Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 2
Archive for Talk:Gustave Whitehead 2008-2010.
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
My last edits
I started with the intention of just adding Wikilinks and setting the page as per Wikipedia:Layout. The books and see also should appear above the external links. At the same time I cleaned up the references as there were multiple links in there to the same reference. However, when I got to the "Technical" section I had to tag it with an Wikipedia:No original research tag. It's conclusions drawn from the rest of the article and is not supported by citations. It needs to be supported by relilable sources or removed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I wrote it, I delete it. But let me add, it was supported by scientific and technical knowledge, and a neutral judgement of witness reports, just like in a real encyclopedia. And it was interesting and possibly fruitful. We could have such sections too, if more experts in the field discuss technical conclusions on the discussion page. Roger491127 (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. What you suggest is an intersting idea but would require a change to the way Wikipedia works. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Addition to later career sction
I inserted a quote about his later career and health condition, it helps explain why he suddenly disappeared from the scene. As you see, it is referenced correctly and inserted in the right place chronologically in the story of his life as an elderly and not fully healthy man. Roger491127 (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The tags tell us to discuss here the balance and neutrality of this article:
Unbalanced?
In general I think it is fairly balanced, but considering it is an article about Whitehead wehave, of course, presented facts which are positive for Whitehead, presenting counter-arguments to a lot of anti-Whitehead propaganda spread over the years.
We have the text "More recently, aviation researchers Louis Chmiel and Nick Engler acknowledged the possibility that Whitehead flew before the Wright brothers, but asserted that the achievement would be of little significance, inserted without any explanation on the discussion page:
"While Whitehead believers insist that he was first to fly, no one claims that his work had any effect on early aviation or the development of aeronautic science. Even if someone someday produces a photo of No. 21 in flight on August 14, 1901, it will be nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation."[30]" in the Controversy section. It was sneakely inserted at the end of a totally unrelated section, and it seems to be a way to denigrate Whitehead to "a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation.".
That does not seem neutral, and not based on historical sources. If we are to judge his influence on aviation history, which is something very different from being an inventor, that most negative judgement should have been inserted together with the most positive judgement to balance it, and a new section should have been created, about the significance of his work, I did that, arguing that a new issue had been introduced, so it should have it's own section. Later people added positive stuff about his influence, so the negative quote backfired. Roger491127 (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality?
"For example, Smithsonian Institution Secretary Samuel Langley, who was building a flying machine called the "Aerodrome", secretly sent an assistant to an exhibition to measure and find out as much technical details about Whitehead's airplane as possible. The assistant reported the aircraft did not appear to be airworthy.[31]"
The last sentence, about what the assistant said makes this whole quote into a judgement of the airplane, by some assistant who had never seen an airworthy airplane, changes the the main issue we are discussing. Do you remember what this was an example of? It begins with "For example," An example of what? I can answer that question, it was about other aviators interest and awareness of Whitehead. The important quote is that Smithsonian Institution Secretary Samuel Langley was so interested that he secretly sent an assistant to measure and find out as much as possible about Whitehead's airplane.
The overall structure of the sentence is broken, and the next issue is what the assistant told somebody. This moves the focus from the interest Langley had in the airplane to something totally irreleant. The second sentence makes the important quote into just an introduction to the judgement of this assistant. That is an example of the fact+spin, fact+spin, tactics.Roger491127 (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Creating section about inner feelings, beliefs
Religious people always try to get a toe in the door, to spread their ideas about strong determination and relation to death, and of course such ideas crept into this article too. I suggested that the macabre section should be removed, but someone else disagreed. It doesn't fit in any other section, so it should at least be in its own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Striking the comparisons with Wright
Earlier has at least twice comparisons with the Wrights have been stricken, presumably because this article is about Whitehead, not about the Wrights, so why do we not strike the comparison with Wilbur Wright in the Belief section? Why not strike that section completely, in most countries such ideas belong to the past, a strong religious belief, death as always present. etc... This section is of the type "If you can't beat them, join them." But it is obvious that neither Wilbur nor Whitehead wanted to be associated with each other, so this selection of quotes is inappropriate and nowhere near the technical issue of inventing an airplane. Roger491127 (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Removal of tags
Nobody, not even the person who demanded a discussion about the neutrality and balance of this article has participated in the discussions for 45 days, so I guess it is up to me to do this alone. I have added information on neglected viewpoints and more anti-Whitehead arguments, and discussed the issue on the talk page, as requested. Roger491127 (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Educator
Added a short text about his role as educator, and a picture of Junius Harworth, the young man who worked with Whitehead longer than any other assistant, and one of the most important witnesses to his flights, referenced several times in this article. Roger491127 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Removal of questioned credibility for the other side too
To remove only one side argument, leaving the argument of the other side is not neutral, so I removed the comparison too. The assumptions of Jakab were unreferenced in his article. And it is obvious that he confused Harworth with Phillips. But the reader will have to find that out for himself now. I used another example from Jakab instead, because it is contradicted by a sourced interview at the beginning of the controversy section. Thus we have an example of Jakab's argumentation which is balanced by the interview mentioned earlier in the section. Roger491127 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed tags
As nobody else has had anything to say about the neutrality and balance of this article for a long time, I removed the ugly tags. Roger491127 (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed dead or irrelevant links
I deleted the first two external links, the first is dead, the second points to a totally irrelevant page. (Roger491127) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.244 (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Irrelevant link
I will delete the link to first-to-fly.com, since it points to a travel agency website and has nothing to do with this article. Clear skies to you 146.74.230.99 (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
| | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Manly's judgement is irrelevant - stricken
The important fact was that Cayley found Whitehead's airplane so interesting that he sent Manly to find out as much as possible. That shows that Whitehead was not unknown, other aviator pioneers knew about him, visited him, bought motors from him, and the head of the Smithsonian even sent his helper to measure and find out as much as possible about Whitehead's airplane.
What Manly thought about the airplane is irrelevant, because Manly knew very little about what an airworthy airplane should look like. He had never built one, or even seen one before. His loyalty to his employer may also have contributed to his judgement, Cayley saw himself as the designer of the only airworthy construction, and Manly wanted to keep Cayley happy because Cayley was his employer.
Obviously the writer of the above has confused aeronautical pioneer Sir George Cayley (of the UK, b.1773 d.1857) with Samuel Pierpont Langley (b.1834 d.1906), who was Secretary of the Smithsonian. Charles Manly was a engineer of distinction, rather than the lacky the writer of the above makes him out to be. He also was instrumental in the extraordinarily successful flights of Langley's heavier-than-air machines (Aerodrome #5 and Aerodrome #6) made during 1896.
Generally, the Gustave Whitehead Wiki entry reeks of bias. The image of Mr. Whitehead ("Gustav Albin Weisskopf") used on the Wiki page was lifted from my copyrighted website without attribution, so I know that my http://www.flyingmachines.org website was known, yet there is no sourcing and, one would have thought, my page on that website regarding Mr. Whitehead http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwhtd.html would have been linked. In addition, the photo file GustaveWhitehead Albatros.jpg which appears in the Wiki article was also lifted from my website. I cropped the original photo at the margins and that file is exactly as it appears on my website, even using the caption I wrote - again, without attribution.
In addition, I wrote an article which appeared in WW1 AERO The Journal Of The Early Aeroplane (issue #183, February 2004) which gave deep consideration to the aerial experiments of Mr. Whitehead and which suggested a perspective on his experiments which eliminates much of the rancor, "attitude" and "heat' which is so often associated with discussions of his work.
- Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've struggled mightily to eliminate obvious bias from this article. Much of the writing and structure, unfortunately, remains rambling and in need of disciplined editing, which I occasionally consider doing, but haven't mustered the energy for, yet. If your time allows, I would very much like to know which parts of the article you consider biased. I was surprised to see that you said Manly worked with Langley on the pre-1900 model Aerodromes. I didn't think Manly came to Langley until the manned Aerodrome got Army support and Langley needed someone to re-work the Balzer engine. I will add a link to your Whitehead article in the "External Links" section. DonFB (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
(I will gladly offer my thoughts, within a few days, on which parts of the Whitehead article as it currently exists exhibit bias. Thank you for asking.) Charles Manly began working for S.P. Langley almost immediately upon graduating with an engineering degree from Cornell University, in June 1896. The disappointing Aerodrome experiments of 1895 represent the pre-Manly period of Langley's work. Manly's involvement in the May 1896 experiments with Aerodrome #5 are subject to argument, although I believe he did participate. The remarkably successful Aerodrome #6 experiments of late 1896 benefited from Manly's participation. I disagree with the characterization of Manly (above) as anything other than what he clearly was, a serious and talented engineer, working in aeronautics at a time when aeronautical engineering had barely begun to be established as a branch of engineering. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Examples of bias on the Wiki Gustave Whitehead article
(1st paragraph) the use of the phrase "very early aircraft" carries the meaning that G.W.'s machines were aircraft under our current use of that word - they were not : they lacked control in all three axes of flight. To call them aircraft is to elevate their capabilities beyond fact. Further, saying that his machines were "very early" is not correct - it also serves the interest of bolstering the case made on behalf of G.W. The Le Bris "Artificial Albatross glider of 1856-57 might well be called "very early" but not G.W.'s machines. I suggest saying "built engines and aerial machines in which he reportedly…"
I suggest replacing "legacy" with experiments"
Terming Orville Wright an "aviation buff" is clearly a biased use of language.
