Hindering progress: The Church of the west now the Scientific establishment

[Antonio Alejandro]

The Skeptic Community, particularly the material skeptic, seem to point out that the Churches of europe hindered scientific progress and the truth about reality. Today when one reflects on what happened in the last century, the same can be said about the scientific estblishment.
The material skeptic community believes that all that the scientific establishment demands is evidence, but reflecting on the previous events of the last century, nothing could be further from the truth.
Had the idea of a heavier than air machine not been as evident as it is. it would have probably vanish into oblivion. Two major figures in the scientific establishment, Real Admiral George Melville and Simon Newcomb wrote seperate papers denouncing the possiblity of heavier than air machine flight. Even the Scientific American joined in and called them a fraud simply because no one of stature in the scientific community came forward and anounce the validity of what they were doing. It took a presidential query to sort out the truth. This occurred time and time again. The telephone, the turbine, and even the personal computer. I just saw a movie about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. When Worzniak went to see HP about his personal computer, they supposedly remark: "What would anyone want a computer at home"?
I honestly believe that the material skeptic community are kind of a paradigm police which would only make matters worse. Case in point was Randy's remark about cold fusion.

[epepke]

If you're looking for a fight or looking to persuade, you're going to have to come up with something a bit more coherent and detailed than that. Try writing a paragraph about each point. As it is, I don't know what remark of Randi's you're referring to, and I don't know why anyone should care about the obscure names you mentioned.

[Upchurch]

what epepke said, but also

What does materialism got to do with it? Perhaps the critics of heavier than air flight were materialists (I don't know), but do you know if the proponents of it were immaterialists? Most scientists tend to be materialists. If they are hampering their own work, how has anything been accomplished?

[phildonnia]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
...Two major figures in the scientific establishment, Real Admiral George Melville and Simon Newcomb wrote seperate papers denouncing the possiblity of heavier than air machine flight...

It is true; major figures in the scientific establishment sometimes -- often in fact -- make scientifically untenable statements.

You have identified exactly why scientific theories tend not to mention "major figures in the establishment", but instead rely on things like evidence and mathematics for their support.

I can think of a few reasons why the metaphor of the "scientific establishment" as a church is not valid, but the main one is that in science, the naysayers generally shut up when the fact is demonstrated. Most churches of religion, specifically those that have hindered the human endeavor, continue to argue after the argument should be over.

(Edited to remove something that I'd C&P'd accidentally)

In defense of the much maligned church of the scientific establishment, I should point out that in the last century these guys repeatedly faced major threats to their accumulated wisdom, and these were greeted with enthusiasm rather than suppression.

Quote:

...It took a presidential query to sort out the truth.
...

Huh? No, it took 12 seconds of flight to sort out the truth.

Quote:

...I honestly believe that the material skeptic community are kind of a paradigm police which would only make matters worse. Case in point was Randy's remark about cold fusion...

I'll send you $50 right now if Randi said that cold fusion is impossible.

[Agammamon]

And, to be blunt, so what if he did? Many of the luminaries of science have and continue to take positions on areas outside of their specialties. Dr. Spock saying Einstein was right lends no more weight to relativity. Randi saying cold fusion is not possible doesn't detract one iota from the evidence (or lack of it in this case). Now if randi comes out and say I see dead people, then you can bet I'll sit up and take notice.

Of course that's not to say that scientists (especially established ones) don't occasionally try to block undesirable research, usually for reasons of pride or higher priorities. That happens in almost all human endeavors but less often in research than elsewhere (most definately less often that in the church) and science has a built in mechanism to get around those blocks. Unlike the church which is set up specifically to bolster dogma.

[Keneke]

Also, let me add that science needs and promotes resistance to new experiments be repeatable, this trial by fire hardens and shapes scientific discoveries into the most solid thing we will ever have. Anything less solid would never have gotten us into space, or prolonged our lifespans, or created the computer in front of you.

It's like exercise. No pain, no gain.

[T'ai Chi]

I always hear that the Churches, back in the day mostly, hindered scientific progress. However, I am not entirely convinced that it was as simple as science vs. church, but rather Copernican science vs. Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition.
The only things that are evil that directly involve science, in my book, are scientism, peoples' stupid decisions about potentially dangerous technology, such as atom bombs, guns, drugs with side-effects that are unknown but currently approved, etc.

[Dancing David]

Cart: horse, horse :cart

Um much money was spent trying to verify cold fusion. It was not buried by sceptics, it was buried by the fact that it could not be rep[licated.

this is up there with atheism is a religion, AA have you ever read about the istory of particle physics? It would refute your example from one end to the other. You are trying to compare turn of the century bombast to new century science. You will have to make a convincing case, did you know that they do publish researchers who disagree with the current paradigm? Try looking up variable speed of light on Google!

[Ladewig]

Quote:

I always hear that the Churches, back in the day mostly, hindered scientific progress. However, I am not entirely convinced that it was as simple as science vs. church, but rather Copernican science vs. Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition.

No, T'ai Chi, it was not Copernican science vs. Aristotelian science because if it were, then the Roman Catholic Church ("the Aristotelians") would not have had the power to sentence Galileo to permanent house arrest (or sentence him to death).

text of charges against Galileo

Quote:

[snip] The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures. [snip]

They weren't saying Aristotle was right, they were saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; or more precisely, the Pope's interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. The RCC was not following the Aristotelian model of the universe until 1983(!) when it reversed its decision against Galileo.

_____________
Other instances of the church hindering scientific progress include successful lobbying to outlaw the teaching of evolution in the U.S. (early 1920s), unsuccessful lobbying to include Intelligent Design in science classes, and outlawing the dissecting human cadavers (which the Inquisition ruled to be punishable by death as late as the 1560s).

[T'ai Chi]

Ok, thanks for the corrections Ladewig.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Ok, thanks for the corrections Ladewig.

Although others suspect that it is your goal to rile other posters, I do not think that is your motivation. On the other hand, you sure did rile me. I was expecting a long fight, but you took the wind out of my sails.

[homunculus]

The situation is really very simple. The truth is hard to come by, and we can never KNOW (with anything like Absolute Certainty) that we have it. Man will always make mistakes - both individually and collectively - in every field of endeavor. What the religionists, irrationalists, Luddites, and other anti-scientific ideologues consistantly fail to appreciate, is that we make progress in science because we admit this, and because we are prepared to learn from our mistakes.

There is no shame in being WRONG. Science proceeds by recognising and accounting for error; its theories are testable (were they not, they would have no empirical content) and are constantly being tested, so they can be improved or replaced, in light of new evidence, new problems, and new solutions.

If you can suggest a better method of investigating our world, please do outline it here, so that we can all learn from it.

Paul.

[Dragon]

Antonio,

I see your homepage is about a martial art called Lin Kong Jing or "Empty Force" and on the front page it says

Quote:

... The Lin Kong Jing practitioner has the ability to move an individual, without physical contact but by mere projection of their internal energy. ...

Well, if you can really do that, under controlled conditions, you would cause quite a stir in the materialist scieptic community; rubbing their noses in it would be putting it mildly!
You could also win $1,000,000 from the JREF! You can read how to apply here.
How about it? Shatter the materialist paradigm and win $1,000,000?
You can do what you claim, can't you?

[Antonio Alejandro]

The example I provided about the wright brothers, shows specifically that evidence was not the issue. Evidence is not the issue, so why are there post here about evidence? The issue is personal preferences to a particular paradigm, and ultimately the direction which research takes place. There is clearly something else happening that is beyond healthy skepticsm.
In the last century, nearly every major invention, was redicule, shun, trivilized by skeptics in the scientific establishment. Even after evidence was presented. Had the evidence not been so overwhelming, they would have vanished into oblivion.
What, then, happens to evidence that are more subtle? That relies on statistics but are not of the present paradigm?
Just recently I read an account of a doctor by the name of Scwartz who was demonstrating, what he call "directed neural plasticity". The doctor remarks how he was told by some director that, those experiments were not "real" science.
A few years back I was making a graphic presentation about the work of John Lorber. When I mentioned that there are people today that function normally in public, but are missing 6/7 of their brain, some people in the audience got hot under their collar, one shouted-out "Pseudoscience". yet others said that I was not qualified to interpret the autopsies, or the scans.
Perhaps, what needs to happen is that the material skeptic scientist needs to just create their own branch of science, much like the christian creationist created their own.

[Dragon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
The example I provided about the wright brothers, shows specifically that evidence was not the issue. Evidence is not the issue, so why are there post here about evidence? The issue is personal preferences to a particular paradigm, and ultimately the direction which research takes place. There is clearly something else happening that is beyond healthy skepticsm.

You have not demonstrated this.

Quote:

In the last century, nearly every major invention, was redicule, shun, trivilized by skeptics in the scientific establishment. Even after evidence was presented. Had the evidence not been so overwhelming, they would have vanished into oblivion.

You have this totally the wrong way round. It is precisely because of the accumulated evidence that theories are accepted. If they evidence is not forthcoming the theory is not accepted. In any case, as before, you are making an unsupported assertion that "nearly every major invention was redicule (sic)".

Quote:

What, then, happens to evidence that are more subtle? That relies on statistics but are not of the present paradigm?
Just recently I read an account of a doctor by the name of Scwartz who was demonstrating, what he call "directed neural plasticity". The doctor remarks how he was told by some director that, those experiments were not "real" science.

If you mean Gary Schwartz then the director was correct.

Quote:

A few years back I was making a graphic presentation about the work of John Lorber. When I mentioned that there are people today that function normally in public, but are missing 6/7 of their brain, some people in the audience got hot under their collar, one shouted-out "Pseudoscience". yet others said that I was not qualified to interpret the autopsies, or the scans.

Are you qualified?

Quote:

Perhaps, what needs to happen is that the material skeptic scientist needs to just create their own branch of science, much like the christian creationist created their own.

They have, except its 99.9% of the whole bloody tree!

So, Antonio - will you show all those "material skeptic" scientists where they're going wrong and win the £1,000,000?

[Antonio Alejandro]

Sure I demonstrated this. Five years of flying a big hunk of metal, wood and cloth and still being called a fraud by the skeptics...what part of this dont you understand?

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Five years of flying a big hunk of metal, wood and cloth and still being called a fraud by the skeptics...what part of this dont you understand?

The part about the flying metal, wood and cloth. What are you talking about?

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Sure I demonstrated this. Five years of flying a big hunk of metal, wood and cloth and still being called a fraud by the skeptics...what part of this dont you understand?

You said it; you did not demonstrate it. Yours will be a arduous education. Show evidence that "science" called the Wright Bros frauds, that they were told it couldn't be done. Don't tell me you heard it some where. Don't tell me it's common knowledge. Show the evidence. BTW, I don't doubt that some people thought it couldn't be done, but so what? Does that prove that science is flawed? Nope, scientists are wrong every day. The beauty of it is that they can be proved wrong. This doesn't apply in religion or in superstitious belief systems.

Kudos, though, to the Wright Bros as innovators -- let's not sell them short as scientists. They invented the wind tunnel, and used it in being among the first to take a scientific approach to the problems of aerodynamics.

But once again, Antonio, the only thing that mattered in the end, was their results. They flew, and it was irrefutable -- and reproducible, by themselves and by independent experimenters.

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
The part about the flying metal, wood and cloth. What are you talking about?

He must be talking about the US government's first flying saucer.

[Antonio Alejandro]

1)Five years of testimonies, affidavits, photos. Flying in an open field between a highway and the local train tracks.
2) Two major scientist from prominent establishments published articles about the imposibility and absurdity of heavier than air flight: one in the The Independent and the other in the North American Review. The infamous Scientific American article which called the Wright Brothers a fraud.
No matter how you attempt to color this, it is rather obvious that in five years, the scientific establishment did not even bother to look at the evidence.

