Marvin Long, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Yes, it is. Even Clinton recognized Santos-Dumont precedence
>> in inventing the airplane.
>
> Alberto, as long as I've been on Brin-L you've denounced
> Clinton at every turn...and now he's a reliable source?
> Fooey. ;-P
>
Selective quote O:-)
>> Notice the flags that
>> I put in S-D's claims: *heavier than air*, *public* and
>> *self-propelled*. AFAIK, WB's 1903 flight was not public,
>> and the launch was by a catapult.
I still stick to these constraints. *public*, for example,
is something that the world of science has been struggling
to enforce; for example, we have _Cardano's Equation_, even
though it was basically Tartaglia's.
>
> On the other hand, the Wright Bros. documented their work,
> shared it with friends, coworkers, and photographed the
> flights...please prove that all this well-accepted history
> has been falsified before you expect me to
> believe it didn't happen.
>
I never said it was falsified. It's just - well - irrelevant.
Nobody knew about that except long after the time.
> The comparison is obvious: the Wright brothers were the
> equivalent of a no-name startup company, whereas
> Santos-Dumont was the equivalent of Microsoft.
>
I think in the future using MICROS~1 in an argument will
be similar to using <that other Evil guy>...
> Really, the only difference you can possibly hang this
> debate on is the Wright brothers' launch by catapult.
> One might argue that the only real
> airplane is one that can take off under its own power, but
> that's mostly just a matter of having a better (more
> expensive) engine and wheels, and it doesn't involve any of
> the factors that distinguish an airplane from a
> dirigible, say: heavier than air, lift gained from
> airfoils, movable control surfaces, self-propelled, etc.
>
But being self-launched is that distinguishes an airplane
from a glider.
Alberto Monteiro
