Ghost Rockets

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Ghost Rockets

Postby Access Denied » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:12 am

Robert Sheaffer makes an interesting comparison between the famous "ghost rockets" of Sweden in 1946 to sightings and reports of "mystery missiles" at the present time on his blog...

The Famous 1946 "Ghost Rockets" in Sweden - Were they Contrails?
http://badufos.blogspot.com/2010/11/fam ... weden.html

Image
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]


Re: Ghost Rockets

Postby astrophotographer » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:40 pm

Access Denied wrote:The Famous 1946 "Ghost Rockets" in Sweden - Were they Contrails?


IMHO, one has to take each "ghost rocket" case one at a time and then determine if the contrail explanation is valid. It probably did play a role but the posting implies it as a blanket explanation and UFO proponents will complain it is just the usual skeptic ploy of painting with a broad brush (like calling all UFO reports venus or a weather balloon).
Last edited by Access Denied on Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: trimmed quote
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: Ghost Rockets

Postby DoomsdayRex » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:18 pm

Access Denied wrote:Robert Sheaffer makes an interesting comparison between the famous "ghost rockets" of Sweden in 1946 to sightings and reports of "mystery missiles" at the present time on his blog...


It is good to see someone re-examining old cases, especially one that is so often taken at face-value.
If anyone can show me and prove to me that I am wrong in thought or deed I will gladly change. I seek the truth which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm. -- Marcus Aurelias
User avatar
DoomsdayRex
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:23 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: Ghost Rockets

Postby chrLz » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:21 am

I'd not heard of this case before, and am just a little curious - is there a decent coverage of this somewhere (even here?). I looked around and found a Wiki, this page http://www.ufo.se/english/articles/ghostrocket.html, and a few others, but not what i would call a 'decent' analysis. Feel free to admonish me severely if there is a thread here, as I am new to your search system... :)

I'd particularly like to see a better scan of that image - it's s pity some of these old cases can't benefit from the advances in film scanning techniques and modern post-processing and photogrammetry. Ok, it might be overkill for that picha of a meteor :D but even so... In this case it seems no-one even knows what type of camera or film it was taken on.

A number of analyses also refer to radar positives, but of course we don't get to see the data, or the reasoning behind how they 'matched' the radar information. This was 1946, and even today, false positives and radar glitches are common and not fully understood. Anyway, given the strong V-rocket possibility, I'm not sure it's worth a huge effort to analyse.. like I said, just curious..
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Ghost Rockets

Postby Access Denied » Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:09 am

Nothing here (choose “Advanced Search” which has a number of options from the menu at the top of the site) but Tim makes a good point, each case needs to be evaluated individually.

To be honest, my first impression of that one photo was a meteor but then I started to think about the composition. It seems it would have to had been there for a while for the photographer to frame the picture with the “ghost rocket” at the top and the foreground at the bottom to give it some perspective… that is assuming it’s not cropped. I suppose a meteor could leave a persistent contrail though.

That’s an interesting article with the photographer you linked to. He says it was by “sheer accident” he caught it on film but he also talks about seeing it and how fast it was…

"I had a very simple camera in those days. It was a small camera. There were no exquisite lenses on it at all. It had just one lens I bought it as a schoolboy using my savings."

It wasn't easy remembering all the details surrounding the moment of photographing when we met four decades after the event, but Erik Reuterswärd believed the time of exposure was 1/50 of a second, a setting he normally used on that camera.

"There was only one picture from the incident. After all, it traveled with an enormous speed. Then there was nothing. First there was that light, and after that there was nothing to see."

Was that before or during the photograph?

Also, this Ghost Rocket article talks about fragments found two days later?

http://www.project1947.com/gr/grchron1.htm


ETA: I moved this discussion into a new "Ghost Rockets" thread.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Ghost Rockets

Postby chrLz » Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:58 am

Access Denied wrote:Nothing here (choose “Advanced Search” which has a number of options from the menu at the top of the site)

That's what I tried, but it's always a bit disconcerting to get the "No results found" thing - I always think it's probably my search that is at fault.. :oops:

but Tim makes a good point, each case needs to be evaluated individually.

Yes, the analyses I saw (unlike any other mass ufo analyses.. :lol:) just lumped a whole pile of sightings and claims in, with no cites or backup information. Yeah, I know it was 1946, but even so..

To be honest, my first impression of that one photo was a meteor

Yes, same - first thing that struck me is that the object is brighter than any other part of the scene, although there are a few other 'blocked' (255/255/255) pixels. It would be nice to see a much higher resolution version with better dynamic range, to look at it a bit more closely and identify the light conditions (via shadows). It might be possible to make a less-wild-assed guess about whether it is too bright to be a dying rocket eg a v2, as against the white hot brilliance of a large fireball, and there might even be traces of the shape of what is immolating...
It's difficult to tell what the lighting was, but there seems to be some clear sky there so it's likely either partially overcast or sunlit. Back in those days, some of the films had quite low contrast, so it's hard to tell from what is probably an old scan of a second (third, etc?) generation print.

but then I started to think about the composition. It seems it would have to had been there for a while for the photographer to frame the picture with the “ghost rocket” at the top and the foreground at the bottom to give it some perspective… that is assuming it’s not cropped. I suppose a meteor could leave a persistent contrail though. That’s an interesting article with the photographer you linked to. He says it was by “sheer accident” he caught it on film but he also talks about seeing it and how fast it was…

Which seems quite contradictory, and an *amazing* coincidence if he genuinely accidentally caught it, rather than responded to seeing it - if he did, then it must have been quite slow (rather like a fireball, or a rocket taking one for the team...

"I had a very simple camera in those days. It was a small camera. There were no exquisite lenses on it at all. It had just one lens I bought it as a schoolboy using my savings."

I'm probably just being optimistic, but back in those days, some of the basic cameras had quite good optics, and used quite large film formats - so the negative may well be a lot better than that scan suggests.. But it's probably in one-o-dem warehouses like in the Indy films...


'..wasn't easy remembering all the details surrounding the moment of photographing when we met four decades after the event, but Erik Reuterswärd believed the time of exposure was 1/50 of a second, a setting he normally used on that camera."

Must have been a quite slow film and/or small lens aperture to warrant that slow speed - unfortunately that speed tends to suggest it may have had a tiny (poor) lens - maybe the original negative is no better than the scan suggests.

"There was only one picture from the incident. After all, it traveled with an enormous speed. Then there was nothing. First there was that light, and after that there was nothing to see."

Was that before or during the photograph?

Indeed, as I said above, the story sounds a little flaky..

Also, this Ghost Rocket article talks about fragments found two days later?
http://www.project1947.com/gr/grchron1.htm

Yes, I saw that one, and noticed the rather disparate debris descriptions, and again, they are not well-documented - where were these things found? Was there evidence on the ground to suggest they really were the result of something hitting the ground, or were people just looking around for anything odd? Was there any similarity between the samples? Too many short anecdotes. It would be interesting to see the Swedish military reports - I wonder how 'open' they are..?

ETA: I moved this discussion into a new "Ghost Rockets" thread.

Cool. Now even I should be able to find it!
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am


Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron