Where on Earth is the Real Wright Flyer?

  "'How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?'

"I don't know, but some people without brains do an awful lot of talking."--

L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz 

A display of the claimed "Wright Flyer I" at the Smithsonian Institution

 Ask almost anyone where the original "Wright flyer" is and the answer will be, "At the Smithsonian, of course. Everyone knows that!"

Well, sometimes "everyone knows" what they actually don't know.

I saw the claimed "Wright flyer" myself years ago. It confronted you then, suspended overhead at the entrance of the Smithsonian's Art and Industries Building. At the time, who knew that no other plane is permitted to intrude on your view of the flyer or compete with its primacy? Who knew that there was (and still is) a contract that the Smithsonian had made with the Wright estate/family that specifies how it is to be displayed, including a label that must accompany the machine at all times--declaring that this is the original Wright flyer and that it was first to fly?

The supposed Wright Flyer on display in the 1950's at the Smithsonian
Art and Industries Building

 What's more, the Wright/Smithsonian agreement states that the Institution and its affiliates may never say that any other plane was even capable of flight before the Wright flyer--or else.*

The Contract and the label were composed by representatives of the Wright estate/family and their attorney, not the Smithsonian. The Contract must have been a thorn in the Smithsonian's side, because knowledge of  it was hidden to all except for a select few. What self-respecting scientific institution would sign such an agreement?  Our store of knowledge is always in flux as new discoveries are made. That includes history. We would laugh today if scientists had signed an irrevocable statement that the world is flat or that the sun travels around the earth. Or if historians signed a nearly inviolate agreement with the descendants of Columbus that no one from across the Atlantic set foot in the New World before he "discovered" it in 1492.

 "The Contract, originally kept secret from the public, was learned of and obtained by Major William J. O’Dwyer (USAF, ret.), with the help of then-Senator Lowell Weicker, Jr., in 1976. [More on “the Contract” here. " Quotation from website "History by Contract." Click here to see full text of the Contract.

Most people believe what they are told, especially if the story comes from those supposedly in authority-- such as the Smithsonian Institution, which gained great respect in no small measure because it was composed of working scientists who contributed immensely to our body of knowledge. This is apparently no longer the case. Most Secretaries and the head of NASM are not scientists or even experts in aeronautics. They more often appear to be politicians and promoters.

The chances that the plane displayed at the Smithsonian is the actual Wright flyer I, and is the first plane to fly are practically nil. The "doubting Thomas's," and there are some, will not be surprised, then, that we are continuing to find strong evidence that this plane was never at Kitty Hawk, never flew anywhere--or even glided an inch. Already there is too much evidence to ignore.

"Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain!"

“Oh - You're a very bad man!" "Oh, no my dear... I'm just a very bad Wizard.”
― L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

Not fooled for long: the Tin Man, Dorothy, Toto, and the Scarecrow

 As with many of the Wright history claims, the only proof that the plane at the Smithsonian is the original Wright flyer boils down to the word of Orville Wright--and that, unfortunately, is no proof at all. Especially when, in his desire to be remembered as first to fly and as inventor of the airplane, Orville was, according to author Jack Carpenter, "loose with the truth," (to put it politely). For some verification of his "looseness," see former posts of "Truth in Aviation History."  Note especially the post "More Errors, Inaccuracies, and Whoppers by Orville  Wright in Boys' Life."

Orville Wright

According to "Orv's" story, the Wright brothers shipped the original plane back to their home in Dayton, Ohio, from Kitty Hawk in 1903 and stored it crated for thirteen years, outdoors in the weather and even in a flood.

That this is truly the Wright flyer is based on this assertion by Orville.  It's the weak link in the chain.

Continuing on, Orville claimed that in 1916  he unpacked  the original plane, repaired it, and displayed it in various venues, including MIT. After its last gig at the Science Museum in London, England, it was returned to the U. S. in 1948


However, in direct contradiction to Orville's claim, is a statement by his own brother, Wilbur. Unearthed from among the mountains of letters at the Library of Congress, lurking entombed, nevertheless discovered, digitized, by an astute researcher, is a December, 1905, letter written by Wilbur Wright.

The Wrights, says Wilbur in the letter, never sent their machines from Kitty Hawk. to Dayton. They were never, says Wilbur, ever meant to be sent.

Wilbur Wright

"The machines themselves were not so constructed as to be transported from Kitty Hawk so we did not try to preserve them.," wrote Wilbur in this primary document.

