THE WRIGHT BROTHERS VS. GUSTAVE WHITEHEAD: WHO ACTUALLY MADE THE FIRST FLIGHT?

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

 

Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight, by Susan O’Dwyer Brinchman (Apex Educational Media, La Mesa, CA, 2015, 432 pages).

Book Review by Dennis Moore

July 23, 2015 (San Diego’s East County) - I was absolutely astounded and flabbergasted after reading Susan Brinchman’s Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight, for all my life and throughout elementary school and into college I had been taught that the Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur, were the pioneers of modern aviation. In this fascinating and well documented and researched book, Brinchman states: “Paul Jackson, Editor-in-Chief of the century-old Jane’s All the World Aircraft (2013), often referred to as ‘the bible of aviation history’, announced in its Centennial Issue, in March, 2013, that Whitehead was ‘first to fly’, ahead of the Wrights, and was the inventor of the airplane, based on the mountainous evidence accumulated over the previous eight decades.”

This La Mesa, California resident, Brinchman, is uniquely suited to present documentation concerning Gustave Whitehead. She has been intimately involved with Whitehead research for the past five decades; interacted with many of the previous researchers, was present for some interviews with witnesses, and as a native of Fairfield, CT, where these first flights occurred, is familiar with the places Whitehead lived and flew.

The author presents stunning new discoveries, solidifying the case for recognition of Gustave Whitehead as the “True Inventor of the Airplane” and “First in Powered Flight.” Ironically, it comes at a time when a book by David McCullough, The Wright Brothers (Simon & Shuster), is #1 on the New York Times Bestseller’s list. It really makes you wonder if The Wright Brothers were #1 on the New York Times Bestseller’s List, with the revelations and documentation by Brinchman in Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight, what does it say for this book? 

The author frames her very compelling book and story as the “Hidden History of Gustave Whitehead & the Wrights”, and reveals in this book little known facts about the first flights of Whitehead and the Wright brothers that will change perceptions about early aviation history, forever. She speaks of conspiracy theories. When I say initially that I was absolutely astounded and flabbergasted after reading Brinchman’s book, the details and research she provides in this book will convince others as well. She categorically states, and with conviction: “Connecticut aviation pioneer Gustave Whitehead invented and flew powered aeroplanes in 1901, over two years before the Wright brothers’ flights at Kitty Hawk.

Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight, is bound to raise a lot of controversy, but Brinchman provides in this book documentation and unimpeachable evidence and eyewitness accounts to counter that. This is a stunning book, that shakes my very core. It reads like a mystery novel, or spy and espionage story by Robert Ludlum. Everything that I had been taught as a child in grammar school and throughout college about the history of aviation and the Wright brothers, has now been turned upon its head. Brinchman has convinced me! There are conspiracies and coverups that one would not expect from something as historic as the evolution of flight.

Brinchman, actually has a vested interest in this book and story, as her father, Major William J. O’Dwyer discovered in 1963 photographs of a Whitehead aeroplane taken on the grounds of the Brooklawn Country Club Fairway, on the border of Fairfield and Bridgeport, Connecticut. For over half a century Brinchman continued the quest of her father, to place Gustave Whitehead in his rightful place, that of First in Flight, before the Wright brothers. It is clear from the history books that Orville and Wilbur Wright made that famous flight at Kitty Hawk, but the author would have you to believe by countless eyewitness accounts and sworn affidavits that Gustave Whitehead made the first flight two years earlier, in 1901.

Proof of the flights by Gustave Whitehead was abundant, even in the 1960’s. Resistance to the information by the Smithsonian was strong and hard to fathom – that is, until “the Contract” with Orville Wright’s heirs was unearthed by Maj. O’Dwyer in 1976, with the assistance of Senator Lowell Weicker, Jr. (later, Governor), of CT, published in “History by Contract” (O’Dwyer and Randolph, 1978). The “Smithsonian-Wright Agreement of 1948”, between the Wright executors and the United States of America, stipulated that the Smithsonian Institution would purchase the original Wright Flyer for $1 and other considerations, but neither the venerable Smithsonian Institution or its near-200 affiliated museums and research facilities could recognize any other airplane or person as “first in flight”, or the Wright Flyer would revert to the heirs. This “Contract” as it came to be called, finally explained the extreme reactions that had been seen to documentation of Whitehead’s successful flights by Smithsonian officials and their agents. This agreement is still in place, legally, today, so says Brinchman. Not until 2014, during the research conducted for this book, however, did it become known that those who crafted the required labels for the Wright Flyer crediting Orville were the same friends of Orville Wright who had worked together for nine years to disparage Whitehead as “first in flight”. We have, unfortunately, received an incomplete and some think, misleading history of first flight and early aviation, so says Brinchman. Thus, the conspiracy theory!

This book is replete with photographs and diagrams documenting the construction and flight of Whitehead’s “first in flight” aerial device, as well as affidavits and numerous eyewitness accounts crediting Gustave Whitehead with being the “first in flight” two years before the Wright brothers. In a telephone interview with the author, she indicated to me that her prime motivation for writing this book was to correct history. Perhaps this comes from her lifetime of being an educator.

