Silver Lining Tours vans rolled in Kansas

[Shane Adams]

I wasn't aware a person could sue on the grounds another person contacted another person. Is there some language in the waiver that gives SLT rights over all guests' future communications?

 

[Jeff Lieberman]

Is there some language in the waiver that gives SLT rights over all guests' future communications?

No.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I wasn't aware a person could sue on the grounds another person contacted another person. Is there some language in the waiver that gives SLT rights over all guests' future communications?

Quincy said legal action is being taken against him for his analysis and statements about the incident, so I assume the charges are along the lines of slander/libel and probably has nothing to do with agreements/waivers between SLT and its tour guests (although I get what you are saying, if SLT did have rights over post-trip communications, this could be about Quincy sharing those communications).

Quincy is not the only one that offered analysis and opinion about this incident, so I don’t know why he is being targeted; the only difference is that he had contact with a tour guest, and I really can’t imagine anything that could be wrong with that.

Quincy is probably constrained in how much he can say about this situation here, but any such action is unfortunate and seems completely without merit. I would be hugely disappointed if it were SLT threatening action just to coerce him into not assisting the guest that contacted him. Quincy I hope everything turns out OK with this.

 

[Quincy Vagell]

I am limiting how much I discuss this publicly, but I do find it odd that after my video analysis was posted, no one contacted me to refute the video, or to request that I take it down. Instead, two tour members commented with replies that appeared to have negative intent. It wasn’t until the past week, about 8 weeks after the video was published, that I was contacted by a law firm. This, in my opinion, was triggered immediately after at least two past tour guests initiated contact with/toward me on the subject. I will also say that anything said in this thread is being closely monitored by several parties. It’s a shame that it’s come to all this, but I am taking a stand for what I believe is right.

 

[Peter Potvin]

It has been brought to my attention that there is some speculation making it's rounds on the internet regarding some posts in this thread being deleted by Moderation. Please note that this thread (and most of our website) is constantly being moderated, in order to control the quality of content posted to our platform(s). Also, any posts and/or content that violate our Terms of Service will be removed at the discretion of Moderation.

Regards,
Peter Potvin
Stormtrack Forum & Discord Administrator

 

[Lanny Dean]

I have refrained from posting since my initial responses to this thread. However, I am confused and would like some clarification and have a few questions.

What are we actually saying or implying in this thread?

@Skip Talbot are “we” saying/suggesting that Jon Davies, a 40+ year meteorologist who has written a number of peer review publications is wrong in his analysis?

Are “we” saying that the Hills acted with gross negligence? And thus should be held accountable?

Are “we” saying that the Hills lost situational awareness which led to this incident?

Are “we” saying that this incident was totally preventable and by proxy, why YOU are reviewing and doing a safety “guideline” for such situation?

Are “we” saying that in light of all relevant facts (in relationship to the RFD surge/tornado) the Hills made a crucial error in judgment?

Or are “we” saying/validating all of the above questions/comments?

I gotta say, I’m pretty damned confused as to the actual dialog we are trying to have here. Furthermore, I’m VERY confused as to the outlined “safety guideline/diagram” explained to @Dan Robinson.
While I more than applauded the effort to educate, I have disdain for the manner in which it is being done. Let me elaborate...

I recall an incident in May of 2010 when you helped me on one of my tours @Skip Talbot. As is outlined on your website, Skip, The event unfolded just south of Woodward, OK with a tornado warned HP supercell (as I’m sure you will remember)
I HALTED the tour as we were traveling towards Woodward due to this VERY issue. The supercell exhibited classic RFD surge with absolutely NO noticeable tornado from our view point to the west northwest or due west/southwest. However, the northern end of the whales mouth was evident to overtake us had we continued on current course. If you recall, I halted the tour, moved us back southeast and waited. You almost blew a gasket at my decision, citing that “you didn’t understand why we were not moving into position and that you didn’t understand because the RFD was just outflow gust front”.

I tried to explain to you, Matt G, Phill and all guests, the dangerous position we would ultimately be putting ourselves in by showing you velocity from KVNX, KDDC and KTLX reflectivity. Our discussion evolved around just how dangerous the RFF would or could be. I’m guessing I don’t have to share the video to jog your memory. I discussed the special that was launched with you and I explained the Skew-t in regards to the TD spread to validate the HP and to try and reflect our low vis. conundrum we would be in should we continue. This wasn’t fear talking ...it was experience. The mood then became somber and went so far as to question my ability or more descriptive, my inability and lack of wanting to “get close”.

