Lightning ball - me to analyze this rare video

[Toreno]

Hi,

Some time ago I was looking for lightning ball videos on youtube.
I observed some strange phenomenon recorded on one of the videos.
Before a lightning ball is created, some "dark" ball is coming from above
and then it immediately changes to the lightning ball which is moving at different angle.
It is well visible when watched in full screen mode, on 35 sec.
What do you think about it?
Is this recording real?

Many thanks!

 

[Orodruin]

Did you notice how it passes in front of the trees? That thing does not emerge from the clouds, which are much further away.

 

[davenn]

Did you notice how it passes in front of the trees? That thing does not emerge from the clouds, which are much further away.

yup I agree ... much closer, still not sure what tho ? fire bug ... don't know if they would show up that bright ?

 

[Orodruin]

yup I agree ... much closer, still not sure what tho ? fire bug ... don't know if they would show up that bright ?

Depends on the camera settings I would say.

 

[Nidum]

Meteorite or space junk that just happened to fall through the storm clouds while the video was being made ?

 

[Orodruin]

Meteorite or space junk that just happened to fall through the storm clouds while the video was being made ?

Again, if it was falling through the clouds it would not land in front of the trees. I am inclined to go with @davenn here. A meteorite or space junk would light up long before entering the clouds.

 

[stefan r]

I'm not convinced that the ball/streak is in front of the trees. It passes close to the gap in the canopy so the foliage should be less dense. We are seeing a dark area of tree branch but that does not mean 100% leaf coverage. Some light will pass though leaves. I have walked in forests where I could not see any sky but it still looks like daylight. At 0:14 seconds to 0:15 seconds there is what could be a distant streetlight that comes into view. That could be an example of a small gap in the dense part of the trees rather than a light turning on and off.

It is hard for me to find the right frame on youtube but the "ball" passes the trees during 0:37 seconds. In one of the frames the ball has a much greener tint on my computer. Looks a bit like a white pixel next to a greener pixel. I am going with a white light passing behind leaves but bright enough to shine through. The leaves adsorb red and blue leaving [pun, haha] more green light to hit the CCD. On the otherhand it also has a more yellow/amber look at high altitude when the ball/streak appears and then turns bright white.

 

[Orodruin]

To be honest, even taking that into account the probability of being a bug is much higher than it being a ball lightning.

 

[Tom.G]

Well, it travels on a smooth curve and at a constant rate. Not many insects I know of do that.
Don't attach much significance to relative brightness other than the top and bottom streaks. This is a composite of 12 successive video frames with transparency manually adjusted for overall visibility. Then the dynamic range was stretched to bring the contrast up to a useable level. The alignment point was the light at the top left of the building. If you zoom in there are a few JPG artifacts in the trees that don't exist in the original image, ignore them.
Frame capture done with VLC Media Player vs:2.2.1.

 

[Jim Stoffaire]

A few weeks ago the Weather Channel showed a very similar video in one of their shows on strange weather events. The similarity is uncanny. Their conclusion was inconclusive but speculated that it could very well be ball lightning.

 

[OmCheeto]

Looks like CGI to me.

 

[UsableThought]

Not sure why the auto-skepticism.

The firefly explanation seems a stretch - fireflies don't occur singly but in large groups (it is a mating behavior after all), and thus a video of this duration would have caught multiple bugs; they rarely move very far during the brief moments they are lit, so wouldn't leave a long straight movement trail, even if quite close to the camera; the color is wrong, etc. Here's a firefly video to show the difference:



It could be a deliberate hoax; or it could be an artifact not related to the lightning storm; or yes, it might be ball lightning. After all no one seems to agree on what ball lightning might be even if it exists. Although there appear to be credible modern eye-witness accounts (in addition to all the accounts from prior centuries), it is still a debated and mysterious phenomenon, or so says the highly credible Wikipedia. A mysterious, possibly dubious or possibly authentic video of a mysterious, possibly dubious or possibly authentic phenomenon - why not?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning

 

[Orodruin]

A mysterious, possibly dubious or possibly authentic video of a mysterious, possibly dubious or possibly authentic phenomenon - why not?