Perhaps most revealing in this book is how Gustave Whitehead himself describes that first flight in 1901, as he states: “I never felt such a strange sensation as when the machine first left the ground and started on her flight. I heard nothing but the rumbling of the engine and the flapping of the big wings. I don’t think I saw anything during the first two minutes of the flight, for I was so excited with the sensations I experienced. When the ship had reached a height of about forty or fifty feet I began to wonder how much higher it would go. But just about that time I observed that she was sailing along easily and not raising any higher.”

This is a fascinating story, but more than that, it is an attempt to correct history. This true history of the first years of powered flight is a must-read that leaves no doubt of Whitehead’s accomplishments, changing perceptions about early aviation history, forever. For a signed copy of the book from the author go to www.gustavewhiteheadbook.com.

"Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight" is available on Amazon in print and as an eBook here.

Dennis Moore is the Associate Editor of the East County Magazine in San Diego and the book review editor for SDWriteway, an online newsletter for writers in San Diego that has partnered with the East County Magazine, as well as a freelance contributor to EURweb based out of Los Angeles. Mr. Moore can be contacted at contractsagency@gmail.com or you can follow him on Twitter at: @DennisMoore8.

   


Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.

Comments

Whitehead Proof

Over and over from 1901 through 1916 Whitehead proved he was an absolute fraud. He bilked investors and delivered nothing, again and again. He made wild claims and pronouncements in published statements that never came true, again and again. He claimed to have built a calcium-carbide motor, what a complete lie. His statements on "supposed" flights are laughingly absurd. All the newspaper reports of his flight are totally self-defeating. When he exhausted his benefactors, he gave up, never again making any claims to past success. The entire aeronautical world Gustave Whitehead knew was a joke. Even Albert Zahm knew better. Whitehead himself is the proof that he never flew. He was no hero, he pursued crazy schemes and left his family destitute.

Same old story

Below a reader will find an extensive discussion/debate on the Wright brothers and very little on Gustave Whitehead. You will find outrageous and unsupported claims regarding the Wright brothers that are fully refuted by actual evidence. Any "supposed" evidence against the Wrights is all second, third or fourth-hand hearsay "witness statements" and is fully countered by actual contemporary evidence. All attempts to produce actual "expert" analysis of the work of the Wrights has been cherry-picked, taken out of context, completely misunderstood and refuted by the very "expert" cited. Regarding Whitehead, the situation is reversed. There is no actual evidence supporting claims of controlled, powered flight, merely second, third and fourth-hand "witness statements" that are either vague and unconvincing or contain elements of falsity that completely undermine their usefulness. There is actual unassailable proof that Whitehead was unable to fly and that is the simple fact that flying was Gustave Whitehead's great passion in life and he lived until 1927, through the era when great fame and wealth accrued to anyone who could fly. The only aviators who didn't achieve great fame and wealth are those who could not fly. Had Gustave Whitehead been able to build or even fly an airplane (something that required great skill and courage) he would have joined in with the thousands who actually contributed to flight, or at least, produced a reasonable record that he did so in the 24 years after the first powered flights by Wilbur and Orville Wright. Instead, he continued to fail at everything he attempted and died leaving his family destitute.

Wright Historians Making Excuses

Airman, Who's calling who a "hoax"? Humbug. Your comment is overwhelming with words but each one of your arguments is spurious. You and your other historians are making excuses and grasping at straws. If we were totally dependent on Daniel's statement that the Wrights made a hill launch on December 17, 1903, our argument would be weaker, but it would still be valid. However, we absolutely are not dependent on his statements only. In fact, let me assure you, we are finding more and more documents that validate the hill launch. And of course, you object to the failures brought up of the 1904 Flyer (with an even stronger engine). Failures after you claim the Wrights were first in the world to fly from level ground in 1903. That the attempts don't relate to each other is absurd. At the first attempt in 1904, the "Flyer" wouldn't fly at all. Then Bishop Wright came out and saw a "hop" of 25 feet. The Wrights invited the press to see them fly--and the disappointed newsmen went home with virtually nothing to report. As far as other flights in 1904, there were no official witnesses. Only the Wrights' say so, Mr. Root's "approved" statement that was published months after the so called event, and Chanute's observation of a crash after the plane was catapulted into the air. The 1905/08 Flyer was barely dihedral, if at all. In fact, if you look at pictures of the 1908 Flyer at Fort Meyer on the ground, there is a decided droop to the wings. When we figure out how a picture could be faked in the darkroom as early as 1903-1908, we'll let you know. But it could. Check out Whitehead's photo on pages 153 and 154 of Brinchman's book "First in Flight." The picture on page 153 is a 1902 "photoshopped" version of the picture on page 154. Not impossible that early, as you are trying to say. How they did it I'm sure Orville knew. Your replica excuses are a scramble to explain the "Flyer's" failures after the millions of dollars spent to demonstrate the Wright "Flyer" was capable of flight. So you claim you can't build an accurate replica? But you claim you have the pictures to go on, don't you? In my opinion and that of others, it is most unethical for you to make such statements after pilots have risked their lives trying to fly the unflyable Moreover, you try to make changes to the replicas you hope the public wont' be able to detect to make them safely "fly" when they can't. The Wright "Flyer" has been a national disgrace. And those who defend the misrepresentations should feel even more disgraced.