In all actuality, it had nothing to do with getting “close” but simply stated - not being stupid. Admittedly, I do not believe the supercell ever produced a tornado. That should be stated. However, it should also be understood and stated that YOU wanted to chance the situation - with tour guests no less. A situation with a surging RFD - much the same as has been described.

Thus, the question begs an answer...what are “we” actually trying to say or what kind of dialog are we trying to have here regarding the Hills? Because if it’s truly safety related, then I would throw extreme caution when some of “us” are guilty of the very thing we are condemning. I’d also throw caution to this blame game that still seems to be a priority in this thread.

I look forward to your analysis @Skip Talbot
I highly appreciate and VALUE the contributions you have brought to the community immensely, most particularly since that fateful May Day in 2013. But I think it behooves is ALL to not forget our past prior to condemning the actions or inactions of the Hills.

If I may, I’d like to point out a few facts regarding the legalities of non disclosure, but only as it relates to tour guests. I will refrain from any talk/communication regarding liability waivers for obvious reasons.

1) No tour company could possibly obtain or otherwise hold tour guests to a non-disclosure agreement. To think or otherwise imply is outlandish. I have ALL my guides, drivers and anyone helping sign a non-disclosure (just as Skip was required). The legal ramifications of this should be self explanatory.
2) Even *if* a tour company required and obtained a non-disclosure from guests, it could NOT be upheld legally. I know this from experience.

@Quincy Vagell I know our view points differ MUCH on this situation but FWIW, I am sorry you have been contacted legally. I’m sorry all of this has happened to all parties. But I enjoyed the insight you brought due to your location and position in relationship to the supercell. Your video has been very helpful and while we may not have the same opinions or thought process, I do not believe that even Jon Davies would have been able to complete his analysis without knowledge of it.

Just as everyone else in this thread, I’m curious as to what transpires and how this evolves. I must say that as a friend of Rogers, and also a colleague, I continue to support him. I know that doesn’t win a popularity contest - but I’ve never much given a damn for being popular anyways. What you see is what you get.

As far as the meteorological aspect,
@Skip Talbot I am anxiously awaiting your video analysis with the hopes that it will also shed some additional light on the subject.

 

[Warren Faidley]

So I'm confused as someone with a journalism background. Has Quincy been served with an actual civil action or was he told to "cease and desist" regarding comments related to this event? A person cannot be pursued for comments or opinions, unless (basically) such comments are known to be false in nature and intended to harm. The bar is actually quite high and you would also have to prove damages. If a law firm is concerned about comments, it might be best for them to issue some kind of blanket statement if they are concerned about false or misleading information being distributed to avoid further damages. As I said before, I would suggest everyone wait until all the facts about this accident are known before making "factual" comments or reconstructing events in a detailed presentation.

 

[Lanny Dean]

So I'm confused as someone with a journalism background. Has Quincy been served with an actual civil action or was he told to "cease and desist" regarding comments related to this event? A person cannot be pursued for comments or opinions, unless (basically) such comments are known to be false in nature and intended to harm. The bar is actually quite high and you would also have to prove damages. If a law firm is concerned about comments, it might be best for them to issue some kind of blanket statement if they are concerned about false or misleading information being distributed to avoid further damages. As I said before, I would suggest everyone wait until all the facts about this accident are known before making "factual" comments or reconstructing events in a detailed presentation.

@Warren Faidley Very good question. The verbiage indicated he was contacted, but I’d only be assuming as to the degree. I agree totally with waiting until ALL relevant facts are in. Hence my original post hinting at such. Your post made me question if any additional surveys or analysis could be construed as admissible? IDK.

What I do know is that Roger and Caryn are good people despite what has transpired. I sure hope to heavens that nothing ever happens to anyone on this forum - as it would be a shit show like this has turned out to be.

 

[Quincy Vagell]

I have been served with several legal documents, including a “notice of intent to commence legal action and demand for preservation of all evidence,” which relates back to posts in this thread not being deleted (unless they violate Terms of Service).

I would rather refrain from getting into every detail, but I will say that the Cease and Desist letter is very curious. It says that I must immediately cease all communication with all past tour guests of said company, but there is no legal standing for that. This is especially true when those parties have either initiated contact with me, engaged in comments on my YouTube video and/or posted replies in this thread regarding my analysis. The letter also makes detailed, but often inaccurate (or misleading) implications about me, the storm and even National Weather Service tornado warnings prior to and during the event in question.

While I will not go into every detail, I will continue to stand my ground on what I believe is right. As a meteorologist and a storm chaser who was very close to the incident, in both time and location, I feel as if I have the right and arguably a moral obligation to share my opinions of what took place.

