it, they probably just pulled the photo off of some website and know no more about it than we do.

 

[Bob Hartig]

I just heard from them and got exactly the same response, word for word. I replied to their webmaster that I hoped they would keep the photo online, and that whatever criticism it may have drawn didn't come from Stormtrack. On this forum, it has elicited interest and sparked debate, but no one has criticized either the photo or KSGF for publishing it.

The origin of the photo remains a mystery, which I find surprising. It does seem like a WFO would have a record of its sources; that's the one point of possible criticism I can see, but I don't know the circumstances in which it was obtained.

 

[Skip Talbot]

Obviously they got the photo(s) from somewhere, and I'm not sure why they are so put off by the information requests.

This article:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/s...-tornadoes-can-happen-year-round-even-winter/
credits Leonard Morrow with taking the photo. Maybe the article author, Alexandra Browning, is the person to contact?

 

[Danny Neal]

I think it boils down to them taking the photo off a media website and they really don't have many answers for the questions we ask. Just my personal thoughts right there. I would forget the NWS and contact Alexandra Browning, I just can't imagine the vortex theorists getting the answer they are seeking. That photo defies every tornado I have seen in my life and would really surprise me if it were a proven vorticy off the main tornado.

 

[Bob Hartig]

Good find, Skip. Unfortunately, there are no leads at the Missourian. The reporter is no longer on staff and once again it's the same story: no one knows the photographer's whereabouts. A search on AnyWho doesn't list a Leonard Morrow in Fort Leonard Wood, but now that my engines are fired up, I'm going to look a little further. I've got other stuff I need to take care of right now, but I'm on it. Better yet, though, maybe someone on this forum who lives in the vicinity of Fort Leonard Wood and has a phone book can track down the photographer.