The Truth About 1904

The amazing progress of the Wrights in 1904 is one of the absolute highlights of their achievement. Not being engineers or pilots, Cummings and Ms. Brinchman lack the ability to understand the incredible process of discovery that occurred during the 1904 flight test season. Ever cautious, the Wrights' incremental development process resulted in learning safely how to fly in less than an hour total flight time spread out over sixteen weeks. Their patient and brilliant flight test program allowed the Wrights to discover the very complex aerodynamics involved in making controlled turns. At the end of this process the Wrights had the knowledge and ability necessary to develop a practical airplane and the skills to fly their invention. The Wrights fully documented this world-class process with extensive notes, correspondence, official observers, photographs and even permitted a published account of their first circle by a noted apiarist, as soon as their flying season ended.

Translation of Your Gibberish

If my arguments were spurious, you would be able to quickly and completely disprove them (as has been done with all of your arguments) - but you have not. If you were not totally dependent on Daniels' statement, and had evidence to adequately back up your conspiracy theory - or explain Daniels' repeated confirmation of taking the photo that clearly shows the track on level ground - you would have presented it - but you have not. It seems to me that in a desperate attempt to clear the name of Glenn Curtiss and tear down the Wrights, you have developed absurd conspiracy theories that you want everyone to believe - and are now trying to find ways to give your absolutely ludicrous viewpoints some sort of validity. This is made abundantly clear when you make statements such as "When we figure out", "But it could" and "Not impossible". However, your completely illogical arguments have put you in a position where you are left only with the most outrageous, far-fetched conspiracy theories. Please keep it up, as you are proving our points. Far from being a "scramble", many of the points I raised about replicas came from those who built them. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, or what it's like to research and build a historical aircraft with limited documentation.

Historian malpractice

Marcia,
It is important to inform the public that not all those who claim to be "historians" (as loose a term as I have ever come across) have studied primary sources or are capable of doing so, especially without bias. I was talking to a professional historian (curator) this week, who told me of the intense pressure , applied directly by Smithsonian to anyone who concludes Whitehead flew or sets up an exhibit showing the evidence. We also see "mobbing" and what may well be termed deliberate, adult "Internet bullying" aimed at anyone who is on the side of Gustave Whitehead being "first in flight". I agree that the misrepresentations of the history of the Wrights' and the Wright Flyer is a national (and international) disgrace. This is ongoing, making these men into heroes when they had many flaws and were generally despised during a long, key period. Their so-called accomplishments can be proven not to have occurred in the manner that is described, and their inherent dishonesty, proven on multiple occasions (including in court), must be recognized by the public for history to be righted. We are too educated a people to fall for the Wright legend, built by a self-serving Wilbur and Orville, and carried on by their supporters, including Smithsonian, under legal contract to do so. Unsuspecting readers of "The Wright Brothers" (McCullough) who are unfamiliar with the true history will fall for the sanitized legend, which is nothing but fiction, as it represents the Wrights as they would have liked to be remembered, not as they actually were.

Same For The Goose ?

Ms. O'Dwyer-Brinchman, Am I correct in assuming your rebuke of "deliberate, adult 'internet bullying'" also applies to numerous snide and outright nasty comments directed at me and others by Marcia Cummings, here in these comments ... ? such as calling me "afterbirth" - or is that acceptable to you, as it appears to be acceptable to those who moderate these comments.

Pure, unadulterated poppycock

You can prove nothing you have written because it is completely untrue. Your statements about the Wrights are totally false and your wild conspiracy theories are as believable as your attacks on the authentic historians and institutions that stand up to your disgraceful and shameful attacks. You are the one doing the bullying and attacking. Legitimate experts merely take your every false statement to task with actual evidence and proof and will continue to do so for as long as you attempt to distort the historical record.

Susan, would you admit to

Susan, would you admit to everyone on this forum that you have no bias in this debate, considering your history and who your father was? Would you be willing to admit under any circumstances that your father's research was flawed? I have asked you repeatedly to present real evidence for a Whitehead flight - evidence that isn't completely dependent on hearsay or conspiracy theories - yet you have ignored all requests. Instead you throw out more conspiracy drivel about Smithsonian cover-ups. In the process you resort to more Wright-bashing - the last resort for those who have no real argument. The Wrights clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that they did what they claimed. Whitehead clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that he never did what he claimed.

Analysis of a Group Statement - updated

Analysis of a Group Statement Re: Gustave Whitehead Flight Claims (Updated)
http://gustavewhitehead.info/janes-recognition-of-gustave-whitehead/

A few minor edits and additions were made to this article.
The main question remains, what are the qualifications of those signing that Statement? Who or what is their source of information? The same might be asked of those vehement Whitehead claim antagonists herein. Who are you, what is your background, what are your qualifications specifically to make any pronouncements on this topic? Where did your information derive from? 99.9999 % of the info on GW on the Internet is false.

Qualifications and Xources

Since you and "Cummings" have continued to ask for qualifications and the like, I'll relent and share one of mine with you, although I must say I find it off-point since the central issue was and continues to be did Gustave Whitehead/Guatav Weisskopf make a powered, controlled, sustained flight in a heavier-than-air machine in 1901, or 1902, or ever ? From 1967 until 1989 (that's 22 years), I was honored to be tutored and mentored by distinguished historian Charles Page ("Page") Smith, PhD, who graduated Dartmouth and Harvard (where he studied under Samuel Eliot Morrison), taught at the College of William and Mary, and notably authored the eight-volume "People's History of The United States" (as well as 11 other published works) and winner of the Bancroft award for biography of John Adams. He was the provost of my college, Cowell College, and held a superb reputation as an historian and humanitarian. My love of history predates my friendship with Page Smith, but my deep understanding of it as a process, an art and a technique came as a gift from Page. As for the source of my information, as I stated elsewhere in these many comments, I've made use of information from the 2,000 or so pages of copies I have from the Stella Randolph archive and from what was the former CAHA archive. Also as noted, your father's archive is essentially unavailable for study, locked behind a very restrictive set of conditions imposed by him.

Brief and last reply

Stella Randolph's archives have much more than that, even though her research only lasted 3 years, ending in 1937.
William J. O'Dwyer's archives have no restrictions for fair use of the materials. People use it for study all the time. You are wrong about that.
What is your degree, if you have one, and what was your profession?
Gustave Whitehead FAQ provides much documentation to answer many of the questions posed herein. Plse note I have updated the Analysis of a Group Statement Re: Gustave Whitehead Flight Claims (8.2.15). http://gustavewhitehead.info/category/first-flight-faqs/
This set of interchanges dominated by NC Pilot and Mr. Gray shows the extreme passion that you and others have for this most interesting topic. That is commendable. There is no place to discuss these issues, however, nor to sort out the misinformation. That is why my book, "Gustave Whitehead: First in Flight" was written and fully documented, in the hopes that people of the future, if not now, will take it and be able to better admit what really happened with regards to the invention of the airplane. Au revoir!

Qualifications and Sources

The subject line of my preceding comment contained a typo and should have read "Qualifications and Sources"

Tip of the Iceberg

The signatories to the public statement on the false Whitehead first flight claims represents but a tiny fraction of aviation professionals, historians, writers, scholars and experts who completely reject the Whitehead hoax. The statement was intended to bring the false Paul Jackson editorial and flawed John Brown efforts to the attention of the IHS Jane's leadership. The statement accomplished that purpose. No credible aviation professional, organization or museum supports the Whitehead hoax and Ms. Brinchman's book has provided the best evidence to date proving that the claims have no merit, and demonstrating the character, experience, ability and objectivity of its author.

Wrights Didn't Fly

NC Pilot, Airman and Readers, I stand by my statement that there is far more evidence that Whitehead flew in 1901 than that the Wrights flew in 1903. In fact the only, I emphasize only, documents, except for some photographs, Wright historians have to try to prove the Wrights made a controlled, sustained, powered etc. flight Dec. 17, from level ground "with engine power alone" are statements the Wrights made themselves-- in their diaries, their newspaper reports, and their publications. All other primary and secondary documents and statements, including witness statements, indicate they took off from the hill, assisted by the wind and gravity, like a glider. Again, see truthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com If this is true, then the photographs the Wrights didn't make public until 1908 and claimed were taken in 1903 have to be either faked, mislabeled, or both. If they were faked, it didn't have to be in the same way. The distant photo could easily be the flyer in 1908, mislabeled as the 1903 flyer. At first I said it appeared to have drooping wings like the 1903 flyer, but that is only in appearance. Possibly, the air was lifting the fabric somewhat. Whatever the case, it's all speculation how they were faked, and I admit the Wrights were geniuses, so I don't have the answers. When and if I do, I will certainly publish the results. Until then Airman is only harassing me with his typical "gotcha" arguments. Subsequent tests ot the Wright flyer in 1904 and later modern replica tests back up that the "flyer" was incapable of an unassisted take off from level ground. The most recent debacle was the very public demonstration in 2003 in front of hundreds of spectators. For the evidence that Whitehead flew, see the book "Gustave Whitehead" by Brinchman. Also see the beautiful flights of replicas on youtube. Quite frankly, it is impossible to convince any "Wrightists" anyway. Anti-Wright statements are heresy to the Wright "religion."

The integrity of the Wrights (actual source material)

Octave Chanute on the Wrights: "From somewhat intimate acquaintance I can say that in addition to their great mechanical abilities I have ever found the Wright Brothers trustworthy. They tell the exact truth and are conscientious, so that I credit fully any statement which they make."

Correction: *You Wish* The Wrights Didn't Fly

You may stand by your statement about Whitehead evidence, but this is utterly meaningless because you refuse to substantiate it - I assume because you know that there is no real evidence for a Whitehead flight, only hopelessly contradictory hearsay and a mass of conspiracy theories. In addition, your thoughts on the Wrights' Dec 17, 1903 flights, in my view, expose fully how unqualified you are to engage in any debate on this subject. There's no need to go any further than the photographs because they quickly and completely obliterate your argument. You state that "The distant photo could easily be the flyer in 1908, mislabeled as the 1903 flyer", but as we have already explained, the 1905 Flyer had dihedral, not anhedral. You can't explain how anhedral would have been applied to the 1905 machine, you can't explain how the photos were faked in a darkroom, you can't explain how they were able to convert the 1905 Flyer's airframe to the 1903 configuration in 1908 to fake a photo under a pressing time frame, and you can't explain why these "staged" or "faked" photos clearly showing a track on level ground were never discredited by witnesses. There's a reason you can't explain any of this... because your assertions are entirely incorrect and unsupportable. Daniels, whose hill launch recollection you are utterly dependent on, claimed credit for the first flight photo more than once. As previously stated, he and Etheridge stated that the machine flew "half a mile or more" and three witnesses pinpointed the location of the flight on level ground (you reject all of this - I assume because it doesn't jive with your anti-Wright conspiracy theories). The 1904 Flyer was not the 1903 Flyer, and the catapult was used to simplify launching. At Huffman Prairie they would have needed a much longer track and would have constantly had to reposition it as the wind shifted. The 1904 Flyer did fly without the aid of the catapult and covered distances greater than that of the 1903 Flyer in the process. As I previously stated, the performances of replicas prove absolutely nothing. There were no original drawings to build a replica from and the 1903 Flyer itself had been destroyed, submerged and rebuilt numerous times (the first being entirely from memory over a decade later, and for static display only). Again, all of this means that the 1903 Flyer's true aerodynamic qualities can never be known. Replicas required a great deal of guesswork and are merely a representation of the best available data. The Whitehead replicas suffer the same problems, although there was no real attempt to maintain historical accuracy - only to get them into the air to prove an unprovable point. They were equipped with modern engines and propellers and departed from what was known about the original by employing structural and control modifications and increased surface area. As I previously stated, you could convince me, and I'm sure you could convince all the other so-called "Wrightists" - but with real evidence, not the ridiculous wishful thinking you have presented so far.

