Yes, here is the reason why they did not believe:
http://youtu.be/kEdtvct6Tf0
The Wright brothers where not the only one. There where hundreds of
others, that built -from our todays viewpoint- ridiculous and funny
machines. Most did not fly at all and some did 2 meters and then crashed.
People had no TV. They have seen this in cinema and of course
journalists select the most funny and ridiculous examples and gave false
reports.
There where a lot of unbelieveable rumours and untrue stories.
There where no handys with videocameras, no youtube and no twitter at
these days.
There was no internet to forward documents quickly.
Could be there was a pioneer that did fly and did a better job than the
Wright brothers and you dont know him?
Possibly nobody knows him. This is possible.
Am 22.10.2011 23:23, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
In 1908, the Wright brothers ignited the first modern worldwide media
frenzy by demonstrating the airplane. They were soon feted by Royalty
in Europe, and by the president in the White House. They were in the
headlines for months. They flew in front of a million people in New
York City in 1909. Air races soon began, and aviators become
international celebrities.
Meanwhile . . . in small towns across America, many people thought it
was all a gigantic hoax. They thought that airplanes are impossible,
and the news stories were bunk. They resembled the people today who
think the moon landings were staged, and the airplanes that crashed
into the buildings on 9/11 were holograms.
Around 1912, an aviator came to a town in the U.S. with an airplane
crated up in the express freight car. He wanted to do a demonstration,
and charge admission. The sheriff soon came to him and said: "Son, you
better take the next train out of town. A crowd is gathering to tar
and feather you for fraud. You can't fool these honest country folk
with your big-city hoax."
That really happened, although I embellished the dialog . . . Anyway,
let's imagine I am standing out in a field with one of those stalwart
sons of the soil, and an airplane flies over.
ME: Look, an airplane! It must be 1,000 feet up! What did I tell you?
SKEPTIC: It is _not_ 1,000 feet up! No way. I am an expert in
trigonometry, and I assure you, it is no more than 635 feet.
ME: Okay, but it is way up there.
SKEPTIC: Look, you just made an error of more than 300 feet. A 300
foot error! That's 635 feet plus or minus 300 feet, so as far as you
know, it could be only 335 feet high. Make another error like that,
and it could be on the ground.
ME: But, but . . . it was right up there. It can't be that far down . . .
SKEPTIC: You don't know how far up or down! You can't say with any
precision. If you don't know exactly how high it is, you can't prove
it was up in the air at all. Look at Heffner's analysis. He shows the
COP might even be negative. For all you know, that airplane might be
100 feet under the ground. Without precision measurements and the
proper instruments, you have nothing.
ME: But we saw it!
SKEPTIC: Let's not talk about what _you_ saw. Let's talk about what I
know, as an expert in trigonometry. I assure you, that airplane could
not have been more than 653 feet, 4 inches, and 5 sixteenths of an
inch. Since I can determine that with such precision and authority, I
must be an expert and I must be right, so the airplane might actually
be on the ground.
Estimating the height from observations, first principles and common
sense is junk science! You cannot know anything unless you look at how
the thermovoltage will be partially shorted. This is VERY obvious. You
have to look at "fine" sources of errors, and unknown errors. You
haven't even considered the issue of thermal electroosmose.
Not only that, but there is a huge difference between a crude flying
machine and a real means of transportation. Rossi claims he will sell
his products soon, actually they are not usable yet, they are
technologically immature.
Yes, that sounds ridiculous. But it is no more ridiculous than the
assertion that 30 L of water in a poorly insulated metal box can boil
for 4 hours with no source of energy, while you add another 60 L of
cold water. (Or 30 L, or 10, or 5 if you like!)
If you accept the eyewitness accounts that the power was off; that the
box remained hot; water at a visible flow rate emerged from it; and it
was so hot it burned someone three hours later, then either you accept
that it was producing kilowatt levels of heat internally, or you are a
scientific illiterate. This does not rule out fraud, but fraud is
about as plausible as the notion that the airplane flying by in 1912
was actually suspended on a steel cable. How would you get the cable
so far up with no visible means of support? Fraud is more implausible
than a real reaction would be.
- Jed