The letter is missed, ignored, or misinterpreted by Wright historians. In their misguided faith in the "Holy Word" of Orville, they may try to say Wilbur meant the gliders, not the "flyer." That is, of course, absurd. Did they construct the Wright Flyer differently to be transported home just in case it flew? Or did they change their minds and send it home because it did fly? Didn't they expect it to? The improbabilities and absurdities keep multiplying.

Wilbur's statement in his 1905 letter was an aside to one of the founding members of the Aero Club, an important aviation pioneer, Dr. Albert Zahm, who wrote a six page letter on behalf of the newly minted group, asking if the Wrights had pictures or models to contribute to an exhibit they were mounting on early aviation. Wilbur replied that they had no models, none were made, but that they would be happy to contribute some photographs of gliders to the exhibit.

Then Wilbur Wright  freely volunteered to Dr. Zahm that their experimental machines at Kitty  Hawk were left there. What's more, Wilbur goes on to say that  in order to transport Chanute's glider that was left at Kill Devil Hills (in 1902), it would take six weeks or two months to get it away, "for the means of transportation and communication in that country are almost wanting." Here we have it. It would have been a similar hardship to transport any of the machines back from Kitty Hawk.

The logistics of dismantling, crating, and transporting any of the gliders, as well as the Wright Flyer, to Dayton, not to mention the cost, should have made Orville's story more than questionable long ago. That they shipped back the engine and the metal hardware we're willing to accept. But the Wrights closed camp, packed up, and made their slow, arduous trip by boat and train back to Dayton in a total of six to seven days. Logically then, the business of properly transporting the Flyer I to Dayton would have had to be left, for the most part, to others. That is never mentioned in the history.

        Page 1 of Wilbur's 1905 letter to Dr. Zahm ( Library of Congress,
Wright letters, General Correspondence, Zahm 1902-1906, Page 21)

  Wilbur's statement affirms eye witness Adam Etheridge's  more reasonable story that the Wrights gave the flyer to him. As this blog has stated many times, Etheridge was among the five witnesses who were at Kill Devil Hills and observed the claimed December 17 "flights." They gave "the old plane" to me, said  Etheridge, and he stored it at his home on the beach. When his widow later backed up his statement, she added that they'd kept it "in the attic."***

We introduced this issue in the posts titled "Mystery of the Wright Flyer Wings," Parts I and II (press link and scroll down) and in "More Mystery of the Wright Flyer Wings."

Of course, Wright historians today can't possibly accept Etheridge's statement. In fact, they totally discredit Etheridge as a witness at all, because the primary source documents attributed to him contradict the statements of the Wrights.**

Orville's belated claim that they sent the Flyer I home isn't consistent with what we know about the the Wrights' lack of sentiment for their gliders or flyers, once they were done with them. The second flyer," Flyer II," was burned after the 1904 experiments that took place in Dayton, Ohio. The Flyer III, according to Wright history, was modified at Kill Devil Hills and flown there in 1908 for about a week until Wilbur crashed it. Then, according to their assistant and witness Charles Furnas, they burned  this one as well.What remained of the other machines at Kitty Hawk was left to the elements or reaped for wood and cloth by the thrifty Outer Bankers. Finally, Etheridge sold what he had left of the original Wright flyer and apparently the 1911 glider to the Berkshire Museum in Massachusetts for a total of 50.00.***

If the original Flyer was not shipped back to Dayton in 1903, as our evidence indicates, then the plane displayed at MIT and various places, then sent to the Science Museum in London was in reality, a fake. That plane was  reconstructed with no plans (because there were never any plans for the Flyer I) and put together by (who else?) Orville Wright, his secretary Mabel Beck, and his mechanic Charlie Taylor. (It might be noted here that replicas using measurements from this machine are unable to achieve controlled, sustained flights.)

England shouldn't be embarrassed that they were hoodwinked about the plane they so carefully displayed for years and protected throughout the bombings of London during WWII. An awful lot of people were.

Professor Marvel's Wagon from the Wizard of Oz.

After Orville's death, the plane that had been displayed in London, was shipped back to the Smithsonian Institution with great fanfare and has been displayed there ever since--as "the original Wright Flyer."

What then about the Contract with the Wright family,  if this is not the "real" Wright flyer? After all, the Contract was a result of negotiations with the Wright estate/family so that the Smithsonian could have and display what they thought was the "real Wright Flyer." Since our evidence indicates that it's not and never was, the question has to be put forward whether the Wright/Smithsonian Contract should be null and void? That's a question for an attorney, such as Jonathan Turley who called the contract "unethical," even if the plane were the real Wright flyer.