McCullough review, Moore better, one hopes.

Mr. Moore, I am pleased to read you will review David McCullough's new book. Aa a fair man and courageous man you will soon understand the passion aeronautical historians have to refute the misguided efforts Ms. Brinchman. There is obviously history between Mr. Gray and Ms. Brinchman. One is a respected historian and the other has an obvious personal bias So, this bears repeating: I encourage you to do some research on the Whitehead first flight hoax. This story has its roots in the attempts by a small group of well connected East Coast insiders led by Albert Zahm to defeat the Wright patent and deprive two of humankind’s greatest inventors, who with their own money, intelligence and hard work, and at great personal risk, solved the age old quest for flight. Zahm led the defense against the Wright Company and was completely humiliated by the incredible testimony of Wilbur Wright. He then undertook a series of underhanded efforts to get around the patent. His Washington connections allowed him to remove the Langley Aerodrome from the Smithsonian, highly modify it, make a very short series of hops with it and falsely claim it was the first airplane capable of flight. Later he held a position at the Library of Congress where he continued his assaults on the Wright brothers and the historical record. That effort lives on by its descendants, such as Ms. Brinchman, whose shameful efforts to rewrite history continue to this day. The reason there is a “Smithsonian-Wright Agreement” is because of this effort. Jane’s issued a clarification and backed off the claim by his editor Paul Jackson and Ms. Brinchman has failed to tell the truth about that. Anyone with even a modest knowledge of aerodynamics or engineering can tell at a glance that the aircraft of Gustave Whitehead are completely incapable of flight. They don’t even come close. Whitehead’s efforts were well known by aviation experts in the time of the Wright patent trials and even Zahm knew better than to claim that Whitehead was first. Flight was the passion of Gustave Whitehead and he lived until the 1920’s. He never made these claims about a first flight. He lived through the period when anyone who could fly, much less had the ability to design and build aircraft that could fly, got immediate attention and great wealth. He tried and tried for years and never ever made a successful aircraft or made a single controlled flight. There is a great story here. Thank you in advance.

Why Do You Protest Too Much?

Mr. Gray, May I suggest that your timeline in the Paul Jackson debate is all wrong? You believe that Jackson's original editorial from the spring of 2013 supporting Gustave Whitehead's flights was written out of negative Wright bias. You claim you can prove that because of his anti Wright essay published on my blog. However, the Jackson essay wasn't published in my blog until December 28, 2014, over a year and a half after the editorial. The timeline and writings will prove that Jackson was fairly accepting of the Wrights' claims when he penned his 2013 editorial. The hue and cry starting in the spring of 2013 by Wright advocates, such as you, against Jane's, resulted in a closer look at the Wrights with negative results. Your attacks were far too extreme to be considered a measured, scholarly response. However, because of the troublesome nature of your public denigrations, Jane's has chosen to show that they are neutral in their stance and they have said so. As I have said before, Gray, you protest far too much. That alone adds to the credibility of the evidence, supporting the claims of Whitehead, Montgomery, Curtiss, Zahm, Walcott and all the other aviators and scientists that the Wrights attacked and called "hoaxes." However, I have already accepted that no matter what is said, you and the "Wrightists" will snap back like rubber bands, to your previous, mostly debunked accusations. Therefore, my responses will continue to be on my blog truthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com. for other more open minded readers to consider

Adept

Ms. Cummings, you're remarkably adept at twisting situations and events to suit your biases, I've rarely seen the like of it. I dare say you've held your anti-Orville Wright views for far longer than a year-and-a-half, what makes you believe that Paul Jackson hasn't held his anti-Wright views for as long ? I have good reason to know that he has. So, what you've said is that my adamant refusal to accept shoddy documentation or to be swayed by excuses posing as "evidence" is support for the pro-Whitehead position ? What a remarkable use of inverted logic... Until next time, then...

A Quote

Cummings, on a previous forum, you stated "I am not a Whitehead expert". However, you also stated "Regardless of whether you deny it, there is much more evidence that Gustave Whitehead flew than that the Wright Brothers made a controlled, powered , manned, sustained flight with their own power from level ground on December 17, 1903". When I asked you to substantiate your claims about Whitehead, you refused to do so. Just as you refused to address your conspiracy theories about the Wright photos. Please provide examples of "debunked" accusations. As with Susan, your definition of "open minded" seems to be reserved only for those who agree with you.

