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.

Wright Brothers "Hijacked History."--by Historian Paul Jackson*

 "The Wrights are claimed to have solved the mysteries of flight," states Aviation Historian Paul Jackson; "still to be solved is the mystery of how they managed to stage the first air hijack -- of the history of aviation."

Jackson's statement is the conclusion of an exceptional essay (below),  just released, regarding early aviation history, as presented by contemporary historians. Today's views have been unduly influenced by the many questionable claims of the Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur.

Paul Jackson is writing in his private capacity as an Aviation Historian, not his public persona as Senior Editor of one of the world's most prestigious aviation publications, "Jane's All the World's Aircraft." --ed.*

Rare "close-up" photograph of the Wright  "Flyer" (III) at Kill Devil Hills, 1908. Note the inclined track
 for take off, even in 1908. Without such assistance of wind and gravity, the Wrights used a catapult, no doubt because the "Flyer" was under powered.--ed.**

"Inflated to bursting point -- the Wrights’ claims

by Aviation Historian Paul Jackson

Almost two years ago, the present reassessment of Gustave Whitehead’s aeronautical achievements was publicly launched with editorial endorsement in Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft. This, Jane’s was pleased to do, because the methods of research and assessment of results accorded to time-honoured procedure which generations of its editors have attempted to implement. The period under consideration was prior to the establishment of the Jane’s annual and the study did not attempt any comparison between the respective achievements of the Wright Brothers and Whitehead -- indeed the Wrights were most emphatic that there was no connection between their endeavours.

    There the matter might have rested, save for the insistence of some that it would have been impossible for anyone to have flown an aeroplane before the Wrights showed them how it was done. On that premise, Whitehead’s claim would have to be dismissed without the courtesy of a hearing — an unjust and unscholarly reaction. For reasons which will become apparent, that insistence makes the early editions of Jane’s a vital witness to evaluation of the Wright-primacy claim.

    The origin of the present dispute is in the 1940s when the Smithsonian Museum acquired what is described as the original, 1903 Wright Flyer. Documents originally withheld, but now in the public domain, show that the Wright family and their friends and advisors were permitted to write the description board below the exhibit. Not surprisingly, this resulted in a gross exaggeration of the Brothers’ achievements, which hyperbole the Smithsonian has declined to correct. Thus, it finds itself condemned to defend the patently indefensible.

    The words specified in the once-secret agreement between the Smithsonian and the Wright family, bestowing indefinite loan of the Flyer, are: “By original scientific research the Wright Brothers discovered the principles of human flight. As inventors, builders, and flyers they further developed the aeroplane, taught man to fly, and opened the era of aviation.” This sweeping and absolute declaration leaves little room for Whitehead — or, indeed, for any of the other early pioneers mentioned in the aviation history books. However, both Wright claims may be demolished with nothing more potent than rational argument.

    Firstly, Orville and Wilbur wrote that they were inspired to begin their quest for flight by the descriptions and photographs which were being published in the early 1890s of Otto Lilienthal’s gliding achievements. Clearly, therefore, Lilienthal, or a predecessor, had discovered most of the fundamentals of aviation before the Wrights had given the slightest thought to the matter. Taking credit for one’s mentor’s invention is poor form.

    The second claim summons Jane’s as a ‘near witness’. Its first edition did not appear until 1909, but in this matter, the Wrights only effectively appeared on the scene in the previous year, 1908. This proximity assists in placing the Wrights’ contribution to flight in dispassionate perspective.

    It is seldom appreciated that the iconic Wright “1903 first flight” photograph was not produced until 1 September 1908. Before then, great efforts were made to keep the Flyer and its technicalities secret — with such success that some believed the brothers did not even exist. The first surreptitiously taken images from a photographer hiding in undergrowth only appeared in May 1908. It was at an air display in France in August 1908 that the Wrights revealed the Flyer to the public and allowed other, perhaps ‘rival’, aviators to see it close-up. The Wrights did not enlighten, offer to inform, or teach anybody anything until August 1908 — almost five years after they left Kitty Hawk.

    The name of the event at which they unveiled their invention is a clue to why they were too late with their supposed magnanimity. While the Wrights were secretly developing their Flyer, the Europeans had taught themselves to fly and had produced enough flying machines of various (including non-Wright) configurations to put together an air show. Creditably and without doubt, the Wrights had the best-performing aircraft at the show, but that is not quite the same as having the only aircraft.

    That several other pioneers produced flying machines in Europe without the Wrights’ assistance, and at about the same time, confounds those who would argue that “Only the Wrights could have invented the aeroplane.” Furthermore, having seen that others had the same ability at the same time, and could draw from a common fund of basic knowledge, it becomes logically impossible summarily to dismiss any other contemporary claimant to membership of that ‘flying club’ without proper investigation. If the Wrights had some special knowledge or technology denied to others, its acquisition was a pointless diversion from the task in hand, for the Europeans managed to get into the sky without it.