This is just the point. The probability of that being something with a far more mundane explanation is overwhelming. If you want to claim that it is ball lightning, the burden of proof rests on you. I am not claiming that it necessarily is a firefly. It could be some other type of insect temporarily illuminated by ambient lighting or something else entirely, there could be many explanations that do not involve it being a ball lightning.

 

[UsableThought]

The probability of that being something with a far more mundane explanation is overwhelming. If you want to claim that it is ball lightning, the burden of proof rests on you. I am not claiming that it necessarily is a firefly. It could be some other type of insect temporarily illuminated by ambient lighting or something else entirely, there could be many explanations that do not involve it being a ball lightning.

Some other type of insect? That seems to even more implausible than a firefly. What we have is an unknown depiction - possibly an outright fake, but if not, then something odd; possibly mundane; or possibly intriguing. If someone wanted to prove it's ball lightning they couldn't - there is no "there" there, to borrow a phrase. But excess rigor isn't of use any more than excess credulity. There is nothing to defend here one way or the other - not enough information.

 

[Orodruin]

Why be so scared of the more intriguing possibilities?

Because most things that people claim are extraordinary events on the internet are perfectly explainable by mundane phenomena. To directly reach for the "intriguing possibilities" is completely unscientific.

How many insects do you think fly in front of cameras compared to the number of ball lightning that do? Even if there was a very low probability of an insect flying in front of a camera creating such an effect and ball lightning created exactly such an effect, the probability that this particular event is ball lightning would still be debatable and likely come out in favour of the insect.

 

[UsableThought]

@Orodruin, we're getting nowhere, but let me try one last time: 1) It's not a contest between only ball lightning or only bugs; there might be other possible explanations, some odd, others mundane; 2) I think it's interesting to consider ball lightning as a remote possibility - given that there are apparently credible accounts of such things - without endorsing it further; 3) Your arguments in favor of bugs continue to be unconvincing; 4) Your invocation of rigor would make more sense if someone in this thread were actually claiming this IS ball lightning. It may have escaped your attention that I am not claiming this.

 

[Orodruin]

It's not a contest between only ball lightning or only bugs; there might be other possible explanations, some odd, others mundane

Again, I am not claiming that it is a bug. I am forwarding it as a more plausible explanation than ball lightning.

I think it's interesting to consider the speculative possibility here, given that there are credible accounts of such things, without actually endorsing is as the most likely explanation

Really? I find it pointless. Why don't we also argue that it is the Greek god Zeus falling from the heavens? That is also a very unlikely but extremely speculative and interesting possibility.

Your arguments in favor of bugs are unconvincing and so your insistence that it must be a bug damages your attempt at rigor

So basically you are accusing me of what you don't want to be accused for. Talk about double standards. I am not claiming it is a bug. I am claiming that it is much more likely to be a bug than a ball lightning.

Your belief in rigor would serve you much better if someone in this thread were actually claiming this IS ball like get I g.

You mean like ... I don't know ... the phrasing of the OP?

 

[UsableThought]

You mean like ... I don't know ... the phrasing of the OP?

He asked if it were real. He didn't say he thought it was. His question implies the possibility it's either fake or a glitch of some sort, etc.

As for Zeus, did you bother to read the Wikipedia article? Have you gone through the footnotes to prepare your argument that all the alleged modern eye-witness accounts are fakes? Yes, it's an unsupported phenomenon; and I would be very interested if someone can find better sources with evidence that it is indeed some form of centuries-long myth or hoax. Short of that, it seems to have more potential credibility than you are willing to admit. If I have time I may poke around more; if I can find credible sources either yea or nay I'll post them here.