Gustave Whitehead/Gustav Weisskopf's English proficiency

Many of the excuses offered by Whitehead supporters for his many odd and bizarre statements (Chris S. does this very thing in the series of comments here) is that he was not very adept at English, since he was a native of Germany. In fact, in November of 1901 his English was described as "excellent" - as reported in the Buffalo (NY) Courier, Nov. 25, 1901, page 3. I mention this fact in my article Wandering Diogenes - Truth and Gustave Whitehead.

Unanswered Questions

Susan, You seem to be hellbent on peddling your book but, at the same time, you also appear to have an aversion to engaging in an in-depth discussion of your main points when the stage doesn't belong entirely to you. Instead of simply providing real proof for a Whitehead flight, you resort to blaming the Wrights for a myriad of fatal flaws in the Whitehead argument. At the same time, you insult those who disagree with you - wrapping them into your web of conspiracies by saying that they are "hobby historians" perpetuating an invented legend, some of whom are "hired" to denigrate Whitehead. Are you not "open-minded" enough to accept that the evidence simply is not on Whitehead's side? As I stated to you on another forum: If you want to be taken seriously, if you want to prove Whitehead flew first, and if you want to make the Smithsonian a laughing stock, find some real evidence for the Whitehead claims that isn't rooted in hearsay or conspiracy theories. Find a way to explain the mounds of evidence showing that Whitehead never flew without resorting to supporters' usual standards of misdirection, silence, or dismissals of detractors such as "he had a grudge" or "he was/is a Wright stooge". Adequately explain why no solid evidence was produced in the nearly 50 years between Whitehead's fantasy flight and the Wright-Smithsonian "contract" that supporters use as the basis for conspiracy theories. Explain why Chanute never gave the Whitehead claims credence. Adequately explain Whitehead's contradictory statements, numerous failed machines, associated lawsuits and absurd claims (as far as I can tell you have yet to answer Carroll's questions relating to Whitehead's claim of flying a glider 4-1/2 miles across a valley, running and leaping off a 2,000 foot high mountaintop in 1897, and his claim that he tamed and trained an enormous condor with a wingspan beyond any other condor ever known. You state that "much effort has occurred to keep this information from the public eye, by vested interests", yet you have ignored my numerous requests to provide even a single shred of solid evidence to show that Whitehead flew that isn't rooted in hearsay or conspiracy theories. You also fail to reveal your own "vested interest" that is clearly stated in the above article: that you are the daughter and research assistant of Whitehead promoter William O'Dwyer. Therefore I will ask you: Are there any circumstances under which you be willing to admit that your father's research was flawed?

The Wonderful Quote by JFK

Mr Gray, I will be glad to credit you with supplying me with the JFK quotation. Do you mind if I also credit John Fitzgerald Kennedy? Your hyper interest in editor Paul Jackson's essay on my blog is noteworthy. If Jane's or Paul Jackson or anyone else asked me to remove it, I would certainly do so--right away. My email is available on my blog. I'm sorry that it is so troublesome to you. I think that it's unfortunate that you have tried to use it to create problems for others involved in aviation history. What are you trying to prove, I wonder?

Why would I ?

Why would I mind if you credit JFK with his own quote ? If this is some ill-considered attempt at snide sarcasm, it wouldn't be your first, would it... My interest in Paul Jackson's essay on your blog is three-fold... 1) it betrays how bigoted Paul Jackson apparently is against Wilbur and Orville Wright, which places his March 2013 pro-Whitehead in proper perspective - he seems to have an anti-Wright perspective moreso than a pro-Whitehead perspective - 2) He told me you posted it on your blog without his permission - and 3) that essay which you posted without his permission (so he says) prompted me to write my Huffington Post Article titled Editor/Aviation Historian Fails to Fly, which prompted IHS/Jane's, owner and publisher of "Jane's All The World's Aircraft" to issue their repudiation of Jackson's March 2013 editorial upholding Whitehead. So, it's due to you and your posting without permission that the repudiation statement ever was issued.

About Truth & Myth & the Wrights

Thank you, Mr. Gray, for an absolutely wonderful quotation by JFK that couldn't be a more appropriate description of the myth of the Wright brothers. It will be very useful to me, and I intend to publish it in my blog truthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com. Here it is again: "For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought". - (JFK, Yale Commencement, June 11, 1962) reply

More Unanswered Questions

Cummings, You write about "the myth of the Wright brothers", yet on another forum I repeatedly asked you to back up your conspiracy theories about the Wrights with facts, but you have refused to do so. Therefore I will repeat your quotes and my questions to provide you with yet another opportunity to support your own arguments:   Regarding the Wright Flyer photos taken on Dec 17, 1903, you state:
"It could have been taken in 1908 when the Wright Brothers went back to Kitty Hawk with their later Wright flyer. It would be difficult to tell the planes from each other, as we are told the flyers were virtually the same."
Again, Explain how the 1905 Flyer's airframe and could be modified to the substantially different and inferior configuration of the 1903 Flyer to stage the photos under the circumstances of their 1908 trip. Provide evidence that this actually occurred, and explain why the witnesses never claimed the photos were inaccurate. Regarding the first flight photo, you also state:
"I tend to believe that the famous photo was concocted by the Wrights in their darkroom."
Again, provide any proof whatsoever that the photos were faked in a darkroom, as you suggest. You also write about "anyone who knows anything about building planes", and stated the following regarding anhedral on Wright 1903 machine:
"The distant photo that is supposed to be of Wilbur's long flight has the trademark of the upright passenger/s and upright engine exactly where they would be in the 1905 "Flyer." Agreed, the wings are anhedral, and they were not anhedral in the 1905 version. So you try to say it would be impossible for the Wrights to change their flexible wings to anhedral before that photo shoot. Of course, they could and easily"
Again, if the fourth flight photo was staged with the 1905 Flyer in 1908, as you suggest, tell us how anhedral could have been applied to the machine in the field. If it is actually the 1905 Flyer in the 1903 photos, as you suggest, explain why the dual seating and upright engine you believed you identified in the photo are not present in the other two flight photos taken on Dec 17.

