The Mystery of the Wright Flyer Wings, Part I

                                                                 "...the wings of that plane they left with me and I took them over to my home on the beach" - Adam Etheridge, eye witness to the claimed first manned flights December 17, 1903

             "'Tis strange - but true; for truth is always
               Stranger than fiction; if it could be told....,
            

              --Lord Byron 

___________________________________________________________________________________

The Claim of the Smithsonian Institution:

 The Wright flyer, displayed at the Smithsonian Institution, is the very plane that was the "first to fly" on December 17, 1903. According to its label, required by the Wright family estate, the plane is:

"The original Wright Brothers aeroplane the world's first power-driven, heavier-than-air machine in which man made free, controlled and sustained flight invented and built by Wilbur and Orville Wright and flown by them at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina December 17, 1903."

Peter Jakab, curator, seated by the "Flyer display at the Smithsonian. Photo from the National Air and Space Museum,  http://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/multimedia/detail.cfm?id=3292

Says Peter Jakab, pictured above, curator at the NASM, Smithsonian:

"Let me assure you, the airplane on view at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum is indeed the actual machine with which the Wrights made their pathbreaking first flights at Kitty Hawk.  IT IS THE REAL WRIGHT FLYER....." (Emphasis is Jakab's)

But that isn't quite true. In fact, it's probably not true at all. The pieces and parts of the "reconstruction/replica," that comprise the plane on display at the Smithsonian have some different stories to tell. Peering beneath the varnish and veneer of the USA's premier scientific establishment, we find that the assurance of Peter Jakab is based on history far from sure.

What I will present in this post and those following may appear so astounding that it can't possibly be factual, after what we have been told for so long. Nevertheless, what I will present is backed by facts and statements of witnesses and needs to be viewed dispassionately. Not only do eye witness statements put into question the "genuine Flyer" on exhibit at the Smithsonian, but the "genuine Flyer III" on exhibit in Dayton, Ohio. What the historians tell us about both exhibits is mostly based on the word of Orville Wright.

 Before we take a peer at an alternate history, we need to look at a short summary of the provenance of the Wright Flyer I, according to the currently accepted history-- Orville's history.

Orville Wright's Story

After the wind smashed the Wright Flyer I to pieces in 1903 following the last "flight," the Wright brothers packed them up, shipped them back to Dayton, Ohio, and stored them in crates behind their bicycle shop. The crates were subsequently moved a couple of times more and even inundated with water and mud in the Dayton flood of 1913. Then around 1916, according to Orville, these pieces were uncrated, cleaned up, repaired, and assembled for display. This "Wright Flyer I" (with some caveats) emerged like a phoenix at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

"The Wright Flyer I," supposedly the original, repaired and on display at MIT in 1916

After that, it was displayed a number of times more, according to the University Libraries, Wright State University:

 It was again briefly exhibited at the New York Aero Show in 1917. In 1921, it was partially reassembled yet again to provide photographic evidence for a lawsuit against Orville Wright filed by the surviving family of John  J. Montgomery, a California glider builder. The historic airplane was exhibited at the 1924 National Air races held in Dayton.

Finally, refurbished again, it was sent, not to the Smithsonian that wanted it, but abroad to the Science Museum in London, England. (This was because the Smithsonian Museum refused to state an untruth--that the Langley Aerodrome of 1903 was incapable of flight.--ed)  But in 1942, Secretary Abbot of the Smithsonian caved in to pressure from Orville Wright and the public and made a statement to the effect that the Langley plane had some modifications when it flew in 1914 that Orville claimed he'd found out.*

Subsequently, the plane that had been displayed in Britain was sent back to the USA in 1948 and displayed at the Smithsonian, according to the last wishes of the now deceased Orville.This is, as we say, the currently accepted history.

In 1948 the supposed Wright Flyer is sent from Britain to the Smithsonian.

At right, the supposed original "Wright Flyer," upon its return from the British Museum with much fanfare to the Smithsonian museum.

But there is another provenance of the 1903 "Wright Flyer I" that is more probable, weighing in the doubts we have revealed in this blog about the veracity of Orville Wright. A study of statements of witnesses and a number of other original documents strongly support the theory that if any parts of the original Wright Flyer made it, in fact, to the Smithsonian Museum in 1948 and are what you see on display there, they might be a piece of hardware or two. Much of what the public is told by the label, Peter Jakab, and various historians is likely the glossy veneer crafted by Orville Wright himself to cover another of his magnificent concoctions.

As can be seen in the National  Air and Space Museum diagram below, the Wright Flyer had mainly wings, elevators in front, rudders behind, no significant fuselage, a motor and two propellers. There were also wood struts, wires, and some hardware, including a chain drive. Not to forget the fabric covering.

Among these parts, the probable provenance of the wings, which comprise the largest portion of the Wright Flyer is the most fascinating. (Remember that the Flyer had no fuselage--the pilots lay face down on the lower wing.) The journey of the wings of the original Wright Flyer I, according to a credible eyewitness account, was not back to Dayton, where they were stored in the crate behind the bicycle shop. True, the  Wrights apparently shipped the engine back, just as historians say, but, according to witness, Adam Etheridge, they didn't pack up everything. The Wrights gave the wings to him.