Paradigms are really hard to overcome. Just look at this letter by Randi.
Date: 6/18/99 12:03 PM

Mr. Kolodzey:

Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.

Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it?

If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.

Signed, James Randi.
(A hard-copy of this letter will be sent by post to you, today.)

James Randi Educational Foundation
201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.)
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815

[Dancing David]

AA:
Ahem,
you are discussing science at the turn of the century.
have you studied the history of particle physics and quantum mechanics, if you do you will find that there was a shift in the method from babmbast to speculation.

have you reasearched the fact that there are reputable people who do disagree with the current paradigm?(Google: on variable speed of light)

You are arguing about the way science was, science is a current process as well.

Hmph!

More ostrichs here

Oh look a wombat

Although it is easier to find a variable speed strobe light or a variable speed saw with a light.

Do you want me to bore you with the details of particle physics and quantum mechanics.
(Rutherford and Bohr: good friends, Fermi and Pauli, much less the very unpopular Murray Gell-Mann)

[NightG1]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Two major scientist from prominent establishments published articles about the imposibility and absurdity of heavier than air flight

Yeah, and they had the wrong head on a Brontosaur fossil in the Carnegie Museum until some bright palenotologist corrected the error. The opinions of two unamed "major" scientists do not constitute the entire body of scientific research and knowledge. No one is incapable of error except Ed.

By the way, how would you construct or present the claim that someone could survive on water alone for six years so that the claim would be falsifiable? I have no idea how you could test this claim without direct unwavering observation of the claimant for the entire life of the experiment or until the nut expires from malnutrition.

[Yahzi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
.Had the idea of a heavier than air machine not been as evident as it is. it would have probably vanish into oblivion.

Had the idea not been as evident as it was, it should have vanished into oblivion.

What part of that did you not understand?

[Dragon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
...

Paradigms are really hard to overcome.
...

Indeed, and so they should be.

But you can do it Antonio!

Just demonstrate the amazing power you describe on your website!

[Antonio Alejandro]

The training for emptyforce is not that easy and the people that do this type of training are few and far between. It entails more than three hours a day, 365 days a year, minimize sex, etc.
Additionally:
Due to the fact that humans are not machines are therefore not one hundred percent efficient one hundred percent of the time, then it would be a statistical issue. Yes it would be interesting if Robert Jahn, took an interest and validated emptyforce statistically.
No I would not be interested in randy's method of discovery. I dont suggest it to anyone who practices emptyforce. Anyone can design a bad test:
Reference sTARBABY

http://www.psicounsel.com/starbaby.html

Also dont mistake Emptyforce for a martian death ray laser beam.

Also let me add that i know emptyforce to be factual. I am not waiting for anyone to validate emptyforce for me, I have the ability to discern this for myself. I dont have a guru, that thinks for me and tells me what is and what is not. I fully trust my own reasoning and discerning abilities.

[Dragon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
The training for emptyforce is not that easy and the people that do this type of training are few and far between. It entails more than three hours a day, 365 days a year, minimize sex, etc.
Additionally:
Due to the fact that humans are not machines are therefore not one hundred percent efficient one hundred percent of the time, then it would be a statistical issue. Yes it would be interesting if Robert Jahn, took an interest and validated emptyforce statistically.
No I would not be interested in randy's method of discovery. I dont suggest it to anyone who practices emptyforce. Anyone can design a bad test:
Reference sTARBABY

http://www.psicounsel.com/starbaby.html

Also dont mistake Emptyforce for a martian death ray laser beam.

Also let me add that i know emptyforce to be factual. I am not waiting for anyone to validate emptyforce for me, I have the ability to discern this for myself. I dont have a guru, that thinks for me and tells me what is and what is not. I fully trust my own reasoning and discerning abilities.

Antonio, read this link to the $1,000,000 challenge

Quote:

The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant.