A good example of an enduring myth is of accounts over many centuries of persons waking to find a demon sitting on them, etc.; more recently, in the UFO era, this changed to stories of bedroom visits from aliens. Carl Sagan goes through all this in his book about science and superstition; the underlying generator of such accounts is sleep paralysis. If ball lightning is a myth, there ought to be a similar generating phenomenon to explain its persistence.

E.g. this page mentions some contemporary possibilities: http://stormhighway.com/bl.php
Meanwhile there are lots of articles like this; but these are from popular media and not journals: http://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2014/02/19/ball-lightning-is-it-myth-or-reality/

 

[Orodruin]

As for Zeus, did you bother to read the Wikipedia article? Have you gone through the footnotes to prepare your argument that all the alleged modern eye-witness accounts are fakes?

Again you are drawing a straw man. I have never said that ball lightnings cannot exist or expressed a disbelief in their existence. The Zeus comment is an obvious tongue-in-cheek and I would consider the ball lightning a much more plausible explanation than that - even if Zeus falling from the skies would look exactly like that. That is the point.

He asked if it were real. He didn't say he thought it was. His question implies the possibility it's either fake or a glitch of some sort, etc.

To me the post still reads like a claim that it is ball lightning if the recording is real. The recording may be fake (as suggested by #11), it may be a ball lightning, or there may be some other mundane or exotic explanation. My point throughout has been that it is far more likely to be a mundane phenomenon if it is a real recording.

 

[UsableThought]

Again you are drawing a straw man. I have never said that ball lightnings cannot exist or expressed a disbelief in their existence. The Zeus comment is an obvious tongue-in-cheek

I suggest we disengage as this has become increasingly argumentative and unproductive on both our parts. Neither of us would have intended that, so let's leave off. Someone else can look into whatever literature or studies exist on ball lightning if they wish.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

The only scientific analysis of ball lightning that I found was a chance encounter with it in China where they managed to do a spectral analysis. In that case, the ball lightning seemed to be a result of a regular lightning bolt vaporizing silicon. Or they could have faked the whole thing, I literally see one single scientific paper on it.

It looks to me like whatever is shown in this video is disjoint from the lightning behind it. The lightning seems to be about 4000 feet away from the camera (there is a big flash at 0:04 and the corresponding thunder at 0:08), where the trees like like a few hundred feet at the most.

I think it may also be a bug. Fireflies like the time right before a thunderstorm and are often out at dusk.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I tend to agree with stefan r. I think the light is behind the trees. As it enters the trees, the light takes on a green tint then dims considerably. This would be expected if the light is passing through the foliage of the trees. Also, something that no one has mentioned, just before the ball of light appears to exit the cloud there is a weak flash of lightning from within the cloud itself, appearing as if the ball of light was ejected from that initial flash.

 

[davenn]

Well, it travels on a smooth curve and at a constant rate. Not many insects I know of do that.

and as a rule nor does ball lightning
All the reports I have ever see has it wandering all over the place

 

[russ_watters]

View attachment 206475
Well, it travels on a smooth curve and at a constant rate. Not many insects I know of do that.

Really? Seems to me they all do that over a short distance!

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure why the auto-skepticism.

...it might be ball lightning.

My skepticism comes from the fact that it doesn't look or behave like ball lightning is supposed to. So I can think of several things it could be that are more consistent with how it looks.

 

[davenn]

My skepticism comes from the fact that it doesn't look or behave like ball lightning is supposed to. So I can think of several things it could be that are more consistent with how it looks.

yup agreed ! as I commented, ball lightning usually wanders around like a drunkard ... well so the few and far between reports go

I'm starting to not like my bug idea tho, after looking at the video frame by frame, it seems just too bright for something lit up only by streetlights and may well be disappearing behind those trees. If so, this means that it isn't a bug close to the camera giving the impression of high speed
Still don't like the ball lightning tho for the reasons @russ_watters and I have previously stated.

As Spock would say "fascinating " !Dave

 

[TurtleMeister]

My skepticism comes from the fact that it doesn't look or behave like ball lightning is supposed to. So I can think of several things it could be that are more consistent with how it looks.