(2nd paragraph) There is no evidence that G.W. ever visited or met Otto Lilienthal, yet it is stated as a fact.
(3rd paragraph) "sailplanes" are not gliders, which are what G.W. was hired to build. The first machine he built for Millet/Aeronautical Club of Boston was a flapping wing device which was a failure, and which the Wiki article avoids mentioning. Instead we are told that G.W. built a "sailplane" "inspired" by the Lilienthal glider, whereas the device G.W. constructed was a copy of a Lilienthal glider, another evidence of bias in the presentation.
(4th paragraph) As I note on my G.W. web page, "Horsman" (actually E. I. Horsman) owned a large toy store and hired G.W. to offer advice in designing kites and toy Lilienthal-type gliders as toys. The Wiki language is clearly biased on this point.
(5th paragraph) The space and attention given to the Darvarich statement lends it weight beyond it's value. The issue is whether a "flight" (in our current meaning and application of the word) happened. The device used by G.W. in 1899 was more akin to an auto than an airplane. I explore this event, as well as G.W.'s other aerial experiments, in my WW1 AERO article, which I will scan and post. The bias is evident in the use of an (un-named) "witness who gave his report in 1934" - why not be explicit and state at the beginning that it was Davarich. The language implies there was another source for the report of the April or May 1899 event - there was not.
(11th paragraph) As to whether or not G.W.'s machine Nr. 21 was capable of flight, G.W> himself tells us it was not when he states "I had no means of steering around them by using machinery." "Flight," as we ought to use the word, requires control.
(17th paragraph) "Whitehead has incorporated two mechanisms for steering the plane. A rope… (etc.)" This statement, as noted, is unsourced. I suggest addition of a topic - "Controls" -where this central matter can be addressed in detail, rather than having unsupported assertions stated here and there.
(19th paragraph) It is assumed in this paragraph and the next paragraph that Nr. 22 existed - yet, what is the evidence it was ever built ? We have photos of Nr. 21, so we can agree it existed, but what of Nr. 22 ?
(20th paragraph) SInce we know G.W. built a house, why would he not have made some protective covering for his Nr. 22 (if is ever existed) - this paragraph smacks of strained excuses and bias.
(21st paragraph) Almost certainly the cited Air Sports International magazine article is in error. I would expect that there is confusion with the engine sold to C. &. A. Wittemann (note: not "Witteman"). To cite such a source as fact is another evidence of bias.
(22nd paragraph) Since G.W. hid "tools" and "engines" from the civil seizure for failure to honor a contract, one wonders why he would not have saved whatever evidence he had of his supposed flights.
(26th paragraph) This assertion is biased. First it sweepingly states that his "discoveries" (more correctly "inventions") "were credited to other people" - what are these "discoveries" ? and who are the "other people" ?
(29th paragraph) Here it is assumed, yet again, that Nr. 22 existed.
(39th paragraph) We are led to believe that the contract between the S.I. and the Wright heirs was construed to withhold "official recognition" from G.W. In paragraph 43 this is corrected, and the truth of the matter stated, that it was an issue revolving around the Langley Large Aerodrome "A" - not G.W. So, why is it that paragraph 39 is worded as it is… bias.
(47th paragraph) Aside from Wm. O'Dwyer's statement, what evidence is there that G.W.'s "papers and original glass negatives were still at his home… (etc.)" Which papers? Which glass negatives ? Quoting that statement lends weight to the assertion that these things existed, but did they ?
(48th and 49th paragraphs) is it important to quote un-named members of the North Carolina legislature's "displeasure" at length ?
(55th paragraph) The statement that Louise Tuba Whitehead "I hated to see him put so much time and money into that work" is far different in tone and meaning from Roger Johansson's version which has her "hating" his work.
(60th paragraph) This unfairly and incorrectly states states my meaning. Had I wanted to discredit the drawing fully, I would have written "Fictionalized" not "Imaginitive" - one problem throughout all of this matter is the prickliness of so many of G.W.'s supporters.
(65th paragraph) Paul Brockett's monumental Bibliography of Aeronautics include a wealth of references and citations of many aerial experimenters, aviators, article and publications. To single out G.W. and then weave some ill-framed conspiracy against him "The Smithsonian denied ever having heard of Whitehead… (etc.)" Where is that statement from "The Smithsonian" to be found ? This is a biased and very misleading presentation of Brockett's inclusion of G.W.'s work in the Bibliography of Aeronautics.
(75th paragraph) What has this rumor of a "loud argument" between Harold S. Miller and Louis Casey have to do with G.W. ? The whole subject of "The Contract" would be far better entirely removed from the G.W. article and made into it's own article. As it is, it mis-represents the nature of the "contract" as it relates to G.W. and the Wright heirs.
(79th paragraph) This paragraph mis-represents, intentionally, the source it cites. Compare "Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Langley, who was building a flying machine called the 'Aerodrome', secretly sent an assistant to an exhibition to measure and find out as much ("sic" - it ought to read "many") technical details about Whitehead's airplane as possible. The assistant reported the aircraft did not appear to be airworthy." with the cited source "Langley dispatched a Smithsonian employee to Atlantic City when the Whitehead machine was exhibited at Young's Pier. He returned with the comment that the craft did not appear to be airworthy." The bias here is remarkable.
(81st paragraph) Where is the first source for this assertion, beyond Wm. O'Dwyer ? When did Octave Chanute urge Wilbur Wright to "look into" the Whitehead engines ?
(82nd paragraph) This assertion that WIlbur and Orville Wright visited G.W. and were told "all my secrets" is unsupported beyond anything other than the statements of G.W.'s two self-described assistants. The supposed visit is undated and otherwise unsupported and yet here it appears in the WIki article.
(86th paragraph) The pro-G.W., anti-Wright bias is self-evident and this paragraph should be removed.
Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Scientific American, 89, September 19, 1903, p. 204.
There's a contemporary report (Sept. 19, 1903) from Scientific American here. If it is not already referenced in the article, it may be useful. --TraceyR (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, so this confirms that the Whitehead airplane had a lightweight engine capable of propelling it in sustained flight, but did not have any wing-warping or aileron controls and was steered by the pilot shifting his weight around as in the Lillienthal hang gliders. If true, this would make Whitehead's flights "powered and sustained, but not fully controlled". FWiW 146.74.230.105 (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
This article was written by a very ill-informed or confused person. Note this description of the airplane:
"The three aeroplanes are spaced 3 feet apart and are 16 feet long by 5 feet wide. They are made up of spruce wood frames, covered with muslin, and are suitably braced with diagonal wires. There is a space in the center of the lower one for the operator, who hangs from the two forward uprights and keeps the apparatus in trim by shifting his body."
This is a description of a motorless glider Whitehead used several years before he built the motorized number 21 and 22 which are the last and most successful airplanes he built and flew 1901-1902. These airplanes used only one aeroplane. The two wings could be folded back along the body of the airplane when it was driven on a road like a car. So you cannot draw any reliable conclusions from this article which is riddled with faults. (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Removing the Determination section
Reason 1: I quote Shakespear: "The most common feeling among men is the feeling of uniqueness and strong determination." So this is nothing unique to Whitehead and Wilbur Wright.
Reason 2: These two men did not like each other and would not like to be associated with each other in this way if they were alive today.
Reason 3: The article is pretty long and it is good to remove irrelevant sections. But if another editor insists on reinserting this section he should of course also insert it in the article about Wilbur Wright. It would be unfair and unbalanced to associate Whitehead with Wilbur Wright without also associating Wilbur Wright with Whitehead. (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Point by point:
- 1) The issue is not 'determination' as an abstract idea. The issue is the remarkably and historically noteworthy similar attitude held by the two men, one who tried, but is not generally recognized as succeeding, and the other who is so recognized.
- 2) There's no direct evidence these men felt animosity toward each other or even thought about each other. If they did harbor such feelings, such a fact would be well worth including.
- 3) The comparison is appropriately Whitehead (whose success is not generally recognized) to Wright, whose success is recognized.
- An editor who on this date made an edit that the Kitty Hawk flights were "uncontrolled" and were "crashes" displays an overt anti-Wright bias, and that bias is clearly revealed in the selection of this particular paragraph for removal by that editor. DonFB (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
We have evidence (two affidavits from two witnesses) that the Wright brothers visited Whitehead at least twice in his workshop in Bridgeport. From the same affidavits we can see that Whitehead did not like the Wright brothers, he felt cheated by them. The refusal by the Wright brothers to admit that they had visited Whitehead shows that they did not want to be associated with him in any way. The contract the Wright brother forced the Smithsonian to sign about never mentioning any other motorized aviators before them shows that they wanted all earlier motorized aviators to be unmentioned and forgotten, including Whitehead. If they really had been the first to fly a motorized airplane they would have had nothing to be afraid of and there would be no need for such a contract. If you are not trying to cheat you have no reason try to manipulate the history.