The Whitehead Myth

Ms. Cummings, I'm certain that your twisting of the Whitehead Myth into the "myth of the Wright brothers" gave you a giggle, something apparently lacking. I have the quote posted on my Whitehead site, as well, so you'll be copying, yet again, and you're quite welcome.

As any scholar would...

Ms. Cummings, so, I'm certain you'll also be posting that the JFK quote came courtesy of me, as any self-respecting scholar would...

Wondering...

Ms. Cummings, have you yet communicated with Paul Jackson about your unauthorized use of his Dec. 28, 2014, anti-Wright essay on your web site ? I think you should hear directly from him that your posting of that essay was done without his permission.

Chanute and the Wrights

NC Pilot, Your comments are as follows: 1."When Chanute made that comment he had been on most intimate terms with the Wrights for over five years and had exchanged hundreds of letters." 2. "The Wrights flew flights of up to 5 minutes in 1904 and 39 minutes in 1905" 3. "Chanute was, of course, wrong about the patent suit. 4. "Chanute neither did, nor would exaggerate. What a foolish comment." My answers: 1. Chanute was indeed on intimate terms with the Wrights, or so he thought, and apparently regarded them like his own sons--to encourage and nurture. But what parent isn't horrified to find that their own children, whom they thought they knew and thought were "good kids" have run amok? The Wrights were not honest with Chanute about either the successes of their flights or their true motivations. 2. We have no proof that the Wrights flew 5 min. in 1904 and 39 min in 1905. There were no official witnesses as in the cases of Dumont and Curtiss, only the Wrights claims and in 1905, some biased observers. Note that even Chanute said so. 3. Chanute was not wrong about the patent suit. He just didn't know that the judges were practically owned by "The Wright Company" that was bringing the lawsuits and had bought the Wright patents.There was little that was fair about those suits, right from the first illegal ruling of Judge John R. Hazel against Glenn Curtiss. 4. Chanute never said in his statement about that flight in 1904 that the brother who was flying the plane that day couldn't stop it from turning. Chanute saw a crash, not a controlled, sustained flight. reply

You know not of which you write

1. As Chanute wrote, the Wrights "tell the exact truth and are conscientious, so that I credit fully any statement which they make." 2. There is extensive proof of the Wrights work in 1904 and 1905 which was fully documented with photographs, official witnesses and official statements. 3. Chanute was wrong. The Wrights won the suit and it was upheld on appeal by a three judge panel. Your comments on Judge Hazel, who upheld the prior judgement of Judge Learned Hand, are beneath contempt. 4. Chanute observed a flight in a very small field that travelled a quarter of a mile. Every thing you write is untrue. If you were a historian these comments would be considered historical malpractice. As you obviously are not, they are merely historical twaddle.

Oh, But I Do Know of What I Write

NC Pilot, Is stating the truth "historical malpractice."? Maybe it is in your group. 1. Wilbur Wright told Chanute from the beginning they were not into aviation for money. That statement is in one of his first letters to Chanute. Chanute later found out differently and said so. 2.There were no "official" witnesses of the Wrights' flights in 1904 and 1905. Even the Wrights said so. 3. It was Judge Learned Hand who upheld Judge Hazel's judgement, not the other way around. Sorry if you think it's contemptible that Judge Hazel's appointment as judge was a political appointment, supported by the financial moguls of the day. I do too. He had little to no experience in court. In fact there was great objection to his appointment by the bar. 4. In 1904 Chanute saw the Wright plane catapulted into the air, it couldn't stop turning (according to Wilbur's own diary), and it crashed. Maybe you are the one who is into historical twaddle, Mr NC Pilot

Bunk and more bunk

1. The Wrights' motives changed in early 1903 from hobbyists to professional inventors. The decision to risk their lives and personal wealth was made with the support and encouragement of Chanute. 2. There were "official witnesses" in 1904 and 1905. 3. Hazel confirmed Hand's previous decision. 4. Chanute observed a quarter mile flight by the Wrights. Twaddle indeed.

Jane's Statement Not a Repudiation

NC Pilot, You and the Whitehead detractors were quick to grab on to the NY Times statement you quote. Wasn't this stirred up by your friend Mr. Gray, who is commenting here? My opinion of that kind of tactics needn't be stated in this commentary, but it isn't positive. Your interpretation of the quotation to me is highly biased and obviously twisted. I interpret the publisher of Jane's as maintaining a neutral stance. They are neither for nor against Mr. Jackson's research. This is as it should be, don't you think?

