Bogus storm reports probed

[Mark Sefried]

Found an interesting article yesterday online. Apparently someone has been sending false storm reports into local NWS offices.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=617464&format=print

[Tarmo Tanilsoo]

My opinion on that "someone" is: Lock up and throw away the key.

It is indeed like calling 112 when there is no emergency (Note: 112 is in Estonia the same as 911 in USA)

[John Diel]

This is an issue that crops up from time to time with any pubic service department. NOAA is not immune. They must pretty well have the evidence they need to prosecute the case as they've gone public with it.

This would be very close to a Volunteer Firefighter starting fires, calling them in just so he can respond. This does happen as well.

There was the thread that ran here not all that long ago about Chasers sending in reports as they were out chasing. I was surprised (and not surprised) by some of the reactions. It's amazing to me how much is based on personality and how much was actually based in whether or not the report was 1. taken seriously, 2. listed in an LSR, and 3. Whether is howed up in the SPC Storm reports.

Given that, the person making the false reports listed in the story is getting his "gratification" by seeing a warning pop up from the servig NWS Office and probably really got a thrill when the local TV station went "Wall to wall" in their coverage probably based on his report(s).

I wouldn't be surprised to see the person come up as a Weather Spotter, Storm Chaser, or some other Volunteer that reports weather. I would almost bet on late teens to early 20's middle class male, and is a member of 1 or more weather related bulletin boards. Could even possibly be a member of ST! We, of course, hope that isn't the case though.

I've seen (and investigated) similar cases in the past. I helped investigate a Voluteer Firefighter once who was out setting fires, then calling in 911 to report it. I also had an EMT who wasn't though he was very credible in talking to him. The problem was his credentials were all false. He was arrested and prosecuted, same with the FF.

[fplowman]

I would say an impish chaser. The reports were being made in multiple jurisdictions in different states even.

[nickgrillo]

Maybe it's just an armchair chaser who takes hallucinogenic drugs to magnify their GRLevelIII chases.

[Marcus Opitz]

I find this to be a bizzar story to say the least. I guess we will have to be aware of the psychopath chasers out there!!!!!

[Billy Griffin]

Seems a little awkward to me that they'd be issuing warnings on public reports without verification. Here in Seattle, we have a reporting method where we MUST give our spotter ID number. In OK, I do all my reporting via the amateur radio net. The article mentions it's an online type thing, but still, looks like they could easily trace that.

[rdale]

Seems a little awkward to me that they'd be issuing warnings on public reports without verification.

They didn't.

"The tornado warning that was issued for the county through the Emergency Management Agency was given based on spotter reports, not on the false report, said Phil Anello, the emergency agency's coordinator for Macon County. "

[Terry Tyler]

My opinion on that "someone" is: Lock up and throw away the key.

It is indeed like calling 112 when there is no emergency (Note: 112 is in Estonia the same as 911 in USA)


you dont "lock someone up and throw away the key" for someone sending false NWS reports...that is way over the edge...

thats why you leave a number so they can call and check in...if you put a website up on the world wide web...there are going to be people who will use it in a way unsuitable, but you cant lock them up and charge them with felony charges...

you should have to register and have your own log-in to even access those sites...they should not be for the general public...then maybe they wouldent have to worry about those problems...

anyone who advocates prison time for sending a false severe weather report apparently doesnt know too much about jail time...let alone prison time...

i agree with the fines...trace the IP address...go have a talk with him or her...and then if he or she keeps it up...then go from there...

[Billy Griffin]

A bit off-topic, but related at the same time... I worked for a corporation in the cement business, in which we fell under MSHA regulations (just like OSHA for general industry & construction). Someone (an angry neighbor) kept logging on to MSHA's web site and making false allegations on our safety compliance, claiming we were dumping toxic waste in Puget Sound, releasing toxic air contaminants, etc. MSHA, obviously, had to come out and investigate. After finding these allegations false, they still kept getting the same things about once every week. Finally, the Federal office of MSHA had some of their folks do an IP address to find out where it was coming from. It took a while, but about two months after this all went down, this individual was ARRESTED for falsifying information on a Federal web site.

Looks like NWS offices would fall into this category as well, and they should be able to track this person down and prosecute if warranted. The goofy thing is, they are advertising it! Why not let it keep going on, then catch the guy red-handed? Then again, they may be hoping that if this individual is called out, some self-policing may occur and it will stop.

[Dick McGowan]

They should also arrest people who steal photos online. I don't see how some people can be so stupid about it! There also should be a law that is against compulsive liars.

