Identify the tornado — part II

I'm going to guess Fargo, ND, June 20, 1957 for Bob's pictures.

BTW, the Picture 2 of my last post that no-one got is Tulsa, OK, December 5, 1975.
 
Nope, not Champaign and not as long ago as 1953. But you've got the right region, Simon.

I'll probably have to toss out some clues with this one, starting with what I've just said. I'll also mention that while these photos are not available on the Net, others of this storm at various stages are.
 
Photo 2 & photo 3 were taken at the same location. Photo 2 was taken from what would appear to be south of the house, looking approximately NNW at the funnel moving left to right in an assumed NW to SE direction. The photographer then moved to approximately the SE corner of the house and took the next picture looking more NW. Notice the overhang of the porch in the left side of photo3. Also the street lamp on the wooden pole and the long white object across the street are visible in both photos.

I just noticed, but there almost appears to be 2 funnels in photo 2. The first is obvious, but then if you follow the bottom of the cloud to the right, just as you reach the tree branch, there may be a second funnel. This could account for the funnel being located at the bottom right of the wall cloud in the 3 photo, and the first (left) funnel dissipating.

As for time and place, I haven’t a clue!
 
As I give the two photos another of many look-overs, I suspect you're right that they're taken from the same location, Kurt. I know that at first glance, this seems blazingly apparent, but as I continued to look, I began finding inconsistencies that really bugged me--for instance, the white sign at the end of the driveway that's in one picture but not the other, or the small tree in foreground of one photo that I can't find in the other, or the fence that appears clearly in the background of one photo but that I can't find in the other...things I have a hard time attributing to a simple difference in perspective. Having just consulted the original PDFs, I still face that same conundrum. I get this weird feeling that I'm dealing with one of those children's puzzles where the instruction reads, "Find the differences between the two pictures." You know the kind: the woman's hat has a feather in this picture but not in that one, in this one there's a tricycle in the drive, but in this one there's a bicycle...

But that's how my brain works. Realistically, my mind tells me it's the same location since the same photographer took both shots. But I also know he gave different, albeit nearby, locations to the funnels, which I attribute to the fact that he's shooting from a distance and the storm has clearly progressed.

BTW, in all my noticing, I never noticed what appears to be a second funnel, but by golly, I see what you're talking about. I'm not sure what the heck that is, and you could well be right. Good analysis.

This is a stumper, and probably more an item of interest than a good puzzle subject. If a few more folks lean in and don't get it, I'll toss in a major clue or maybe just give it away.
 
The difference between the two photos may in distance AND time.

Both show a set of five narrow vertical objects, possibly light standards, or broadcast towers. These structures and the surrounding ones, appear almost the same in both shots, except for size. I can think of two possble explanations.

One is that the Photo #3 is taken with a telephoto lens from the same spot as Photo #2, but obviously later.

The other explanation, and I believe it is more palusible, is that the photographer moved north to get closer to the storm. During that time, the tornado visible in #2 dissipated, and the bulge to the left of the tornado in #3 is its remnants. The possible 2nd tor in #2 became the dominant tor in #3.

FWIW, I'll not venture a guess on the location, but I've got a feeling it's partof the Super Outbreak.
 
Well, this has been an interesting discussion, and I got more out of these photos than I ever expected. Thank you!

The storm in question is from the 1965 Palm Sunday Outbreak. The first photo was identified by the photographer as "Headed for Wyatt"; the second, "Near LaPaz." I unintentionally reversed the order in which they should have appeared. I had thought they were one and the same funnel, but the analysis of these photos indicates there was probably a handoff. The Wyatt funnel, to my understanding, is the one that became the twin vortex that hit the Midway Trailer Park a bit later (as captured in the classic photo by Elhart Truth photographer Paul Huffman).

I first saw the "Near LaPaz" photo in the South Bend Tribune writeup of the event, but the print quality was poor and you could barely see the funnel. In fact, the Tribune superimposed an arrow pointer to show its location. So I was delighted to find the actual print--which was much clearer--plus the other that I had never seen, in the Mishawaka Penn-Harris Library. The staff there were just plain wonderful to me, and they remembered the Palm Sunday event very well.
 
Just discovered that what I thought was a fence wrapping around in the background of one image but not the other is actually a defect in the print. Whew. At last, my troubled mind is at ease. (Though I'd still like to know what happened to the sign in the one photograph.)
 
The "sign" — it's in the "Near LaPaz" photo, right? That's where I see one — looks like it might be a flaw on the print; just a spot that didn't turn out while developing. Of course, it could be something on the negative too.

Anyway, I got me some more goodies:
Picture #1
[Broken External Image]:http://web.archive.org/web/20000229....gov/lb_images/weather/tornadoes/18620003.jpg

Picture #2
[Broken External Image]:http://web.archive.org/web/20000229....gov/lb_images/weather/tornadoes/10350072.jpg

Picture #3
[Broken External Image]:http://web.archive.org/web/20000229....gov/lb_images/weather/tornadoes/18620002.jpg

Picture #4
[Broken External Image]:http://web.archive.org/web/20000229....gov/lb_images/weather/tornadoes/10350079.jpg
This one doesn’t look a lot like a real tornado, but it is — it’s just organizing. It formed a clearer funnel later. Photos of it in those later stages have shown up in a handfull of weather and geography textbooks, among other books.

Have much fun!
 
Tom, the sign is indeed a sign, not a defect in the print or negative.

As for your photos, they have that older-but-not-way-old look about them, so let me start by guessing that they were taken in the early eighties. Are they all the same storm at different stages, or are we talking multiple answers?
 
They're all different storms, and the photos are (mostly) a little older than early-80s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top