Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Gustave Whitehead. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Carroll F. Gray

"Frankly, Roger, your endless mocking and generally ill-tempered attitude leaves me with absolutely no desire to assist you with anything. I found the collection and so can you. Let's concentrate on putting the G.W. Wikipedia page into shape. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)"

I am not mocking and I am not ill-tempered, but you have a mind which works in mysterious ways, so I can understand that you get that impression of me. I found now that you, or somebody else, had removed the way I attributed to you what came from you in the article.

I have now rewritten it again so the reader understands exactly what comes from you. If you stand behind your views I cannot understand why you are trying to write your views into the article in a way which makes it unclear what source your views come from you. From my point of view it is important that all strange views you have written in the article are clearly attributed to you, so the reader himself can decide how much importance he should give to your views. The more views from you he reads the clearer picture will he get of how your mind works. Why don't you add also that when Whitehead thought he was flying in the air over Long Island Sound he was actually only cruising around on the water surface and may have jumped into the air from a wave crest for a few yards now and then. That is your view, isn't it? So why don't you publish that too. It would give the reader an even clearer view of how your mind works. Roger491127 (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, I have published my views about what G.W. likely did, both on the web and in print. I believe the body of evidence supports my view to a greater degree than it supports the view that G.W. made lengthy "flights" in our current understanding of that word. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

DonFB

I corrected the attribution so it is referenced to the right "aviation historian". Remove it or make a correct reference to a verifiable source. In any case, don't make it look like it is a statement of Carroll Gray. Separate it from statements he has made. He wrote those ideas here in the discussion page, so I assumed that he was the person who had added it to the article too, but according to the explanations in the article history you added those ideas to the block of text about Carroll Gray's ideas.Roger491127 (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Roger, I am the person who added the phrase about the drawing of Custead's airship which appears in the 18 August 1901 article. I don't think I "signed" the change until later - it was very late last night/early this morning. If you'll look at the flyingmachines.org G.W. page you'll see that I changed the caption under the drawing to this: "Imaginative Drawing Of Gustave Whitehead Aloft In His Whitehead #21 appearing in the weekly Bridgeport Sunday Herald of August 18, 1901. In the same article witches on broomsticks are used as part of the headline Flying, and a drawing of the fantasy eight-flapping-winged Custead's Air Ship also appears." I noted the change here, on the Discussion page, in the section "Caption Change on G. Whitehead web page" at 04:06 on 7 September 2010.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Purported Dick Howell Drawing

Both Carroll Gray and Donfb has expressed doubts about the drawing, "was it made by someone else?" I can not understand where you think you are going with that idea. Don't you understand that Dick Howell would have noticed if somebody had replaced his drawing with another drawing? Are you aware of the fact that he stayed with that newspaper and later became the chief editor of Sunday Herald? He usually accompanied his articles with drawings made by himself. What in the world could make you two doubt that this drawing was also made by him? And where would it lead us if it wasn't? The whole idea is so strange that I can not understand why you two think it has any value or veracity. It can certainly not be referenced to any verifiable source. Please explain yourselves. Roger491127 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of a reliable source that confirms or denies who made the drawing. I had assumed Howell made it, but I don't know of a source to support that assumption. The article's text currently reflects the uncertainty. Apparently, O'Dwyer attributed the drawing to Howell. I do want to see a citation for that statement. DonFB (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Stating that the drawing of No. 21 making a "flight" was done by someone who supposedly was present elevates the value of the drawing - it becomes an "eyewitness" drawing. Indeed, Roger, that is how you have discussed it, and that is how O'Dwyer tried to present it, as drawn by someone who was an eyewitness, thereby adding strength to the notion that G.W. made those "flights" 14 August 1901 - by saying that it was drawn by an eyewitness.

So, you see, it matters to be clear that it is not known who the artist was who drew the No. 21 in "flight," nor is the artist of the masthead headline Flight drawing of witches on broomsticks, nor of the drawing of the fantasy Custead airship "flying." We do not know.

There is a myriad of such inferential "evidence" presented by O'Dwyer, to add to his argument that G.W. made "flights." I will offer one additional example. O'Dwyer erroneously states that James Dickie was a next-door neighbor of G.W.'s - Dickie wasn't - but O'Dwyer saying he was makes Dickie appear to be telling a falsehood. O'Dwyer's false statement about Dickie is part of O'Dwyer's attack on Dickie's credibility.

If the above does not make sense to you, Roger, please re-read it. I will not try to restate it for you. Also, I changed the Discussion section title to reflect the uncertainty over who drew that drawing.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

G.W.'s Design

Since you have the pdf inventory of S. Randolph's collection, Roger, please take a look at the following entry: Box 1, Folder 3, which contains "Gustave Whitehead’s copies of designs for his #21 aircraft" and a second item "Drawing and description of plane #21"

Have you ever seen "Gustave Whitehead's copies of designs for his #21 aircraft" ? Taking that description literally, and assuming it is correct, then Folder 3 has G.W.'s own copies of his "designs" for No. 21. I don't see those in either of S. Randolph's books, or in the O'Dwyer/Randolph book.

That strikes me as peculiar. Wouldn't G.W.'s own design drawings have significant historical value ?

I suppose we will never know quite what the items are, though, since the collection is apparently closed to everyone.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The drawing in Dick Howells article

"I am not aware of a reliable source that confirms or denies who made the drawing. I had assumed Howell made it, but I don't know of a source to support that assumption. The article's text currently reflects the uncertainty. Apparently, O'Dwyer attributed the drawing to Howell. I do want to see a citation for that statement. DonFB"

There is a very reliable source, the issue of Bridgeport Sunday Herald August 18 1901, the article Dick Howell wrote and the drawing he made and inserted into his own article. How much more verifiable can a source document be? He was also known for making drawings which accompanied his articles.

We also have a statement from Major O'Dwyer that he had studied many articles and drawings made by Howell, and he found Howell to be a very serious, truthful and accurate journalist, and his drawings were very accurate.

I can not remember any statement from Major O'Dwyer where he attributes the drawing to Howell. And why would he? It is so obvious that it was a drawing made by Howell that you gotta have a pretty twisted mind to even come up with the idea that it was a drawing Howell had not made. Roger491127 (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, why does almost every comment you make have to include some personal slight or attack ? I had them removed over on the Aviation Timeline page. Just stop it. Control yourself, please.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The opening statement in this section does not advance the argument for Howell as the artist by one millimeter. The statement simply repeats the same assumption that Howell is the artist and even disputes the one source, O'Dwyer, that might support Howell as artist. Try reading what people have actually written. Other statements in the Discussion do not claim Howell is not the artist; the statements say simply that there is no proof or reliable source that says he is. The assumption that he is the artist is not unreasonable; but the assumption, or actual evidence, needs a source (not some editor's opinion or repetitive complaints) to be written into the article. DonFB (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I inserted the quote from your web page "Whitehead's wife (who never witnessed any of his flights) should have the final word on the issue of if Whitehead really flew or not" as a support for Whitehead's flights, because the reader will think when he reads that: "If the people who want to discredit Whitehead have no better arguments than this strange and illogical argument, then it is more probable that he really flew"

If you questioned the fact that Picasso was the painter of the well known painting Guernica, which no other art historian has questioned I would not be surprised, because that would be typical of how your mind works. And, of course, you would feel personally attacked if I pointed out how strange that kind of thinking sounds. If I would say to you "Control yourself, please." and you would actually do that I would really be surprised, because it is obvious that you cannot control your mind.

So, I am sorry that you feel personally attacked, but it is impossible to avoid, because you come up with so strange ideas, and I have to point out how strange they are.

To DonFB:

The only thing which surprises me is that DonFB supports your strange ideas, because he has shown a fairly rational way of thinking earlier.

The opening statement in this section is a quote from you.

"The assumption that he is the artist is not unreasonable". Not only that, but the assumption that he is not the artist is totally unreasonable, because it is inserted in his article and it is consistent with his style and habit of including his own drawings in his own articles. And he himself never protested or argued that a drawing made by somebody else had been inserted into his article.

In short, there is no reason to doubt that he made the drawing himself, and I am very surprised that we actually have to waste any space discussing this issue. Nobody has ever questioned that the drawing was made by Howell until the "aviation historian" Carroll Gray came up with this strange idea a few days ago. Roger491127 (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, I do not have doubts about who did the three drawings which appear in the 18 August 1901 Bridgeport Sunday Herald article. I am not assuming that Richard Howell is or is not the artist who drew one or all of the three drawings - I do not know who drew them. Apparently neither do you for you keep repeating O'Dwyer's assumption that Richard Howell drew one of the three, and O'Dwyer's assumption is not evidence that Richard Howell did. They are, as far as I can tell, unsigned.

Also, please be more careful with where you place your comments - please do not insert your comments into the middle of mine or anyone else's, as you did in your last post.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"...his style and habit of including his own drawings in his own articles."

