This is getting really tiresome. He didn't write "Not only out in the open" he wrote quote:- Not only "Out in the open" But "Up in the air". There must be a reason why "Out in the open" was in parenthesis, I presume it had a special meaning at that time. You are selectively quoting things that are selective quotes in themselves.
Wright brothers' witnesses. Recent discovery!
- Thread starter simplex
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
This is getting really tiresome. He didn't write "Not only out in the open" he wrote quote:- Not only "Out in the open" But "Up in the air". There must be a reason why "Out in the open" was in parenthesis, I presume it had a special meaning at that time. You are selectively quoting things that are selective quotes in themselves.
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
Eh?
- Thread starter
- #63
Another puzzling affirmation of A. I. Root was in connection with the American aeronaut Augustus Roy Knabenshue. In an August 29, 1905, letter the old Amos expressed his concern that Knabenshue might finally use no balloon at all, advising the Wrights to get ahead of him. The question is why did this old man from Medina have such a fear as long as he had already witnessed Wilbur Wright flying in a circuit without any balloon?
1905-08-29, A. I. Root, "Letter to the Wright brothers"
Dear Sirs:-
Well friends I suppose you will excuse your old friend, A. I. Root, if he does get a little anxious. You see Knabenshue is forging ahead so I have been wondering if he would not begin to use a lighter balloon, a still lighter, and after a while no balloon at all unless you folks should get ahead of him in some way. … As ever, A. I. Root.
1905-08-29, A. I. Root, "Letter to the Wright brothers"
Dear Sirs:-
Well friends I suppose you will excuse your old friend, A. I. Root, if he does get a little anxious. You see Knabenshue is forging ahead so I have been wondering if he would not begin to use a lighter balloon, a still lighter, and after a while no balloon at all unless you folks should get ahead of him in some way. … As ever, A. I. Root.
Guys, are you still answering this nutcase? Before you continue, please read the following: The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908. - Page 31 - PPRuNe Forums
For those who find reading tiring, here is a video of the present debate.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA
- Thread starter
- #67
Another piece of evidence that shows Amos Root had not witnessed any flight up to November 9, 1905.
In Root's November 9, 1905, letter, while informing his younger friends of Dayton he intended to ask his readers, in an article, for reports of flying machines, the old Amos, visibly disappointed he had not been invited to witness (new) flights, expressed his wish to receive the permission to publish this statement: "At present I am not at liberty to give a report of what the Wright Bros. have done during the past summer.", motivating that such an explanation would relieve him of the charge of having made a big fuss about something that had not after all panned out to amount to anything. Had he really seen Wilbur flying in a circuit, on September 20, 1904, he would not have made such a remark because that flight would have had an extraordinary value for him.
This November 9, 1905, text discredits the January 1, 1905, long article in Gleanings.
1905-11-09, A. I. Root, "Letter to the Wright brothers"
Dear Sirs:-
Many thanks for postal card of Nov. 8th. Now I have just one more favor to ask … I would like to add after asking for reports of flying machines something like this. "At present I am not at liberty to give a report of what the Wright Bros. have done during the past summer." If I could say so much or something like it changed in any way you see fit it would relieve me of the charge of having made a big fuss about something that had not after all panned out to amount to anything. It would be an acknowledgement of course that something had been done but no more. If you think this would not do you any harm I should be exceedingly glad. … As ever yours, A. I. Root.
In Root's November 9, 1905, letter, while informing his younger friends of Dayton he intended to ask his readers, in an article, for reports of flying machines, the old Amos, visibly disappointed he had not been invited to witness (new) flights, expressed his wish to receive the permission to publish this statement: "At present I am not at liberty to give a report of what the Wright Bros. have done during the past summer.", motivating that such an explanation would relieve him of the charge of having made a big fuss about something that had not after all panned out to amount to anything. Had he really seen Wilbur flying in a circuit, on September 20, 1904, he would not have made such a remark because that flight would have had an extraordinary value for him.