The Story of Adam Etheridge

.Below is the story of Adam Etheridge, Life Saver and eye witness, ( from files of the US Coast Guard)

'We assisted in every way and I hauled the lumber for the camp,' said witness Adam Etheridge. He was one of the five witnesses of the Wrights' attempts at powered flight on December 17, 1903.  'We really helped around there hauling timber and carrying mail out to them each day.  It would come from Kitty Hawk by patrol each night.  In pretty weather we would be out there while they were gliding, watching them.  Then after they began to assemble the machine in the house, they would let us in and we began to become interested in carrying the mail just to look on and see what they were doing.  They did not mind us at all because they knew where we were from and know (sic) us.  We inquired what day they expected to fly.  Finally they told us the day.  Finally, on this day, the 17th of December, Daniels, Dough and myself were out there helping to get the machine out of the camp out on the track.  They started the motor, testing it out for quite a while.  Finally, they got to talking about getting together about flying and got it ready to turn loose.  Finally, they decided to try the flight and then they went on just about the way you have been told by Daniels.  They talked matters over---how delighted they were in what they had done in their flights and were expecting to try it---the machine---over and they gave up right then an packed up and went home.  They said they were very well satisfied with what they had done.  At that time they assembled everything they wanted to take away.  They said they were going to take the engine back with them and the wings of the plane they left with me.  Later I got a letter from a man in Philadelphia telling that Wilbur had written and told him that I had the old plane and that he wanted to buy it if I would dispose of it; so I wrote him a letter that I would sell it to him for $25.00.  He sent me a check for it, and it is right here that I lost a fortune if I had kept it.'

Again in 1935, Etheridge states that the Wrights left the wings of the flyer with him. In fact, in both statements Etheridge interchanges wings and the plane as the same thing. Note that he says,"Wilbur had written and told him that I had the old plane."** In the article below, he repeats it:

In 1935 Etheridge made a cryptic claim regarding the Wrights' first powered aircraft.  '[The Wright Brothers] said they were well satisfied with what they had done.  That was about the end of the story at that time. At that time they assembled everything they wanted to take away.  They said they were going to take the engine back with them.  At that time I think they gave Daniels and myself a lot of fixtures out of the camp and gave us the camp too.  And the wings of that plane they left with me and I took them over to my home on the beach and later, sometime after that, I got a letter from a man in Philadelphia telling that Wilbur had written and told him that I had the old plane and that he wanted to buy it if I would dispose of it.  It was up to me if I wanted to let him have it or not.  So I wrote him a letter that I would sell it to him for $25.00, I believe it was.  So they had me pack it up and I took it up to Kitty Hawk and shipped it to him.  It went from Kitty Hawk on a freight boat to Elizabeth City and he sent me a check for it, and it is right here I lost a fortune if I had kept it.'

The Wright Historians' Stories

 In the article, quoted from this linked Coast Guard site, that includes the statement above, the author presents how the Wright  historians discredit Adam Etheridge as follows:

Some historians have claimed that Etheridge was mistaken and that he had in fact obtained the wings of the two-seat Flyer built in 1905 which the brothers flew at Kitty Hawk in 1908.  Since the Wright brothers realized the historical significance of these first flights, and consequently the importance of the first powered aircraft, it is unlikely they would have left any part of that flyer behind when the packed up and left Kitty Hawk.  Etheridge's claim then is probably due to the failing memory of an old life-saver. (emphasis mine)

In other words, the historians want us to believe that Etheridge was given, not the 1903 "Flyer," as he says, but the 1905 plane that was smashed up by Wilbur in May of 1908 five years later when the brothers returned to Kitty Hawk to practice. It is critically important that Wright historians publish that Etheridge wasn't given the original Wright Flyer. If what he says is true, every exhibit claimed by Orville Wright and his historians to be of the original Wright flyer for nearly a century, including the one on display at the Smithsonian today, would be a hoax--as seems obvious but will be explained in more detail. Moreover, it would mean that the display of the Flyer III at Carillon Park in Dayton is not what it's said to be, either.

The Wright Flyer III at Kill Devil Hills in May,1908. It was crashed by Wilbur.

Looking at the historians' assertions in all fairness, we do find a contradictory provenance claimed for the 1905/1908 Wright Flyer III. We have found at least four different versions of what happened to the broken pieces of that Flyer after Wilbur wrecked it in 1908, and the Wright brothers left Kitty Hawk--Orville for Dayton, Wilbur for Europe. Below are four versions:

 (1) Orville Wright's official version is that Wilbur's crash wasn't so bad at all. According to his biography, approved by him and written by his friend Fred Kelly, "...after removing the engine and other machinery for shipment to Dayton, the Wrights left the plane in the shed at Kitty Hawk, thinking they might return..."1 ( This 1943 version might be later "spun" to accommodate the transfer of the machine eventually to Etheridge, then sold, but Orville and Kelly don't mention giving it away to anyone at any time.)

