Talk:1974 Super Outbreak

An event in this article is a April 3 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Other links from merged article

These were also linked in the merged article April 3 1974 tornado, but this many seemed excessive. I can't access the files from here, so I also didn't want to add them without seeing them. If someone else wants to add these in, feel free. Joyous 01:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Tornado myths

As far as the listing that talks about opening windows being a waste of time - shouldn't the focus on this myth be on the fact that buildings don't actually explode during a tornado, but rather implode? --Cholmes75 14:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

These myths should be merged with Tornado myths. -Charlie

Agreed. Also, the inferred linkage between this outbreak and La Niña is itself a myth. Evolauxia 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree--I was in the heart of the Xenia tornado, so I don't cotton to myth-making about it--but if the La Nina connection is a myth, and you can back that up (or if you want to wiki-challenge it for lack of sources) why don't you delete it?--Buckboard 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Windspeed in infobox

All tornado infoboxes should have maximum windspeed removed; it is pseudoscientific and unencyclopedic.

It's totally unjustified and not something that should be perpetuated by Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. Ask a NWS meteorologist if they really can say that those exact speeds are known and they would say no. NSSL, SPC, researchers, Fujita, Grazulis, etc. would tell you the same and it is very well reflected in the literature. Given that *some* NWS offices do unfortunately post this information, here a couple of authoritative online sources in support of my position:

http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/mesoscale/tornado.htm "The F-scale is to be used with great caution. Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors."

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#f-scale1 "Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the original F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors. Also, the process of rating the damage itself is largely a judgment call -- quite inconsistent and arbitrary (Doswell and Burgess, 1988). Even meteorologists and engineers highly experienced in damage survey techniques often came up with different F-scale ratings for the same damage."

"So if the original F-scale winds are just guesses, why are they so specific? Excellent question. Those winds were arbitrarily attached to the damage scale based on 12-step mathematical interpolation between the hurricane criteria of the Beaufort wind scale, and the threshold for Mach 1 (738 mph). Though the F-scale actually peaks at F12 (Mach 1), only F1 through F5 are used in practice, with F0 attached for tornadoes of winds weaker than hurricane force. Again, F-scale wind-to-damage relationships are untested, unknown and purely hypothetical. They have never been proven and may not represent real tornadoes. F-scale winds should not be taken literally."

No doubt wonderful sources. However, there was nothing hypothetical or debatable about the extent and size of the destruction in Xenia. It was F-5 (or EF-5), one mile wide through the heart of a city, any way you look at it. It took a diesel locomotive--one quarter of a million pounds--lifted it up and turned it over. That is no myth--I saw it with my own eyes.--Buckboard 22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tornado list

I'm currently starting the list of the tornadoes (at least the main ones) for this event. Of, course I will need a bit of help to get some of the details. --JForget 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created an individual page for the list so to avoid making a very lengthy page, but I will wait a few days before removing what it has done, so to be sure if the other page won't be slated for deletion - i doubt.--JForget 18:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To put the sections of individual tornadoes in the parent article? (SURVEY)

Let's do a little survey here to see whether or not we can put the sections on individual tornadoes that are currently under the Super Outbreak tornadoes article to the main Super Outbreak article as to improve that one and possibly putting as a featured article in the future as it would probably make sense to have the parent article be a featured article rather then the one with a long list of tornadoes. That would also eliminate the factor of conflicted/disputed data between the NOAA and other individual websites on the Outbreak if we put the tornado description sections into the Super Outbreak article.

So do you agree or disagree as to put the sections on some of the individual tornadoes (Xenia, Tanner, Lousiville, Brandenburg, etc) to the Super Outbreak page. --JForget 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Death toll

I know this is quite long - but I've made a table representing the death tolls per county. I've put in the tornado descriptions portion so it will no not interfere with any other boxes.--JForget 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

8 mm video in 1974?

"...this tornado was caught on film. A sixteen year-old boy captured 1 minute and 42 seconds of the infamous twister, and up close with an 8 mm 'super 8' video recorder, as it roared through the city..."

This should probably be a Super 8 film camera, as 8mm video did not exist as a format until 1985. 1/2" home video has existed since 1965, however. Any clarification?

Mickeymephistopheles 06:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Im the one who wrote it, Ill clarify. The "Super 8" film camara was released in 1965, and it did feature, you guessed it...8mm film! That might be why it was called the "Super 8"! :-o If it was 93mm, it probebly would be called the "Super 93" There, how do you like them apples?

I swear, half the stuff I posted about Xenia was removed. Well this part about the Super 8 will be put back in by me, and right now since its true. Please people, dont act like you know everything and remove my stuff. I was near Xenia at the time and remember it well, and Im not going to put something in that isnt true. And Ill tell you something else...there is a full video on YouTube where you can see the footage captured by the kid. Check it out. I think it gives 1:08 of footage.