[Eric Friedebach]

you should have to register and have your own log-in to even access those sites...they should not be for the general public...then maybe they wouldent have to worry about those problems...

That's what eSpotter is all about.

I wonder how much useful information really comes in from a site that requires no training.

[Ryan McGinnis]

If the FBI is involved, whoever was filing the reports is looking at a little PMITA prison time, unless it turns out to be a kid or something. They probably don't have it traced down to who did it yet (otherwise they'd be arresting the guy or gal, not talking about it), but letting everyone know that they're looking should at least stop the false reports, unless the person is a complete idiot.

Screwing around with federal computer resources in a way that get the EAS activated = not a terribly smart idea.

*edit* Actually, re-reading the article, it sounds like whoever is doing this understands storms a bit, as the weather offices say that their reports fit the storm profile. So whoever it is at least understands that these storms are supercells, either by looking at the radar or following online board discussions like here on Stormtrack. Given that the NOW threads can only be seen by registered members, I would not be surprised at all if it turned out to be one of the ST members.

Unless the person doing this was very well read-up on multi-hop encrypted anonymous networks and was running through one, they should be seriously soiling themselves right now. (And hopefully whoever runs the severe report server(s) over at the NWS automatically filters out reports made from the exit nodes of those networks, which are fairly well known.)

[Van DeWald]

Terry, perhaps you're not familiar with United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47 which states...

Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

So yes, if someone is willfully making fraudulent storm reports to the NWS, an executive government agency, then it indeed is a federal crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison if that person is caught.

[Ryan McGinnis]

I seemed to remember reading something about this on WX-CHASE a little while back. Thank you, Gmail search! :)



from Chris Novy XXXX@XXX.XXX
reply-to Chris Novy XXXXX@XXX.XXX to WX-CHASE@listserv.uiuc.edu date May 17, 2007 6:18 PM

subject Re: [WX-CHASE] [WX-TALK] Oh, this is really cute...
mailed-by listserv.uiuc.edu

*SNIP*

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> NOUS73 KCRH 162229
> ADMCRH
>
> TO: ALL CR WFO/S AND RFC/S
> FROM: CRH (FROM TOM SCHWEIN...ISSUED BY WFO EAX)
> SUBJECT: FALSE SEVERE WX REPORTS
> TIME/DATE: 525 PM CDT WED MAY 16 2007
>
> **** PLEASE SHARE WITH THE ENTIRE STAFF ****
>
> PLEASE BE AWARE THAT INTENTIONALLY FALSE REPORTS OF SEVERE WEATHER
> ARE ONCE AGAIN BEING RECEIVED THIS AFTERNOON (WED 5/16) AT THE LA
> CROSSE WFO. THE IP ADDRESS OF THIS SENDER IS 70.131.218.15 (http://70.131.218.15/).
>




A bit of digging resolves that IP out to adsl-70-131-218-15.dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net. It's an SBC Midwest Illinois Bell (AT&T DSL) customer feeding through their Elmhurst, IL datacenter, so they're probably living somewhere in Illinois. (AT&T has other data centers throughout the Great Lakes, so if they lived elsewhere, the last visible hop wouldn't be exiting via Elmhurst.)

DSL IPs are usually static. Ping isn't getting any response, so they've either unplugged/shut down their computer or have been shut off. :)

*edit* The Redback 13 router at the Elmhurst DSL data center apparently only serves Chicago and immediate vicinity, so my money is on a Chicagoan or someone from one of the Chicago burbs being the culprit.

[Terry Tyler]

That's what eSpotter is all about.

I wonder how much useful information really comes in from a site that requires no training.


really, NWS/FO columbus doesnt ask anything...you just enter in and you go...it asks for your spotter number and a phone number to confirm the report...

i wondered myself how many bogus reports they got every day because anyone can access the site...

Terry, perhaps you're not familiar with United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47 which states...

Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--


yes, i am well aware of that but that is not the issue...taking away 5 years of someones life is a bit harsh for someone entering a bogus report on a website...i am not an advocate of this persons behavior, and i am not justifying his case by any means...im just saying that 5 years, felony charges and $250,000 fines are abit excessive for someone who is putting in false reports...

hence the idea why there should be a log-in...

there are child molesters who have been known to get off with less...think about the "three-strikes" law...where some guy stole video cassettes from wal-mart three different times and got life in prison...im not saying it isnt wrong...but punishing someone to that extent is pretty severe...

a $10,000 fine would stop me from sending any form anywhere that wasnt true...