(2)  Another version: They burned the totally wrecked parts of the plane that were combustible, such as the upper wing and the front framing, and left the rest at the camp at Kill Devil Hills. The hardware was taken home. This is a speculation by Stanley Kandebo of "Aviation Week and Space Technology." (page 6)

 (3)  They gave Etheridge this plane, not the Flyer I, five years after the so called first flights, and he took it home, stored it, and then sold it for 25.00. This is the version historians want us to believe. Note that historians also don't want us to believe Etheridge's eyewitness account of the events of December 17, 1903, even though he corroborates the accounts of eyewitness, John Daniels..

(4) They burned it. This, according to actual eyewitness, mechanic Charles Furnas, who at age 28 was with the Wrights at Kill Devil Hills in 1908. Furnas helped them with their experiments and became the first passenger on a Wright plane. After Wilbur crashed, he says, the Wrights only took home the engine and chains of the 1905 Flyer. All flammable parts they burned right there at Kill Devil Hills. Since the Flyer, except for the metal parts, was wood and fabric, it was destroyed and couldn't have been the Flyer that Etheridge took home and later sold for 25.00, as historians want us to believe.

The Statement of Charlie Furnas, Eye Witness 1908

Charles Furnas, witness, in 1908

 Below is the account by Charles Furnas in 1933  in "Witnesses to Flight," p 5 about the burning of the 1905 flyer:

"I made several short flights with first one then the other then one day it was Wills turn to go and we made three attempts to get in the air and failed then they would not let me go again at that time so Will went by himself and was up for about six min. and fell and smashed the mach. so bad that we removed the engine and chains that drove the propellers and burned the rest." (emphasis mine)

 

 Readers of this blog will see the clear pattern emerging time and again of Wright historians ignoring the statements of true witnesses of the Wrights' activities in order to support the contradictory statements of the Wrights themselves. Please see "Pieces of the Wright Puzzle, Part III"  and former posts.

But we won't so easily dismiss the story of Charlie Furnas. Nor will we easily dismiss Etheridge's account. Scrupulous historians would examine, we think, the likelihood or even the possibility that both Furnas and Etheridge were honest men and didn't have such poor memories. But acceptance of the witness statements provides serious dilemmas for Wright historians, as we shall see--and more interesting puzzle pieces for us to explore. First of all, if someone actually bought either the Wright Flyer I or, as 'Wrightists' want us to believe, the Wright flyer III, from Etheridge, would he keep it hidden in a basement? Wouldn't it surface somewhere? It did.

As in many great mysteries, some old.letters, that had been saved for years by Orville Wright, provide some answers. The appearance of old letters has become a cliche in a piece of  fiction. So has Lord Byron's adage "truth is stranger than fiction."

One day this author was reading some of the original letters of the Wrights on the net that have been digitized for us by the Library of Congress. Up popped a number of letters to Orville Wright that had been written by a man named Samuel Colt. He said he was writing for his father in law, who had bought pieces of a Wright Flyer for his museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, from a man who lived in the Outer Banks near Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.  And his father in law had purchased them for 25.00.***

To be continued.

* Editor's note: As Orville was getting on in age, Abbot was anxious to settle Orville's feud with the Smithsonian, so at Orville's insistence, he left out the reasons and references he wanted to include in the 1942  statement about the modifications on the Langley Aerodrome. He stated that he believed that later objective studies by experts would honestly review these modifications. This was never done. To be addressed in future blog posts at anothertruthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com

** In the early days, the wings were sometimes called the planes, so it's difficult to know from his accounts which Etheridge meant. His statement says he had "the old plane," and later primary documents, that are addressed in later blog posts here, prove that he had more than just the wings.

***The museum in Pittsfield bought the Flyer and a glider each for 25.00 for a total of 50.00. See future posts.

1 Kelly p. 221

Is It a Flight or Isn't It? History Speaks in 1905

"God cannot alter the past, though historians can."--Samuel Butler

The Wright catapult (shown above). Manual labor was used in France to pull a weight to the top of the derrick. The weight was then dropped to provide the impetus the Wrights needed to propel their "Flyers" into the air.*

Federation Aeronautique Internationale Criteria for a Viable Flight

According to a Santos Dumont website, the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI) was founded on October 14, 1905, to establish worldwide criteria to determine the viability of a heavier than air machine. It was patterned after the International Olympic Committee.

The criteria were as follows:

"a) the flight should be done before an official organization, qualified  to ratify it;

 b) the flight should be done in calm weather and over a plain ground, and  properly documented;

     c) the machine should be able to take off from a designated area by its own means with
     a man on board;

     d) the machine should carry on board the necessary source of energy;

      e) the machine should fly in a straight line;

      f) the machine should make a change of direction (turn and circle);

      g) the machine should return to the starting point."