And Xenia was by far the hardest hit that day and was the "big one" of the super-outbreak (even Nixon visited!), but that fact is not really highlighted like it used to be before a bunch of wankers decided to remove my stuff. I also added a few other things, including this:

And this fact:

It was so strong and the damage so severe, that Dr. Fujita considered rating it an F-6, although the scale only went to F-5. He decided not to since some of the damage that would indicate that it could be the mythical F-6, might of been due to the structure not being as strong as it should in the first place.

Added this: This tornado was caught on film. It was also tape recored by another resident, and the relationship of the film and the recording, is a source of controversy. A resident recorded the sound of the tornado from inside an apartment complex. Before the tornado hit the building, the resident left the tape recorder on, so it continued the recording. The recorder was found after the storm, and the recording was made public.. At the same time and a few blocks away, Xenia resident Bruce Boyd (who was 16 years old at the time), was able to capture 1 minute and 42 seconds of footage of the tornado with a "Super-8" 8mm movie camera. Whether or not the super 8 film camara was the 1973 version and included sound, or a pre 1973 model that didnt have sound, is not known. The footage appears to have sound, but there is a rumor that the tape recording made by just a few blocks away, may have been later paired with the 8mm film. It is unclear.

I posted some pics of the tornado too. It was an F-5 wedge after all.

Maximus_100

Confusing

Can someone check the article for the tornado counts? There's mismatched F5 counts, and I suspect there might be others I've overlooked. Cwolfsheep 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

McCreary County, KY

In the spring of 1980 I worked on a subcontracting crew in one of the National Forests replanting the area devastated by the tornado swarm of April 3 and April 4, 1974, called the Super Outbreak. We were reforesting with the lumber producing shortleaf pine, for $.10 per tree, a real deal back then, as most sites only paid $.05 per tree. I'd like to add a small paragraph about the impact of the tornado in that area, particularly on the ruggedness of the terrain (the reason for the great pay!), and the way the Old Growth trees that remained on those slopes (which could only be timbered by heicopter) were snapped off ten feet up, with their crowns deposited sometimes 50 feet away. Thing is, I don't see McCreary County on the wiki Super OUtbreak list. I know it hit that county, so should I go ahead and add the paragraph? I'm also adding this to the McCreary County discussion page. Just looking for experienced wiki advice. Thanks. Soltera 14:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot about the damage you claim can be corroborated with local newspaper accounts, and other local history. Since Wikipedia:Veritability is important part of any contribution, I would suggest citing as much of that information as possible. If you're unsure about how to do that, just try to leave as much info about your sources so that the other editors can fix the citations. MMetro 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Earthquake

It's also interesting to note that coincidentally around 6pm on the first day of the super outbreak, a 4.5 scale earthquake occurred just east of St. Louis, MO and was felt throughout several surrounding states, including Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky. Many of those in the tornado-afflicted areas felt tremors during and after the tornado strikes. This is documented on the second part of the live WHAS radio coverage of the storms linked in the External Links section. 74.73.86.222 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This was actcully farther east, near where I live, in Mount Carmel, IL. I find this a bit interesting and scary myself. Southern Illinois SKYWARN 21:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Video of Tornado with twin vortices

the link to Fujita's own research cites the Xenia tornado video taken by Bruce Boyd http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/38/8/pdf/i1520-0469-38-8-1511.pdf (bottom of page 1524) so this can now be added to the text rather than "and maybe a video" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.4.55 (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not "twin' but "multiple" vortices. However, when the tornado was forming, it was actually twin weak tornados, and they merged into one powerful tornado. Probebly it was F-3 or so at that point. I posted a picture of it before it entered the city. Clearly, the tornado was an F-5 wedge inside the city, which is illustrated not only by hte damage path, but because you can see the second picture I posted of it when it was inside the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus 100 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

April 2 activity?

Since most systems usually take several days to cross the continent and this one was a monster, I am wondering if there was any tornado or severe weather activity farther west (i.e. in the Plains states) on April 2? I can't seem to tell if there was any. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There were 4 tornadoes listed, all in the SE though. Gopher backer (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There was an outbreak of some significance on April 1-2, with 23 tornadoes across the SE and Ohio Valley. This was caused by a seperate storm system however. Two areas affected by F3 tornadoes in that outbreak (Campbellsburg KY and Huntsville AL) were affected again during the Super Outbreak.Davidals (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Link with the Eastern Air Lines Flight 66 crash