[John Diel]

What you're reading the Maximum punishment allowed by law. A cap, so to speak. It doesn't necessarily mean that's what the actual punishment will be once the person is given his day at trial.

There's still the bargaining process. Plea Bargaining, the actual charge, circumstances, first offender, motive, etc.

On a side note, I've seen bigger felonies get less than that max allows. How about Assaulting a Police Officer with intent to kill. Hmmm... That kid got off with credit for time served, weekend jail time to serve the remainder of a 45 day sentence, and the fine to be paid at $50 a month. I just looked and the kid already has 3 deliquent payment notices on this fine alone. No bench warrant issued and the previous notices were simply extended. Now you tell me if there's a problem with our justice system or not.

[beaudodson]

Epotter here at the KPAH Office requires a username and password and they can determine who is sending in the report. The offices normally know who they can trust and can't trust. They know their spotters.

[Jeremy Miller]

It makes me sad to hear of this going on. I also agree that sending false reports of severe weather to NWS offices is a very serious crime and there
should be punishment. I believe the punishment should depend on whos doing it. Whether it be a minor, adult or a storm spotter. I sure hope its not a skywarn member, ST member or a chaser. This would really give us a bad light even more than is being portrayed now by some people acting irresponsibly chasing storms with no due regard for safety.

Just curious, how is EAS activated when NWS issues a watch or warning?.
I always see the "EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED". How does that work?.

Hopefully they'll get this person soon and stop the problem, as well as
putting up a notice on all nws sites that false reports will not be tolerated.

Jer

[Tim Vasquez]

The most accurate IP geolocator I've seen to date pins that IP in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. That's right where College of DuPage (and Paul Sirvatka's excellent weather program) is located. It's not a school IP, but I wonder if there's some student there with a home account who's got a grudge.

Tim

[Robert Dewey]

Sounds more to me like someone trying to play weather-man. They see an intense storm on radar (perhaps even a weak meso) and call in a TOR or SVR report, keeping the NWS warning active or prompting them to issue a warning.

About the IP address... I'm using a cable modem, and my IP address is coming from Columbus, Ohio. Oddly enough, Google (and other sites) pick me up as being from Canada (or even the UK). It's nearly impossible to track an IP address right down to a specific city - only the ISP can determine that... and why wouldn't this guy just use an anonymous proxy?

[Craig Maire II]

I knew it would be only a matter of time before something like this would happen, hope they catch the person or persons who are doing this soon and put an end to this stupidity.:mad:

[Van DeWald]

Just curious, how is EAS activated when NWS issues a watch or warning?.
I always see the "EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED". How does that work?.

Jeremy,

EAS is activated via the SAME digital tones that accompany all of the warnings. Those are the digitial burts you hear before and after the text of the message.

[Ryan McGinnis]

Sounds more to me like someone trying to play weather-man. They see an intense storm on radar (perhaps even a weak meso) and call in a TOR or SVR report, keeping the NWS warning active or prompting them to issue a warning.

About the IP address... I'm using a cable modem, and my IP address is coming from Columbus, Ohio. Oddly enough, Google (and other sites) pick me up as being from Canada (or even the UK). It's nearly impossible to track an IP address right down to a specific city - only the ISP can determine that... and why wouldn't this guy just use an anonymous proxy?

While it's true that geolocation software can be off sometimes, a little manual sleuthing can usually pin down an IP to a general area, unless a network is set up in a way that makes this impossible (VPN, etc.) Google may not know where you're from (Google does this to me sometimes too with my Alltel connection -- you should try posting to Blogger in Finnish!), but someone using a combo of traceroute & whois could probably divine out your general area. Most large ISPs have their networks set up in a way where you can divine out where servers are located.

The FBI, of course, will have no trouble finding this guy, since they can just subpoena the ISP. Unless it's a drive-by wardriver or an exit node of a Tor network or something, their goose is cooked.

[Tim Vasquez]

Here is the IP location tool that seems to be the most accurate:
http://www.maxmind.com/app/locate_ip

The lazier sites will just find the location of a data center, but the better sites will use other resources to find where IP ranges are typically assigned (marketing data, etc). There are millions of dollars at stake in this kind of technology because of the ability to upsell it to advertisers. The above site is the only one that gets my IP in the ballpark... all the other ones think I'm in Houston, 2.5 hours south of here.