As I said from the start, I acknowledge and admit that I was too close to the initial tornado. Whether or not there was convincing evidence that the first tornado had been in progress for more than 10+ minutes prior to the incident, I will continue to argue that it is hard to defend a position that would have put anyone in the direct path of the initial tornado. Just because you cannot see a tornado does not mean that there is not one and if should be noted that tour drivers, after my analysis and well after the final storm surveys and public statements from the National Weather Service, made factually false, or at the very least, misleading, claims in order to justify decisions made on May 28, 2019.

Reference this publically posted safety statement

We will NEVER stop in close proximity to a tornado unless there is a proper escape route. We do not take unneeded risks around a storm and view them from safe distances and safe vantage points.

and decide for yourself if this seems to coincide with what happened leading up to and during the time of the incident.

UPDATE: Speaking of irony, while I was served a “demand for preservation of all evidence,” I just noticed that within the past 24 hours, at least one tour van driver has deleted their comment(s) on my analysis video. I will not delete any comments, in order to preserve evidence, but it makes you wonder why tour driver(s) are now deleting their comments after the demand was served. Maybe it was to take back misleading claims. Again, I’ll leave that for you to decide.

For the record, I did save those comment(s) prior to deletion.

 

[Spencer Dant]

What I do know is that Roger and Caryn are good people despite what has transpired.

I have never met the Hills, or you, or as far as I know anyone actually involved in this situation, but I gotta say that "what has transpired" leads me to believe that you are wrong. If you want to stick your neck out for your friends, you might consider reaching out to them and suggest they start doing the right thing as opposed to, oh, I don't know, literally everything they have done since the afternoon of May 28.

 

[James K]

@Quincy Vagell:
Sorry to hear about that.
I guess this is the point where things are starting to get ugly?
I also wonder if SLT has recently been receiveing legal notices from tour guests?


@Skip Talbot
Looking forward to your video analysis.
But then again maybe you shouldn't post it? Considering what's going on from @Quincy Vagell 's video...

 

[Steve Holmes]

I have been served with several legal documents, including a “notice of intent to commence legal action and demand for preservation of all evidence,” which relates back to posts in this thread not being deleted (unless they violate Terms of Service).

I would rather refrain from getting into every detail, but I will say that the Cease and Desist letter is very curious. It says that I must immediately cease all communication with all past tour guests of said company, but there is no legal standing for that. This is especially true when those parties have either initiated contact with me, engaged in comments on my YouTube video and/or posted replies in this thread regarding my analysis. The letter also makes detailed, but often inaccurate (or misleading) implications about me, the storm and even National Weather Service tornado warnings prior to and during the event in question.

It sounds like intimidation, a Hail Mary effort to muzzle a credible critic. They seek to regulate who you can talk to. That's fishy. A lawyer once told me, "You can sue anyone for anything, but that doesn't mean you'll win." I haven't read your analysis because, frankly, I would not understand. You'd have better luck teaching a dog to use a can opener. But you seem mature enough to refrain from libelous and slanderous statements like, "SLT deliberately put people's lives at risk." That *would* invite a lawsuit.

I hate bullies. If you start a legal defense fund, let me know. I will contribute.

 

[Lanny Dean]

I have never met the Hills, or you, or as far as I know anyone actually involved in this situation, but I gotta say that "what has transpired" leads me to believe that you are wrong. If you want to stick your neck out for your friends, you might consider reaching out to them and suggest they start doing the right thing as opposed to, oh, I don't know, literally everything they have done since the afternoon of May 28.

I have remained civil, forthcoming and transparent with my posting. I’ve kept posting to a minimum because Ive had nothing of value to add and because I did not want my views or replies to be misconstrued as personal attacks ad -hock or the like. I would ask the same of you, Spencer.
-LFD

 

[Spencer Dant]

As far as I know, I’ve remained civil and will continue to do so, and I have avoided personal attacks. Could you please direct me to where that is not so so that I may correct it?

Is digging up decade old dirt on someone arranging and presenting facts for public consumption your way of remaining “transparent” and “forthcoming?” It seems like you are more inclined to take a shot at the knees, or, in your words, engaging in “personal attacks.”

I’d love to have a discussion with you about your motivations for being here, but you seem unwilling to hold yourself to the same standards you apparently expect of me.

 

[johnlake]

There is no basis for a defamation lawsuit, they are simply wasting their money. It just brings more negative attention to them anyway, I don't understand their strategy.