The Dumont website states that since the FAI knew that it would be difficult to fulfill all the criteria in a first attempt, the members established a prize for the first ratified flight that could fulfill the first five criteria (a) to (e). The other two criteria could be fulfilled later. Important to historians is that they established that flight in a straight line should exceed 100 m (328 ft)." Later Ernest Archdeacon in France offered a prize to the first aviator that could achieve the criteria with a flight of a reduced length of 25 meters..

 The Wright "Flyer I" on December 17, 1903, met only a part of one of these criteria in "c." There must be a man on board. As for fulfilling the remaining criteria, the Wright "Flyer" was not viable.

       (a) Neither "flight"** was before an official organization, qualified to ratify it.

       (b) Neither "flight" was in calm weather. There was a near gale force wind. The "flights" were not over a "plain ground," according to the witnesses who were there. They were from a track set on a hill. The presence of a track and the hill would preclude "plain ground," as we understand it. Neither "flight" was properly documented, only claimed by the Wrights in their statements and writing. The photograph was not as it was said to be. See former posts.

       (c) The plane was not able to take off from a designated area by its own means. It needed the assistance of the hill and gravity, according to the witnesses who were there. And a headwind of over twenty mph helped provide the necessary lift on the wings. (Later, even with a more powerful engine, the Wrights used an inclined plane, wind, and/or a catapult for their "Flyers.") There was indeed a man on board.

      (d).  The plane did not carry on board all of the necessary sources of energy if the pull of gravity and the headwind provided impetus. Without these it's highly doubtful that the flyer had enough power to take off. To back this statement up, it is stated that the Wright Flyer I reconstructions today are not able to take off without a headwind. Note the dismal failure before the public in 2003.

      (e) The plane didn't travel in a straight line.The undulations described by the Wrights (and the witnesses) mean that the plane didn't have good pitch control, and this was probably one of the reasons for the crashes of both Orville and Wilbur's flight attempts in 1903. According to Culick, they never used the wing warping apparatus in 1903 in the powered flight attempts, "they were too busy trying to keep the plane in the air." To claim that a control apparatus was on board that worked in three dimensions, as "Wrightists" say, does not mean that it was viable at the time or that the flight was "controlled."

We have come upon assurances by Wright "historians" (link as an example.) that the FAI since that time accepted the Wrights' 1903 attempts at flight as the first flights. How can that be? Did they change their rules? Even if there could have been provided in 1903 an official group to observe and ratify the Wrights' attempts, the Flyer I was in no way capable of attaining the criteria as delineated above. On the other hand, the Whitehead machine definitely might have been capable from actual witness descriptions and the successes of reconstructions. Whitehead had the power plant and the lift, and it's later been determined that he had a steering mechanism.

Santos Dumont actually flew in 1906 (below) with official witnesses and won two prizes offered in France by Ernest Archdeacon. The Brazilians claim that he was the first to fly. There is no doubt that he was the first to make an official flight in Europe.*** Glenn H. Curtiss officially flew over a kilometer in 1908. He was the first to make a preannounced public flight in the United States.

The "Wrightists" have claimed they didn't really need their catapult to take off , e.g. 1904-1908); they cite flights of over 1000 feet in the summer of 1904 in Dayton, and that their catapult wasn't used until September of that year. However, no one denies a launch into a headwind was necessary for the Wright "Flyers." Unfortunately, we have only the word of the Wrights as to statistics and numbers of claimed flights that summer of 1904, and their willingness to stretch the truth makes acceptance reserved and unsettling. Using the Wrights' word as a reference, as most so called "authorities" do, is indeed a slippery slope.The Wrights were "gunning for" a patent and needed to state that they had a successful working machine to receive it. Documenting successful flights whether they ever happened or no would be a necessary prerequisite if they were ever to receive a patent.

At Kill Devil Hills in both 1903 and 1908, they had both the headwind and the hills (gravity) to provide assistance in taking off. A track was always needed, since the plane had no wheels. But the wind would have been prevailing close to the ocean at Kill Devil Hills, so they could more or less predict what direction to set up their needed track.  Most anywhere else, they had to re-lay the track to change its direction whenever the wind shifted to their disadvantage.

 As for "Wrightist" claims that the Wrights' "Flyer" I could take off from level ground, the catapult begs the question: Could they have achieved their claimed 852 feet flight without gravity plus the wind or a catapult plus the wind (if they had had one)? I haven't seen or heard of that demonstrated with any reconstructions. I would be interested in being informed if faithful and accurate reproductions have ever achieved that goal.

There are "reproductions" that have been modified in the light of present day knowledge that strike me as somewhat fraudulent, since the public is told that these demonstrate the "real Wright Flyers." See "Wright 'Flyer' Replicas and Reconstructions" in this blog: "Truth in Aviation History." As for a need of the catapult, it is common knowledge that the Wrights used it when they went public at Fort Meyer in 1908 and in Europe in 1908 as well, even though other aviators didn't need one. This did not impress the Europeans.

According to the Dumont website, the FAI analyzed previous flight reports before the organization was formed in 1905, and it concluded that no one had fulfilled their criteria.