It doesn't matter what you, I, Randi, gurus or "material scientists" think about it. All that matters is that the applicant can do what they claim they can do. Do you think a practitioner of Emptyforce could manage to "move an individual without physical contact", say, 50% of the time? I expect that would be enough. In any case the level of performance which constituted a success would be agreed beforehand.

Why not give it a go? What better way to make your point about how the sceptical scientific establishment hinders progress?

(Edited for typos)

[Antonio Alejandro]

There was a time that I naively discuss this challenge, now I see it as the good article for the Weekly News and World Report. I know about it and the politics involve.
However, you can keep dreaming that it will reveal some truth to you. If you need others to think for you so be it, just dont involve me. Also would you believe Randy over Robert Jahn? Robert Jahn is a stronger possibility.

BTW this discussion regarding the 1 mil test is not the worth the phosphors is printed on.

[Dancing David]

Bump



I believe that while there are structural constraints that may limit the flow of new ideas. Science itself does open and accept new ideas when they are offered. It is not as though Alan Guth was laughed at for presenting inflationary theory, if you look at the search for dark matter, it shows that some pretty whacked out ideas are considered at the time.

I fail to see how modern science is impeded by the bombast you mention concerning the Wright brothers, science has under gone a shift.

But shifts are based upon observable actions and behaviors, that is why cold fusion failed. Because it could not be replicated.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
I fail to see how modern science is impeded by the bombast you mention concerning the Wright brothers, science has under gone a shift.

I'm surprised you've accepted these claims. The record of articles from the period is actually quite clear. Science accepted the idea of heavier-than-air flight. Claims to the contrary are bogus. The skepticism expressed was two-fold: do we have the technology to pull it off and have the Wrights actually done it.

early aviation publications

A quick perusal of that website will provide a refutation of Alejandro's claims.

Cheers,

[Dragon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
There was a time that I naively discuss this challenge, now I see it as the good article for the Weekly News and World Report. I know about it and the politics involve.
I'm sorry, Antonio, I don't know what you're on about here. Perhaps you could explain further.

However, you can keep dreaming that it will reveal some truth to you. If you need others to think for you so be it, just dont involve me.
I am not dreaming, just asking questions about a paranormal claim you make on your website. Please don't lecture me on thinking for myself, I make no such jibe against you.

Also would you believe Randy over Robert Jahn? Robert Jahn is a stronger possibility.
Why do you think so? - if you were talking about aeronautics, I'd agree. On paranormal matters my money's on Randi. Anyway, what has Jahn got to do with Emptyforce?(I could go on about a false appeal to authority, but one thing at a time...)

BTW this discussion regarding the 1 mil test is not the worth the phosphors is printed on.
Why? The beauty of the challenge is its simplicity. Theories, hypotheses and beliefs are not important, all that matters is that applicants can perform as advertised, in a test they agree on and help design. The claim that Emptyforce practitioners can physically move people without touching them would, I think, be quite straighforward to test. If you have issues with Randi then consider this - forget the $1m - if you could conclusively demonstrate the claim you make for Emptyforce you will have shown that there is a force presently unknown to science. You would deservedly win the Nobel Prize for Physics, and you'd probably shift the so-called materialist paradigm for good.

[Samus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
The example I provided about the wright brothers, shows specifically that evidence was not the issue. (snip) The issue is personal preferences to a particular paradigm, and ultimately the direction which research takes place.

Two things here:

1. Evidence was the issue with powered, heavier-than-air flight. Many scientists over the years (even Leonardo da Vinci) had some ideas as to how to get flight to work. The problem was that the ideas lagged behind the technology, and it happened to take until 100 years ago for everything to come together. Before we had airfoils capable of producing the lift, and engines that were light enough and provided enough thrust, flight was a scientific impossibility. Remember that science requires observable proof. Early flight idealists lacked the evidence (an engine, an airfoil, control mechanisms) to prove flight plausible.

2. True, personal preferences sometimes taint the direction that research takes. Scientists are human, too. However, the beauty of the scientific process is that there are a lot of people exploring lots of different research directions, so a handful of bad scientists don't ruin it for the rest of us. The same cannot be said for a non-negotiable religious dogma, which was also written by flawed people, but is not subject to the same rigorous testing and peer review.