The attempts of the current regime at the Smithsonian to justify the Contract because of wrongful claims (they say) that Gustave Whitehead's pioneer planes and Professor Langley's Aerodrome were capable of flight before the Wrights' mire the Institution ever more deeply into controversy. The current regime states categorically that these planes were incapable of flight, despite evidence to the contrary, as information continues to come to light.

So where on earth is the original Wright flyer now?

To be continued in Part II

*...or else the Wright family can take back the "Wright flyer" from the Smithsonian.

**As my readers know, witness John Daniels repeated that the "flights" were made from the big hill, not from level ground. Etheridge backed up Daniel's statements. Alpheus Drinkwater, who lived in the area, said the same thing: a takeoff from the hill.

***Etheridge's story passed down through his family, not exactly as our research indicates, but in an interesting way. His family thought he had a glider only, probably because they had heard that Orville had the original :flyer." Their family lore affirms that Etheridge built frames for his wife's quilts from the machine's wood. They also have passed down through the family that Etheridge sold that glider to a museum for 50.00. The primary source documents on the LOC confirm that Etheridge sold a flyer for 25.00 and a glider for 25.00 for a total of 50.00.

 Pages from Dr. Zahm letter to Wilbur Wright (Library of Congress,
Wright letters, General  Correspondence, Zahm, 1902-1906 page 17 )

Another Truth, Another Study of the Story of the Langley Aerodrome

Readers,

The Great Langley Aerodrome, with witnesses who saw it fly (and carry 350 pounds of additional weight)

We have published our first post on our parallel blog about the saga of the 1903 Langley Aerodrome. Click on http://anothertruthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com/ To those of you who have discovered in "Truth in Aviation History" how history has been tampered with, you may be even more amazed at the century long controversy and myth that was originated and perpetuated by Orville Wright about Professor Samuel Pierpont Langley's plane, the 1903 "Aerodrome." With the the help of his partisans, Wright clearly dedicated twenty eight years, manipulating the history until it took the form he wanted it to be. His version of the truth has been elaborated and promoted by his partisans even today.
Blog on Wright and Langley: "Another Truth in Aviation History: "

Scroll down to read preceding blog post (below) for a preview introduction to the new blog.

The History of the Langley Aerodrome: Truth and Deception

Professor Samuel Pierpont Langley's 1903 Aerodrome 

.

The saga of a pioneer plane--and

the controversy surrounding its history 

Professor Langley

The Langley Aerodrome, front wings in place, preparing for a launch.

The Background

In the fall of 1903, the head of the Smithsonian Institution, Professor Samuel Pierpont Langley, attempted to launch a heavier than air, man-carrying, powered plane. The launch failed, as did a subsequent attempt; and his machine, christened the “Aerodrome,” ignominiously fell into the river. Only days after Langley’s second try, the Wright brothers claimed that they successfully flew their own powered plane at Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina

We are embarking on a parallel blog to "Truth in Aviation History"  in which we will search for the truth about the Langley/Wright story. The link will be provided. An examination of the current "history" must obviously include a look at the constant revisions of so-called "facts" by aviation historians, based on assertions by Wright historians and Orville and Wilbur Wright. The reader will see how the facts were manipulated to distort the history of what really happened.

We will look at the scientists, aviators, and witnesses, who were accused by Orville Wright of fraud and misrepresentation about the Langley plane.  We will analyze the Wright-oriented propaganda about the the Langley history as it stands today.

The Langley Aerodrome, all wings in place, on its launch pad in 1903

Why the Langley Story is Important

In 1914, with the backing of the Smithsonian Institution, aviator Glenn Curtiss successfully reconstructed and flew the original Langley Aerodrome in Hammondsport, New York. Scientists claimed that these tests proved that the Langley plane was able to fly and thus antedated the Wrights' claim that theirs was the first with this capability. Not surprisingly, Orville Wright attacked Curtiss’s 1914 tests, asserting they were successful only because of modifications Curtiss made to Langley's 1903 design.

In 1942, Secretary Charles Greeley Abbot of the Smithsonian Institution finally caved in to Orville Wright's demands and published an article listing Curtiss's modifications to the Langley Aerodrome. However, although Abbot's essay originally included reasons and references for these modifications, the published version was essentially re-written by Wright and his biographer, Fred Kelly, who insisted on removing this critical contextual information. 

As a result of the Wright/Kelly essay, published by the Smithsonian, the factual history of the Langley Aerodrome was discarded in favor of Wright's propaganda. Since then, there appear to have been no critical checks and balances of Orville's version of the Langley story, nor of historians' subsequent interpretations. Orville Wright's victory unjustly discredited Professor Langley and his contributions to aviation, as well as the reputations of aviation pioneers such as Glenn Curtiss, Dr. Albert Francis Zahm, Smithsonian Secretary Dr. Charles Doolittle Walcott, and Charles Manly. 
 