What is "generally recognized" is not always the truth. In medieval times it was "generally recognized" that the earth was the center of the universe and all other heavenly bodies moved around the earth. One astronomer was burned alive and another was jailed for daring to publish their observations which contradicted what was "generally recognized". What is "generally recognized" can not be the basis for Wikipedia articles. "God exists" is widely accepted in some parts of the world. "Allah exists" is widely accepted in some parts of the world. "The Wright brothers were the first to fly a motorized airplane" is widely accepted in some parts of the world. But Wikipedia articles must be based on evidence, not beliefs or what is "widely accepted in some parts of the world" or what is "generally recognized" in some parts of the world.
That the Kitty Hawk flights were "uncontrolled" and were "crashes" is based on the words of the Wright brothers themselves. Their planes before sept 1905 suffered from pitch problems, the plane moving up and down up and down, unintended landings, broken front rudder, etc... (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Millions, if not billions, of men have had a strong determination as the basis for their actions during their lives. There is absolutely nothing unique about these two men which would be the basis for the inclusion of the Determination section in this article. (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- "What is "generally recognized" is not always the truth. In medieval times it was "generally recognized" that the earth was the center of the universe..."
- Good point. New science and new evidence disproved the old ideas. No new evidence proves the Whitehead case.
- "...uncontrolled" and were "crashes" is based on the words of the Wright brothers..."
- Not regarding the Kitty Hawk flights. Those are your words and your interpretations. The 4th flight, especially, was regarded as quite successful by the Wrights. The airplane did have pitch problems, but that does not mean flights were "uncontrolled". "Crash" denotes severe impact, major damage or destruction, and probable injury or death. None of those happened.
- "We have evidence (two affidavits from two witnesses) that the Wright brothers visited Whitehead...."
- Claims by Whitehead's friends about the Wright visits were disputed by Orville Wright himself. Whitehead himself never made such a statement for the record. But you choose, for reasons of your own, to believe the Whitehead friends. The article includes information about the alleged visits and Orville's denial. Let readers come to their own conclusions.
- "There is absolutely nothing unique about these two men which would be the basis for the inclusion of the Determination section...."
- Denying that Whitehead is unique contradicts your own very strong views about him. The Wright brothers are regarded as unique by most aviation historians worldwide. DonFB (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Really, Roger Johansson, please try to be more precise. You state that "The contract the Wright brother forced the Smithsonian to sign about never mentioning any other motorized aviators before them shows that they wanted all earlier motorized aviators to be unmentioned and forgotten, including Whitehead. If they really had been the first to fly a motorized airplane they would have had nothing to be afraid of and there would be no need for such a contract. If you are not trying to cheat you have no reason try to manipulate the history." It was neither Wilbur nor Orville who presented a contract to the S.I.,it was the Wright heirs, the people who inherited the Wright Flyer of 1903, the legal owners of that aeroplane. Furthermore, the contract has no prohibition "about never mentioning any other motorized aviators before them" - so, after having mis-stated both who the source of the contract was as well as what the substance of the contract was, you then go on to state that the contract is evidence that they were not the first to fly in some twisted and erroneous contortion of logic. Then you accuse Wilbur and Orville Wright of "trying to cheat" and to "manipulate history." The one who seems to be manipulating history to a great extent is you, Roger Johansson. So much of what you state is merely opinion, not evidence, yet you state your opinions as evidence and I imagine you believe your opinions to be evidence - but they are not. The case for Gustave Whitehead has suffered from over-heated supporters and overly-energetic advocacy, but mostly, it's suffered from opinion stated as fact. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Several Issues
"Good point. New science and new evidence disproved the old ideas. No new evidence proves the Whitehead case." (DonFB)
Don't you forget the over 25 witnesses who swear they saw Whitehead fly? If we add the sworn affidavits, the article in Bridgeport Herald with the 30 neighbors interviewed by O'Dwyer, of which 20 said they had seen Whitehead fly, plus the neighbors and friends of mr Cellie (Sulli or Zuelli) who was not found by Stella Randolph because of the confusion caused by the spelling of his name so he could not be interviewed while he was still alive, but his neighbors and friends all said that he had always said he was present when Whitehead flew in 1901. Then we have the prof John B Crane who made his own investigation in 1937 and said that many or several people in Bridgeport had under oath witnessed that they had seen Whitehead fly, unfortunately he did not name these people or document their statements, but he thought the evidence that Whitehead flew years before the Wright brothers were so strong that he wanted the congress to take up and determine the issue. Then we have the strange Stanley Beach, who made many conflicting statements during his lifetime, he seem to have changed his pro-Whitehead position into an anti-Whitehead position but all the statements he made before he flip-flopped are also strong evidence for Whitehead's flights and the smooth and safe landings of his airplane. We also have witnesses who have seen photos of nr 21 in the air, but the actual photos have disappeared. (Roger Johansson)
"We have evidence (two affidavits from two witnesses) that the Wright brothers visited Whitehead...."
- Claims by Whitehead's friends about the Wright visits were disputed by Orville Wright himself. Whitehead himself never made such a statement for the record. But you choose, for reasons of your own, to believe the Whitehead friends. The article includes information about the alleged visits and Orville's denial. Let readers come to their own conclusions." (DonFB)
Yes, I choose to believe two independent witness statements from two persons about two separate events. But, as you say, each reader can decide for himself what to believe. I am especially impressed by the answer Pruckner said when asked how could be so sure it actually was the Wright brothers, to make sure he wasn't confusing them with the Witteman brothers or other people. His simple answer was "They had to introduce themselves." Whitehead himself was not the argumentative type of person, he did not say more than necessary, and from all the statements about him from other people I get a strong impression of him as a very honest and naive person, he was the opposite of devious or businessminded. He signed contracts he should not have signed which resulted in that most of his possessions were impounded when he failed to fulfill an contract. He could have started a motor building company when orders for his motors filled his mailbox, but he was not interested or businessminded enough to organize such a factory and hire people to work for him.
He was simpleminded and only interested in inventing better machines, he had a strong german accent and never became a US citizen, he was poor and had to work to support his family. These factors limited his time and possibilities to get involved in public debates and argue for his case. The Smithsonian avoided contacting him or his family after his death, so all his notes and drawings and other things were lost, which strongly limits our acess to his own words and thoughts.
What evidence is there that G. Whitehead ever kept notes or records of his experiments ? Also, there is one drawing of I am aware of the Whitehead Nr. 22 (which I include in my February 2004 WW1 AERO journal article on Gustave Whiteheads experiments) but there is no other documentation (none I could find, at any rate) that the Nr. 22 was ever built. Would any of those people who see themselves as supporters and advocates for Gustave Whitehead care to offer any evidence that Nr. 22 ever existed as anything more than a concept ? Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Patent issues
In stark contrast to Whitehead's personality (honest, simpleminded, naive) I see the personality of the Wright brothers who were secretive, almost paranoid, they did not publish the photo from 1903 until 1908, they dismantled and hid their airplanes for years because they were afraid that others would steal their ideas and patent the airplane before them, they appear to want to patent and create a monopoly on airplanes and they seem to be prepared to do almost anything to achieve that goal. Like forcing the Smithsonian to sign a very strange contract and keep it secret, for example. They chose not to use a Whitehead motor when Octave Chanute suggested that to them, they made their own motor and chose to create a plane very different from all other airplanes, probably so that nobody would be able to say that they used already invented details, like a rear height rudder or a Whitehead motor. They had to make those decisions to be able to patent a completely original airplane completely created by themselves. So the result became a very strange airplane which was unstable and took years to stabilize enough to fly without risking the life of the pilot.
The Wright flyers became a parenthesis in the history of aviations. Their strangelylooking contraption looked very different from all earlier and later airplanes. And their legal battles delayed the production of practical airplanes in USA for many years. (Roger Johansson)
Roger Johansson mis-states the nature of the Wright Patent, which makes one wonder, has he ever read it. The Wright Patent was based on the control system used in the 1902 Wright Glider, not the powered Wright Flyer of 1903.
Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It was not a patent for a glider which worried them and caused their paranoid behavior 1902-1014, they wanted to patent the first practically useful motorized airplane and dominate the world market for many years into the future. But they were delayed by problems like making their Flyers into practical airplanes and legal battles so others started building practical useful airplanes before they were able to do it and patent it, so they found themselves in a position where the only part of their dreams which was still possible to protect was the fame for being the first to invent and fly the first motorized airplane in the world. But on that front Whitehead remained a big problem. If they could make the world forget about Whitehead and never mention him again they could at least be remembered for making the first motorized flights. Roger491127 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
A more careful reading of the historical record will show that there was no attempt to patent the powered machine and the U.S. Patent they received (#821,393) was on the three-axis control Wilbur and Orville Wright utilized in their 1902 Wright Glider. Furthermore, the 1905 Wright Flyer was the first practical aeroplane, no one else had designed, produced and flown a practical aeroplane at the point (late August through early October 1905) when the 1905 Wright Flyer was flown under active control for multiple circuits and remained aloft until fuel was exhausted (24 mi. in 39 min. 24 sec.). Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
But it was not patented and produced in thousands or millions of copies, why? When world war one started the allied pilots, including american pilots, had to use european planes, because there were no american planes available. Why? Why didn't the Wright brothers design become a commercial success? Why did they fail to produce a practically useful and industrially manufactored airplane? Why didn't USA become the number one producer of airplanes in the world? Were the Wright brothers somehow responsible for this fiasco? Was their airplane not suitable for commercial use and industrial production? Why did their work in inventing a motorized airplane result in this monumental failure? Roger491127 (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Roger Johansson, you betray a profound lack of knowledge and lack of understanding about the nature and meaning of the Wright Patent. This discussion would be more meaningful if you would take the time and make the effort to educate yourself on the Wright Patent, instead of placing raw opinion on top of misunderstanding and then presenting that as a source of unwarranted and useless speculation and as some sort of evidence - which it is not. The failure of the U.S. government, most specifically the U. S. Congress, to fund the development of an aeronautical industrial base in the U.S. was the reason why the U.S. did not lead aeronautical development and production in The Great War. By contrast, the ever-warring European nations had heavily and aggressively supported aeronautical infrastructure in the years leading up to that horrific conflict. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Determination again
'"There is absolutely nothing unique about these two men which would be the basis for the inclusion of the Determination section...."
- Denying that Whitehead is unique contradicts your own very strong views about him. The Wright brothers are regarded as unique by most aviation historians worldwide."(DonFB)
Now you are confusing persons with their determination. I did not talk about the uniqueness of the people, I said that the determination of these men is not unique at all. And by the way, why don't you include the Determination section into the article about Wilbur Wright? Why do you want to associate Whitehead with Wilbur Wright but not associate Wilbur Wright with Whitehead? Don't you see how unbalanced and unfair that is? (Roger Johansson)
- It is actually complimentary to the largely unknown and doubtfully successful Whitehead for him to be compared to the famous and successful Wright brothers. It is worth mentioning that Whitehead held an attitude very similar to the man whose determination resulted in creation of the first successful airplane. DonFB (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The more we get to know about Whitehead the more sure can we be that he actually was the creator of the first successful airplane. We can now count to more than 25 witnesses who under oath testified that they saw Whitehead fly in 1901. It is only a matter of time before most people in the world become aware of the fact that Whitehead flew years before the Wright brothers. And he would not appreciate to be associated with the Wright brothers anyway, he did not like them or their devious methods. "Now I have told them all my secrets and I bet those rascals will never finance my airplane anyway." Roger491127 (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The big breakthrough will probably come in the form of a movie about Whitehead, that is how millions of people easiest learn things today. Maybe I should start writing a film manuscript and send it to movie making companies around the world, including Hollywood, and big German movie makers, and independent movie producers. I wonder who will play the main role of Gustave Whitehead. The wikipedia article is a good start for a movie manuscript. Roger491127 (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I offer this comment, it was not so much "determination" which distinguished the various parties, it was the scientific menthod of experimentation employed by Wilbur and Orville Wright which distinguishes their work. They kept detailed contemporaneous notes of their work, through which we can see how their work developed and progressed. Unfortunately, Gustave Whitehead kept no such records and pursued his experiments in a manner which was more that of a tinkerer than an engineer. Had G. Whitehead maintained detailed records presenting a case on his behalf, which many people seek to do, would be much less difficult. Affidavits given decades after an event have very limited evidentiary value, yet they provide the foundation of most of the support given to the assertion that Gustave Whitehead "flew" (in our present understanding of that word), which I believe he did not. I also believe that Orville Wright's expressed and documented view of Gustave Whitehead was not a fair treatment of Gustave Whitehead's work. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Whitehead did maintain detailed records but as we know all his possessions were impounded at one point in time, and all his remaining notes, tools and documents went to the scrapyard when his family moved to Florida in 1940. His wife was not interested in his aviation activities so she did not preserve or present his things to a museum or academic institution. The Smithsonian should have contacted him while he was alive, instead of secretly sending a spy to inspect his plane, and they should have contacted his family after his death and offered to take care of his notes, tools and documents, but for some reason they avoided all such contacts and even denied ever having heard of Whitehead, which was rather embarrasing when it was later discovered that The Smithsonian had actually published a book, in 1912 I think, about early aviators, and both the names Whitehead and Weisskopf were mentioned in it many times. Roger491127 (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Portrait
Carroll F. Gray complained to me in an email that the earlier portrait had been taken from his web page so I found the original he had used and replaced "his" portrait with the original. I don't know if he will start a process in wikipedia about the license to "his" portrait, or if such a process would be successful, but just in case I thought we should have an alternative ready. I don't mind if other editors restore the earlier portrait version of the article, I just wanted to get this version into the history list, so we easily can find and restore this portrait version. (Roger Johansson)Roger491127 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Order of external links
DonFB put the new link into the list as number 3, I moved it to the last place. Reason: That page is full of obvious faults, example: the 800m flight happened at 2am in the morning, when we can read the witnesses saying it happened after dawn when it was no longer dark. If such an unreliable and faultridden page is to be included at all it should at least be positioned last in the list, after all much better links. Carroll F. Gray's page is only useful as the best example of anti-Whitehead faulty and silly argumentation web pages. Another silly example from this page is the idea that the last word on this issue should be left to his wife, who never witnessed any of his flights. That argument is silly because she hated his occupation with aviation, and she had her hands full with taking care of the family and the garden and had to work outside the home to support the family.
A hundred years ago very few wives followed their men on their jobs or adventures and witnessed what they did. Could the wives of Amundsen, Scott, Shackleton, Tenzing, Hillary, etc.. witness their achievements and tell us about it? Do we doubt that Amundsen reached the south pole because his wife did not witness it? Roger491127 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Viewing my Gustave Whitehead page http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwhtd.html as "anti-Whitehead" strikes me as an outstanding example of how a reader's own biases can cloud their comprehension. While Roger491127's statement that my web page is "the best example of anti-Whitehead faulty and silly argumentation web pages" gave me a smile, I have no "anti-Whitehead" policy or position and do not count myself as being in any "anti-Whitehead" camp. I believe that all of the numerous experiments and attempts at flight in the earliest period deserve to be remembered and honored on their own merits. My own intention was, as with all of my various articles, to present a balanced appraisal of Gustave Whitehead's aeronautical experiments, which, I certainly believe, I have done. As for 'after dawn' vs. "early dawn" (as cited on my website) it is a simple matter to consult the affidavits. Regarding Mrs. Gustave Whitehead, she assisted her husband in his work, giving practical and financial support, to the extent of helping with sewing the cloth used on Gustave Whitehead's machines. She was a participant in G. Whitehead's aeronautical experiments. I would appreciate a citation and source for the statement, above, that Tuba Whitehead "hated" her husband's occupation with aviation. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You can easily find the facts and statements of his wife if you read through the article carefully. There are small numbers everywhere in the text which will lead you to the references and the documents which the text is based on. You have still not answered the question where you got the time 2am at night and why you write that the 800m flight witnessed by Dick Howell happened at that time in the middle of the night. Many women, and one boy, helped sew the cloth for the wings, but no women, as far as we know, where present when Whitehead made four flights 14 August 1901. Roger491127 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Roger Johansson - The source for my statement that Louise Tuba Whitehead assisted in the construction of his aerial machine by sewing the fabric for the machine's wings is to be found on p.49 of "Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead" by Stella Randolph.
The source for my statement that a purported flight of August 14, 1901, took place at about 2 a.m. is to be found on p.13 of "Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead" by Stella Randolph - and the source of that statement is Richard "Dick" Howell. Considering how often "Dick Howell" is referenced by Roger Johansson, I am surprised that he did not recognize the source immediately.
Also, the cited 1940 statement by Louise Tuba Whitehead (as translated to English, not as a direct statement in English) that "she hated his occupation with aviation" actually reads "I hated to see him put so much time and money into that work" - which has a different meaning.
Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Date to day of the week
I have now used 6 Date to day of the week calculators online and they all say that August 14 1901 was a Wednesday. The following Sunday, when the Bridgeport Herald came out was August 18 1901. This delay in publishing the event has been used by people who want to discredit Whitehead, but they failed, intentionally or not, to realize that the Bridgeport Herald was a weekly newspaper, published only on Sundays. Roger491127 (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
To Carroll F. Gray
Quote: "Regarding Mrs. Gustave Whitehead, she assisted her husband in his work, giving practical and financial support, to the extent of helping with sewing the cloth used on Gustave Whitehead's machines. She was a participant in G. Whitehead's aeronautical experiments." (Carroll F. Gray)
Where did you find support for this statement, source please?
