I will try to say this as nicely as possible, Letting one group change the name of something because another group doesn't want to have to be reminded of the past is a prime example of how our history gets "erased". Someone decides that it makes sense that others shouldn't have to remember a person, place or concept that evokes negativeness. I guess it's just unfortunate that I have to voice my opinion on this controversial and inane concept of history rewriting (sort of). It's one of those things were rules or laws are created and we must abide by them and not make excuses or reasons to bend them per situation (I know that law doesn't apply to this situation in particular, but it is a decent enough simile to try and get my point across). I am not in disagreement as to understanding why people would like the name changed. I am in disagreement to the idea of letting someone attempt to bend the law or whatever because they don't agree with something. It's not like this park was just named after him yesterday. It was founded in 1929 and "encompasses part of Forrest's operational area during the 1864 Battle of Johnsonville, in which Forrest attacked and destroyed a Union supply depot and transfer station on the opposite bank of the river." (per wikipedia).

I guess it is also sad and possibly a reflection of myself that I like to listen to the 'stupid' rant about their one sided opinions whatever they may be; mostly so I can be reminded why I could give a shit less about politics and community.

Please excuse my probably confusing rant.

I'm not ready to declare this a fake, but I'm not endorsing it as legit either. I just don't know. But I'm going to address a couple of the statements made here.

it would have hit a tree, especially since there were some that close

"The tallest objects in a storm don't always get struck by lightning. It's true that taller objects are closer to the clouds, but as discussed previously, lightning can strike the ground at a close distance to a tall object. Taller objects may have a higher possibility of a strike, but where lightning is concerned, the strike path is not predictable." from http://science.howstuffworks.com/lightning2.htm

and it certainly wouldn't have been 'caught' in at least 3 frames as it is in this video, it's a lot shorter than that.

I don't think you can really make that claim without more knowledge about the camera. Based on the quality of the video, it appears to be a fairly cheap camera, but that could just be the compression. We have no idea how many FPS they were recording at nor how many re-strikes made up this bolt, so we can't determine how many frames a bolt of lightning would appear in. If we assume it's a cheap camera, then we have to consider the possibility that the crappy sensor would not recover from such a high intensity light very quickly.

And as far as the "travels through the power lines" thing, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. Everyone knows that electricity is fucking lazy. It wants the easiest path to ground. Air is a terrible conductor, hence the reason you don't get zapped when you walk by a fucking outlet. If the lightning were indeed traveling through the lines, it would have stayed there, not just randomly jumped out in someone's back yard for him to videotape and put on youtube.

A power line is not going to be sufficient to contain a lightning bolt. I doubt it's possible for the core bolt to travel through a power line at all, but it's certainly possible for one of the smaller branches to. But these smaller branches are still seeking a path to the ground and I see no reason why they wouldn't arc to the earth rather than travel several miles to the transfer station, given the opportunity.

The comparison to household AC isn't of much use. Lightning may be electricity but a household circuit and the circuit of a lightning bolt are far, far different aside from sharing the basic properties.

I also don't see a single power line anywhere in this entire video.

I thought the gigantic power line strung just beyond the fence at the far end of the yard was pretty obvious.

Anyway, I doubt this is a video of a bolt of lightning striking anywhere near that dog. The shockwave at that range would be rather powerful. Even if nobody had a cognitive reaction to the strike, things would have moved. At best, I think we've got some "stray" voltage sparking in the yard. I went and found a few copies of this video and went frame by frame taking some screenshots into photoshop to evaluate. There's a bolt that comes down that I do not see when the video is playing normally, even now that I know it's there. I suspect this bolt is a ways off in the distance. The motion of the camera causes a streak that could give the impression that it's on the near side of the fence. After that are the 3 S-shaped bolts that are plainly seen in the video, and are all of identical shape and size. These definitely don't look real, but they also don't look like something someone who was trying to fake a lightning strike would put in either. I wonder if they are some sort of lens or sensor artifact? Maybe even some peculiar electrical interference?