This November 9, 1905, text discredits the January 1, 1905, long article in Gleanings.
1905-11-09, A. I. Root, "Letter to the Wright brothers"
Dear Sirs:-
Many thanks for postal card of Nov. 8th. Now I have just one more favor to ask … I would like to add after asking for reports of flying machines something like this. "At present I am not at liberty to give a report of what the Wright Bros. have done during the past summer." If I could say so much or something like it changed in any way you see fit it would relieve me of the charge of having made a big fuss about something that had not after all panned out to amount to anything. It would be an acknowledgement of course that something had been done but no more. If you think this would not do you any harm I should be exceedingly glad. … As ever yours, A. I. Root.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
So he's mistaken, a liar or crazy, you haven't shown any evidence that the Wrights faked any of their flights or were the first to attain controllable powered flight in 1903. You still haven't any of the questions about airspeed and aeronautics. Didn't you also try to say that the Wrights actually "glided" during their first flight?
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
Ok based on the link above and the content so far it is pretty fair to say this guy is either certifiable or a baiter. He seems to get off on proposing a cockamamie story and then not even reading the replies. I for one am done with this particular fool. In the legal profession jargon it has been asked and answered, any further flogging of this dead horse will end up with a contempt motion.
- Thread starter
- #70
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg46QLzO3b0
On December 17, 1903, W. Wright flew 852 feet in 59 seconds, with a 12 HP engine.
100 years later nobody was able to travel through the air, with the replica of the alleged 1903 flyer, more than 115 feet in a chaotic way. The 2003 engine was 19-20 HP. Flight was impossible with 12 HP.
But the official story is that the Wrights flew 852 feet and controlled well their plane. We have to believe this ridiculous story.
How accurate was the dyno that measured that 12 HP, do you wonder ? State of the art back in 1903 ???
Hand written letters no doubt, transcribed to type written at some point, think there might have been maybe at least one error in a date in there some where ? Ever put the wrong date on a check Simplex ?
Anybody that's tried to fly a modern reproduction of the Wright flyer says it was divergent in stability in all axis,( look that up Simplex ) not at all easy for any modern pilot, no matter how skilled they are, to fly. There's been at least one fatality in attempts to fly modern reproductions of the Wright flyer.
Hand written letters no doubt, transcribed to type written at some point, think there might have been maybe at least one error in a date in there some where ? Ever put the wrong date on a check Simplex ?
Anybody that's tried to fly a modern reproduction of the Wright flyer says it was divergent in stability in all axis,( look that up Simplex ) not at all easy for any modern pilot, no matter how skilled they are, to fly. There's been at least one fatality in attempts to fly modern reproductions of the Wright flyer.
But the Wrights flyer was a powered version of their gliders which they had been flying ( and probably crashing) for years. For the Wrights that was flying they didn't have to unlearn anything a modern pilot does.
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
The problem with conspiracy theorists like this one is they don't listen. They also don't care what anyone else says and will happily come up with "facts" to refute anything said even when, as above, their facts are flawed. Measurement of engine power in 1903 vs 2003 would at a minimum be meaningless. The methods and accuracy of such were different. The materials that the modern replica were made of were similar but not the same. It is truly endless. And it is an argument that cannot be won. Sort of like the flat-earthers. So honestly don't waste your time arguing with this one, it is why he is here. We are a new audience and therefor a new source of stimulation. Unless you just want to have fun, then go for it. Personally I have irrefutable evidence that aliens assisted the Wright's with a null gravity device. THAT is the reason their results cannot be duplicated today. No pet aliens with null gravity machines.
Have you ever backed up a car real fast ? Then noticed what happened when you just barely cut the wheel left or right, the steering wheel on most cars will try to take itself to full lock if you don't hold tight. That's a good example of divergent stability in the horizontal axis.