What is the source of that information? DonFB (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was a generally accepted fact, which you or anybody else can check by reading more issues of the Sunday Herald and compare the articles by Howell with each other and compare his drawings with each other. The fact that nobody has questioned that the drawing of nr 21 in the air was made by Howell for 109 years is a strong indication which leads us to the conclusion that this drawing was made by Howell. The other two drawings (which I have not seen and I doubt that they were part of Howells article about Whitehead) have no relevance for this article about Whitehead. Why would Howell insert a drawing made by somebody else into his article, when he was known to accompany his articles with his own drawings? Why hasn't anybody for 109 years noticed a difference in style compared to his other drawings? Why are you fishing in a bathtub where you can be absolutely sure that there are no fish to catch? Roger491127 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Now we're making progress. The statement: "I thought that was a generally accepted fact" seems to be at the heart of the issue. It may be generally accepted among people who know something about these historical events. But because both this article and the events it describes are very controversial and subject to challenge, a specific source is needed, not an unsourced claim that the idea is "generally accepted." Furthermore, if the idea is "generally accepted" because of something O'Dwyer said, then a verifiable O'Dwyer source could be cited in this article as the origin of the idea. The article as now written does not deny Howell as artist; the article makes no statement at all on the issue.

"Why hasn't anybody for 109 years noticed a difference in style compared to his other drawings?" What other drawings? Give examples, and sources. "The fact that nobody has questioned the drawing" is not a source for asserting that Howell is the artist. The idea: "you or anybody else can check by reading more issues of the Sunday Herald" is fine, except I don't have any of the newspapers.

So, knock yourself out: go online and find examples of Herald articles by Howell or anyone else illustrated by drawings attributed in the newspaper to Howell. I don't know of any, but I haven't looked. Finding some examples--"catching fish" to borrow an idea--would be real evidence, and could support a statement in this Wikipedia article that Howell "usually" or "sometimes" illustrated articles that he or other reporters wrote. DonFB (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If we talked about a swedish newspaper I could request a copy of all issues from August 1901 from the public library, and they would request it from the royal library for me. If, for some reason that would not be possible I could travel to Stockholm and study those newspapers in the royal library. But I do not live in USA, so I have no possibility to check up this issue personally. I think you have some possibility in USA to get your hands on the Sunday Herald somehow. Call some journalist in Bridgeport or Fairfield and ask him or her to check it up for you, for example. Ask your public library if they can get you copies. Or search for O'Dwyer Herald Bridgeport OR Sunday and find his judgement of Howell's articles and drawings. Call some local museums and libraries in Bridgeport or Fairfield and ask how you can get to read all issues from August 1901 of the Sunday Herald. etc... If you really think it is worth the effort.

It would be easier to simply accept that Howell made the drawing in Howell's article, which is the obvious and reasonable conclusion.

Anyhow: To include this fact in this article it is enough to reference the article plus drawing to a web page where both are shown. That is good enough for wikipedia. Roger491127 (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not "good enough" for Wikipedia. There is no source.

You're the guy who has a poker up his ass about this issue, so I invite you to take the research actions suggested above. Get a Skype account so you don't have to pay long distance charges. DonFB (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

O'Dwyer's investigation of Howell

from http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm/5

"O'Dwyer, curious about Howell, spent hours in the Bridgeport Library studying virtually everything Howell wrote. 'Howell was always a very serious writer,' O'Dwyer said. 'He always used sketches rather than photographs with his features on inventions. He was highly regarded by his peers on other local newspapers. He used the florid style of the day, but was not one to exaggerate. Howell later became the Herald's editor.'" Roger491127 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Howell's article and drawing

http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm/5

"Whitehead's claimed flight of August 14, 1901, was described by writer Richard Howell in the August 18 issue of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald as covering a half mile at heights of up to 50 feet. Howell, an artist before he became a reporter, illustrated his article with an accurate drawing of airplane No. 21 in flight above an open field at Fairfield."

The drawing: http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwhtd.html

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whitehead_woodcut.jpg

and http://www.scribd.com/doc/37112317/Aviation-History

and http://www.enotes.com/topic/First_flying_machine

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The article: http://www.gustavewhitehead.org/news_journalism/1901_-_flying.html

and

http://www.wright-brothers.org/TBR/History/History%20of%20Airplane/whiteheadarticles.htm

Together these sources are enough to be verifiable sources for Howell's article and Howells drawing in that article. Good enough for wikipedia? Roger491127 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You could've saved a lot of time by citing the History.net material earlier if you remembered it was in that article. I have no objection to using the material from History.net with a properly formatted footnote. Don't dump the whole thing in unedited. Do a little actual editing and writing (work) and pick the most relevant parts, use quotes, and add it to the article in an appropriate place. Keep in mind the drawing does not offer the same level of evidence as a photo. Don't exaggerate and say these quotes prove GW flew. Just use the material to support the idea that Howell made the drawing. DonFB (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Take note that some of the "sources" above (enotes, scribd) are nothing more than copies or "mirrors" of Wikipedia aviation articles from an earlier date. They're not sources. That's why it's so important for us, as editors here, to be diligent about following the Wikipedia guidelines and rules, and not to play fast and loose with them, which can damage the reliability and reputation of articles here. What we write here goes far and wide beyond Wikipedia. DonFB (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrights visits

http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/Pages/article8.html

"His flight success attracted attention and visitors' among them the Wright brothers. Though no firm date for the visit can be given, it appears that some time after the August flights they did see him. In Anton Pruckner's 30 October l 964 affidavit, he states: "I can also remember very clearly when the Wright brothers visited- Whitehead's shop here in Bridgeport before 1903. I was present and saw them myself. I know this to be true, because they introduced themselves to me at the time. In no way am I confused' as some people have felt' with the Wittemann brothers who came here after 1906. I knew Charles Witteman well. The Wrights left here with a great deal of information . . ."

Both Cecil Steeves and Junius Harworth remember the Wrights; Steeves described them and recalled their telIing Weisskopf that they had received his letter indicating an exchange of correspondence. Though Orville Wright always denied his acquaintance with Weisskopf, the evidence clearly contradicts trim' end though the Wright "Flyer" seems to have nothing in common with Weisskopf's elegant monoplane, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine how much "information" was picked up by the brothers Wright, if any."

Obviously there were 3 witnesses, not 2, to the visits by the Wright brothers. Roger491127 (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I re-read this same material a few days ago and decided to add some of it to the article, but got busy with other things. It's powerful testimony. If you add any of it, I ask again that you do real work to edit and select the relevant parts and use quotes, make a proper footnote, and not just dump the entire thing unedited into the article, which makes it harder to read. DonFB (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of exhibition.

from http://gustavewhitehead.org/the_biography.html

"At the end of September, 1901, Whitehead exhibited his successful "No. 21" in Atlantic City" Roger491127 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to adding statements (not reams of quotes or paragraphs on the subject) that are properly sourced regarding supposed visits by the Wrights to G.W. Orville Wright's (sourced) total denial provides balance.

The exhibition of No. 21 at Atlantic City began mid-September 1901, not at the end of the month.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Howell - Source ?

This question must be asked... how do we know that Richard Howell wrote the 18 August 1901 Sunday Herald article ?

I can find no statement to that effect credited to Mr. Howell, where he states he wrote that article, and as we know, the article has no byline. The earliest statement I can find is from 1937's Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead p. 46, where S. Randolph states "One who claimed to be an eye witness to the flight of August 14, 1901, was Richard Howell, now deceased, then editor of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald, who recorded the flight in his paper on August 18, 1901." That "claim" is not explained (at least I could find no explanation of it, in Randolph or O'Dywer/Randolph) - did Richard Howell claim that article as his own ? - when did he and where is that supposed claim to be found ?

Richard Howell's name appears on p. 27 of O'Dwyer/Randolph's History By Contract with the unsupported statement that he was the author of the article. Richard Howell's widow, Mary, was ten years younger than her husband. Howell was 32 at the time of the Sunday Herald article. Perhaps Mary Howell could not be located or perhaps she had also passed away before Randolph began collecting affidavits. It strikes me as odd, though, that the author of that very important, even central, Sunday Herald article cannot be firmly linked to Richard Howell - it is assumed that he was.

I am sorry if such questions cause you grief, Roger, but asking questions about long-held assumptions is never a bad thing to do, and sometimes can be instructive.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

From http://gustavewhitehead.org/news_journalism/2002_-_whiteheads_fans_keep.html

In the 1930s more than 30 people signed affidavits saying they witnessed Whitehead's flights before 1903.Roger491127 (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that meant to answer who it was who wrote the Sunday Herald article ? I don't see the connection.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. It's so true that "asking questions about long-held assumptions" can shed new light (or maybe turn some off). I had never taken note of the missing byline. I certainly agree that the Herald article is "very important, even central." This GW article could be edited to say that the only documented credit to Howell for the Herald article comes from Randolph and/or O'Dwyer (cited of course). Such an edit would probably best be placed before the (presumptive) edit by Roger regarding the drawing, based on the History.net (DeLear) article. DonFB (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Tethered airplane testing

from http://gustavewhitehead.org/news_journalism/1988_-_did_whitehead_fly.html

"Weisskopf's detractors, soon at work, found many a sympathetic ear, for most people believed then that powered controlled flight was impossible. No less a personage than Orville Wright collected most anti-Weisskopf arguments and sentiments into one short article in the August 1945 edition of US Air Services. These charges are worth examining in detail, for they are, for the most part, the ones relied on by sceptics today in refusing to admit the possibility of powered flight before the Wright brothers.

The article states that, first, news of such a revolutionary event would not have been withheld for days, only to be printed in the Sunday edition of the paper. Second, James Dickie denied both that he was present that morning and that he knew Andrew Celli, the other assistant named. Third John Dvorak, a Chicago businessman who financed the building of a motor by Weisskopf, deposed in 1936 that Weisskopf did not have the mechanical skill to build a working motor, and that he was given to gross exaggeration. Finally, Stanley Y Beach, a financial backer after 1905, said he was never told that he had flown.