Tim

[Tarmo Tanilsoo]

Here is the IP location tool that seems to be the most accurate:
http://www.maxmind.com/app/locate_ip

The lazier sites will just find the location of a data center, but the better sites will use other resources to find where IP ranges are typically assigned (marketing data, etc). There are millions of dollars at stake in this kind of technology because of the ability to upsell it to advertisers. The above site is the only one that gets my IP in the ballpark... all the other ones think I'm in Houston, 2.5 hours south of here.

Tim

However, it is not so good with International IP's. It thinks that I am 107 miles(straight line direction) far from the location I actually am.

[Dave Kaplow]

I was trying to think of a motive for this other than sheer maliciousness and it occurred to me that the motive could conceivably be financial. There are places (mostly overseas) where you can bet on just about anything, including the weather. A bet on, say, the total number of severe thunderstorm warnings issued by the NWS in June would not be out of the question. Who knows, maybe someone is trying to push that number upward? Granted, it's a long shot, I agree it's much more likely to be just some prankster or a spotter with a grudge, but I thought I'd mention it. The world is so crazy today that it wouldn't really surprise me if this did turn out to be a betting scheme. I've certainly heard of much weirder ways that people try and game the system.

[Doug Lee]

Dave Kaplow's comment got me to thinking of another possibility - a terrorist trying to test the responses of various agencies to emeregency situations. I remember a bomb scare a few months ago, I think somewhere on the East Coast, that some people thought was a terrorist or terror group testing the response times and capabilities of police, fire, ambulance personnel, etc. Maybe someone is thinking of an attack during a severe weather event, when emergency responders are already taxed, and they wanted to test the feasiblity of the plan. I'm not saying that's what it is, but it is a possiblity. I certainly hope it is just someone with a grudge or an ego problem.

[Tom Pastrano]

I would be willing to put money on this being a person so obsessed with weather that they are trying to "create" it. I also think they have no idea the serious nature of their crime. I would guess this would be a person under 25 that has some meteorology affiliation.

[Ryan McGinnis]

Dave Kaplow's comment got me to thinking of another possibility - a terrorist trying to test the responses of various agencies to emeregency situations. I remember a bomb scare a few months ago, I think somewhere on the East Coast, that some people thought was a terrorist or terror group testing the response times and capabilities of police, fire, ambulance personnel, etc. Maybe someone is thinking of an attack during a severe weather event, when emergency responders are already taxed, and they wanted to test the feasiblity of the plan. I'm not saying that's what it is, but it is a possiblity. I certainly hope it is just someone with a grudge or an ego problem.

This idea is preposterous and I'm sure you're just kidding, but there is something about it that would make a hilarious SNL skit. Imagine a bunch of Al Qaida agents sitting in a tent in the desert, furiously clacking away at a keyboard. "Achmed, that storm is rotating. No, not that one, that one. Right there. Yes! File a false tornado report! Ha! Who's winning the war on terror now, America?"

[Brandon Sullivan]

I would be willing to put money on this being a person so obsessed with weather that they are trying to "create" it. I also think they have no idea the serious nature of their crime. I would guess this would be a person under 25 that has some meteorology affiliation.

I agree.. From what I read, they know just what information to include to get a warning out. And they seem to know how to match ideal ground reports from a storm.. (IE) wind reports from a bow echo etc.. It is sad that someone has to decieve the men and women who are out there to protect us.:mad:

Y???:confused:

[John Diel]

Preposterous? Maybe....

Who would have thought that a group of Middle Eastern Countrymen would have hijacked Airliners and rammed them into several buildings prior to September 11th 2001?

Who would have thought that a mid 20's Persian Gulf Vet would have created a home built bomb and blow up a building in the middle of OKC?

Just food for thought before automatically dismissing anything.

[Terry Tyler]

I agree.. From what I read, they know just what information to include to get a warning out. And they seem to know how to match ideal ground reports from a storm.. (IE) wind reports from a bow echo etc.. It is sad that someone has to decieve the men and women who are out there to protect us.:mad:

Y???:confused:

i was just going to reply with the same thing...and the fact someone wants to play "weatherman"...

whoever wrote this...like they said...knows about severe weather, and someone like that is pretty messed up IMO...if you love something enough to study it...and you know and understand the warning coordination process...why would you deliberatly try to mess it up?

hopefully this is a wake up call for those offices that do not require a log in...like eric said...i cannot see any useful information from a website that doesnt require any training...

this is the memphis, TN offices website for reporting severe weather online...

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/meg/strmrprt.php?addreport=1

anyone, anywhere could put whatever they wanted in there...

there are some sites that even do spotter training online...ive taken the course and its really not something i would give "spotter certification" for IMO...and even if you did pass the test...which someone with no knowledge of severe weather could probably pass...it just says you passed the test and nothing much else...