"Many reports had already been done about flights by airplanes. In the 1890s, the Frenchman Clément Ader (1841-1926) made a flight demonstration before officers of the French Army with his Avion III...[What Ader was able to achieve has not been totally agreed upon because reports are conflicting.--ed.] At the same time, the German Otto Lilienthal (1848-1896), who had been conducting safety glides, made an experiment with a single-engine model. Jumping from the top of a hill, he managed to maintain himself in the air without, however, improving his performance. He returned to work with gliders until he died in an accident..."

"In 1901, the Teutonic-American Gustave Whitehead (1874-1927) announced that he had managed to take off and to fly in his machine. Whitehead’s feat was witnessed by almost 20 people, but no appropriate commission was there to observe it." {We maintain that if there is enough evidence that a pioneer fulfilled or was able to fulfill the essential FAI criteria, we should not historically eliminate their flights as viable]

The Dumont website states, "In 1903, the Wright American brothers, Orville (1871-1948) and Wilbur (1867-1912) announced, by telegram, that they flew with the Flyer, starting from a field with an inclination of about nine degrees,**** and wind around 40 km/h (24.9 mph). In the following two years, they announced that they were making turns and long flights in closed circuits, but their machine depended on wind conditions or the use of a catapult to take off. Other reports were released, but none of them complied with all the criteria adopted by FAI." [As to the later claimed flights by the Wrights before their public flights in 1908, a number of witnesses were named by the Wrights. Their validity is in question. Many were known friends and family members. The Wrights' claimed statistics haven't yet been fairly analyzed and verified because, again, their were no unbiased officials present. Analysis and documentation in this blog prove that the Wrights' were prone to manipulate the truth to their advantage.]

With the criteria stated above, did the FAI ever come to accept the Wright's 1903 flight attempts as the first flights in history?  Were they convinced by all the Wrights' statements and published assertions?. Or did the FAI change or ease the qualifications at some time to accommodate the legend that became accepted that they were indeed the first to fly? This is an area of aviation history that needs to be thoroughly and honestly researched.

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

*The catapult was not used until 1904 when the Wrights no longer had the assistance of the hills and prevailing winds that they had at Kill Devil Hills. This photo appears to be of the catapult at Pau, France.

** Since our research indicates that there were only two attempts at powered flight on December 17, we choose not to accept the Wrights' version of four. The only basis we can find for stating there were four attempts is the word of the Wrights. Please refer to previous blog posts. Please inform us if there are documents other than the Wrights' that support their claim.

***Ader could be a contender for first flight.

****The Wrights claimed their "flights" December 17, 1903, were from level ground.

Pieces of the Wright puzzle, What Really Happened Part III

   "Truth never damages a cause that is just."--Mahatma Gandhi


Predecessors of the Kill Devil Hills Coast Guard, below, were witnesses of
the Wright brothers "flights" on December 17, 1903.

American heroes on the job.  The Kill Devil Hills Coast Guard rescues crew from stricken ship in 1938.

Getting the Story Right

There is a new blog in town called "Getting the Story Wright." The stated purpose: a "defense against those who would attempt to revise history, and discredit the Brothers (sic) of their rightful claim to first powered heavier than air flight. From their hometown of Dayton Ohio, Birthplace of Aviation."(sic)

From this contemporaneous blog, we have the following statement:

"Photographic evidence of the flight, 'the first in the history of the world in which a machine carrying a man had raised itself by its own power into the air in full flight, had sailed forward without reduction of speed, and had finally landed at a point as high as that from which it started'* is shown below. The flight was repeated, four flights total, in front of reliable witnesses, and a telegraph indicating success was sent home that afternoon. Newspapers carried the story the next day, December 18, 1903." (emphasis mine)

"Photographic evidence."
Witness Daniels was told he took this picture Dec. 17, 1903.

That the "flights" were in front of reliable witnesses is not disputed by us. But we do dispute the Wright "historians"' contention that the witnesses of these so called "first flights" didn't get the story right. They say they got it all wrong.

What the witnesses remember isn't the official story,"Getting the Story Wright," as related above.*

John Daniels didn't remember taking the picture, above, ( but he said he must have because the  Wrights told him he did). He did remember supporting the wing of the plane, though.** How he did both would be one of the "miracles" of Kitty Hawk. Moreover, statements by both witnesses, Adam Etheridge and John Daniels, preclude Orville Wright's 1908 claim that the plane landed at a "point as high as that from which it started."* The points at which it landed had to be lower than the starting point, because Daniels stated more than once that the plane was carried up the hill for its launch. Etheridge agreed. Moreover, John Daniels didn't mention four "flights." His statements mention only two; and additional documentation indicates that the second one was in the afternoon, not in the morning, as the Wrights claimed in their telegram to their father.