Why have you written "Imaginative Drawing Of Gustave Whitehead Aloft In His Whitehead #21" under the drawing by Dick Howell on your web page, giving the impression that the flight did not actually happen, it was Dick Howell who imagined what it would look like if Whitehead had flown.
A more correct and neutral caption would be "Dick Howell's drawing in Bridgeport Herald August 18 1901", for example. May I inform you that O'Dwyer made a thorough investigation of this journalist, read many of his articles, and found him to be a very serious, truthful and accurate writer, who later became the chief editor of Bridgeport Herald. Unfortunately though he did not like photos, he always used his own drawings in his articles instead. His drawing of nr21 in the air is very accurate, you can see every detail of the plane. O'Dwyer, who inspected the place many years after the event, around 1970, said that even the stones in the grass in the foreground were accurately depicted, and they were still there. Roger491127 (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Quote from http://www.wright-brothers.org/TBR/History/History%20of%20Airplane/whiteheadarticles.htm
- "By this time the light was good. Faint traces of the rising sun began to suggest themselves in the east. An early morning milkman stopped in the road to see what was going on. His horse nearly ran away when the big white wings flapped to see if they were all right.
The nervous tension was growing at every clock tick and no one showed it more than Whitehead who still whispered at times but as the light grew stronger began to speak in his normal tone of voice."
This happened before Whitehead made his first manned flight of that day, so we know that he did not fly in the darkness of night at 2am. Don't you find it strange that the wright-brothers.org which should be the main competitors of Whitehead treats him much more positive, truthful and seems to believe in his flights much more than you, Carroll F. Gray, do in your web page? Your web page is in fact the only page I have ever seen which goes so far in its anti-Whitehead campaign style. Roger491127 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
For my citations and sources please refer to my post within the "Order of external links" section. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Whitehead patent
I have two questions to pose to you, Roger Johansson. If Gustave Whitehead's powered aerial machines had been as successful as you appear to assert, why would he have been building gliders in 1905-06 ? Beyond that, why would G.W. have chosen to patent his large glider of 1905-06 and not patent his powered machines ? - something which I believe you do not mention even while you express seeming contempt for the fact that the Wrights patented their 1902 Wright glider's controls. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The only patent for one of his constructions was not paid by himself, he lacked such resources. I have read that somebody paid for the patent but the details of that are unclear. What we know is that he often was engaged by people who had money to build their constructions, which often led to conflicts. When GW refused to continue the badly designed airplane Stanley Beach wanted him to make into a working machine Stanley Beach got angry and sent a mechanic to disassemble the construction and move it, and Stanley Beach started to discredit GW whom he had praised earlier, for example.
It is likely that when GW had built his most successful airplanes, in January 1902, he lacked resources to continue with his own projects, he had to work for others instead and build constructions they wanted him to build. And GW was not satisfied with an airplane, he did not fully understand the value of his airplanes, he wanted to build a machine which could rise vertically from the ground, a helicopter. When he got some resources for building his own projects again, in 1911, he built a helicopter, but it could only lift itself from the ground, unmanned. He needed a much more powerful motor to build a manned helicopter but he ran out of resources again and he suffered two serious blows to his health. He was a poor immigrant who reached his peak in 1902, but did not consider it a big achievement and after that he had to work for others to make money and he never reached his real goal, to build a helicopter.
It is possible that his glider 1905 was the start of a new project, a much bigger airplane which he planned to motorize after checking its aerodynamic properties, but he ran out of resources again and that project was never completed. Roger491127 (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It is probable that somebody sponsored the glider 1905, because the patent was in GW's name but somebody else paid for it. But maybe GW suffered a serious blow to his health and the project could not be completed, in spite of having a sponsor who wanted to see GW continue his work with airplanes. Roger491127 (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
We know a lot about a few years of his life, 1899 to January 1902, but after that we have very little information about his activities. Something seems to have happened in the spring of 1902 which slowed down his work in a significant way. Maybe it was one of two blows to his health we know about which happened then. Maybe got into economic difficulties. Earlier he had produced 1 or 2 new airplanes per year and he contacted the press now and then, he engaged youngsters and friends in his experiments. This way of working seems to have stopped in 1902. He never expressed any wishes to patent his inventions, with the single exception in 1905 which was paid for by another person and probably happened on the initiative of that person. He was kind of naive and had very limited economic resources so maybe he was drawn into cooperation with people who dominated his work and demanded secrecy about their projects, maybe he simply needed to put more effort into his family life as his children got older and needed more resources for clothes and schooling. But the focus of this article is his achievements before February 1902 and we have a lot of information and many witnesses to his achievements during those years. Roger491127 (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Reply to C.Gray's itemized points
Thanks very much for sharing your views [1] on the content of this article. On several points, I agree with what you said and will offer changes to the text of the article. Those points include:
- an edit to say Whitehead 'may have visited' Lilienthal, rather than stating outright that he did --
- changing 'sailplanes' to 'gliders' --
- better attribution for the statement that his work was 'credited to other people' --
- elimination of the last paragraph in the "Significance" section (beginning: "The history reveals...."). It is an unsourced personal interpretation by a contributor to the article and displays, as you said, "pro-G.W., anti-Wright bias".
I am unclear on the exact objection you are making to the attributed statement in the "Significance" section that the Smithsonian sent an assistant to inspect a Whitehead airplane. The difference I can see in the text excerpts you quote is inclusion of the word "secret" in the Wikipedia article. I contributed to that part of the article (although I was not the editor who wrote "secret"), so naturally I'm very interested in understanding your objection.
On your other points, I am inclined to take a somewhat more relaxed approach. That is because Wikipedia's philosophy and ruling principle (for better or worse) is that its articles do not seek truth, but rather, "verifiability" from "reliable" sources. Such an approach still leaves lots of room for controversies among Wikipedia editors about the contents and wording of any given article.
In my scrutiny of this article, I have tried to make sure that any serious, debatable point has at least one source which is verifiable and reliable. Of course, much of the information in this article is based on overtly pro-Whitehead sources, both in book form and online.
Admittedly, that is a problematic issue. However, another bedrock tenet of Wikipedia is the prohibition against "original research". That means it is not up to me (or any other Wikipedia editor) to ferret out the "truth" of a statement by doing original research. Editors can only cite available sources, with the proviso that the sources should be reliable and verifiable. That approach obviously leaves room for biased sources to be cited in an article. I'm not an academic, but I suspect that in serious academic research, the same issue will arise: the citing of a biased source. In Wikipedia articles, editors are not supposed to inject their opinions about anything, including the bias of sources (although they are free to state their opinions in Discussion). In articles, editors can only cite other sources (not their own opinions), which may offer an opposing or different interpretation of the information.
In conclusion, I agree with your skepticism about the accuracy of many of the statements in this article. (For example, the weak and frankly unsourced statement about lack of a hangar for the #22 airplane. On the other hand, the article cites Whitehead himself for the existence of the #22.) In trying to follow the rules of Wikipedia, I am reasonably (though not perfectly) satisfied that questionable statements in this article about serious issues (except the ones I listed above) are referenced at least once to a source that meets Wikipedia requirements. As you may guess by now--or perhaps you already know this if you peruse Wikipedia much--barrels, I mean innumerable barrels, of digiital ink have been spilled in Wikipedia Discussions and in other special forums on this site about issues involving "reliable," "verifiable," "bias," and "point of view" (POV). One other note: Don't be too concerned about excessively opinionated statements in the Discussion section about the subject of an article. As long as those opinions are not inserted into the article itself (which is overwhelmingly what the public sees, compared to the Discussion), it's just so much hot air.
If nothing else, the internet (not merely Wikipedia!) has truly brought to light that people around the world disagree passionately, vociferously and incessantly about an infinite number of subjects. DonFB (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
DonFB - As I have become familiar with your work on this article and the Wikipedia approach, I have appreciated both more. Thank you for entertaining my suggestions and making the changes you've made. Regarding Nr. 22, it might be best stated that doubt exists on the part of a number of aviation historians that Nr. 22 was ever built, much less flown. I should also say that the reason I joined in this discussion was that I received an unsolicited, heated and confrontational e-mail from Roger Johansson, challenging my web site entry on G.W. and making the leap that I somehow am "anti-Whitehead" - but perhaps his view was prompted by his vehement "pro-Whitehead" stance. I am always pleased when people take any interest in aviation's early history, and I have consciously avoided becoming a Curtiss or Wright supporter (as regards the Patent Wars), or a G.W. antagonist or promoter - as well as not taking sides in a number of other such disputes (such as regards C. Ader or K. Jatho) which have burdened and still permeate discussions of aviation's history. For my part, I am pleased to direct attention to any and all who dedicated any significant time and effort to aviation in its early and pioneer periods. Ongoing, tedious, opinion-driven (not evidence-driven) and ultimately inconclusive arguments about aviation's history get in the way of actually getting one's hands dirty with the process of history. Anyway, I will continue to contribute to this page for a time, and thank you, again. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
DonFB - You requested clarification on the matter of the 79th paragraph (the "secretly" paragraph)... my objection is to tone and inference, and then therefore to the impression left for the reader. The addition of the word "secretly" only serves to introduce some notion of spying and clandestine activity. Giving a visual inspection of a machine on public display hardly seems to be clandestine. In the source cited, the assistant's "comment" becomes "reported" which adds to the notion of spying. That notion is further expanded by the choice to state that the purpose of the inspection was to "measure and find out as much technical details about Whitehead's airplane as possible." whereas the cited source, which is being paraphrased, states nothing about measuring or determining technical details. The purported measurements and technical details are then said to be "reported" to Langley.