[rdale]

Preposterous? Maybe....

No - 100%.

These reports did not result in a warning being issued, and they did not result in any emergency response since they went to NWS and not 911. If someone calls 911 and says "a school is destroyed" then you'd see what the fire / police response would look like. (I still don't see A.Q. caring about the Mowhatten Illinois Volunterr Fire Department's dispatch procedures but let's play along.) Sending the report to NWS just means that gets included in the text of the SVS, nothing more. NWS does not call the local fire department into action, so it's safe to conclude this is not one of the possibilities...

[Scott A. Kampas]

I've known about some of the details about what's going on since it began in April. I posted some info on WX-TALK at the time, but could not go in to detail.

In some cases, these reports did result in issuance of a tornado warning; although the article implies otherwise by mentioning that one Macon warning. The m.o. that day was to wait for radar and environmental data as well as spotter reports to make convincing reports. The person had access to LSRs and SVSs and knew when, where, and what to report. He apparently he even knew about boundary interactions and environmental clues. Given the reported time, location, and nature, it seems he used knowledge of meteorology and warning procedures to push NWS past the threshold, they use radar, spotter, and environmental data, and generally 2/3 is enough (as mentioned in the article). Anyway, this did result in EAS activation and various things that come with it, and as the article mentioned, WAND going live for hours.

As for the web report forms, they used to ask identifying info but NWSFOs were forced to take that down because of privacy concerns. Anonymous/public reports are not given as much creedence as (identified) spotter reports, obviously, but they are used, *especially* if they seem plausible. NWSFOs take the web form reports as a grain of salt and there have always been intentionally or mistakenly false reports, but this perpetrator is particularly egregious. A concern among NWSFOs that have the web report forms is losing a valuable source of info, as they do get a number of good reports. More often for verification after the fact, but also for warning operations. It'd be a shame to remove them and only take reports from identified spotters and other observers, a policy change for warning operations seems to me the more desirable solution, hopefully it can be done. Some changes have already been made.

[Doug Lee]

I realize the probabilities of this being the work of terrorists is very low. But probalbilities can change. And speaking of probabilities, if it is a terrorist, it's more likely a domestic terorist. So far, the foreign terrorists have struck economic targets, where the domestic terrorists have aimed at government entities.

I am not saying the person IS a terrorist, just that if it does turn out that way, don't be surprised.

[rdale]

Again - sending a false tornado report is by no means a form of terrorism. There is no damage, injuries, or deaths that would result.

[Doug Lee]

Again - sending a false tornado report is by no means a form of terrorism. There is no damage, injuries, or deaths that would result.

Did I say it was?
I was saying that if someone was thinking of carrying out a terrorist attack during severe weather, they might try to test the feasibility of that idea by sending in false tornado reports and then monitoring the response. Sure, no terrorism, but terrorist activity.

But then, the defintion of terrorism is to attempt to change public behavior or policy through fear or coercion.

[Chad Cowan]

I am not saying the person IS a terrorist, just that if it does turn out that way, don't be surprised.

WOW... terrorism??? Seriously??

In all likelihood, this is an armchair chaser who is trying to live vicariously. The person's name may end in a vowel, but I don't think that should qualify them as a terrorist.

[Ryan McGinnis]

Did I say it was?
I was saying that if someone was thinking of carrying out a terrorist attack during severe weather, they might try to test the feasibility of that idea by sending in false tornado reports and then monitoring the response. Sure, no terrorism, but terrorist activity.

What logical reason would a terrorist have to test out the tornado warning response in rural Wisconsin? Aren't there 50,000 better ways for them to go about achieving their nefarious aims? Can you see why this sounds so absurd? Yes, it is tecnically possible in the same sense that the Cubs winning the World Series is technically possible -- but as far as crime goes, statistically, terrorism represents such a small sliver of the overall crime pie that the odds that the motive of whoever is doing this is terrorism related is very, very statistically small, unless there is some other evidence to indicate otherwise. I mean, it also technically could have been a disgruntled circus clown with a stolen Treo, but it doesn't make much sense to seriously advance it as a possibility without at least finding a happy horn at the scene of the crime.

At any rate, I'm starting to drift offtopic, so I'm done replying to this aspect of the thread. :)

[Darren Addy]

I'm sufficiently alarmed to raise the Terror Alert to orange (http://www.portuese.org/ec/pics/funny/cat%20terrorist.jpg).