Jane's Statement repudiating Paul Jackson's editorial

This is what the New York Times reported that IHS spokesman wrote about editor Paul Jackson's claim that Gustave Whitehead made powered controlled flights before the Wright brothers: "As for Mr. Whitehead, an IHS Jane’s spokesman said in an emailed statement this month that the journal’s article “was intended to stimulate discussion about first in flight,” and “reflected Mr. Jackson’s opinion on the issue and not that of IHS Jane’s.” Paul Jackson's personal claims about Gustave Whitehead are "NOT THAT OF IHS JANE'S." One can not get more clear. They do not support Paul Jackson's view. It is a remarkable statement of repudiation. The statement says nothing about the Wright brothers, and nothing about the Wright brothers is relevant to whether or not Gustave Whitehead ever made a powered flight at any time.

Jane’s Recognition of Gustave Whitehead: An Update

There has been much hue and cry over a major publisher's recognition of Gustave Whitehead as "first in flight". The wrangling started by the recognition has reached fever pitch with those who fear loss of "face", money from publications or tourism, or from those who simply have fallen for "hero-worship" of the Wrights, to name but a few. The following article explains what has actually occurred vs. what some are claiming, which is the false statement that Jane's has "recanted". I think readers will benefit from this update, which answers many questions.
http://gustavewhitehead.info/janes-recognition-of-gustave-whitehead/

Call It What You WIll...

Whatever term you wish to use or object to using, the owner and publisher of "Jane's All The World's Aircraft" was silent when the notorious March 2013 editorial appeared, leading you and others to excitedly proclaim that the publication "Jane's All The World's Aircraft" had stated Gustave Whitehead/Gustav Weisskopf was the first human ro fly in a powered, controlled, heavier-than-air aircraft. That was wrong as subsequent events proved. Call it a clarification if you'd like, but you can no longer honestly write that "Jane's All The World's Aircraft" has chosen "Gus" Whitehead as "first to fly." Another point of clarification is what "Jane's All The World's Aircraft" actually is. It is not an historical journal. It is a commercial aeronautical industry publication which uses information sent by aerospace companies to fill up its pages.

About Truth

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. (Arthur Schopenhauer)

About Truth & Myth

For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - (JFK, Yale Commencement, June 11, 1962)

Arthur Schopenhauer on Women

In his essay "Of Women" Schopenhauer wrote: "Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short-sighted". He opined that women are deficient in artistic faculties and sense of justice,"

Avoiding the Central Question...

All this discussion about Wilbur and Orville Wright allows supporters of the Whitehead Myth to avoid the central question... which is, again... what evidence is there that Gustave Whitehead/Gustav Weisskopf made a sustained flight in a powered, controlled, human carrying heavier-than-air machine in 1901 or in 1902, or ever ? The material put forth in Ms. O'Dwyer-Brinchman's book does not prove that he did, it only serves to show how the Whitehead Myth grew. It's also very telling how many topics Ms. O'Dwyer-Brinchman chooses to avoid, topics which do not support her case. Scholarly works present all available material and go from there, Ms. O'Dwyer-Brinchman has stacked the deck, presenting only that which favors her position, and that is neither "History" nor truth-telling.

Octave Chanute and the Wrights

NC Pilot, Octave Chanute made that statement about the Wrights before he found out what they were really like. Then his public statements became much, much more critical. He did not believe that the Wrights had a case in their lawsuits to monopolize aviation and said so. Octave Chanute also exaggerated when he said he saw a Wright flight in 1904. What he saw was the plane catapulted into the air, out of control, and crashing after about 24 seconds, I believe it was. For the exact time, please see truthinaviationhistory.blogspot.com.

Chanute, right on Wrights, wrong on prediction.

When Chanute made that comment he had been on most intimate terms with the Wrights for over five years and had exchanged hundreds of letters. The Wrights flew flights of up to 5 minutes in 1904 and 39 minutes in 1905. Chanute was, of course, wrong about the patent suit. Chanute neither did, nor would exaggerate. What a foolish comment.

Langley Aerodromw and Orville's "History"

Gray, Please don't try to get into a discussion about the 1914 tests of the Langley aerodrome. You are demonstrating very clearly that you are believing another of Orville Wright's mythical "stories". More of your gullibility. Orville wasn't there in Hammondsport in 1914, but many honorable experts in aviation were and were involved in the tests. Plus any number of witnesses. I already addressed the changes in the wings that were made to save money and support the "pontoons." They decreased the lift. Same is true about the ribs. Obviously, you don't know that the aerodrome was not built to carry an extra 350 pounds of weight and drag. (Neither was the Wright "flyer," by the way.) Orville Wright and people like you like to say that the wings were strengthened because they were too weak originally. Hokum. Also anyone who knows anything about building planes would know that changes had to be made to balance the structure after the addition of the "pontoons." Orville Wright is not gospel, although he could make up a story as though he was. Orville's history is that everyone was a fraud or a liar or a cheat--and you apparently believe him.

Aerodrome of 1914

I can understand why you don't want me to examine the Langley Aerodrome of 1914, it reflects so poorly on Glenn Curtiss. The remains of the 1903 Langley wings and tail were not sent to Curtiss, only the central framework was. All else was fabricated in the Curtiss shops. In addition to strengthening the central framework, Curtiss had to construct new wings and a new tail, using a more modern aerofoil and simplified strengthened wing ribs and spars. It seems your overwhelming partisanship has blinded you to the truth of what happened.

Pages