    Perhaps, it may be claimed, the Wrights’ appearance in France showed the Europeans the futility of their present path and converted them to the Wright way of building aeroplanes. There was, however, no change of direction. Sensation though the Flyer was in France, within a year it had been eclipsed by Bleriot’s cross-Chanel machine. The Bleriot XI’s configuration could not have been more different: It had the elevator at the rear (not the front); it was a monoplane (not a biplane); and the propeller was in the nose (not behind the wings). It was the aeroplane layout immediately recognisable today.

    Had the Flyer been so unique and sensational when it appeared out of ‘nowhere’ in August 1908, it would be reasonable to expect the first edition of Jane’s, a mere 15 months later, to have mentioned the fact that the book could not have existed without the Brothers’ immense contribution. Reviewing the world of aviation as it then stood, Fred Jane’s Foreword found it unnecessary to make any mention of the Wrights at all. Their aircraft (and its licence-built copies) is treated in the body of the book with no greater reverence than any other machine; and the longest entry in the book is that reserved for the Bleriot XI. The Wright was already yesterday’s aeroplane.

    The reason why Fred Jane launched his annual in 1909 was that there were so many different shapes of aircraft about that a guide was necessary. The claim that the world of aviation was, at the time, divided into (1) Wright types and (2) no-hopers does not survive scrutiny on several levels. Jane’s was summoned into existence precisely because the Wrights were not showing the world how an aircraft should be built and flown — or, at least, the whole world was not listening, and was getting the job done with alternative tools.

    It is undeniable that the Wright Flyer inspired many copies in 1909, and this is testimony to its flying qualities. But how strong was the Brothers’ influence on what real people were doing with real aeroplanes in real time?

    The pages of the 1909 Jane’s provide an answer. Analysing those aircraft which are illustrated by a photograph and/or drawing, it can be seen how many conform to the Wright canard-pusher-biplane configuration. There were 126 illustrated aircraft (excluding licensed versions) in the book, of which 42 employed the Wright layout — exactly a third. Nearly as many (38) were monoplanes, all but three with tractor propellers. Another 15 were biplanes with rear elevators and six were tractor triplanes with rear elevators. Discounting helicopters and kites, another 20, despite illustration, had layouts which are difficult to define.

     Perhaps, the Wrights’ 1908 ‘lessons’ were a little too recent for assimilation in 1909. Jumping four years to the 1913 Jane’s makes the position clearer, practical experiment having had ample opportunity to shape events. The matter may be summarised in the entry for the Wright Company, which had, even itself, abandoned the foreplane.

    The 1913 book illustrates 140 aircraft (with only one, additional indeterminate design), a mere 17 of which are to the Wright configuration. Its numbers were falling precipitately. The monoplane tractor (59) and biplane tractor (37), both with conventional tails, dominate. Pushers account for 25, most of them biplanes. Conclusively, therefore, the heyday of the Wright aeroplane design was in the year after it had been revealed — before the realisation dawned (reinforced by Bleriot) that those working on tractor designs with elevators at the rear were right all along.

    With hindsight, it can be seen that one ‘achievement’ of the Wrights was to misdirect a third of 1909’s aircraft programmes down a dead-end street. Back in the USA, they went on to exert such a malign influence on their homeland’s aviation that the country that invented the aeroplane was forced to buy British and French aircraft when it entered the First World War a decade later, because its own were so far behind in technology. The Wrights, their business partners and their lawyers were responsible for this squandered legacy.

    In the Foreword to the 1913 edition, Fred Jane credits the Wrights with being the first to fly an aeroplane. Curiously, this is an accolade he felt unable to bestow during the previous three years, when memories were fresher and the impact of 1908 far stronger. His endorsement was, of course, coincident with publication of Orville Wright’s self-flattering How We Invented The Airplane. Were ‘the victors’ already writing their own history? Certainly, the Wrights were the first aviators to write articles telling the world they were the first aviators.

    The Wright Flyer was in the limelight for fractionally less than a year in 1908-09. Its successor was no better than a dozen other contemporaries of different configurations and, in any case, Wilbur and Orville had lost interest in the aeroplane by then. There was nothing more from them. The Wrights are claimed to have solved the mysteries of flight; still to be solved is the mystery of how they managed to stage the first air hijack -- of the history of aviation."



 *Due to a series of miscommunications, it appears that I didn't have Senior Editor Paul Jackson's direct permission, as I thought, to publish this essay on my blog (even though the essay had been disseminated). Jackson didn't write this essay with the intention of having it published. In the spirit of true research, I feel I need to correct the record, as all honest and responsible researchers would do. My apologies to Paul Jackson and the readers of this blog.

** Photo and caption of the Wright "Flyer" in 1908 were added to this essay, not by writer Paul Jackson, but by "Truth in Aviation History" editors

"Truth in Aviation History" blog posts to be continued...