There was in fact no delay in printing the story, for the; Bridgeport Herald was solely a Sunday newspaper; it should be noted that the New York Herald and the Transcript picked up the news of the event the next day, as did other wire service papers.

At the heart of the Wrights' assertion is the premise that public interest in aviation was so intense that any story of a successful flight would have been devoured by the press immediately. This was not so; the Wrights themselves were faced with a "continued lack of serious attention by the press"' and when bad weather delayed their first flights, the reporters invited to the scene as witnesses departed, convinced it was all a waste of time. In 1906, after flying for three years, the Wrights offered their machine to the US Army, "convinced that it had possibilities for military reconnaissance. They were told that the authorities would not take action 'until a machine is produced which by actual operation is shown to be able to produce horizontal flight and to carry an operator.'!" This sceptical attitude by the press, the public and the authorities contributed significantIy to keep Weisskopf in obscurity.

In James Dickie's affidavit of 2 April 1937, he states that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the aircraft shown him "in pictures No 32 and 42" never flew, that he does not know Andrew Celli, and that he was not present on the morning of 14 August 1901. Although it initially appears very damaging to Weisskopf's claims, this document is riddled with errors and proven distortions.

The dimensions of the aircraft described by Dickie have nothing at all in common with those of machine No 21, which Weisskopf tested on l4 August; therefore, Dickie cannot have been acquainted with that aeroplane. When Major O'Dwyer spoke with him about the affidavit, "(He) admitted that the engine described in it was one stationed upon the ground, having heavy boilers transmitting steam through a hose to the pipe, causing it to revolve for the testing of tethered aircraft . . . The engine was not intended for use in aircraft, and never was. In light of Dickie's later admissions, his affidavit of earlier date has little value and it would not have been published had all the facts been known earlier.""

This quote both sums up Orville's anti-Whitehead arguments, and it confirms that the heavy, stationary "Dickie" machine was used for Tethered rotating airplane testing. Roger491127 (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sunday Herald Article

Roger, do you see the 18 August 1901 Sunday Herald article as central to the evidence that G.W. made flights ? If that article were shown to be a hoax, how would that affect the affidavits ? Would it have any effect on their value ? I am very interested to hear what you would say about that.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The more you present of your ideas the better it is, in my view. But make sure that your ideas are all presented under the heading "The aviation historian Carroll F. Gray:" and is isolated from other people's writings. Note also that everything you write must be properly referenced to a verifiable source, so you must first write down your ideas in your own web page about GW, and then you can insert those ideas into your own section of the article, with proper references to your own web page. One single reference is actually enough, if you put it at the end of the section containing your ideas and arguments, just use the address to your web page as the reference for everything you write.

Then we have examples of 3 people who are trying to discredit Whitehead, you, Orville and Jakab, and we can show how invalid Orville's and Jakab's arguments are. Roger491127 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that you still do not understand. I am not seeking to discredit G.W.

Actually, I am seeking to credit him, but only with those things he actually did, not fantasies or exaggerations or falsehoods.

Re-read what I have on the flyingmachines.org page about G.W. (written 12 years ago) - "Whitehead's genuine enthusiasm for and strong commitment to aeronautics (even if he was not as committed to the absolute truth), as well as his design and actual construction of machines (including a large biplane built about 1908 and a helicopter built in 1911) and engines meant to fly them, should be enough to secure his place in the history of aviation."

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Draft of Howell-drawing text for article

Here is a rough draft of how the Howell authorship and drawing issues could be written in the GW article. (Some names/dates are incomplete or may not be accurate.) This is a suggestion for the framework of handling the information (not intended to show exact/correct details):

According to an article in the Bridgeport.........etc etc.

The article carried no byline, but the 1937 book "Lost Flights...." by Stella Randolph credited the article to Richard Howell, [a sports reporter?]. [footnote] A drawing of the Number 21 in flight accompanied the Herald article. The drawing was not signed and was not credited to anyone. In a ____ magazine article, writer Frank Delear said Howell was an artist before he became a reporter. Delear added that Connecticut researcher William O'Dwyer said Howell usually [illustrated his own articles].... [footnote]

Again, a suggestion on how to structure the information in the body of the article. The text is not trying to "prove" or "disprove" anything; just giving the information that is available and citing the sources of that information. The text could be expanded with a couple of quotes from the relevant book/article. The caption for the drawing could avoid mentioning credit, to keep the caption from becoming messy/too long. DonFB (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't you make it even more confusing and misleading? :-) Roger491127 (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Very little about the GW story is straightforward, clear-cut and undisputed, except to true believers. What's "misleading"? DonFB (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That Dick Howell wrote the article about what happened the morning of August 14 1901 and that he made the drawing of Whitehead's airplane in the air which accompanies the article has been an undisputed fact for 109 years, as far as I know. Roger491127 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought so too, but as Carroll points out, there's precious little evidence--no evidence at all in the newspaper itself, which is where it should reasonably appear. Since the newspaper offers zero evidence, this article will do what a good article does: give sources and citations, not an unsupported assertion. DonFB (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Even Carroll, who is the most "far out somewhere" of all who tries to discredit Whitehead does not dispute that Howell made the drawing, in his web page. He only added a caption to the drawing which suggests that it doesn't show something which really happened, the caption suggests that Howell "imagined" what it would look like if it really happened. Which, to me, looks like a sneaky way to question that Howell was an honest journalist. Roger491127 (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We have the witness statement of Major O'Dwyer who read practically all of Howell's articles and looked at his drawings. He should have noticed if there was something different with this article and this drawing. Roger491127 (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As is so often the case, you make a false statement about an issue. Howell's name does not even appear on Carroll's webpage about GW, contrary to your falsehood that even Carroll "does not dispute that Howell made the drawing". As recently as today, Carroll wrote on this Discussion page that he does not know who made the drawing. You need to do two things: pay attention; and stop telling falsehoods. If O'Dwyer claimed Howell was the artist, that statement, either from his book or an article about him, can be cited in this article.

I understand that you believe, as you said above, that one or more flights by GW is "something which really happened". Not everybody agrees with you. This article will only include information from sources about what happened. I have seen artists' drawings of spacecraft, satellites and hypersonic airplanes. They are not depictions of actual events, just an artist's rendering of what something might look like if it were operating. That is one way to view the Herald drawing. DonFB (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This web page attributes the article to Howell http://www.ctheritage.org/calendarBestBet.htm and they should know, because they are a local Connecticut institution which very likely has access to the archives of the Sunday Herald. Roger491127 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they do. Even if they don't have such access, or if Herald archives of that period don't exist, this is a very reasonable source for a citation in the Wikipedia article, since an image of the published Herald article itself offers no evidence about Howell. DonFB (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the site you use as a source, Roger. The short article the link goes to is a transparent rewrite of various other articles. The fact that they mention Howell as the author of the Sunday Herald article means very little. On my scale of sources, I would credit S. Randolph over this calendar/event/exhibit promotional piece from "November 8, 2003 through February 15, 2004." Why not cite Randolph (I gave the citation, above) and then state she did not provide any evidence beyond stating it. That would be a much better citation, don't you agree ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Translation

Here is a translation I did of the Swedish article Roger mentioned.

http://www.fof.se/tidning/2002/1/var-broderna-wright-forst

FORSKNING & FRAMSTEG February 2007

(RESEARCH & PROGRESS)

Were The Wright Brothers First? (from F & F 1 / 2002)

By Patrik Hadenius

There is no photographic evidence - but several eyewitnesses saw a powered airplane fly under control several years before the Wright Brothers' Flyer.

On October 10, 1927, an unknown man named Gustave Whitehead died. He died at only 53 years of age, destitute and without recognition for his role as one of the great aviation pioneers. Perhaps he was the one, in the history of the world, who designed and flew the first working engine-powered airplane.

The best evidence available for Gustave Whitehead's first flight is a cartoon and a newspaper. Eyewitness and sports journalist Dick Howell reported in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald about a successful 800-meter long air leap. The date was August 18, 1901, two years before the Wright Brothers first flew their Flyer.

Gustave Whitehead was born as Gustav Weisskopf in Bohemia in 1874. He emigrated to America in 1894 and took the name Whitehead. After several flight tests, he built a plane with folding wings - the plane he called the No. 21. What went into the engine for fuel is unclear, but it is clear that several witnesses claim he flew, among them sports journalist Howell.

There are plenty of photographs of the plane on the ground but not one photo of it aloft. In the absence of evidence, German enthusiasts, who sought justice for Gustave Whitehead, built a reproduction of the airplane. In 1997 a pilot flew for the first time in their reproduction.

History books tend to leave these events at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, 17 December 1903, the first time when men controlled and flew a powered aircraft. Then it was Wilbur Wright at the controls of The Flyer for a total of four successful flights. The last and longest nearly one minute and 243 meters. Further, the aviation authority Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington, maintain that the Wright Brothers were first. Their main objection is that if Whitehead really could fly, why didn't he refine his design? He tried to build completely different things, including a very strange helicopter.

Aspirants to be First are found in other continents. In New Zealand there are people who try to highlight Richard William Pearse as the one who made the First Flight. And French people like to point out that Clément Ader's first flight test took place back in 1890. With his Éole he jumped 50 feet. However, the clumsy creation was difficult to fly with its wings and steam engine as power.