This has very little to do with what the cited source has to say.
In short, the impression that a secretly dispatched assistant measured and determined technical details of Whitehead's Nr. 21 which were then "reported" back to Secretary Langley, is very different from the impression of an assistant sent to a public place to look at a publicly displayed machine and that the assistant returned with the "comment" that the machine was not airworthy.
I hope this is clear - if I need to try to restate or simplify my point, please let me know and I will attempt to do so.
Perhaps the best thing to do here is to actually quote the source and leave it at that.
Incidentally, the exhibition of Nr. 21 at Young's Pier in Atlantic City could not have happened prior to the Spring of 1904, some 2-1/2 years after the last purported flight. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Whitehead denial
But I want to again suggest that what the assistant had to say about Whitehead's plane should be removed because it is irrelevant and it moves the focus away from the important part of that sentence, That Langley secretly sent somebody to find out as much as possible about Whitehead's plane. That is very interesting and a suspect behavior which supports the idea that both the Smithsonian and the Wright brothers did all they could to keep Whitehead away from the awareness of the public and wanted him to disappear and be forgotten. But they were also very interested in his airplane and wanted to know as much as possible about it.Roger491127 (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you can cite a source for any of this speculation ("secretly," "suspect behavior," "wanted him to disappear") I'd sure like to see it. Your focus on what you consider the focus of the sentence reveals, in my opinion, your bias. The assistant's opinion, no matter what you think about it, is part of history and certainly belongs with any mention of the inspection. The kind of personally biased factual cherry-picking that you favor (cite the inspection, but not the result) is contrary to the functioning and spirit of Wikipedia. DonFB (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I support the wording "secretly sending" because I can not understand why Langley could not approach Whitehead personally and ask him about his plane in an open and honest way. If I was a famous car collector and car expert and I wanted to know more about a certain car in Jay Leno's collection, should I then openly and honestly visit his car museum myself and talk to him about the car, or should I, for some reason, secretly send a person to find out as much as possible about that car without letting Jay Leno know about my interest in that car? Wouldn't such a behavior rightly be called "secretly spying", for example? Roger491127 (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- As always, your personal speculations, opinions and hypotheses are interesting and entertaining, but form no basis for wording in the article. If a good source for such wording exists, it could be restored. C.Gray recommends eliminating the last paragraph in the Significance section ("The history reveals..."), and I agree: it should be eliminated. Your opinion? DonFB (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't care either way on that issue, remove it if you like.
Additions to this issue is also the denial from the Smithsonian that they had ever heard of Whitehead, and it was later discovered that they had published a book about early aviators where Whitehead and Weisskopf was mentioned many times.
And the witnesses to at least two visits by the Wright brothers to Whitehead's workshop and their denial of those visits.
And the denial of the existence of the contract which took a lot of pressure to uncover.
This all together paints a very suspicious picture which looks very much like the Smithsonian and the Wright brothers did all they could to keep Whitehead away from the awareness of the public and wanted him to disappear and be forgotten. But they were also very interested in his airplane and wanted to know as much as possible about it.Roger491127 (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
New external links
I have added 3 new external links. One contains the description of the wingbending mechanism by his brother John, which made it possible to remove a citation needed tag and instead a quote from this link
The Pioneers link is interesting because it is a collection of links, some of them I had never read before, some of the links are dead.
The third link is to a radio recording in which we can hear the voices of a couple of the persons mentioned in this article, which make them much more alive and real than when we only have their words to read.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The supposed lack of documentation
Somebody meant that Whitehead did not document or keep records of his constructions, calculations, flights. etc.. like the Wright brothers. But...
"Unfortunately, Whitehead's family, who lived in the Tunxis Hill area of Fairfield, supposedly donated many of his engines to wartime scrap metal drives. Later they sent boxes and boxes of Whitehead's records to the dump."
From http://www.gustavewhitehead.org/news_journalism/2002_-_whiteheads_fans_keep.html Roger491127 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Whitehead timeline
"Incidentally, the exhibition of Nr. 21 at Young's Pier in Atlantic City could not have happened prior to the Spring of 1904, some 2-1/2 years after the last purported flight. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)"
If you look at the timeline at http://www.weisskopf.de/zeittafel.htm you will see that nr 21 was shown at an exhibition in Atlantic City 1901. (nr 21 was destroyed when he rebuilt it into nr 22 before January 1902)
In the same timeline you can also see that in 1894 he was back in Germany, and met Lilienthal, (somewhere I read that they spent 14 days together, discussing principles of flying and construction of airplanes), before Whitehead emigrated to Boston, USA in 1895.
And by the way, why haven't you changed the obviously faulty statement in your web page that the first flight was made at "2am, early dawn"? There is no "early dawn" at 2am anywhere in the world in August.
If it happened where I live, close to the polar circle, and it happened around midsummer it would be right, the sun rises around 2am here at that time of the year. But in August, halfway between midsummer and midwinter the sun rises at around 6 o'clock, here as well as everywhere else in the world, except at the south pole and the north pole where the sun now is very close to the horizon 24 hours a day. Roger491127 (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The location cited - Young's Pier - did not open until the Spring of 1904, so the Nr. 21 was not exhibited at that place (as cited by the source) prior to that. Perhaps it was at Atlantic City on display earlier as your source indicates, but if so, it was not at "Young's Pier".
As for G.W. meeting the Lilienthal brothers - or Otto or Gustav individually - is there a mention of this collaboration in the logbook which the Lilienthal's reportedly kept of visitors ? If there is, it has not been reported, to the best of my knowledge. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the timeline you cited and I would not trust it, completely. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Time of the first flight
Re: the "2a.m." matter, I'll cite you to my source again (as I have above, twice) - The source for my statement that a purported flight of August 14, 1901, took place at about 2 a.m. is to be found on p.13 of "Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead" by Stella Randolph - and the source of that statement is Richard "Dick" Howell. If you read the Herald article you'll find that R. Howell states that very thing.
"Dawn" marks the beginning of morning twilight, not sunrise - I was not saying that sunrise happened at 2 a.m. - so "early dawn" would be prior to "dawn" which is prior to the beginning of morning twilight (not sunrise), which for Bridgeport, Connecticut, in mid-August is about 4 a.m., as best as I can determine it. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Dick Howell writes "It was about 2 o’clock Wednesday morning.." but that was the time when the first unmanned tests started. If you read the text more carefully you will find the first manned flight started after it had become almost daylight conditions. So you are wrong in writing that the manned flight happened at 2am. It probably happened 2 or 3 hours later. Roger491127 (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It is now August 21, only a week after August 14. If someone who lives in USA can call some people who live in the Bridgeport area and ask them when the light conditions Howell described happen in the morning we can find appoximately the time the first flight happened. Remember to compensate for the daylight saving time system which was implemented a lot later, if necessary, I don't remember right now if that shifts the time in the winter or the summer. Roger491127 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
We also have the problem with the time zones in USA. The sun rises one hour earlier in Bridgeport than in a town at the western side of the same time zone. If the official time in that time zone is based on solar time in the center of the eastern zone the sun rises in Bridgeport half an hour before it should according to the official time. Roger491127 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Richard Howell also wrote, about this event which is supposed to have happened about 2 a.m. on August 14, 1901, "in the early morning dawn" "Faint traces of the rising sun began to suggest themselves in the east." Recall that "dawn" is NOT sunrise, but is prior to twilight, which precedes sunrise. In any event, Whitehead's purported half-mile flight is said to have taken place in the "early morning dawn" - NOT "after dawn when it was no longer dark" as you have stated. The important point is that the purported event did not happen during the day or even just prior to sunrise. I explore the reasons why this might have been so in the WW1 AERO article. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
"It was about 2 o’clock Wednesday morning when the great white wings of the air ship were spread out.." The time when they arrived and started to get the plane in order for a test flight. It took maybe half an hour to get it ready, check that all the wires were fastened, load the sandbags, fuel it up and start the test flight. Whitehead had pepared it so it would land before it hit some hinder.
Then they brought the plane back to the starting point, checked again that all details on the plane was in order, unloaded the sandbags, that took an hour and a half. Then they took a coffee break which took half an hour. Then Whitehead got ready to make a manned tour, so he refueled it, took a pause and thought it all over again, that took half an hour more. Then he started the first manned flight.
