Talk:Ghost rockets

Citation?
"However, unofficially and secretly, the two had been sent by Lt. General Hoyt Vandenberg, then director of the Central Intelligence Group (CIG), to investigate the ghost rocket situation." This claim seems to be unsupported. Is there a specific citation, that could be added to the article?--Oboroten 07:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

-Probably just something a UFO proponent read and figured it would be good to put on here without having a source. --Opacic (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert by Jamaana 05:40, 11 February 2007
I've been asked to please source my info. OK. I thought I had. I pipe-linked to the two Wikipedia articles which provided the facts to which I referred. My topic sentence was supported elsewhere on the page itself; inter alia, in the caption of the photo immediately adjacent my contribution. What did you want to see that I didn't include, Jamaana? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.58.132 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

- 12+ hours later: In the absence of elaboration from Jamaana, I'm going to reinstate my contribution. Jamaana, would you suggest any improvements here on the talk page, instead of reverting my contribution, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.58.132 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

GA review (Fail)
This article needs some significant improvement to reach GA standards. Vassyana 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Well written. The writing is generally interesting and good. However, it could be a bit more concise and less editorial. See WP:MOS and WP:IA.
 * 2) Factually accurate and verifiable. Not well-cited. Needs proper inline citations. See WP:CITE and WP:ATT.
 * 3) Broad in its coverage. No mention of the notability of the occurances in wider society. No real coverage of critics of such reports.
 * 4) Neutral point of view policy. The article is very biased towards a particular perspective on the phenomena. See WP:NPOV.
 * 5) Stable. No stability issues.
 * 6) Use of images. Decent use of images.

Meteors are radar trackable
Third para in intro:
 * and furthermore displayed characteristics inconsistent with meteors, such as reported maneuverability and being trackable on radar.

but now: meteors and meteorites are trackable on radar, radar being the only method to detect daytime meteor swarms. Besides, at the time of the Perseid maximum, there are about three swarms active, the Perseids, the Iota Aquarids and the Alpha Capricornids, the last swarm producing just a few meteors, all of them slow and most pretty bright. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 14:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite--see The Ghost of Fireballs Past (from NASA); The Meteor Radar at South Pole (actually used for meteorology, studying weather--but does so by tracking the radar signals of meteor trails in the upper atmosphere); Forward Scatter Meteor Radar (also from NASA). Will remove the statement. 184.36.93.38 (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No in-line citations, and crazy talk

 * 1) 1 - there was no "early form of cruise-missle" in 1946, 1956, 1966 or 1976!! any 'source' claiming there was is just pure fringe


 * 1) 2 - extremely biased references are listed, and there is an almost complete lack of in-line citations in the article - this article looks like it was written by a 'believer' HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want read Wikipedia's own article on cruise missiles, which notes that the basic concept goes back to the earliest days of powered flight. The German V1 is arguably the first successful cruise missile.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.66.181 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Only one of NYT references found
In the section "U.S. Involvment," I could locate only the Aug. 14, 1946 item in the NY Times, not the Aug. 20 one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpacker666 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass Hysteria
Smithsonian Magazine article includes conclusion of American, German & British intelligence officers that the sightings were due to Mass Hysteria.Chantern15 (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15


 * Why was the mention of Mass Hysteria removed? The article does include the conclusion of those investigators.Chantern15 (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15


 * Probably "True Believers" enforcing their will and no one cares enough about the article. Jersey John (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)