Author: Patrik Hadenius

Editor: Håkan Borgström

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

About Howells article and drawing

Moving down discussion to the bottom the discussion page.

Quoting myself and DonFB:

We have the witness statement of Major O'Dwyer who read practically all of Howell's articles and looked at his drawings. He should have noticed if there was something different with this article and this drawing. Roger491127 (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As is so often the case, you make a false statement about an issue. Howell's name does not even appear on Carroll's webpage about GW, contrary to your falsehood that even Carroll "does not dispute that Howell made the drawing". As recently as today, Carroll wrote on this Discussion page that he does not know who made the drawing. (DonFB)

I only discuss what is said on verifiable web pages. He does not dispute that Howell made the drawing on his web page. What Carroll says here on a discussion page is not relevant.

You did not comment on the witness statement of Major O'Dwyer above. It is pretty difficult to refute, isn't it? Roger491127 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here http://www.fof.se/tidning/2002/1/var-broderna-wright-forst is a very serious magazine about science and technology in swedish. The text in swedish is pro-Whitehead, but to show the other side of the coin they have included the full article by Peter L Jakab who does all he can to discredit Whitehead. Click on the short text in english to go to that article. Many of his arguments have already been refuted in our wikipedia article.

But both the pro- and anti-Whitehead articles say that the article in Sunday Herald was written by Howell. Jakab questions most other facts about Whitehead, but he does not question that Howell wrote that article published August 18 1901. Roger491127 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I did comment on the O'Dwyer statement. Look again. DonFB (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We have the witness statement of Major O'Dwyer who read practically all of Howell's articles and looked at his drawings. He should have noticed if there was something different with this article and this drawing. Roger491127 (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If O'Dwyer claimed Howell was the artist, that statement, either from his book or an article about him, can be cited in this article. (DonFB)

Yes it can, accompanied by the description of Major O'Dwyer's method for checking up on Howells articles and drawings. That becomes a strong proof for the fact that Howell was both the writer of that article and the fact that he made the drawing. Roger491127 (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, just a note of caution, which you can either make use of or discard, as you wish: there are some very serious problems with material found in O'Dwyer's writings. I am stating that clearly here, to establish that point on this archived record. On a matter which could be cited to either Randolph or O'Dwyer, I would much rather cite Stella Randolph. For one thing, she was much closer, in time, to the source of all this.

At the time of posting my web page (1998) I had doubts about the attribution of the Sunday Herald article, drawings and text, so I did not mention Richard Howell.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note I changed the attribution of the Sunday Herald article to the following:

"According to an eyewitness report by a self-described "representative" of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald newspaper (possibly sports journalist/editor Richard Howell, although the article lacks a byline),..."

Can we agree that this reads as it should ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Carroll, I just completed a revision, with some new footnotes. Not sure it will be especially to your liking, but it seems to offer a fairly well-fleshed out account:

The aviation event for which Whitehead is now best-known reportedly took place in Fairfield, Connecticut on August 14, 1901. According to an eyewitness newspaper report,^[1] Whitehead himself,^[2] and a number of witnesses who gave their statements more than 30 years later, Whitehead made a powered, controlled airplane flight in his "Number 21" aircraft for a distance of 800 meters (2,625 feet) at a height of 15 meters (49 feet) and landed safely. The feat, if true, exceeded the best of the Wright brothers first powered flights by 540 meters (1,770 feet) and preceded the Kitty Hawk flights by more than two years.

No photographs were taken of the reported flight. The newspaper article was published in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald on August 18, 1901, and was reprinted in the New York Herald and Boston Transcript. The writer is widely said to be sports editor Richard Howell. No byline appeared on the article, and Howell was not publicly connected to the article until author Stella Randolph named him in a 1937 book as "one who claimed to be an eye witness to the flight".^[3] Howell is also widely credited as the artist who made an unsigned drawing, published with the article, of the airplane in flight. A report in Aviation History says that Howell, "an artist before he became a reporter, illustrated his article with an accurate drawing of airplane No. 21 in flight."^[4] The same report says that William O'Dwyer, a former reserve U.S. Air Force major who spent years promoting his belief that Whitehead made successful flights, studied Howell's writings, and asserted that Howell "always used sketches rather than photographs."

The airplane started driven by its ground wheels.....etc.....

^ Bridgeport Sunday Herald (1901) at Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company
^ Whitehead letters to American Inventor magazine. Retrieved December 24, 2007.
^ Randolph, Stella, "Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead" p. 46
^ Delear, Frank, "Gustave Whitehead and the First-Flight Controversy" Aviation History, March 1996, at History.net. Retrieved September 4, 2010

User:DonFB 02:20, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

I would make one revision...

"The writer is widely said to be sports editor Richard Howell, though that is not certain."

If we can all agree on that, great !

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Later Career" section link

When you click on reference #17, it takes you to an Air Sports International link, following that link you find this as the only mention of Curtiss on that "source": "Amongst very known aviators who will subsequently use Weisskopf’s motors there will be also the famous Curtiss." Not only is that untrue, it has nothing to do with the the statement made in "Later Career" that one of G.W.'s engine was successfully used in an aeroplane (the Wittemann Brothers' biplane) similar to a Curtiss.

Roger, can you find the statement by Charles Wittemann about using that G.W. engine successfully - the article needs that link, not the one it currently has.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Carroll Gray

"It's obvious that you still do not understand. I am not seeking to discredit G.W.

Actually, I am seeking to credit him, but only with those things he actually did, not fantasies or exaggerations or falsehoods.

Re-read what I have on the flyingmachines.org page about G.W. (written 12 years ago) - "Whitehead's genuine enthusiasm for and strong commitment to aeronautics (even if he was not as committed to the absolute truth), "

Your accusation, "(even if he was not as committed to the absolute truth)", is a very serious accusation, and combined with your idea to let GW's wife,who never witnessed any flights, have the final word on the issue of if GW really made flights, means that first, you accuse GW of being a liar, second, you make a totally insane decision to let his wife, who was not even interested in aviation, she actually hated that GW wasted so much time and money on his aviation work, be the final judge of his achievements in the history of aviation.

It is practically impossible to be more anti-Whitehead and to be more irrational and show a total lack of sound judgement.

That is the reason why I wanted to include in the article the most outrageously insane way of thinking which some Whitehead detractors exhibit. Orville and Jakab need to be refuted, but your views are so obviously deranged and illogical that they need no refutation, they are selfdestructive like a suicide bomber. Your attempts to discredit Whitehead are so stupid that they become a strong support for Whiteheads flights. That is the reason why I want your views, as many as possible, clearly attributed to you, to be included in the section about the "aviation historian" Carroll Gray.

By the way, I removed my reference link tutorial and DonFB's now unnecessary explanation, to clean up the page and shorten the ref list above. Roger491127 (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The character and personality of Whitehead

After all I have read about Whitehead I must say that he comes across as very honest, naive and even gullible. He did not know how to write a contract which protected himself. He did not know how to put a descent price on his motors, he basically worked for free, charging only for the cost of the raw material he had to buy. He did not know how to promote himself. He was like a young Amish man suddenly moved into a big city full of streetsmart and devious people. If nobody quickly rushed to help him and protect him he would have been fooled and robbed of everything he owned, including his clothes. To accuse him of "(even if he was not as committed to the absolute truth)" is an outrageous accusation towards one of the most honest men who ever walked on this earth.

He spent a lot of time and energy on other people's projects, not only because he was dirt poor but also because he was very helpful and gullible. A lot of people took advantage of his mechanical skills and his naive nature and diverted him into paths which lead nowhere or into situations where he was attacked by people who wanted him to make their own hopeless construction ideas work. When he told them that this construction cannot work, because it is a faulty design, they accused him of being a lousy mechanic, but they could not find any other mechanic who could make their lousy designs work either.

We also have to try to understand how his mind worked. He did not dwell on past achievements, he saw no reason to promote himself with the help of past achievements, he was always looking forward. When he had made a small airplane work he went on to make a much bigger airplane, capable of carrying passengers. He was proud but not satisfied with his successes with nr 21 and nr 22, he wanted to create an airplane which could rise vertically into the air. When we add to that all the people who diverted his path in different and less successful directions we can understand why he did not continue to refine nr 22 to become famous and recognized as the inventor of the first working airplane. Roger491127 (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The character and personality of Whitehead

After all I have read about Whitehead I must say that he comes across as very honest, naive and even gullible. He did not know how to write a contract which protected himself. He did not know how to put a descent price on his motors, he basically worked for free, charging only for the cost of the raw material he had to buy. He did not know how to promote himself. He was like a young Amish man suddenly moved into a big city full of streetsmart and devious people. If nobody quickly rushed to help him and protect him he would have been fooled and robbed of everything he owned, including his clothes. To accuse him of "(even if he was not as committed to the absolute truth)" is an outrageous accusation towards one of the most honest men who ever walked on this earth.