We do not know exactly how long it took from the time they arrived and folded out the wings, 2am, until Whitehead started the first manned flight, but we have a description of the light conditions before he started.
"By this time the light was good. Faint traces of the rising sun began to suggest themselves in the east. An early morning milkman stopped in the road to see what was going on. His horse nearly ran away when the big white wings flapped to see if they were all right.
The nervous tension was growing at every clock tick and no one showed it more than Whitehead who still whispered at times but as the light grew stronger began to speak in his normal tone of voice. He stationed his two assistants behind the machine with instructions to hold on to the ropes and
Not let the machine get away. Then he took up his position in the great bird.
He opened the throttle of the ground propeller and shot along the green at a rapid rate."
Judging from the description of the light conditions it was almost full daylight before Whitehead had even started the manned flight.
"By this time the light was good." "..as the light grew stronger..".. He stationed his two assistants behind the machine with instructions to hold on to the ropes and Not let the machine get away. Then he took up his position in the great bird. Roger491127 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you're stretching the point. Your use of "almost full daylight" is incorrect. If we are to believe Richard Howell, whatever happened with G.W. onboard took place as "Faint traces of the rising sun began to suggest themselves in the east." The "light grew stronger" indicates sunrise had not yet happened (sunrise being the appearance of the sun disk). You've selected the phrase "By this time the light was good." but you've neglected to link it with the sentence which immediately follows "Faint traces of the rising sun began to suggest themselves in the east." So... you see... the "light was good" was just as "Faint traces of the rising sun began to suggest themselves..." - this is certainly not describing a time of full morning or after sunrise, this is just as the very dark of night is ending. Try as you might wish to, you cannot reasonably construe this to mean that the event described (if it did happen) took place in sunlight - it did not. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk)
What is your source citation for stating that "Then they brought the plane back to the starting point, checked again that all details on the plane was in order, unloaded the sandbags, that took an hour and a half. Then they took a coffee break which took half an hour. Then Whitehead got ready to make a manned tour, so he refueled it, took a pause and thought it all over again, that took half an hour more. Then he started the first manned flight." ? It certainly is NOT so stated in R. Howell's Bridgeport Herald story of 18 August 1901.
I understand that you now have a timeline problem making this all work out so that the Whitehead event (the first of what you are calling a "manned flight") happens at or just after sunrise, but making things up in order to fill the time gap is not acceptable.
If you have a source for your statement I quote, tell us what it is. If you do not have a creditable source perhaps you will consider agreeing that this event did not take place at or near or after sunrise, but in the dark of the "early dawn." Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
In any case it is wrong to write that the manned flight happened at 2am. It must have taken some time to get the plane ready for the test flight, the loading of the sand bags, fueling, the starting of the engines, the test flight, bringing the plane back to the starting place in that kind of terrain alone must have taken at least 15-30 minutes, checking that it was undamaged, refueling, and all other things which could have happened which I indicated with a few imagined events, like a coffee break, etc..
Even if they worked continously and all went without problems the manned flight must have happened at least one hour later than 2am, but it is unlikely that they could work with 100% efficiency in the dark of the night and without any pauses. Before you start a manned flight for the first time there is a lot to consider. Even the first test flight of a modern jet fighter plane can easily and often be delayed by 1 or 2 hours. Roger491127 (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a lot of personal experience of the light before the sunrise because it is a tradition here in Sweden to celebrate midsummer by partying 24 hours a day for a few days around midsummer. We have 2 hours of night around midnight, then comes an hour of increasing light until it is as light as on a cloudy day, after that we sit down and watch the sun rise above the horizon. The light described by Howell sounds a lot like it is half an hour before the sunrise, when it is like a cloudy day.
And consider for a minute, who would do the first manned test flight without having enough light to see what you are doing and where to land and to be able to see hinders like trees clearly?
Howell's description and normal rational reasoning leads me to the conclusion that the manned flight happened just before sunrise, when the light conditions are like a cloudy day. Roger491127 (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Standardized time for the whole country was implemented in 1870 here in Sweden, and the time zones in USA were implemented in 1883, and the reason was the same. When railroads had been built they could not use local time, different for each city anymore. To make train timetables make sense we needed a common time for the whole country. Bridgeport is located at the eastern border of the eastern time zone, so the sunrise happened half an hour earlier than it did in the center of the time zone. There we have a half hour to subtract from the time between 2am and the sunrise at the center of the time zone. Or expressed in another way, Howells watch was wrong by half an hour, the time they arrived and started to fold out the wings was 2:30 in local solar time, not 2am. Roger491127 (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, no - Howell's description does Not lead a reasonable person to conclude that the described event happened (if it did) just before sunrise. Howell's description tells a reasonable person that the described event took place (if it did) prior to twilight at "early dawn" - and, again, "dawn" is not sunrise. We can speculate and imagine many things, such as a half hour of coffee drinking or that Richard Howell's watch was "wrong by a half an hour", but if we confine ourselves to what Howell wrote, it was more dark than light and Not at or after sunrise.
Also, Roger Johansson, you ask "who would do the first manned test flight without having enough light to see what you are doing and where to land and to be able to see hinders like trees clearly?" - in asking that question, you state one of the reasons, exactly, why so many people have trouble believing that these flights ever happened. Lastly, what do you make of Richard Howell's references to flapping wings ?
Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have consulted two online sunrise calculators to establish sunrise time for New York at http://www.moonsigncalendar.net/calculate-sunset.asp and Bridgeport in 1901 at http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_pap.pl and the result from the second is "Begin civil twilight 4:30 a.m. Sunrise 5:00 a.m." So, if we consider the fact that Bridgeport is located at the eastern border of the eastern time zone we can start at 2:30 (real sundial time in Bridgeport), add one hour for preparations after arrival, unfolding the wings, fastening of the wingtips to four points, the bowsprit, the mast, the bottom of the hull, the rear end of the hull, checking the airplane, loading sandbags, fueling, starting unmanned test, flight time, bringing the plane back to the start place we can assume the time was 3:30. New checking of the integrity of the airplane, unloading of sandbags, a resting pause, time for concentration, or simply waiting for the light to become suitable, refueling and preparations for the first manned test and we can assume that the time had become 4:30 or 4:45. shortly before the sunrise at 5 o'clock. This seems to me to be a reasonable timeline for that morning and a manned flight shortly before the sunrise, when the light was like a clouded day. Roger491127 (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Flapping Wings
"Lastly, what do you make of Richard Howell's references to flapping wings ?" Of course he is talking about the propellers, which, by the way, where formed as small angled sails, or wings. The correct terms for parts of an airplane where not established, to people in general, in those days, and the sports reporter Howell did not know that the rotating things at the front of the plane were called propellers. Roger491127 (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
And technically he wasn't actually as wrong as you might think. Propellers are technically actually wings. They have to have a certain curvature, like wings, and they have to be mounted at an angle to the direction of movement, like wings, and they have to exert a lifting force, like wings. The only difference is that wings are mounted in a fixed position, on a moving object, while the propellers are mounted on a rotating drive shaft driven by a motor.
By the way, what do you call the moving things on top of a helicopter? Rotating wings, or propellers? (rethorical question) Oh, wait, I think I know this. On tv-programs about helicopters in english they call them blades.Roger491127 (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
No, there was no confusion on Howell's part regarding propellers and wings, as shown by the following "From each side of the body there are wings made of bamboo poles and covered with muslin. These wings are thirty-six feet from tip to tip." "There are two engines, one of ten horse power to run the machine on the wheel along the ground and the other of twenty horse power, used to work the propellers in flying."
As for flapping wings, it is G.W. who is quoted by Howell as saying "I heard nothing but the rumbling of the engine and the flapping of the big wings."
Howell offers this image "The great wings were working beautifully. She looked for all the world like a great white goose raising from the feeding ground in the early morning dawn." - wouldn't a "great white goose" flap its wings in "raising from the feeding ground..." ?
Further, Howell wrote "The wings or propellers were folded tightly to the sides of the body of the air ship." and "Then Whitehead pulled open the throttle that starts the air propellers or wings and shut off the ground propelling engine."
In addition, Howell tells us the milkman's horse "nearly ran away when the big white wings flaped (sic) to see if they were all right."
Whitehead is quoted "'I'm going to start the wings!' he yelled."
The conclusion I reach is that the wings could be flapped, powered by the same engine which turned the propellers. Hence, we have the phrase "wings or propellers" - they functioned in both roles, whereas the "air propellers" moved air by rotating under power.
That is, I believe, what we are being told in the Howell article - the wings, flapping, and propellers powered the machine. The "flying automobile" is constructed to utilize flapping wings and "air propellers" to move in the air. Consequently, it is even less likely that G.W. flew, for one thing, any power used to move the wings was not utilized for the "air propellers."