Please see "Pieces of the Wright Puzzle, Part I" and "Part II"

"But they forgot what happened,"
say Wright "historians." 1928 newspaper clipping of witnesses
Coast Guardsmen from left: Adam Etheridge and John Daniels

So Wright "historians" have been stating up until now that the Lifesavers confused the facts about the events that day. Too much time had gone by for them to remember accurately what happened. See more of the posts on truthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com. Of course they say that. If the witnesses' statements are true, the Wright brothers did not make the first heavier than air, manned, powered, controlled, sustained flight on December 17, 1903. Nor did Daniels take a picture of that so called flight.

Nevertheless, there are educated, intelligent groups, including entire countries, who consider themselves quite reasonable, who have been swept into a gigantic tsunami of popular belief in the Wrights. But it's our contention that whole histories can't be based on the word only of two brothers who had much to gain by manipulating the truth. Nor can the course of a history be decided by a massive popular movement to support their word--if their word is insupportable. Lemmings follow each other into the sea. It happens all the time.

That the Lifesavers forgot strikes us as ludicrous. Let's see how the "historians'" beliefs hold up--because not much else does.

Nailing down how old Daniels, Dough, and Etheridge actually were when they observed the activities December, 1903, is easy. According to the U. S. census on Ancestry.com, John  T. Daniels of Nags Head, North Carolina, was 26 years old in June, 1900. In July of that year he turned 27. Adam Etheridge was almost exactly a year younger. So when they assisted the Wrights in December of  1903, Daniels was 30 years old and Etheridge 29. Willie S. Dough of Nag's Head was 34 in December, 1903, and Johnny Moore was eighteen.

Too much time had not gone by when reporter Harry P. Moore said he was told by the Surfmen from the Kill Devil Hills Life Saving Station on the very day of the event that Orville's flight was initiated from the hill. This is backed up by the newspaper article he helped write that came out the next day

The use of the hill is one of the facts that reporter Moore no doubt provided the Virginian-Pilot newspaper. Since the newsmen couldn't glean enough detail and wanted more elaboration for a full front page story, they made up some of what they needed--and the article is amusing from the standpoint of their creativity. It's doubtful, though, that they would make up the launch from the hill.

An excerpt from the December 18, 1903, Virginian-Pilot article is as follows:

"Start Was Success"

"Wilbur Wright, the chief inventor of the machine, sat in the operator’s car and when all was ready his brother unfastened the catch which held the invention at the top of the slope.
The big box began to move slowly at first, acquiring velocity as it went, and when half way down the hundred feet the engine was started.
The propeller in the rear immediately began to revolve at a high rate of speed, and when the end of the incline was reached the machine shot out into space without a perceptible fall."
(emphasis mine)

That it's Wilbur who is stated as the pilot in the newspaper the next day indicates that reporter Moore had made contact with the Life Savers again after Wilbur's "flight." After Moore got the first telegram at 11:40 a. m., and phoned the Lifesavers, only Orville was reported as having "flown." None of the three telegrams indicates who "flew."

Joseph Dosher, telegrapher at Kitty Hawk or Charles C. Grant, at Norfolk, Va, probably related some other details for Moore after the Wrights sent their final telegram to their father, Reporter Moore had spent time calling around that afternoon trying to find out more information. An example of a detail is the 21 mph headwind stated in the Virginan-Pilot article. The actual wind speed was about 27 mph according to the weather bureau. It's far too much of a coincidence to us that the Wrights telegraphed their father that they had taken off against a 21 mph headwind--and that the same wind speed of 21 mph was related in the Virginian Pilot story published on the 18th. 

When Daniels made a statement for Colliers magazine in 1927,**  twenty four years had elapsed. (There may have been other statements in between.) He was 53 years old. But he was consistent, except for his estimate of the distance of Wilbur's (powered) glide. Daniels made his next statement as presented here in 1933 when he was 56, almost 57. Two years later, he stated again that the plane was set on the hill for take off. Surfman Etheridge agreed in writing, saying, to paraphrase, that the events happened just about the way Daniels said. Could they both have had such poor memories of an event they must have been told was momentous? Or laughably, did both Daniels and Etheridge have early onset dementia?

The rail and the 1903 "Flyer" set up on the side of the hill.The Wrights claim they only used the gravity of the hill to take off on Dec.14, but not on Dec.17.* Why? It would not have been defined as a sustained, powered flight if it was known that they had used the inclined plane of the hill and a strong head wind for assistance taking off on December 17.

So let's get real. People can forget what happened only yesterday. But most remember long afterwards minute particulars of what happened around an earth shaking event. I know someone 82 years old who witnessed the only flight of Howard Hugh's enormous flying boat, the "Spruce Goose," that took place 67 years ago. He tells me he remembers the flight in vivid detail. What about our memories (those who are old enough) of the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated nearly 51 years ago. Moreover, how many Americans don't remember every detail of when and how they heard about the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11?  But we are to believe that Coast Guardsmen, who were told they were witnesses of the first powered flight in history couldn't remember after 24 years with clarity what happened that day? (Let alone, the same day.)
I have no doubt that the Wright witnesses would have remembered very well that they hauled that 600 plus pound  plane up the incline of the hill on both the 14th and the 17th, then shoved it to the top of the monorail, Pall bearers at a funeral remember the weight of their experience. A coffin can weigh 450 pounds or more, and its resident can weigh 150 pounds. A fully loaded coffin would be close to the weight of the empty Wright flyer I. It normally takes six pall bearers. There were seven to haul and push the Flyer, thanks to the Lifesavers and Brinkley and Moore.