He spent a lot of time and energy on other people's projects, not only because he was dirt poor but also because he was very helpful and gullible. A lot of people took advantage of his mechanical skills and his naive nature and diverted him into paths which lead nowhere or into situations where he was attacked by people who wanted him to make their own hopeless construction ideas work. When he told them that this construction cannot work, because it is a faulty design, they accused him of being a lousy mechanic, but they could not find any other mechanic who could make their lousy designs work either. Roger491127 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not naive perhaps, but an enthusiast. He seem to have been interested in flight in itself, not for fame or fortune. // Liftarn (talk)

Carroll F. Gray

Your anger and hostility are remarkable to behold.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am an old man and I have no place or time for "anger and hostility" in my mind. I do not hesitate to admit that I am not the diplomatic type and I do not use white lies to try to be friend with everybody. I judge people for what they are and I tell it as I see it. I am sorry that it offends you, but there is nothing I can do about that. Roger491127 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am 62. I don't mind being challenged, not at all - but the tone of your comments is often heatedly hostile, and if we are to work together to refine the Wikipedia article about G.W., that must cease.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your own emotional response. It has nothing to do with how my mind works. You are projecting your feelings onto me.

I am only happy that you exist. The first time I saw your web page about GW my reaction was: Wow! this is a gold mine. A collection of really stupid arguments which try to discredit Whitehead. So I quoted the most stupid of them all, the one about leaving the last word to his wife, and inserted it into the article. Because people with even only half a brain will realize how fundamentally stupid that statement is, and the reader will react by thinking: If the detractors of Whitehead are so stupid and have nothing better to further their cause then it becomes much more likely that the pro-Whitehead people are right, he actually built and flew an airplane more than 2 years before the Wright brothers.

As I see it Jakab, Orville and a few people from the Smithsonian are in the water, swimming and trying to avoid to drown. You are a guy on the pier beside them, who has tied a heavy anchor to your waist and you jump into their group yelling, group hug, group hug. You grab them and hold onto them really hard and you pull them down with you to the bottom of the sea.

So I am not angry at you at all, I love you for doing me a big favor. You drag down the reputation of all Whitehead detractors with your so obviously stupid and irrational arguments against Whitehead's flights. That's why I try to help you to put forward more of your ideas under the title the aviation historian C F G and make a proper reference to your web page. Roger491127 (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, I am done with you. I will read what you post here and comment on editorial changes you make, but I will not converse with you any longer. What you say about the Wrights and 1908 betrays your own ignorance of fact. I won't spend my time trying to inform you, but you really should become better informed, on your own, before spouting off.

"Man märker andras fel och glömmer sina egna."

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

gustavewhitehead.org/

The gustavewhitehead.org/ web site (Megan Adams) appears to have been offline since August 20th or so.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

But her web pages have been copied to another web site, I don't remember the address right now, but I read it last night. It said something like this: Megan, if you are still out there somewhere please contact us and give us your permission to copy your earlier web site. Until then we simply assume that you like to see that your site is preserved. Roger491127 (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I just tried it a few times and it failed, then it worked. All pages now seem to be available. I used it as recently as last night. I believe I remember that Megan (or someone) posted a message that this site is the "permanent" one and DeepSky is the legacy site. (http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/Pages/devine.html for example.) DonFB (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Wright brothers

from: http://wapedia.mobi/en/Fixed-wing_aircraft?p=3

"The Wright brothers made their first successful test flights on 17 December 1903. This flight is recognised by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), the standard setting and record-keeping body for aeronautics and astronautics, as "the first sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flight". [14] By 1905, the Wright Flyer III was capable of fully controllable, stable flight for substantial periods; a later model took off unassisted by catapult in 1908."

So if somebody wants to talk about when The Wright brothers invented the airplane they should not use the year 1903 or 1905. The correct year is 1908. That is the year they succeeded to build an airplane which could start without the help of a catapult, and was fully controlled and could fly for substantial periods.

If the story about Whitehead starting without help, and flying in a big circle 11km and land in the water so close to the helpers on the shore that they could pull him onto the shore is true, then Whitehead achieved in January 1902 what the Wright brothers achieved in 1908.

What FAI says is totally irrelevant to me. They didn't even acknowledge the first supersonic car, because of their stupid rules, for example.

And further, from the same web page "On 12 November 1906, Santos-Dumont made the first unassisted flight, [15] without catapult, setting the first world record recognised by the Aéro-Club de France by flying 220 metres (720 ft) in less than 22 seconds. [16] This flight was also certified by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI). [17] [18]"

How can FAI certify a flight of only 220m? That is not sustained flight, and not 262m either.

But half a mile can be called sustained flight, especially if the same plane flies one and a half mile the same day. And 11km is definitely sustained flight.

What Whitehead did in January 1902, or even in 1901 was actually more advanced than what the Wright brothers did in 1908. Whitehead did not have to steer his plane during the landing, he could simply turn off the motor and the airplane landed itself, without damage to either plane or pilot. I doubt very much that the Wright brothers could do that in 1908. And Whitehead's plane could land on water. And it could be used as a car with the wings folded back. The Wrights had no such features in 1908. Roger491127 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Back to Carroll Gray

Just to be certain you don't miss the post above, Roger, here it is, again: ____ Roger, I am done with you. I will read what you post here and comment on editorial changes you make, but I will not converse with you any longer. What you say about the Wrights and 1908 betrays your own ignorance of fact. I won't spend my time trying to inform you, but you really should become better informed, on your own, before spouting off.

"Man märker andras fel och glömmer sina egna." ____ Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been very active in discussions in usenet (newsgroups nowadays mainly known as google groups) for 20 years. During that time I have ignored thousands of people. I often pretend to participate in a dialogue, by starting an article with a quote from somebody, but 98% of the time it has actually been a monologue, slightly disguised as a dialogue. In the english-speaking newsgroups US-americans have been the dominating group and there are very few well-educated, sane and intelligent people in USA. The last time I had a real dialogue it was with a very well-educated and intelligent German, who wrote very good english. I have had real dialogues with US-americans too, but it happens very seldom.

There is only one newsgroup where most people are well-educated, sane and intelligent, it is sci.electronics.design where old geezers who have spent all their lives studying electronics gather. If you are extremely good at electronics you are accepted in that gang and you are allowed to write about anything, from the art of planting fig trees to politics. These old electronics experts accepted me as an equal, even though my views often are un-american. Now and then it happens that a newly examinated civil engineer shows up and complains about that a lot of the discussions are about subjects which are totally unrelated to electronics. It takes a day or two for the members of the group to put him in his place and shut him up. They tell him that 4 years of education in electronics means very little. You need a whole lifetime of studying electronics to be accepted as an equal and allowed to write about anything you like in that discussion group. During the years I was active in that group I was the only one who could point out a fault in an article by the grand master of the group. He was quiet for 24 hours, then he came back and said, yes Roger, you are right, I made a mistake there. That elevated my status in that group even further.

Anyway, haven't you noticed that I have ignored most questions from you for several weeks already? Welcome to the club of people who choose what to ignore and what to reply to. :-) Roger491127 (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DonFB, are you satisfied with the structure of the G.W. page. It seems to me as though the sections are a hodge-podge. The content has improved, I believe, but the framework needs attention. It might be a good idea to attend to that now, as it might make editing and adding or deleting material much simpler tasks. Any thoughts ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Structure

I'm not particularly satisfied with the structure. I confess I haven't recently been reviewing your proposal on that, although it looked reasonable. It may have too many sub-sections (such as engines and/or airplanes). Right now, the article does not have any sub-sections. That should probably be changed by doing things like:

adding "Smithsonian" as a subsection to "Controversy"
possibly making "James Dickie" another subsection under Controversy
adding "Photos to "Research"
adding "Reproductions" to "Airplanes"

The sections on Pittsburgh, Conn 1901 and Conn 1902 and "Later Career" could perhaps all be combined under a new section titled, "Career" and make them sub-sections. The "Educator" section could also be added to the overall "Career", or eliminated.

"Engines" could be a standalone section as I think you suggested, or perhaps combined as a subsection with an "Airplanes" subsection under a new heading: "Airplanes and engines".

"Early Life" could remain as standalone.

It does give me a little headache (kidding, sort of)..... DonFB (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe create a section, "Flight Experiments," and put Pittsburgh, Conn 1901, Conn 1902 in it and leave Later Career as standalone. (Hmm, I think you might've suggested something like that.)

There is some overlap between Controversy and Significance that should be cleaned up. Another confession, I haven't displayed your outline for comparison; I'm basically commenting on changes to the existing structure. Please comment on what you think. Have you thought of any revisions to your suggested structure? DonFB (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of combining "Aircraft & Engines" - the engine side of it is every bit as important as the aircraft side, I think, and there is a fairly good block of information to make use of. Having "Reproductions" within "Aircraft & Engines" makes good sense to me.

I also like the idea of combining all the "flight" events in one section, with subsections. To be fair to all concerned, the three major "flight" events should be handled to the same degree.

Since so much of this stems from two sources, the 18 August 1901 article and the series of affidavits, we might put them both under a section heading such as "Evidence."

"Controversy" might swamp the article, there is so much material. I would prefer smaller bites of each Controversy apple, with very good cites and sources. This is a critical part of this article, I believe. Especially so because proving or disproving that G.W. made a "flight" is not on the agenda.

"Significance" implies significance and detractors might well say there is none, so I would prefer another word as the Section title, though I'm not fixed on an alternative.

I'm not wedded to the structure I suggested, I was hoping to provoke some discussion on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carroll F. Gray (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

More later, on this, I'm sure.

As for headaches, isn't this more like a migraine ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the gift that keeps on giving.

"Evidence" makes sense as a section. Perhaps that's what "Research" should really be called.