Also, re-reading the Howell article, it is less about a purported flight by Whitehead than it is about Whitehead and Custead agreeing to work together will find the "final solution of successfully navigating the air will be accomplished by two American inventors combining their brains and energies toward perfecting a flying machine..." Howell is telling us, in this same article which tells of the purported flight by Whitehead, that a final solution is yet to be found, but that Whitehead and Custead might be the ones to do it, working together.
Also, Roger Johansson, do you know what James Dickie had to say about his supposed role in the events of August 14, 1901 ?
Carroll F. Gray76.93.40.250 (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
So GW called propellers "wings", not so strange considering their construction. They were built like small sails turned at an angle against the direction of rotation. The modern propeller was not invented yet, or GW was not aware of how to build propellers like those which became common later. So he made some kind of small sails, or wings, instead.
The Custead issue is a typical example of what often happened to Whitehead. To get resources to continue his work he had to get into cooperation whith more or less suspect characters, affairs which often led to nothing or a loss of time and energy for Whitehead.
I guess you have not read the telephone interview O'Dwyer made with James Dickie which showed why he refused to say anything positive about Whitehead. Roger491127 (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
To answer your question about James Dickie in more detail you should tell me exactly what you are talking about. What did he say? Source?
Note that James Dickie also described a motor in an affidavit, which in a closer investigation was found to be a very big and heavy stationary machine used to swing airplanes around it to test their airworthiness. A sort of circular wind tunnel. You can read about it in the article. Roger491127 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking of James Dickie's affidavit dated April 2, 1937. What do you think about what he has to say ? Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
James Dickie
http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm/6
"In the 1930s, author Stella Randolph questioned James Dickie-named as one of Whitehead's helpers by Howell-about his part in the claimed flight of August 14, 1901. Dickie denied he had been present and also said that he never knew anybody named Andrew Cellie. The Smithsonian and other Whitehead detractors later used the apparent discrepancy to cast doubts on the credibility of Howell's Herald article.
'In 1963,' O'Dwyer said, 'when I read of Dickie's denial, I wondered if he was the same Jim Dickie I'd known ever since I was a youngster. I phoned him, and although he was much older than I, he remembered me well and we kidded each other about the old days. But his mood changed to anger when I asked him about Gustave Whitehead.
'He flatly refused to talk about Whitehead, and when I asked him why, he said: 'That SOB never paid me what he owed me. My father had a hauling business and I often hitched up the horses and helped Whitehead take his airplane to where he wanted to go. I will never give Whitehead credit for anything. I did a lot of work for him and he never paid me a dime.' I noticed, though, that Dickie did not tell me he was not with Whitehead on August 14, 1901, saying simply, 'I don't want to talk about it.' Also, he did not say he never knew anyone named Andrew Cellie-not surprising since Cellie was Dickie's next-door neighbor on Tunis Hill in Fairfield, and they both hung around Whitehead's shop.'" Roger491127 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
So, your position is that James Dickie signed a false affidavit ? Do you know if Wm. O'Dwyer recorded his phone call with James Dickie ? Also, doesn't Wm. O'Dwyer mis-state the matter of "Cellie" being Dickie's next door neighbor - Cellie (actually "Andrew Suelli") was G.W.'s next door neighbor. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, in the light of this phone conversation it seems to be so. No I don't know. GW moved from his earlier address, so why couldn't Cellie move too.
To avoid further unecessary questions, could you please read through the documents in the external links list, and the article itself, of course.
About Major O'Dwyer in the US Air Force: When you read about how he got involved in this case you can see that he went into this investigation without preconceptions and he seems to be a very honest and impartial person. Don't you think we should trust his words, no matter if he recorded the phone conversation or not? After reading about all his work in his investigation I trust him. You can make your mind up for yourself, after reading through all the material he and his pilot friends produced. By the way, Dickie has already shown how unreliable his affidavits are in the case of the airplane motor which later was found to be no airplane motor at all.Roger491127 (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually I am extremely well versed on this material - I have asked questions to see what your responses would be, not so much to gain information.
I wonder if what might have happened was something like the following: promises of payments made to Dickie, Cellie/Suelli and Howell once the anticipated funds from Custead's backers came through, in return for their agreement to back the story of G.W.'s supposed success on 14 August 1901.
As I read the Herald story of 18 August 1901, I believe it was a promotional piece, to be used to seal a deal with Custead and Custead's backers. The deal never was agreed to, so the funds never arrived, so the payments weren't made. Do you suppose something like that might have been the case ? You must admit that the layout of the article is not exactly hard reporting, it isn't page one news, the witches flying broomsticks lend an air of fairytale to the story, the Nr. 21 is not preserved as an artifact of success but is supposedly rebuilt into the undocumented Nr. 22 which then is so poorly cared for that it is ruined.
The whole story seems to me very much like a failed business ballyhoo, an attempt to generate interest and financial support which failed to do the job. As I say on my flyingmachines.org web site, I believe that Gustav Whitehead's efforts and the simple fact that he actually built machines and engines are sufficient to remember his work and dedication... but, did he make a "flight" in our understanding of that word, prior to 17 December 1903 ? I do not believe he did. With the many lapses (supposed lost documents, uncared for then ruined machines, night-time happenings, financial troubles and lawsuits, angry former supporters, co-workers and employees... it makes "proving" a case for him impossible. Gathering up evidence that he did not make a "flight" prior to 17 December 1903 is a much easier and simpler task. So, the weight of history, as it is sometimes called, falls on the side of denying the claims made on his behalf. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
"Actually I am extremely well versed on this material - I have asked questions to see what your responses would be, not so much to gain information."
Then you know that O'Dwyer and his pilot friends tried to find people who had lived in Bridgeport in 1901. They found 30. Out of them 20 said that they had seen Whitehead fly, 7 had heard about his flights, 3 did not believe he had flown.
What do you think about that result? Isn't that pretty convincing statistics? Roger491127 (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but fly what ? A great many people saw Whitehead's large Albatross glider (the one he patented) of 1905-06 glide along through the air and during the full light of daytime. So, what does that prove about his supposed powered "flights" ? Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that their questions were more specific than that, they asked about motorized flight in the year 1901. But I won't even bother to look it up this time because I have wasted enough time on you. You have finally revealed how your mind works and now it is easy to predict that you will keep your strong beliefs about Whitehead for the rest of your life, no matter what evidence is presented to you.
My mistakes with the english language
My native language is swedish and I have learned english, german and french in school. My english is fairly good for a person who has never set his foot in an english-speaking country, but I make a mistake now and then. For example, I called Custeod a suspicious character, I really meant a suspect character, who was never mentioned before or after this article in Bridgeport Herald. Whitehead was naive and very much in need of more resources, so he often had to get involved with persons who he thought would support him but it was usually they who used him to make money or to boost their own fame and recognition. Or, in the case of the Wright brothers, they gained information by giving Whitehead the impression that they would finance his airplanes. Roger491127 (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I, too, will say (as I have before) your English is excellent. I, of course, dispute your complete acceptance as fact that the Wright brothers "gained information" from Whitehead and implied they would "finance his airplanes". Surely, if you've studied Wright brothers history, you should know the progression of their research, as well-documented by them in notes, diaries, and especially in the Wilbur-Chanute correspondence. I have not read every such document (there are many hundreds, perhaps thousands), but I have never seen any mention in a secondary source (such as Crouch, Howard, Jakab, or Tobin) that the brothers visited Whitehead or wanted information from him.
- If you consider the design of Whitehead's no.21 and the Wright design, which was already well-established by 1901, you understand they had nothing in common. If the brothers visited Whitehead in 1901 or early 1902, it's hard to imagine what they might have learned. Furthermore, in 1902 the Wrights made the crucial design improvement of adding a rear vertical rudder, something lacking in the no.21 design. Your belief in the Wright "visits" is based on Pruckner's statement, but no other evidence exists. I don't believe the brothers visited Whitehead, but my statement is "I don't believe," not "they did not". Your absolutist position in so many issues in the debate reveals an unwillingness to take a more balanced and fair-minded attitude and to use language reflecting such an attitude. DonFB (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Your English is outstanding, Roger J.
You're quite right, Custead was a faker and promoter and it is unfortunate that G.W., who actually built gliders that could fly, was ever linked to him. Contrary to what you think, I have an open mind about this all, but history involves interpretation of facts and evidence, so we are obligated to analyze what we find.
I will post my WW1 AERO article within the next week or so, and hope you'll read it with an open mind and then see that I made a good-faith effort to offer an analysis of what Gustave Whitehead actually did do. Again, I believe that the body of his work, his dedication despite his circumstances, all are to his credit. I am not one who believes he was a charlatan, as Orville Wright thought. Gustave Whitehead deserves a fair, balanced appraisal, which I have tried to offer. It might surprise you to learn that my WW1 AERO article received open hostility from noted aviation historians who thought I was giving G.W. too much credit.
As for wasting time, I don't consider any of this wasted time. I've put many hours into this discussion, myself (as well as a few hundred hours into my Whitehead article) - it's unfortunate that you believe it has been wasted.
Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)