Think of trying to fly a aircraft with that kind of stability in all three axis. A lot of early aircraft had that characteristic in one degree or another. The Wright learned to fly that way, and it's also why they spent so many years practicing out of public view. They had a lot of embarrassing mishaps, they had to learn everything the hard way, because there was no one that could tell them what not to do.
I've read the recent book that's come out about the Wrights early years and up until about 1910. Amazing men.
And you Simplex are amazing in your own way, but I can't put words to it without getting banned.
Think of trying to fly a aircraft with that kind of stability in all three axis. A lot of early aircraft had that characteristic in one degree or another. The Wright learned to fly that way, and it's also why they spent so many years practicing out of public view. They had a lot of embarrassing mishaps, they had to learn everything the hard way, because there was no one that could tell them what not to do.
I've read the recent book that's come out about the Wrights early years and up until about 1910. Amazing men.
And you Simplex are amazing in your own way, but I can't put words to it without getting banned.
- Thread starter
- #75
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0T82fz7UW0
Honestly, the 1902 Wright apparatus was not a great glider. It can be flown but it is unstable. Also, it is more a kite than a real glider.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWCrsDK-wc0
The Chanute-Herring machine, built 6 years before, was much stable and a true glider.
The Wright brothers did not accumulate too much experience on their gliders. No more than 2-3 hours. A test pilot of today after gliding 2-3 hours on an 1902 replica should fly the "1903 Flyer I" without problems. However, nobody has been able to fly that plane more than 115 feet, chaotically.
The 1903 Wright plane was fundamentally flawed. It can not be controlled by a human being.
Troll alert!
I think we should buckle this guy into a 3-axis divergent stability flyer, crack the whip over all 12 horses, and turn him loose!!
I had two brushes with divergent stability in my flying career, and consider myself fortunate to be still breathing. It's not something any modern pilot is prepared for.
Don't try explaining angle of attack, induced drag, the power curve, or any of that really basic stuff to this guy, he hasn't the frame of reference to comprehend it.
Cheers,
Wes
I think we should buckle this guy into a 3-axis divergent stability flyer, crack the whip over all 12 horses, and turn him loose!!
I had two brushes with divergent stability in my flying career, and consider myself fortunate to be still breathing. It's not something any modern pilot is prepared for.
Don't try explaining angle of attack, induced drag, the power curve, or any of that really basic stuff to this guy, he hasn't the frame of reference to comprehend it.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
One final comment.
Much is made of the Wrights' secrecy and unwillingness to show or give details of their aircraft to interested parties, and this is often argued in support of the contention that they did not in fact have a viable machine.
One really has to read through all the available evidence to understand why they did this. Suffice to say, that in 1906 they had sold an aircraft to the French for $200,000 (in US currency). It is very difficult to calculate how much that would be in today's money, but in terms of purchasing power, roughly $5,500,000. A very good reason to keep one's mouth shut, and a good return on the investment made in their bicycle shed. This deal did become something of a saga!
Their secrecy verged on the paranoid. As the French deal was in progress Wilbur Wright wrote this strange letter to Chanute (12th January 1906)
"Can you inform us whether the little islands along the west coast of Florida in the neighborhood of Pine Island or Tampa bay are wooded or bare? Do you know a small island anywhere, a half mile wide and a mile or two long, which is reasonable level & smooth and free from trees. We are looking for a place where we can at least partly control the activity of spies."
The Wrights' efforts for secrecy even extended to trying to thwart photographers by painting all parts of their aircraft, except fabric surfaces, in aluminium paint. This, they judged, would make identification of the wires and levers of the control systems difficult to ascertain from photographs taken from distance.
In another letter Orville wrote
"One paper did publish an item in which it was said that "according to reiable witnesses the machine soared for some 25 minutes , responding to all demands of the rudder." We succeeded, with the help of some of our friends who have considerable influence among the reporters, in keeping this from appearing in other Dayton papers and from going out in the telegraphic news. The fact that the American public does not know the difference between a flying machine and an airship has been a great help to us in maintaining secrecy."