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt


I'm surprised you've accepted these claims. The record of articles from the period is actually quite clear. Science accepted the idea of heavier-than-air flight. Claims to the contrary are bogus. The skepticism expressed was two-fold: do we have the technology to pull it off and have the Wrights actually done it.

early aviation publications

A quick perusal of that website will provide a refutation of Alejandro's claims.

Cheers,

Thank You Bill, I was trying to characterise AA's comments, for there are voices of bombast who decry every change, I feel that the history of modern science is a little different than when anatomy was outlawed. For there there was a system which prevented inquiry.

Which is the point I tried to make, some may be unhappy with the method of inquiry.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Commander Cool

........snip............

The same cannot be said for a non-negotiable religious dogma, which was also written by flawed people, but is not subject to the same rigorous testing and peer review.

Someone reminded us recently that with religion, it is pretty much against the rules to ask questions..

It took almost 2,000 years for the Catholic laity to get a look at the Bible, I think it's only fair to give us a while longer to realize the full implications of this...

[Antonio Alejandro]

If evidence was not the issue why two years after the Wright Brothers had flown, did The January 1905 Scientific American wrote this:

If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
If evidence was not the issue why two years after the Wright Brothers had flown, did The January 1905 Scientific American wrote this:

If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"

Antonio,

This editorial appeared two months (not "years") after the reported flights. It expresses incredulity that three flights occurred with nobody noticing. It does not express incredulity that flight is possible.

Full editorial

Cheers,

[Samus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
If evidence was not the issue why two years after the Wright Brothers had flown, did The January 1905 Scientific American wrote this:

BillHoyt has this pretty well covered, I just wanted to add that the Wright brothers did a lot of their work in secret. Their historic first flight on 17 Dec 1903 was not a public show. So again, we have a case where lack of evidence was the issue for the skeptical scientific community.

After actually completing the first flight, the Wrights did more to hinder aviation than they did to further it, but that is another story for another day.

[sackett]

Poor old Langley came -that- close to beating the Wright bros into the air. Hiram Maxim flew a multi-ton aircraft as early as 1894 and scared himself out of further experiments after a lulu of a crash. Various claims for pre-Wright flight have been around since Stringfellow. No sooner than the brothers made it into the air than others were doing it.

The Wrights were still experimenting with gliders in 1905; no wonder if a few people were then and still remain a tad skeptical about their earliest claims.

But I think Antonio should give us something a little more cogent to bolster his argument.

And also knock somebody down without touching them. I realize that cutting back on sex is a lot to ask -- but for a million gazoolahs!

[Antonio Alejandro]

You have not presented a case as to why the Scientific Establishment did not acknowledge the Wright Brothers for five years despite affidavits from respectable people, photos, testimonials.
Certainly there were publications, as much as there are publications about cold fusion today...however that does not mean that the majority of the establishment saw heavier than air flight feasible with present technology.
Remember Simon Newcomb, was professor at John Hopkins University and the second scientist to have ever been awarded at the French Academie of Sciences ( The first being Ben Flanklin). Also another notable was Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy who wrote that anyone who talked about flying to the public was misleading them and that attempting to fly was absurd.
Okay, think again...
Did the Wright produce evidence for five years? Why was it neglected?

[Dragon]

Trying to reverse the burden of proof won't wash here, Antonio.
You have raised the issue, you provide the evidence for your assertion. What little you have said has been more than rebutted by other posters, Bill Hoyt in particular.
I'll just add that the Wright Brothers built on the work of others - Lilienthal and Chanute for instance. Some might have doubted the particulars of their flights but what they were doing was a logical development of the work of previous pioneers.

Would you care to reply to my other posts about Emptyforce?

[Samus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Did the Wright produce evidence for five years?

No! That's exactly what I've been trying to say! All of their work was done in secret. Glenn Curtiss did the first public flight in the U.S., in 1908.