I agree. But that still doesn't rule out lightning phenomena . If this is fake then hats off to the person who created it. Well done. It's actually the color change and dimming effect when it goes behind the trees that make me think this could be legitimate.

 

[davenn]

But that still doesn't rule out lightning phenomena .

"putting my stormchaser hat on for a moment" I really think it is way too far from the storm to be lightning related

 

[UsableThought]

I wanted to come back into the thread briefly, mostly to follow through on the promise that I had made to post any web search hits I found on ball lightning that seemed credible, whether they were positive or negative. To me, the most interesting aspect of this sort of thread isn't trying to judge a shadowy bit of data with absolute rigor; it's more the chance to learn something new - that is, to exercise curiosity about the background subject.

I will say that I don't think conjecture on this thread by the likes of us will ever resolve the video in question. The bug theories still seem to me to fall drastically short; I have already posted one video showing fireflies don't look anything remotely like the moving image in the video; this is what my memories from childhood on tell me about fireflies anyway. But sure, a bug is at least possible. I think we'd all agree ball lightning is unlikely, not least given its extreme rarity to begin with. Other possibilities are something else electrical in nature, whether or not related to the lightning storm, e.g. an arc or other discharge from a power line not visible in the video (although it doesn't look like flashover to me) - more info about power lines and lightning storms here and here with a cool video here; a glitch in the recording; a fake; etc. It would be interesting if the person who recorded the video could be interviewed not only for credibility but his subjective impression of the event. But short of that, there seems too little information in the video for most of us. I wonder if someone extremely conversant with both night-time video & storm/power grid phenomena (e.g. an actual storm chaser) might be able to make a better guess?

Getting back to the web search I did, I didn't find any claims that ball lightning is merely folklore; it seems to be taken seriously. Below are the better quality hits I found, leaving out some which seemed redundant. They are restricted to relatively recent dates & are either studies or articles based on studies; listed by date going forward. If you just want a quick read that describes the field, the 2012 article by Lowke ("Ball lightning exists . . . but what on Earth is it?") is your ticket - 4th link down.

Toward a theory of ball lightning, J. J. Lowke, M. A. Uman, R. W. Liebermann - 1969 study, Journal of Geophysical Research

On the energy characteristics of ball lightning, A. V. Bychkov, V. L. Bychkov, John Abrahamson - 2002 study, The Royal Society

Birth of ball lightning, J. J. Lowke, D. Smith, K. E. Nelson, R. W. Crompton, A. B. Murphy - 2012 study, Journal of Geophysical Research

Ball lightning exists … but what on Earth is it?, J. J. Lowke - 2012 article on the above 2012 study & also the above 1969 study, The Conversation

Further Insight into the Nature of Ball-Lightning-Like Atmospheric Pressure Plasmoids, David M. Friday, Peter B. Broughton, Tanner A. Lee, Garrett A. Schutz, Jeremiah N. Betz, and C. Michael Lindsay, - 2013 study, J. Phys. Chem.

Observation of the Optical and Spectral Characteristics of Ball Lightning, Jianyong Cen, Ping Yuan, and Simin Xue - 2014 study, Phys. Rev. Letters (this is the study mentioned by @newjerseyrunner in his comment #21)

Focus: First Spectrum of Ball Lightning - 2014 article on the above study, Physics (physics.aps.org)
January 17, 2014

Relativistic-microwave theory of ball lightning, H.-C. Wu - 2016 study, Scientific Reports 6

 

[Orodruin]

not least given its extreme rarity to begin with

This has been my entire point. Even if ball lightning looked exactly like that, and it has been pointed out already in this thread that it probably doesn't, its extreme rarity makes a more mundane phenomenon much more likely, even if such a mundane phenomenon would be rather unlikely to produce the effect. Indeed the video is not good enough to make a definite conclusion and the object (if not CGI) is a UFO in the literal sense.