With no fair oversight, the history of the Langley Aerodrome has run amok. There are so many provable inventions, untruths, and outright lies about the Aerodrome that one would need to write an over sized book to sort them out. In this new blog, we will begin this daunting task.

*****************************************************************

Click on "Another Truth in Aviation History" for the link to the new blog.

Photo Manipulation Before 1900

A Brief Tutorial  on the Early Arts of Photo Manipulation

  "I believe it was probably less than ten minutes that went by from the invention of photography to the point where people realized that they could lie with photographs."--Errol Morris

 

(Below) This composite photo by Henry Peach Robinson used five separate images and shows the sophistication of the state of the art of photo manipulation  as early as 1858.

photo courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

The photographic manipulation (below) was the placing of Lincoln's head on John Calhoun’s body in 1860. The photographer used a composite technique.    

During the American civil war (1861-1865), well known photographer, Mathew Brady, enhanced many of his photos to better show the carnage and horrors of the Civil War. The photo on the left was released in 1864 from a composite of the three photos on the right.

Unidentified French artist, published by Allain de Torbéchet et Cie. ca. 1880

Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec as Artist and Model by Maurice Guibert, ca. 1900

The above examples are just a few of the myriad of manipulated photographs done between the mid 1800's and 1900.

By the turn of the century, the state of the art was highly professional. Techniques that were used until the advent of "Photoshop" included airbrushing.

The first working airbrush prototype was developed by Liberty Walkup of Mt. Morris, Illinois. Walkup patented the work under the name of "air-brush." His wife would later go on to be the founder of the Illinois Art School where airbrushing was taught to students.

The first atomizing type of airbrush was invented by Charles Burdick four years later in 1893. It was presented by Thayer and Chandler art materials company at the World Columbian Exposition in Chicago that same year.

As can be seen, manipulating and faking photographs was a sophisticated art even before 1900. The tools and techniques continued to develop. A faked photo early in the twentieth century could compete with the results of a modern day "Photoshop" product.

More Mystery of the Wright Flyer Wings--Continued

Will the Real Wright Flyer Please Step Forward ?

Photo claimed to be of the "first flight" by Orville Wright in 1903. Released in 1908.

Years after the Wrights claimed they achieved the first sustained, powered flight in history with a man on board at Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, a 98 year old woman, Mrs. Lillie Swindell, made local headlines when she said she had stored the Wrights' original flyer in her attic after the Wrights went back to their home in Dayton. And as a thrifty and resourceful resident of Kitty Hawk, she wasn't about to let the flyer go to waste. So she made use of various pieces of "the first plane to fly" for her practical projects. Muslin that had covered the wings of the plane was shared with her neighbors to make clothes for their kids. Wood from the plane was used to fashion frames to stitch her quilts.1

To Wright historians, of course, this has to be a ridiculous story. Every Wright historian "knows" that the broken pieces of the original flyer were sent back to Dayton, Ohio, after the Kitty Hawk  "flights" in 1903 and stored in a crate behind the Wrights' bicycle shop. Everyone "knows" that the plane was rebuilt from these pieces in 1916 and displayed a number of times in the United States. https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/wright-brothers/online/icon/sight_2.cfm

In 1928 Orville's reconstructed "original flyer" became especially useful. The Smithsonian wasn't accepting his claim that it was the first in history "capable of flight." They asserted that Langley's Aerodrome should have that honor, even though it failed to launch twice in 1903. Orville was incensed. So he rebuilt the flyer again and shipped it to the Science Museum in London, England, to make a very public protest. Orville wanted to be remembered, not only as the first to fly, but also as the inventor of the first airplane even capable of flight..

After a long feud with the  Smithsonian, everybody "knows" that the Flyer was returned to the United States. That was six years after the Smithsonian was said to cave in to the Orville Wright demands to recant their defense of the Langley Aerodrome as first plane capable of flight.* According to the Wright history, the original Wright flyer has been at the Smithsonian ever since 1948.

Wright "flyer at the Smithsonian. Or is it?

But has the "original flyer" been at the Smithsonian--ever?  Certainly, you might say, this Mrs.Swindell was just a crazy old woman from the Outer Banks, North Carolina, with a faded memory. Maybe even demented. Right? Maybe wrong. Readers of this blog know that we take the statements of witnesses seriously. So who was this Mrs. Swindell, anyway?

