Of the hundreds of storms we've documented over the years, there doesn't seem to be a strong causal link between green storms and tornadoes, or even hail for that matter. The green color appears to be a byproduct of sunlight having its other colors stripped off on its trip through the atmosphere. Air scatters the blue end of the spectrum more readily (that scattered light is why the sky appears blue). In the late afternoon and evening, sunlight takes a longer path through the atmosphere and much of the blue in the light is gone by the time it reaches a storm, while most of the green and red light is still present. That light paints the storms a nice golden yellow. The yellow light then encounters copious amounts of water, both liquid and solid ice suspended in the storm's updrafts and downdrafts. Water absorbs the red end of the spectrum more readily, which is why it looks blue underwater. So the red light gets stripped off the yellow light going into the storm, and just a chunk of the color in the middle of the spectrum is left over: green. The green light makes it through cracks and gaps in the storm clouds, which is usually where there is a downdraft and precipitation eroding the clouds. The color is thus dependent on the time of day, and the amount of water suspended aloft. Tall storms tend to produce more hail than short ones as the updrafts are stronger. And atmospheric instability peaks in the late afternoon, so there is some correlation here to severe weather. The problem, however, is that hail and tornadoes depend on a lot more than time of day and updraft height. Freezing level, lapse rates, wind shear, and a myriad of other things play a big part in hail and tornado production. Of the 100+ tornadoes our team has documented over the years, I'd say most did not occur with a particularly green sky. And we've had many instances of a pronounced green color, without tornadoes or any hail at all, probably due to warm air aloft making the lapse shallow and raising the freezing level. The "green sky = hail/tornado" is mostly folklore with a little kernel of truth underneath it seems. Two unusual things happen in conjunction, and that gets cemented into people's brains, even though the connection between them is weak or indirect.

By definition you need a storm (a cumiliform cloud) for it to be a tornado. The tornadoes in hurricanes are being produced by individual thunderstorm cells in the hurricane. Decaying tropical cyclones and hurricanes can and do produce tornadoes far inland, including North Texas, as it takes quite a while for the low pressure center and associated windshear to dissipate. Vortices such as gustnadoes that are induced by wind shear alone, are not tornadoes. The article just glazed over a bunch of nuance. They probably meant, despite the lack of a tornado watch or warning, storms in a severe thunderstorm watch or warning occasionally produce tornadoes, as severe thunderstorms were referenced in the paragraph above.

It has to be said every time these stories come up: UFO != aliens. Yes, UFO = unidentified by definition. Let's not get hung up on the labels and entrenched misunderstandings such that we're dismissive of any actual news. There's a far bigger take away here I think. One that I find totally mind blowing. I've always found the topic fascinating yet little more than a weird curiosity. UFO cases have almost always just been totally unsubstantiated claims, from sources not vetted, with bad corroborating evidence, something totally mundane, something misidentified, hoaxes, and the people "studying" them use faulty methodologies or are of questionable motives. Not good science, or something science could seriously approach. But this is different. We have multiple first person accounts from naval aviators. We have third party corroboration from radar operators and military command. We have photographic evidence from a verified, vetted source. That video came off a military aircraft and went straight to the Pentagon presumably. Yeah, it could have been doctored somewhere in the mix. But why? And the first person accounts support the video. The sources are incredibly strong. So we know it's not a hoax. If it's a conspiracy, it's massive and would have many loose ends, which makes it highly unlikely. That the Pentagon would have a large, expensive effort to investigate its own secret spycraft, maybe to intentionally mislead, or that this program sits directly at odds with another unconnected secret program seems like an incredible stretch that creates even more problems than it explains. I don't know what the research methodology was here, but it could have been quite thorough. It sounds like Elizondo had qualified and experienced staff and an extensive tool set. If they're cataloging thousands of objects using similar sources, additional classified sources, and with powerful tools, then this being the mundane sounds unlikely as well. The only thing that seems possibly off here are Elizondo's motives now that he's involved in a private "Academy of Art" business venture. But if you've got a legit phenomenon here you're trying to pursue and you're hitting dead ends trying to continue your work using government avenues, then it seems totally plausible and acceptable that you'd try to continue this with a private venture. Especially if there is little if any respected scientific avenue that would pick this up too. Where would you even begin? Astronomy grants? We have no idea even what the applicable field is. So what does that mean? It's aliens? No, it seems that this is some phenomenon that is wholly unknown to science. "Duh, it's unidentified so of course it's unknown". It's way bigger than that. As far as I know, this is the most compelling case that there is a real phenomenon behind some UFO claims. A phenomenon of which we have no fundamental understanding. The most compelling case that this is not something totally mundane like a cloud, plane, camera artifact, or a hoax. Maybe you think that's boring and I'm unnecessarily geeking out, that of course science doesn't know everything that's out there. But that we can barely even begin to describe what this might be means that this may not just be some "object" we're waiting for science to describe. There could be entirely new types of science needed before it can be described. And that I find mind blowing.