It is the Wright brothers own obsessive secrecy which supplies the grist to the mill of conspiracy theorists, but it is not sinister. Their secrecy was commercially driven. They were not in this business for fun, at least not after the first year or so, they were in it to make a fortune.
As with all conspiracy theories one must ask what is most likely, what requires the fewest hypotheses. The Wrights' secrecy was based on one, the fear of commercial espionage, that their methods would be made public and that they would not profit in the way they hoped. They were always banging on about how they had financed the entire enterprise, from the earliest days, with no financial help from anyone.
As regards Chanute's relationship with the Wrights, and supposed mistrust of their declared results. I wonder why, in a January 1906 letter asking how much the brothers wished to absolve their friends of
"their obligation to keep secret the results of the past season's experiments"
Chanute would conclude that
"Thus far I have limited myself to assurances of your perfect truth and reliability."
I'm sure there must be some explanation for such a ringing endorsement, at least in the minds of our conspiracy theorists
Cheers
Steve
Much is made of the Wrights' secrecy and unwillingness to show or give details of their aircraft to interested parties, and this is often argued in support of the contention that they did not in fact have a viable machine.
One really has to read through all the available evidence to understand why they did this. Suffice to say, that in 1906 they had sold an aircraft to the French for $200,000 (in US currency). It is very difficult to calculate how much that would be in today's money, but in terms of purchasing power, roughly $5,500,000. A very good reason to keep one's mouth shut, and a good return on the investment made in their bicycle shed. This deal did become something of a saga!
Their secrecy verged on the paranoid. As the French deal was in progress Wilbur Wright wrote this strange letter to Chanute (12th January 1906)
"Can you inform us whether the little islands along the west coast of Florida in the neighborhood of Pine Island or Tampa bay are wooded or bare? Do you know a small island anywhere, a half mile wide and a mile or two long, which is reasonable level & smooth and free from trees. We are looking for a place where we can at least partly control the activity of spies."
The Wrights' efforts for secrecy even extended to trying to thwart photographers by painting all parts of their aircraft, except fabric surfaces, in aluminium paint. This, they judged, would make identification of the wires and levers of the control systems difficult to ascertain from photographs taken from distance.
In another letter Orville wrote
"One paper did publish an item in which it was said that "according to reiable witnesses the machine soared for some 25 minutes , responding to all demands of the rudder." We succeeded, with the help of some of our friends who have considerable influence among the reporters, in keeping this from appearing in other Dayton papers and from going out in the telegraphic news. The fact that the American public does not know the difference between a flying machine and an airship has been a great help to us in maintaining secrecy."
It is the Wright brothers own obsessive secrecy which supplies the grist to the mill of conspiracy theorists, but it is not sinister. Their secrecy was commercially driven. They were not in this business for fun, at least not after the first year or so, they were in it to make a fortune.
As with all conspiracy theories one must ask what is most likely, what requires the fewest hypotheses. The Wrights' secrecy was based on one, the fear of commercial espionage, that their methods would be made public and that they would not profit in the way they hoped. They were always banging on about how they had financed the entire enterprise, from the earliest days, with no financial help from anyone.
As regards Chanute's relationship with the Wrights, and supposed mistrust of their declared results. I wonder why, in a January 1906 letter asking how much the brothers wished to absolve their friends of
"their obligation to keep secret the results of the past season's experiments"
Chanute would conclude that
"Thus far I have limited myself to assurances of your perfect truth and reliability."
I'm sure there must be some explanation for such a ringing endorsement, at least in the minds of our conspiracy theorists
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
Why do you try? He doesn't read your post and certainly won't answer.
Hopefully he will go away
The evidence against his ridiculous theory is presented more for the benefit of others who might not have seen it or be able to source it.
Cheers
Steve
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