[APritchard]

Rdale, they did result in many warnings being issued on April 25th. In fact, warnings were issued for 3-4 counties at a time to cover all the tiny showers that were apparently producing tornadoes. We have all the hard copies of every warning issued that afternoon saved up at work.

I actually got suckered out chasing that day as the warnings were very local. Looking at the cells on radar and visually I was baffeled. I was annoyed to hear that the reports were false, but a little relieved that I wasn't going crazy. It was just grungy low contrast stratus rain showers along a warm front. I was awaken after just getting home hours before after chasing the Nickerson storm for that bullcrap because some dude got bored. This was actually my girlfriend's first time tagging along with me, and I even told her not to let that day skew her idea of what storm chasing is, because what we were seeing was "bunch of bull----"

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/070425_rpts.gif

1940
ASSUMPTION CHRISTIAN IL3952 8905 TRAINED SPOTTER REPORTED BRIEF TORNADO TOUCHDOWN. (ILX) 2019
3 S MACON MACON IL3967 8900 BRIEF TORNADO TOUCHDOWN...NO DAMAGE. FROM TRAINED SPOTTER. (ILX) 2027
1 SW SULLIVAN MOULTRIE IL3959 8862 TORNADO TOWNDOWN AND AN ADDITIONAL FUNNEL CLOUD FROM PUBLIC. (ILX) 2027
3 S MACON MACON IL3967 8900 CORRECTED TIME. BRIEF TORNADO TOUCHDOWN...NO DAMAGE. FROM TRAINED SPOTTER. (ILX) 2045
COLES COLES IL3952 8847 TORNADO ON THE GROUND...NO DAMAGE...FROM TRAINED SPOTTER. (ILX) 2047
1 NNE HUMBOLDT COLES IL3962 8831 TORNADO TOUCHDOWN...NO DAMAGE...FROM TRAINED SPOTTER. (ILX) 2105
3 W HINDSBORO DOUGLAS IL3968 8819 TORNADO ON THE GROUND...FROM TRAINED SPOTTER. (ILX) 2151
2 NW PALMER CHRISTIAN IL3948 8943 (ILX) 2157
3 NNW PALMER CHRISTIAN IL3950 8943 TREES DAMAGED (ILX) 2208
2 S KINCAID CHRISTIAN IL3956 8941 (ILX)

[aaron.burkham]

Man i would have been kicking myself in the head to trying to figure
out what the hells going on, i will be back in decatur to chase for july,
hopefully this guy doesnt pull any sh*t.

[Kevin Scharfenberg]

Maybe a tangent here, but this is a great example of why I support the decision of some WFOs to NOT issue local storm reports (LSRs) for every last tornado report that comes into the office, even on a good-looking storm. Of course someone calling in fake reports will be a rare event, but it's very common for even trained spotters and chasers to be fooled or mistaken, or for someone in the general public to mistake non-tornadic winds from a tornado. The sort of panic and confusion resulting from these false reports is somewhat preventable.

[Gerrit Gulden]

I read about this on another website. I must say it is bothering to say the least. I question whether or not it is someone maybe taking advantage of either the NWS reporting website or even SpotterNetwork. If you have done your research youll notice not every NWS office is setup to receive reports via spotter network. For this I think some offices are better off due to trying to verify each Online submitted report. I think Skywarn as a whole needs to be re-evaluated to deter false reports and get a more structurized Reporting sequence in place and more vigilant confirmations by the local NWS where the report was received. Otherwise the false reports will keep coming in, thus local residents taking cover when No actual severe weather is occuring except for a brief thunderstorm, etc.

I do agree with a fine. Something should be done if possible by law authorities. Its a shame that someone would do this.

-gerrit

[Robbie Cox]

NWS does not call the local fire department into action, so it's safe to conclude this is not one of the possibilities...



The heck they don't.
NWS has done so many times to verify radar.

[rdale]

Robbie - follow along in our thread... Somebody said that the reports might be a test to 911 disaster response. My comment was that NWS does not call local fire departments and tell them people are trapped in a building collapse. That comment stands.

[Mark Manchester]

The NWS may not send fire departments to building collapses, but they have called our dispatch office numerous times to request we activate storm spotters, which includes every fire department in our county so there is some truth to it.

[rdale]

Again - nobody questioned that the NWS contacts Fire Departments for ground truth or for storm spotter activation. My claim is that the NWS does not contact a FD because they received a storm report of a building collapse and requesting they dispatch units to the scene. If you have proof otherwise, I'd love to hear the story...