I've found this video of a documentary related to the Super Outbreak tornado and which there is a link from a study of Ted Fujita in regards to the length of the Monticello tornado (which he believe that downdrafts and microbursts were the cause of the entreme length of that tornado) and this accident which was later found to caused by downdrafts and microbursts. Wondering if this info can be interested, although I would have to check to documented source outside of this video--JForget 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Grazulis' Significant Tornadoes 1880-1989 mentions this as well - there's a re-analysis of a few Super Outbreak storms, and Grazulis theorized that the Monticello storm was probably a family of 2 or 3 tornadoes, while noting that (in his opinion) the official record should not be changed, due to (among other reasons) historical significance and the fame of the storm. Davidals (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Xenia section

The section on the Xenia F5 needs some work on its tone. As written, it's not very encyclopedic, with too much language like "amazing" and "turned into an F-5 monster." It also lacks citations for many of the assertions about the filming of the tornado, and the tornado's impact on meteorology. The assertions may be true, but they need citations to support them. Sacxpert (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I added "amazing" and "monster' for color. What, you want it to read like a data chart? And moreover, we dont need a citation for everything. The sky is blue...do I need a citation for that?

Maximus_100

The article doesn't need color. As an encyclopedia, the content should be sober and neutral. Words like "amazing" and "monster" don't belong, unless they're the descriptions of witnesses, and recorded as such with valid sourcing. This article should not not read in the florid prose style that is appropriate for news magazines and other storytellers; it is simply an account of what happened. Take, for example, the article RMS Empress of Ireland which tells of the ship's sinking in a way that draws attention to the human suffering while remaining matter-of-fact. That's the goal. The article on the Tenerife disaster is similar. Sacxpert (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As to your assertion that things don't need citations, that's not correct. Statements like "The Super Outbreak is considered to be the 'holy grail' of storm systems by many meteorologists and storm chasers" demand explicit references. You are stating an opinion as a widely-held fact, and that, unlike the colour of the sky, demands citations. Find a book or published article on weather phenomena that says what you assert, and the problem is solved.

I understand that you were there at the time, and I'm sure have a vivid recollection of the event, making this very personal to you. I appreciate that, and I'd probably feel the same way if it were me. However, the goal here is still to have a neutral, unbiased article that accurately cites both the chain of events and the opinions and interpretations associated with those events. That's how it works on all articles, and this one is no different. Please don't remove the citation tags again, and don't delete the tone header. As an editor who has no particular emotional investment in this article, I just want to see it improved to the standards used on Wikipedia, and sensationalism is discouraged throughout. I'm not saying that all the work you put into the Xenia section should be thrown away, and a lot of it is very good. I just think that its tone can be improved. Sacxpert (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

PS -- you can sign your comments with 4 ~ in a row; that stamps your comment automatically with the time and date. Cheers. Sacxpert (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Ok, ok Sacxpert. Firstly, I was not in Xenia, (several counties away) but remember the day well nonetheless. Second, your points are understood and well taken. Perhaps I could be less colorful and just stick with the facts. Facts are strange things that seem to get in my way :p

Alright, I'm going to add a very telling picture of the tornado as it is reaching downtown and I may ad a few comments. Lets see if I can do it right this time  :-p (I'll try to keep in mind your not a big fan of adjectives)

Maximus_100 (talk)

Excellent, I am glad to see this section starting to shape up. I grew up very near Xenia and well remember this event. I think that a factual, neutral thoroughly documented article is the best way to do it justice. I will try to help out by finding more references as I am able. P.s. Maximus, you can indent a reply to a previous comment by prefacing with a double colon, like I did here. Easier to follow a conversation than a long horizontal line. EHelmuth (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Great EHelmuth, well I posted the new piccy of it hitting downtown and added a comment at the end...now dont get on me Sacxpert, I say it is "notorious"...but it is! I backed it up with a few short, factual reasons why. A little color? just a very damn little (Notorious is only a little color)  :) In the picture caption I was going to write "Zowie!", but I knew Sacxpert would of deleted it :p

Heres what I wrote: Fujita himself studied the film and the damage and discovered much about tornadoes that was not known before. Because of this fact plus the fact that it was the worst of the 148 tornados of the super outbreak, and the fact it was almost rated an F-6, the Xenia tornado has become one of the most notorious tornados of the 20th century. Maximus 100 (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

---

I deleted the middle two sentences in this paragraph: "Before the 1974 storm, the city had no tornado sirens. This in itself is amazing, since Xenia had seemed to always be plagued with severe storms and tornadoes. In fact, the Shawnee Indians used to call the area "land of the crazy winds". However, after the F5 hit on April 3, 1974, ten sirens were installed across the area." This is clearly a personal opinion that doesn't belong here. Additionally, no source is given for the scientifically dubious claim of a special historical propensity to tornadoes in Xenia. WikkiTikkiTavi (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)