They would all especially remember the day of December 17, 1903, which was colder and windier than December 14. They would remember that frigid, nearly gale force breeze that froze the puddles of water that morning. But if that very day, the 17th, the plane took off from level ground like the Wrights said it did, the Surfmen would remember clearly that this one day out of all the rest, including all the previous glider tests over three years and the admitted failed powered test of Dec.14, which was definitely from the hill---that this one day they didn't have to haul the plane or glider the 1/4 mile to the hill, then up the hill and up the rail. They only had to set it out the door of the building onto the level ground.  The difference would stand out. And they would have said so in their statements.

 The Lifesaver witnesses, who had nothing to gain from their reports, would be reasonably far more trustworthy than the Wrights--who wanted fortune, fame, and a patent and had much of that to gain by disseminating the story they told and sticking to it. But, as a fellow researcher has noted, the witnesses would have been candid about what really happened. They considered themselves friends of the Wrights, and they apparently saw no reason to believe that their truthful statements would undermine the Wright story. Ironically, in the present "Wright environment," they haven't.

 Some years later, Alpheus Drinkwater, the Outer Banks Coast Guardsman, who relayed a telegram to the Wrights' sister from Orville that day, figured out that the so called "sustained, powered flights" in 1903 had to be glides--and made a statement to that effect. "...the brothers only "glided" off Kill Devil Hill that day."

Drinkwater did not watch the first take offs, as the article states, but the telegram he relayed for the Wrights on December 17, 1903, is often confused by "historians"with the one Orville Wright sent his father, Milton, at the end of the day. Since Orville Wright claimed the Drinkwater story was untrue, Drinkwater's statements are termed "apocryphal" by Wright historians, Peter Jakab and Rick Young.on pages 273-4 of  their  book.** In other words, "bogus.".

If the truth be told, the Life Savers' accounts would mean that we are celebrating the first true manned, powered flight in history on the wrong day. Does it mean that the Wright brothers' claims were a hoax? The world wide acceptance of their unproven claims in 1903, not backed by any evidence other than their own many statements--and their subsequent failures, witnessed by reporters in 1904, appear to put these claims solidly into that category. Not to mention today's failures of the Wright "Flyer" reproductions to verify their story. It's very likely to become accepted, as the facts become more widely known, that the first Wright story is one of the biggest hoaxes of the twentieth century.

And there are more to come.

It needs to be emphasized that The U. S. Coast Guard,  which believes, as most people do, that the first flight was made, as the Wright brothers claimed, on December 17, 1903, is proud of the contributions they made to the beginnings of flight. They should be. But that is whether the first manned, heavier than air, powered, controlled, and sustained flights were achieved by the Wrights that day at Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, which appears highly unlikely, or the first true flight was made even before that time, as much evidence indicates, by someone else elsewhere.

Regardless, it was with the generous assistance of the United States Surfmen, the citizens of the Outer Banks, North Carolina, and the expertise of aviation pioneers, Octave Chanute, Edward Huffaker, and George Spratt, who had all traveled to Kill Devil Hills to help, that great strides were made in the understanding and the development of flight.

Captain Ward’s crewman at the Kill Devil Hills Life Saving Station (In photo pictured left to right: Captain Ward, Tom Beachham, unknown, John T. Daniels & Will S. Dough. 

Kill Devil Hills Surfmen were Will S. Dough, Adam D. Etheridge, Bob L. Wescott, John T. Daniels, Tom Beacham, and “Uncle Benny” O’Neal )

 *  "The Century magazine," September, 1908, Orville Wright quotation. This is also the year that the "photographic evidence" appeared. When Wright advocates state often that there are tons of documents proving that the Wrights flew in 1903, they are merely referring to repeats ad infinitum of the same or similar statements by the Wrights and variations of these same statements by Wright "historians." We maintain that these documents are not supported either by the witnesses or other credible documents.

** "The Published Writings of Wilbur and Orville Wright," edited by Peter L.Jakab and Rick Young, The Smithsonian Institution, year 2000, pp 272+

On page 272-3, Jakab and Young say, "Surprisingly, Daniels makes no reference in the [1924 Colliers] article to what turned out to be his most historically significant act that day. He had been enlisted by the brothers to man the camera..." According to Jakab and Young, "[At] the moment of triumph Daniels snapped the shutter just as Orville lifted the Flyer off the rail, capturing one of the most famous and widely reproduced images ever taken,"

On page 275 of the above cited book, however, Daniel is quoted in the article as saying, [The plane] "couldn't stand up without somebody supporting it at each end, and I had hold of one of the wings on the end."

