from the wikipedia article about the Wright brothers. about the first flight in 1903 "The Wrights sent a telegram about the flights to their father, requesting that he "inform press." However, the *Dayton Journal* refused to publish the story, saying the flights were too short to be important. Meanwhile, against the brothers' wishes, a telegraph operator leaked their message to a Virginia newspaper, which concocted a highly inaccurate news article"
Later, in 1904 " They invited reporters to their first flight attempt of the year on May 23, on the condition that no photographs be taken. Engine troubles and slack winds prevented any flying, and they could manage only a very short hop a few days later with fewer reporters present. Some scholars of the Wrights speculate the brothers may have intentionally failed to fly in order to cause reporters to lose interest in their experiments.[58]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#cite_note-57>Whether that is true is not known, but after their poor showing local newspapers virtually ignored them for the next year and a half." Easy as pie, I see.... later "A few newspapers published articles about the long flights, but no reporters or photographers had been there. The lack of splashy eyewitness press coverage was a major reason for disbelief in Washington, D.C. and Europe and in journals like *Scientific American,* whose editors doubted the "alleged experiments" and asked how U.S. newspapers, "alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice."[65]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#cite_note-66> The Wright brothers were certainly complicit in the lack of attention they received. Fearful of competitors stealing their ideas, and still without a patent, they flew on only one more day after October 5. From then on, they refused to fly anywhere unless they had a firm contract to sell their aircraft. They wrote to the U.S. government, then to Britain, France and Germany with an offer to sell a flying machine, but were rebuffed because they insisted on a signed contract before giving a demonstration. They were unwilling even to show their photographs of the airborne Flyer. The American military, having recently spent $50,000 on the Langley Aerodrome<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley_Aerodrome>—a product of the nation's foremost scientist—only to see it plunge twice into the Potomac River "like a handful of mortar", was particularly unreceptive to the claims of two unknown bicycle makers from Ohio.[66]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#cite_note-67>Thus, doubted or scorned, the Wright brothers continued their work in semi-obscurity, while other aviation pioneers like Brazilian Alberto Santos-Dumont <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Santos-Dumont>, Henri Farman <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Farman>, Leon Delagrange<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Delagrange>and American Glenn Curtiss <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Curtiss> entered the limelight." Gee, I guess their behavior seems highly suspicious :-))) On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:45 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Jed, >> >> Since you are a pretty decent historian on a number of events... >> >> Regarding the Right Brothers, when proof became irrefutable that their >> contraption could fly under power, how did some of the most ardent >> (and well known) skeptics deal with the news? > > > I'm not Jed, and you've got the Rong brothers, but I can answer anyway. > > First of all, the scientific mainstream was not skeptical of powered > flight, although there were some skeptics, most notably Lord Kelvin. The > subject was treated with respect from before 1900 by journals like Science, > Nature, and Scientific American. It was regarded by most scientists as > inevitable, and in any case, could not be regarded as contrary to any > physical principles or generalizations already accumulated and verified, > because after all, birds are heavier than air. That's a difference compared > to cold fusion. > > However, there was widespread skepticism of the Wright's claims of flights > in 1904 and 1905 (and earlier) (especially in Europe), largely because of > the Wrights' own restrictions on the press and photography. (Contrary to > Rossi's secret sauce, the Wright's secrets could in fact be photographed.) > It could have been resolved quickly, but the Wrights did not fly at all in > 1906 and 1907. > > In 1908, when they flew in France, it took 105 seconds for all skepticism > to vanish. Wikipedia puts it like this: > > "The Wright brothers catapulted to world fame overnight. Former doubters > issued apologies and effusive praise. L'Aérophile editor Georges Besançon > wrote that the flights "have completely dissipated all doubts. Not one of > the former detractors of the Wrights dare question, today, the previous > experiments of the men who were truly the first to fly...." > > Producing heat is not quite as obvious as powered flight, but it's close, > and a similarly convincing demo would be easy to design, if the claims were > real. Rossi's Kitty Hawk was in 2008, in his factory that was heated for 2 > years by an ecat. Jan 2011 should have been his France demo, and he has had > a dozen of them this year, with invited press and scientists. But he has > not catapulted to fame, and skeptics have not capitulated. > > Instead of setting up a demo like that of the Wright brothers in France > (which might involve heating an olympic pool without any input power, or > something), Rossi encloses his observers in a room without windows, and has > his associates read remote altimeters, and then he gives the observers a > scan of the paper where the altitude is written down. Is it any wonder, > skeptics still are. When he flings the doors open, and lets the public see > the ecat soar, he will get his love. > > > > -- Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: [email protected]