I agree that Controversy is elephantine. Thinking about it, Evidence and Controversy are intertwined. A bold thought: A new section called, "Evidence and controversy" with many subsections. Either way, these issues demand a lot of space. The question seems to be whether to make a bunch of individual sections or try to lump them into an overarching "thematic" section with a passel of subsections.

I was going to suggest that Significance be changed to Legacy....but I know how you feel about that word.... I actually have seen "Legacy" used in other articles, though there probably was something more lasting in those cases. "Influence" is a possibility, though it may have similar disadvantages to Significance. Influence is actually closer to what the section is about, which is mostly his "influence" at the time, as opposed to his "significance" to history. "Importance" is yet another option, but could be a clone of Significance. Most of the current headings are a single word, but that's just an accident, not a reflection of site policy. So, another bold thought: "Influence on aviation". I suppose some readers might say, "none!" but the heading does not by itself make a value judgement about that. The phrase does seem to express what the section is about.

Here's another mouthful: "Historical assessment". It's certainly neutral. On the other hand, the section now contains only the Engler/Chmiel quote as an example of "historical assessment." Most of it is about his contemporaries. DonFB (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I like "Influence" - it has a "fairness" tone to it. Likewise "Evidence & Controversy" with subsections. An "Historical Assessment" section might include "Influence" as a subsection. My general sense is to be broad in scope and tight in content, with things that are very deep and well sourced, rather than sending readers to publicity sites or sites which simply repeat via cut and paste.

Someone mentioned Picasso up above in the Discussion... and I am reminded how people separate out his bad attitude about women from his art. In much the same way, I tried to separate out G.W.'s overstatement from his actual "work" on my web site and in my article. I also enjoy taking things down to fundamentals whenever possible. Floating along on heated rhetoric will only push things so far, then no farther - and to varying degrees, both "sides" have been guilty of that.

Unrelated to my stance here as a neutral editor, I've ordered microfilm reels for the Sunday Herald and another Bridgeport paper covering more than a decade. It should be interesting to see examples of Howell's work. I've also ordered some archival material, which might become of interest.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DonFB, here is a revised suggestion for an article structure:

GUSTAVE WHITEHEAD - GUSTAV ALBIN WEISSKOPF

SUMMARY

EARLY LIFE - Germany and High Seas

USA 1897 - 1927 (life details)

AERIAL MACHINES & ENGINES Boston - 1897

Flapping-wing glider

Lilienthal-type glider

New York - 1897

Lilienthal-type toy gliders & kites

Pittsburgh - 1899

Steam-powered machine

Connecticut - 1901 - 1911

Nr. 21 monoplane

Nr. 22 monoplane

Nr. 23 monoplane

Nr. 24 monoplane

Triplane glider

Albatross glider

Large Albatross glider (1908 Patent)

Large Albatross powered monoplane

"Whitehead's Effort" Albatross biplane

60-rotor vertical lift machine

Modern Reproductions

Kosch Whitehead Nr. 21 "Hangar 21" monoplane

Historical Flight Research Committee Gustave Whitehead (HFRC-GW) Nr. 21-B monoplane

ENGINES

Locomobile-type steam engine - 1899

Oxy-acetylene engine

Kerosene engine

Two-cycle gasoline engine for glider

AERIAL MACHINE PARTNERSHIPS

W. D. Custead

Stanley Yale Beach & Frederick C. Beach

Wittemann Brothers

EVIDENCE & CONTROVERSY Flight Claims

Pennsylvania - April or May 1899

Connecticut - August 1901 (18 Aug 1901 Sunday Herald article)

Long Island Sound - January 1902

Evidence

Affidavits

Stella Randolph (1934-1937, 1966, 1978)

William J. O'Dwyer (1963-1978)

James B. Crane (1936, 1949)

Flight Counter-Claims

Orville Wright

Charles Gibbs-Smith

Philip Jarrett

Smithsonian Institution

INFLUENCE Claimed Contacts/Disputed Contacts

Otto Lilienthal

Hiram Maxim

Samuel P. Langley

Wilbur Wright & Orville Wright

Historical Assessment

Pro

Con

Goodbye

When I saw a short program on the Discovery channel about Whitehead my interest in this issue was awakened. I came to this wikipedia article with two purposes, to educate myself about the issue, and to help in the editing of the article.

The first purpose has now ended, I have read all the relevant documents and I now know what really happened. The second purpose is now meaningless, because any editing I can do to the article will immediately be deleted by you two. You two have now started to destroy this article and you will make it as muddled and unclear as possible, in two months from now it will be unreadable and incomprehensible for any reader.

But within the next five years many, much more clearminded people than you, will start editing this article and make into a really good article about Whitehead.

I will now close all Whitehead-related tabs in my browser and leave you two to do your worst to this article. I will visit this article every 6 months or so in the future to see if and when it starts to get into a new development, edited by more clearminded people and then I will inform them of all good and referenced material they can find in the discussion archives. I am sure that within 10-15 years the history of aviation will be rewritten and Whitehead will be the name school pupils all over the world will learn about as the inventor of the airplane. And the Wright brothers will be seen as the brothers who hindered and delayed the development of aviation in USA for a long time. The big breakthrough will probably come in the form of a movie about Whitehead. Roger491127 (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Purpose

DonFB, what would you state as the purpose of this article ? To present material regarding G.W.'s life and aerial activities ? To highlight his aerial activities and the claims (and the counter-claims) made by him and others ? To offer resources (links & bibliography) to help readers to pursue the subject in greater depth if they want to ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at this and make another post to comment on your revised outline. I would say the purpose is all three things indicated by your questions above. In my own terms: I see the purpose of this article as being the same as any other biography in Wikipedia. The article should simply tell his life story, as best as is known from the sources, and give information, also from the sources, about the controversy that surrounds the key events in his life for which he is now known. The section on Evidence and Controversy (or whatever it may finally be called) will probably be bigger for GW than similar sections in some other Wikiped biographies. I think that's ok; GW's life story is largely defined by controversy, so this article should cover those issues, based on information from the sources. The sources and links at the end of the article are standard for any Wikiped biography, or indeed any Wikiped article about anything. They serve to offer "evidence" of the article's reliability and legitimacy, and also give readers a place to start, an important function of Wikiped articles, if they wish to research the subject further on their own. I mentioned previously that some (many, actually) of the sources on GW are themselves biased. I think they can be included for citations, but we should be careful to clearly identify them as sources for particular portions of the text. We can also include cited opinions, to whatever extent they're available and editors here agree on their inclusion, from sources that comment on the bias of other sources. What we can't do, of course, is comment on bias and reliability ourselves. We have to use comments from the sources to do those things. Thoughts? DonFB (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Good, we're on the same page - glad to see that. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Outline of structure

I started a new section so this part of the discussion will be a little easier to follow (at least, for a while....) My suggestion follows yours. -- Don

DonFB, here is a revised suggestion for an article structure:

GUSTAVE WHITEHEAD - GUSTAV ALBIN WEISSKOPF

SUMMARY

EARLY LIFE - Germany and High Seas

USA 1897 - 1927 (life details)

AERIAL MACHINES & ENGINES

Boston - 1897

Flapping-wing glider

Lilienthal-type glider

New York - 1897

Lilienthal-type toy gliders & kites

Pittsburgh - 1899

Steam-powered machine

Connecticut - 1901 - 1911

Nr. 21 monoplane

Nr. 22 monoplane

Nr. 23 monoplane

Nr. 24 monoplane

Triplane glider

Albatross glider

Large Albatross glider (1908 Patent)

Large Albatross powered monoplane

"Whitehead's Effort" Albatross biplane

60-rotor vertical lift machine

Modern Reproductions

Kosch Whitehead Nr. 21 "Hangar 21" monoplane

Historical Flight Research Committee Gustave Whitehead (HFRC-GW) Nr. 21-B monoplane

ENGINES

Locomobile-type steam engine - 1899

Oxy-acetylene engine

Kerosene engine

Two-cycle gasoline engine for glider

AERIAL MACHINE PARTNERSHIPS

W. D. Custead

Stanley Yale Beach & Frederick C. Beach

Wittemann Brothers

EVIDENCE & CONTROVERSY

Flight Claims

Pennsylvania - April or May 1899

Connecticut - August 1901 (18 Aug 1901 Sunday Herald article)

Long Island Sound - January 1902

Evidence

Affidavits

Stella Randolph (1934-1937, 1966, 1978)

William J. O'Dwyer (1963-1978)

James B. Crane (1936, 1949)

Flight Counter-Claims

Orville Wright

Charles Gibbs-Smith

Philip Jarrett

Smithsonian Institution

INFLUENCE Claimed Contacts/Disputed Contacts

Otto Lilienthal

Hiram Maxim

Samuel P. Langley

Wilbur Wright & Orville Wright

Historical Assessment

Pro

Con

Restructure underway

I've made some bold edits ("be bold!" - Wikiped motto) to revise article according to outline above. I'd like to enlarge the Randolph subsection with a few choice quotes from some affidavits. The O'Dwyer-Smithsonian subsection needs shortening, partly to come from cutting down big blockquote near end of subsection. Might also consider trimming or deleting Bibliography text, which points out (minor?) O'Dwyer errors. I understand, but it does seem like minutia at this point. Does combining O'Dwyer and Smithsonian work? Does Evidence section need a separate Smithsonian subsection? Comments welcome. DonFB (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Evidence" and "Controversy" seem to be living comfortably apart as separate sections, with subsections in each. Subsection headings vary somewhat from those envisioned in the outline. Thoughts welcome. DonFB (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you've done - the matter of the Smithsonian publication isn't central to this article, anyway, so deleting that part (both O'Dwyer's blockquote and my explanation) seems fine to me. The split of "Evidence and Controversy" does work well. I think this is a big improvement. Yes, I would leave the "O'Dwyer and the Smithsonian" and add a "Smithsonian" subsection within "Evidence." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually was thinking of drastically reducing the O'Dwyer quote, but not completely eliminating it. How's this for a plan: Cutting O'Dwyer to about one or two paraphrased sentences, probably with a quoted phrase and/or a word or two, to illustrate his claim that the Smithsonian asserted its unawareness of Whitehead, but had, according to O'Dwyer, "a great number" of GW references in its bibliography....countered by the information, without so much detail, that the biblio only contained 6 references. Thus, the article still offers O'Dwyer's argument about the issue, but shows, as your text does, his exaggeration.