 On page 276 Daniels says,"Orville climbed into the machine, the engine was started and and we helped steady it down the monorail until it got under way. The thing went off with a rush and left the rail as pretty as you please...." (Are we to believe that Daniels let go of the wing of the plane at "the moment of triumph," dashed over from the left side of the plane (Wilbur was on the right) and in a breathtaking split second, squeezed the bulb of the camera, none of which he remembers doing?)

To be continued.

Gustave Whitehead Will Finally Get His Day--in Germany

 "Curators are .. required to “ensure the integrity and objectivity of their scholarship and research projects by compiling reference materials and supporting documentation, keeping abreast of current scholarship."--from the Code of Museum Ethics 

Gustave Whitehead reproduction in flight. Link to a slide show about Whitehead.

Readers:

There has been a long, ongoing debate regarding the contributions to aviation of pioneer Gustave Whitehead, who was a German immigrant to the United States. Whitehead made a manned, powered sustained flight two years before the Wrights that was witnessed and reported in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

The Smithsonian Institution has been vehemently opposed to Whitehead's history, stating that there is no proof and supporting the Orville Wright story that Whitehead's flights were a myth.

However, the objections Orville Wright made to the Whitehead history have been mostly refuted by Whitehead researchers. Further, more evidence has been recently uncovered about the control abilities of the Whitehead plane--and even another 1901 documented flight by Whitehead in Bridgeport has been discovered that hasn't entered the public forum yet.

Gustave Whitehead with engine

This past week, January 13, Aviation Historian and Whitehead researcher, John Brown, was invited to address the Bavarian Parliament's Science Committee. According to Mr. Brown, the Parliamentary Enquiry includes as follows:

"The State Govt. is asked to report to the Science and Art Committee:

1. what the status of current research is regarding technical developments and the associated achievements of the Wright Brothers and Gustave Whitehead;

2. what points of contention there are on both sides regarding the assessment of those achievements;

3. how an appropriate commemoration/display of the achievements of Gustave Whitehead can be instituted at the Deutsches Museum;

4. whether it's reasonable for the request under point 3 to be fulfilled by the Curator, Hans Holzer, or whether outside experts are needed.

Reason:

For some time now, the portrayal of the achievements of the aviation pioneers, Gustave Whitehead and the Wright Brothers, in the Deutsches Museum has been controversial among experts. Despite and because of this, an examination of the respective evaluations of the historical research is necessary. This must be reflected in the Deutsches Museum's portrayal. This deficit must be rectified to include the results of current research.

The Government party was first to put pressure on the Deutsches Museum.
Now the main opposition party has joined in. Together, they represent more
than 75% of the electorate (enough to change to the Constitution)."

This investigation was hard fought. The Wright "history" has been pervasive, even to countries outside the United States.

Why has America's Smithsonian Museum refused to investigate the earlier flights of Gustave Whitehead?

One answer may be found in a blog post by Jonathan Turley "Wrong with Wright"

On April 2, 2013,  famed, reputable, and respected American attorney, Jonathan Turley brought up the simmering debate about whether Gustave Whitehead actually flew before the Wright brothers claimed flight in 1903. Of interest is a long hidden contract between the Smithsonian Institution and the estate of the Wright family that the debate caused to be revealed some years ago

"The 1948 contract states:

 "Neither the Smithsonian Institution nor its successors, nor any museum or other agency … or its successors shall publish or permit to be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any aircraft model or design of earlier date than the Wright Aeroplane of 1903, claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under its own power in controlled flight"

According to Turley,  

" The contract required that, in exchange for the famed Wright flyer, the Smithsonian would never recognize that anyone else was first in flight. That does not sit well with historians who believe that the first in flight was actually German immigrant Gustav Whitehead. Putting aside the historical debate," Turley continues, "a contract requiring the museum legally to deny historical claims is plainly unethical. Is it an unenforceable unconscionable contract?"

Conforming to the contract, "...the Smithsonian has long insisted the first flight occurred on Dec. 17, 1903 with the Wright Brothers on their historic flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. However, a recently uncovered photograph has been cited to support the claim of Whitehead that he went airborne on Aug. 14, 1901. In the end, it does not matter. A contract remains in effect that contradicts the very foundation of museum ethics." 

 The Code of Museum Ethics states the following: "Curators are responsible for ensuring that all verbal and written interpretation is accurate and accessible, physically and cognitively, whether prepared by themselves or their subordinates."

And Turley additionally emphasizes from the Code the following:

"Curators are also required to “ensure the integrity and objectivity of their scholarship and research projects by compiling reference materials and supporting documentation, keeping abreast of current scholarship.”

          (Bold type emphasis mine--ed.)

For more about Turley's opinion, please read the remainder of his blog post "Wrong with Wright." Commentary after the post demonstrates some plainly erroneous beliefs of many who help to propagate current historical propaganda.

Note: What Turley doesn't mention and probably doesn't know is the apparent bias of officials of the Smithsonian and other institutions, who are associated with the Wright family and Dayton, Ohio, the origin of the Wright brothers.