It turns out that she was Adam Etheridge's widow, who, after his death in1940, had remarried again
Her first husband, Life Saver Adam Etheridge, was one of the few (five) original witnesses of the December 17, 1903, Wright "flights " When he was alive, Etheridge repeatedly asserted that the Wrights had left the wings of the original flyer with him when they left for Dayton after their 1903 "flight(s)"  and that he stored them at his home on the beach. Please see "The Mystery of the Wright Flyer Wings I and II" in this blog for many of the references for this story..

That claim of Etheridge contradicted the Wright history. Historians say that the Wrights had known how important their 1903 "flights" were. So they packed up the pieces of the "original Flyer" and shipped them home to Dayton. They wouldn't have left them at Kitty Hawk. Indeed, some Wright historians, in their dispute of  Etheridge's claim, said he must have mixed up the 1903 flyer with the 1905 flyer that was flown at Kill Devil Hills in 1908. In the Steven Kirk version, "First in Flight," 2 they claim he mixed it up with the 1902 glider.

But wait, historians. How could it be the 1905 plane when witness Charlie Furnas said that the Wrights burned that plane at Kill Devil Hills in 1908 after Wilbur wrecked it? At least he said they burned everything flammable--the wood and the cloth. http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=following , page 5. And how could it be the 1902 glider? Here are the remains of the glider in a picture of the abandoned Wright camp below.

Find the skeletal remains (center) of the 1902 Wright glider half buried in sand. It was left to the wind and the weather of Kill Devil Hills, NC.

What's more, expert Wright historian, Arthur George Renstrom, in his respected chronology of the Wrights, indicates that the Wrights had shipped the 1905 flyer back to Dayton. Quoting Renstrom: "June 5. [1908] Wright engine and airplane shipped from Kitty Hawk arrives back in Dayton."
http://history.nasa.gov/monograph32.pdf
http://www.centennialofflight.net/chrono/1908.htm 

Either way, how could  the 1905 plane, used in 1908, be the one that was given to Etheridge and stored in his home on the beach? If it was burned in 1908, it couldn't be the same plane. And if it was shipped back to Dayton in 1908, it couldn't be the same plane either. See the other possibilities conjectured by Wright historians  in "The Mystery of the Wright Flyer Wings I and II," former posts in this blog.

 Life Saver Etheridge had said he was given the 1903 wings of the plane, or "the old plane," just as his widow later indicated. What's more, he said, he sold what he had to the the founder of the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, for 25.00, along with a glider left at Kitty Hawk for another 25.00 (This would almost certainly be the 1911 glider.)

However, in her 1975 narration, Mrs. Lillie Etheridge Swindell said she used the 1903 plane for wood for her quilts and the muslin for clothes for the kids. The rest was stored in the attic and when Etheridge wouldn't remove it, she finally burned it herself. That seems to contradict her husband's story that he sold the plane to Mr. Zenas Crane of the Berkshire Museum. But not necessarily. It turns out that Etheridge didn't have or sell the complete plane to the museum. We know that because on March 2, 1914, Orville wrote Samuel G. Colt, the son in law of the museum owner, Crane, asking what parts of the plane he had at the museum. (You will note that at some point Mr. Crane had been told by the Wrights that he had, not the 1903 plane, but the 1905 plane. When that occurred we may never know, because former critical correspondence is missing. We maintain, from historical statements we are presenting, that the plane was not the 1905 plane.) http://www.loc.gov/resource/mwright.03073/?st=gallery

"I wonder how much of the 1905 machine Mr. Crane has," wrote Orville to Mr. Colt on March 2, 1914. "Could you give me a list of the parts that are now in his possession?"

From the Library of Congress website (same link as above) is Samuel Colt's answer.

 Yesterday I went to the Museum and find that the parts which were sent up by Mr. Etheridge from Kitty Hawk consist of 4 end sections of the main planes, 1 elevator plane, 2 vertical "fins," or frames for the elevators and some of the canvas.

(Colt's complete handwritten letter pictured below)

Above, letter to Orville Wright from Samuel Colt of the Berkshire Museum,

in which he tells what parts of the Wright Flyer they have acquired from Life Saver, Adam Etheridge.

Story to be continued....

_________________________________

               * An examination of the Smithsonian documents shows that the Smithsonian never totally 
         recanted  their stance that the Langley Aerodrome was capable of flight. This will be 
                     addressed in"Another Truth in Aviation History:  Orville Wright and the Langley Aerodrome."        

 

1 Stephen Kirk. First in Flight: The Wright Brothers in North Carolina (Winston-Salem, NC: John F. Blair Publisher, 1995), 316-7

2 Ibid