On other matters, I think you probably have a lot more info than I on GW aircraft/gliders and engines, so I have not been focusing on those areas much...the field is open so to speak.

Are you glad to see Junius' happy face again? DonFB (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy if you delete my text altogether and leave O'Dwyer to make his (abbreviated) claim. His exaggeration will be made clear in my article, which I will publish and/or post when completed. I'll be pleased to work on the aircraft/engine piece, and will try to not be too detailed. As for Junius' "happy face" - I don't think he will be all that happy for very much longer. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still hoping the Malan article can be retrieved, or perhaps another source is available for a good quote or two from the Smithsonian about their views on Whitehead, WBros and "first flight." I think the article does need a good, sourced (and available) quote from SI on the controversy, since so much of O'Dwyer (and the article) emphasizes the claim of "injustice." Another reference, regarding a supposed in-flight photo, the "grangier.fr/news/journal" page (footnote 32 currently), is also not online. DonFB (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask Malan, again, hopefully he'll come through. I'll also try to locate a statement from SI re: G.W. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Doug Malan just sent his article to me. I've asked if he minds that it be posted to be available to the public. I would post it on a neutral web page.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Doug Malan gave permission to post his article, which I'll do within the next couple of days. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted the Malan article at wwwDOTflyingmachinesDOTorg/DougMalanGWArticleDOThtml Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. I changed the url in the footnote so the title now links to your page. I also added to the footnote the original online publication date and the url for the Way Back page, which shows the opening paragraph and also shows Malan's preface, in which he says the article first appeared in the August (2005, I presume) issue of Connecticut LIFE. Not to impose further, but I wonder if that preface, including the original online date of September 13, 2005, might be added to the new webpage, so that the original time of publication will be clear to readers. In the article, there is mention of a "July" interview with Jakab, but readers may not realize which year unless they look closely at the footnote (or take the extra step of looking at the Way Back Archive page). DonFB (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the preface, and a photo or G.W. and Rose. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DonFB, please check your Wiki email.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the same text that appears on the Swedish website Roger gave a link to under the heading on this Discussion page, "About Howells article and drawing." On the right side of that Swedish webpage under 'Information,' a small block of English text beginning, "A theme that always...." is a link that goes to another page with the statement. I'm pretty sure I had seen that Swedish page even before Roger gave the indirect link, but I never saved or bookmarked it or its contents. The comment about Crane in the statement is really puzzling, given Crane's reversal. DonFB (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I was so non-plussed by that comment that I gave little consideration to other parts of the text as possible source material for the GW article. Of course, that's biased on my part. If there's little else from the SI regarding their "official" position, I suppose I'll look over the statement again, and see what might be used from it (considering it is posted on the web for anyone to use).

What's your overall view of the GW article now? Do you think most of the ("reeking") bias is gone? Any major weaknesses need fixing? DonFB (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It was written in 1986, so perhaps he was not aware of the reversal of opinion which Crane took.

As for the article currently, I think it is very much better than when I first read it. As you said, Aerial Machines & Engines could be combined and could use more material - there is plenty from which to draw. As I read the article over, it "works" rather well as it is, for the time being.

I'll seek out some additional SI 'responses' to G.W.- there probably is something available.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Kosch

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Anniversary-of-disputed-1st-flight-takes-wing-in-615968.php

"Kosch, a teacher at Platt Technical High School in Milford, points out that the flight was chronicled in a lengthy story at appeared in the Bridgeport Herald on August 18, 1901. Stories of the also appeared in the flight also appeared in the New York Herald and the Boston Transcript a day later.

These newspaper accounts described Whitehead as flying his bamboo and silk craft for about a half-mile. "It worked perfectly, and the operator had no difficulty handling it," the N.Y. Herald story states.

"If you look at the reputation of the editor of the Bridgeport Herald in those days, you find that he was a reputable man," Kosch said. "He wouldn't make this stuff up.""

Note that both O'Dwyer and Kosch have investigated Dick Howell and both have come to the conclusion that he was he was a reputable man, which refutes the argument that hoax journalism, "common in those days", had anything to do with Dick Howell and his articles. Roger491127 (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ctheritage.org/calendarBestBet.htm Roger491127 (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.utdallas.edu/library/collections/speccoll/hacpdf/Randolph.pdf index of content in Stella Randolph/Gustave Whitehead Collection Roger491127 (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

from http://airsports.fai.org/jun98/jun9805.html

"The replica of Weisskopf’s No. 21 aircraft The replica of the aircraft will be exhibited public in the Berlin Aeronautical display (ILA) before being definitively exposed in the museum. Once transferred into the dedicated room of the museum through a tight window, the members of the leading group do not mean to move it more.

Today only a series of photographs of the aircraft N21 exists, fortunately enough clear , as well as some sketches. In addition there are also some testimonies of people who witnessed his exploits. Most interesting are those given by Weisskopf’s assistant, who had been interviewed on the purpose of history before he died. On these bases, with a patient and laborious engagement of several persons specialised in several fields, the reconstruction of the design drawings of his aircraft has been carried . A considerable contribution in this result has been supplied by Herb Kelly, an aeronautical engineer who, resuming a technical photographic methodology developed for the Pentagon (geometric method of fading angles) during the second world war, allows to analyse photographs for graphically obtaining synthetic images which can be further transformed into designs perspective. Developments deriving from such technique have been profitably carried out by means of the digital technologies and are today very popular also in the environment of automobiles crash analysis and of aircraft flight tests.

The initiative, conducted in tight collaboration with the Committee of Leutershausen, had been undertaken by a group of American technicians of several companies like Boeings, Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed. These constituted a group called " Hangar 21 "and in 1986 constructed a basic replica of N.21 which was presented at Oshkosh; they carried out only some leaps on the runway, but their work gave encouragement to the German committee to construct a more faithful replica . Without the technical contribution of this qualified group of specialists, very unlikely the faithful reconstruction of the aircraft would have been possible. The specialists experiences ranged from V2 to the nuclear submarines nevertheless they have been evidently fascinated by the romantic attraction of this adventure."

Note the expertise of the very qualified specialists who helped reconstructing the dimensions and technical details of nr 21. Roger491127 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Barnum Museum

www.barnum-museum.org/pdf/whitehead.pdf probably from 2007 Roger491127 (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Other tidbits

I read that GW's brother John arrived from California in April 1902, not October 1901 as earlier told, so he did not witness nr 21, and maybe not even nr 22.

I read that GW added a vertical rear fin, a rudder, on nr 22, which was not present on nr 21. Roger491127 (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ratzenberger

from: http://www.456fis.org/THE_HISTORY_OF_FLIGHT_-_THE_WHITEHEAD_AFFIDAVITS.htm

"- January 28, 1936

I, Joe Ratzenberger, residing at 195 Princeton Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut, declare the following to be fact, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

I remember very well one of the early planes constructed by Gustave Whitehead (illustrated by Nos. 2: 2-A: 2-B: 2-C), constructed in his shop on Cherry Street, back of Hancock Avenue. I recall a time, which I think was probably July or August of 1901 or 1902, when this plane was started in flight on the lot between Pine and Cherry Streets. The plane flew at a height of about twelve feet from the ground, I should judge, and traveled the distance to Bostwick Avenue before it came to the ground. I recall the incident very well because I was one of several boys who clung to the back of the plane as it rose into the air and carried us off our feet until we were driven away by some of the men working with Gustave Whitehead. This plane had folding wings constructed on bamboo poles. I know that it had a motor in it for I recall the noise that it made. It was a boat shaped plane and traveled on the ground on wheels.

I recall other planes constructed by Gustave Whitehead which he tested by attaching them to a stake in his yard and letting the motor drive them so that they were kept going about in a circle.

I did not see a flight that was made at Black Rock, but recall very well having been told about the flight and that the plane landed in the water. The boys of our crowd flocked out to Sandy Beach to see it but it was not taken up again on that particular day.

Signed and Witnessed" The main page about Whitehead: http://www.456fis.org/THE_HISTORY_OF_FLIGHT_-_WHITEHEAD.htm Roger491127 (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A fourth witness

from http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm

"My wife is a grandaughter of John Whitehead and great neice to Gustave,growing up she often heard her grandfather and grandmother talk of the time and money spent on Gustaves efforts. Her grandfather died in 1952 in Kamloops B.C.Canada,her grandmother talked of the times the Wright Bros. came to talk to Gustave about his ideas. The family has not been involved in trying to get Gustave's first flight on Aug 14,1901 recognized as it should be,we all would like to thank Bill O'Dwyer for the hours and hours he has devoted to this as well as all the other people involved. The family has nothing to gain should this ever be resolved as it should be other than knowing Gustave gets his just deserve, We have to wonder what the Smithsonian is afraid of in holding open hearings on this matter if they feel that proof isn't there."

I sounds like the daughter, or wife, of John witnessed, or heard about, visits, note plural, of the Wright brothers. Roger491127 (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

from http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/11-99/11-07-99/c07sr119.htm " "I saw (Whitehead) fly," says Jeanette Bacon, 100. "He went up over the hill by Washington School on Villa Avenue." " Roger491127 (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Maj. W. J. O'Dwyer

There has been some question as to whether or not Maj. O'Dwyer is still with us. I just found that he passed away on 29 Aug 2008 at his home in St. Augustine, Florida. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrights visits

The article now says 2 persons witnessed visits by the Wrights, How can Steeves, Pruckner and Harworth become 2 people? Roger491127 (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

DonFB, it's fine with me if you want to include that Harworth said he was present when the Wrights supposedly visited, so long as we also state that neither Pruckner or Steeves recalled Harworth being there. (History By Contract, O'Dwyer & Randolph, 1978, pg.123) Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

from http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/Pages/article8.html

"His flight success attracted attention and visitors' among them the Wright brothers. Though no firm date for the visit can be given, it appears that some time after the August flights they did see him. In Anton Pruckner's 30 October l 964 affidavit, he states: "I can also remember very clearly when the Wright brothers visited- Whitehead's shop here in Bridgeport before 1903. I was present and saw them myself. I know this to be true, because they introduced themselves to me at the time. In no way am I confused' as some people have felt' with the Wittemann brothers who came here after 1906. I knew Charles Witteman well. The Wrights left here with a great deal of information . . ."

Both Cecil Steeves and Junius Harworth remember the Wrights; Steeves described them and recalled their telIing Weisskopf that they had received his letter indicating an exchange of correspondence. Though Orville Wright always denied his acquaintance with Weisskopf, the evidence clearly contradicts trim' end though the Wright "Flyer" seems to have nothing in common with Weisskopf's elegant monoplane, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine how much "information" was picked up by the brothers Wright, if any."

They were probably not all three present at one visit, from the descriptions it seems likely that Pruckner was present at the first visit, because "they had to introduce themselves. Steeves was present at their last visit, "I bet those rascals will never finance my airplane anyway". Harworth may have been present with Pruckner at the first visit, or with Steeves at their last visit, or at a third visit inbetween. Anyway, we have 3 three witness reports of Wrights visits. Who recalled who else was present is not known, maybe two witnesses were unaware of each other's presence, or did not mention the presence of another witness, but it doesn't change the fact that we have 3 witnesses to 1 or 2 visits by the Wright brothers. Roger491127 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Carroll: "so long as we also state that neither Pruckner or Steeves recalled Harworth being there.". It would be misleading and a fault to state that, because none of them were asked if somebody else was present, the witnesses did not state that somebody else were not present, they were not even asked about other people's presence. It is typical of you to demand that something should be stated which has no support in the evidence.

I didn't intend to do into discussions with you, I intended only to unload pieces of evidence here. But when I see how you constantly twist arguments and demand statements to be included which are not motivated by the evidence I realize that your mind has to be constantly controlled and refuted and I wish I could hire a watchdog to keep an eye on you constantly and correct and refute all the twisted curves your mind makes through your mental space. I am very disappointed with DonFB who doesn't notice and refute your strange twists and turns, I honestly thought he had something to think with between his ears. Roger491127 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

QUOTING O'DWYER & RANDOLPH, "HISTORY BY CONTRACT"- 1978 - PAGE 123 "Neither Mr. Steeves nor Prucker recalled (more than 60 years later) that Junius Harworth was present also when the Wrights arrived. But Junius, being something of a fixture about the Whitehead shop, and also considerably younger than either of the others, could have been overlooked."... etc. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you assume that the Wrights made only one single visit. Harworth could have been present at another visit. Or, as you say, Steeves and Pruckner maybe did not notice the presence of Harworth, or Harworth was outside the shop and the other two inside. We do not know. The only thing we know is that we have 3 witnesses to 1 or 2 visits by the Wrights. So the article should either simply say that 3 witnesses exist to one or more visits by the Wright brothers, or use the full expression written by you: ""Neither Mr. Steeves nor Prucker recalled (more than 60 years later) that Junius Harworth was present also when the Wrights arrived. But Junius, being something of a fixture about the Whitehead shop, and also considerably younger than either of the others, could have been overlooked. "

But your shorter version "so long as we also state that neither Pruckner or Steeves recalled Harworth being there" is not acceptable.

Note what just happened, you tried to enter a formulation into the article which casts doubts on the veracity of Harworth, but when I poked you about it you presented a much more complete quote, which is much more acceptable. Somebody needs to always keep an eye on you and poke you to get a less tendentious formulation from you. Roger491127 (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest this formulation: "Neither Mr. Steeves nor Prucker recalled (more than 60 years later) that Junius Harworth was present also when the Wrights arrived. But Junius, being something of a fixture about the Whitehead shop, and also considerably younger than either of the others, could have been overlooked. Or maybe Harworth witnessed another visit by the Wright brothers. " Or a simpler formulation, the formulation now used in the article, just change the number of witnesses from 2 to 3. Roger491127 (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If the simple solution, to change the number of witnesses from 2 to 3 is not accepted we also need to know exactly how Pruckner and Steeves were interviewed, exactly how did the interviewer put the question about which other people were present? Could Harworth have been sitting on the stairs outside the workshop? Could he have been present at another visit? Was he sitting in a dark corner of the workshop? etc...Roger491127 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to increase the number of witnesses from 2 to 3, all other solutions leads us into a problematic detective work. So I suggest that Carroll's request for inclusion of some further statement be ignored. Roger491127 (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how it is possible, but you appear to have missed that I was QUOTING text from HISTORY BY CONTRACT, NOT writing this myself. It is what O'DWYER & RANDOLPH SAID. Do you understand, now ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I understood that you quoted from a source, but I suspected that you left out something, that is, you made a selective and misleading partial quote. Because that is what you usually do. And that was revealed when I got you to make a more full quote which changed the impression it gives to the reader. But anyway, we still do not know exactly how these witnesses were asked questions, we do not know if the Wright brothers made 2 visits and were engaged in letter correspondence with Whitehead, which several sources say, or if they visited him only once, we do not know exactly where these visits took place, we do not know the exact positions of all the people present, and we probably never will know all details of these visits. So it is wrong to add tendentious formulations which give certain impressions to the reader. It is better to tell the reader the basic facts we have verifiable sources for:

Three witnesses, Pruckner, Steeves and Harworth, say that the Wright brothers visited Whitehead in his workshop at least on one occasion. Pruckner was asked: How can you be so sure they actually were the Wright brothers? He answered: Because they had to introduce themselves.

If you want to make it more complicated than that then it can become a lot more complicated. Roger491127 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be compulsively insulting, I don't see the point of dialoguing with you, Roger. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Since your mind is working in strange and illogical ways, and you are not aware of this yourself, there is no way I can engage in a rational discussion with you. I can only point out to other editors how incredibly stupid arguments you are using, example: "we should let his wife who never witnessed any of his flights and was totally uninterested in his work the field of aviation have the last word on the issue if he really flew or not", and how you continuously try to insert tendentious formulations made up of partial quotes and stupid arguments which are intended to discredit Whitehead and his witnesses.

Of course you feel insulted but there is nothing I can do about that. If I criticize a football player for the way he makes a lot of mistakes and is a lousy player, of course he would feel insulted, but I must do it to explain to a certain football team's manager and owner why he should sell that player as soon as possible to avoid losing even more matches because of this player.

I am planning to make a part of my own web site into an investigation of the so called "Aviation historian" Carroll F Gray and the strange and tendentious ways his mind works, and write a detailed criticism of his web site, and how he has tried to influence the wikipedia article about Gustave Whitehead and his way of arguing in the article's discussion page. Then I will copy all that material into articles in a suitable newsgroup. Both your web site and my web site will disappear when we die, but articles in newsgroups will be preserved for thousands of years, and every time someone searches for information about Whitehead or Carroll F Gray or early aviation my articles about you and your web page, the way your mind worked and how you tried to influence the history of early aviation will show up among the search results. Roger491127 (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Den man länge skymfar mister slutligen talamodet. Best wishes, Roger. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Den boxare som mister talamodet ligger snart utslagen. Look up the definition of rational, I wrote the definition. Roger491127 (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Om du var rationella, skulle ni förstå hur absurt många av de påståenden som gjorts på uppdrag av Whitehead är. Du skulle också förstå hur ärliga jag till Whitehead. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

[1] Bridgeport Sunday Herald (1901) at Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company

[2] Whitehead letters to American Inventor magazine. Retrieved December 24, 2007.

[3] Randolph, Stella, "Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead" p. 46

[HNET-4] Delear, Frank, "Gustave Whitehead and the First-Flight Controversy" Aviation History, March 1996, at History.net. Retrieved September 4, 2010

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]