I spoke to the Whitehead family myself and have confirmed that Gustave Whitehead did indeed fly as detailed in this video in 1901 in Bridgeport Connecticut. Additionally, when I vacationed on the Outer Banks, NC (OBX), I visited the Kitty Hawk Museum which gives credit only to the Wright Brothers, and the Park Rangers there personally told me they know that Whithead flew before the Wright Brothers and then pulled out a copy of Jane's Aviation, the most respected Reference work for the Aviation Industry, to prove that Whitehead did indeed beat the Wright Brothers by at least 2 years if not more. What more proof can a person ask for??
@JohnKSedor3 ай бұрын
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for giving recognition and credit to Gustave Whitehead. There is ample, ample evidence including Bridgeport Police logs of Whitehead flying overhead. I seriously propose a Whitehead Museum be built in Bridgeport to mark this achievement. It should be professionally done and built, and possibly include the Sikorsky Museum of Helicopter flight to raise the public awareness.
@katlover44424 ай бұрын
That hotel would make a great performing arts academy…
@katlover44424 ай бұрын
These beautiful theaters would make beautiful concert halls for ballet/opera companies or symphony orchestras. They should be developed into performing arts centers, and it would be great to see that pipe organ restored… that organ deserves to have Bach‘s Toccata and Fugue played on it, I bet that the acoustics are awesome in that beautiful theater!!! I can imagine annual productions of The Nutcracker or Swan Lake being performed on that stage, and I bet that a Steinway or Bosendörfer concert grand would look awesome on that stage!!! I hope that those beautiful theaters are restored and made into performing arts centers…
@James-re6co6 ай бұрын
Calling the Smithsonian a "scientific" entity might be stretching it a bit. They're are foremost a museum, and rely on ticket sales and benefactors to sustain them. They got a lot of egg on their face over their decades-long defense of Langley.... They probably do not want to cause a skirmish with the Whitehead situation.
@stevebett4947 Жыл бұрын
Steve Bett @H Vermout Original Question:: " Why do you say he couldn't repeat it?" SB: Do you have any evidence that he did? Here is an account from the Smithsonian magazine. (which might be a little biased but the claims are supported with facts) The original Bridgeport Sunday Herald story (...), written as if it was an eyewitness account, sounds impressive. Reporter: Howell Claimed Witnesses: James Dickie and Andrew Cellic. Read what Cellic says today about what happened years ago: I believe the story in the Bridgeport Herald was imaginary. Cellic says, "I was not present ... I do not recall of a flight of (No. 21) or any other that Whitehead ever built." It is important to note, however, that the editor (of the Herald) did not rush into print with a front page story. The article appeared on page five, four days after the alleged event, in a feature story headlined with four witches steering their brooms through the word “Flying.” In the story, Howell notes two witnesses other than himself - James Dickie and Andrew Cellic (Cellie?). When an interviewer returned to Bridgeport to research the claims in 1936, he could not find anyone who remembered Cellic. He did find Dickie, however. “I believe the entire story of the Herald was imaginary and grew out of the comments of Whitehead discussing what he hoped to get from his plane,” the supposed witness commented. “I was not present and did not witness any airplane flight on August 14, 1901, I do not remember or recall ever hearing of a flight with this particular plane or any other that Whitehead ever built.” Between 1934 and 1974 researchers supporting Whitehead’s claim they interviewed 22 additional persons who said that they had seen him fly at one time or another during the period 1901-1902. These individuals were being interviewed about an event that had occurred over three decades earlier, by researchers who were anxious to prove that Whitehead had flown. In this day and age we have learned that even eyewitness testimony given just after an event occurs can be flawed. Many of the individuals who were most closely associated with Whitehead, or who were funding his efforts, doubted that he had flown. Stanley Yale Beach, the grandson of the editor of Scientific American and Whitehead’s principle backer, was unequivocal on this issue. “I do not believe that any of his machines ever left the ground…in spite of the assertions of many people who think they saw them fly. I think I was in a better position during the nine years that I was giving Whitehead money to develop his ideas, to know what his machines could do than persons who were employed by him for a short period of time or those who remained silent for thirty-five years about what would have been an historic achievement in aviation.” Perhaps the strongest argument against the Whitehead claims is to be found in the fact that not one of the powered machines that he built after 1902 ever left the ground. Nor did any of those machines resemble the aircraft that he claimed to have flown in 1901-1902. The claimed flight of the Lilienthal winged prototype No. 21 may have been a story about what he planned to do. The reporter who was more interested in a good story than a factual one (common for the era) added an artists rendering since there were no photographs of the No. 21 in flight. There were several static photographs of Whitehead standing next to No. 21 (date unspecified, unknown or invented). Why did he not follow up his early success? Why did Whitehead depart from the basic design that he allegedly claimed had been successful? Are we to assume that he forgot the secret of flight? Anything close to the claimed performance would have delighted his backers and investors. Stanley Yale Beach, backed him for 8 years before giving up on the project. (photo of the prototype available at Wright-Brothers.0rg) SB: I have yet to receive a comment from a Whitehead fan who had read the counter arguments. The counterarguments may be supported by historical facts but historical facts are non certain or incontestable. Sources and URLs available on request. Places where you can read the actual comments can be found elsewhere in this discussion: Greg's airplanes and automobiles KZread video on Whitehead kzread.info/dash/bejne/hHV8zslriaTThtY.html @crimony: "In the photo you can see, counter rotating props, engine in front of a standing pilot" @Steve Bett:: How can anyone SEE this? I see a man holding part of an engine sitting in front of a center mast supported winged No. 21. You can sometimes see the Wright's counter-rotating props in a video. You can't say it can be seen in a static photo. @H Vermout @Riaz Hassan @Steven Hopkins @Pete Jones @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1
@stevebett4947 Жыл бұрын
Steve Bett @H Vermout Original Question:: " Why do you say he couldn't repeat it?" SB: Do you have any evidence that he did? Here is an account from the Smithsonian magazine. (which might be a little biased but the claims are supported with facts) The original Bridgeport Sunday Herald story (...), written as if it was an eyewitness account, sounds impressive. Reporter: Howell Claimed Witnesses: James Dickie and Andrew Cellic. Read what Cellic says today about what happened years ago: I believe the story in the Bridgeport Herald was imaginary. Cellic says, "I was not present ... I do not recall of a flight of (No. 21) or any other that Whitehead ever built." It is important to note, however, that the editor (of the Herald) did not rush into print with a front page story. The article appeared on page five, four days after the alleged event, in a feature story headlined with four witches steering their brooms through the word “Flying.” In the story, Howell notes two witnesses other than himself - James Dickie and Andrew Cellic. When an interviewer returned to Bridgeport to research the claims in 1936, he could not find anyone who remembered Cellic. He did find Dickie, however. “I believe the entire story of the Herald was imaginary and grew out of the comments of Whitehead discussing what he hoped to get from his plane,” the supposed witness commented. “I was not present and did not witness any airplane flight on August 14, 1901, I do not remember or recall ever hearing of a flight with this particular plane or any other that Whitehead ever built.” Between 1934 and 1974 researchers supporting Whitehead’s claim they interviewed 22 additional persons who said that they had seen him fly at one time or another during the period 1901-1902. These individuals were being interviewed about an event that had occurred over three decades earlier, by researchers who were anxious to prove that Whitehead had flown. In this day and age we have learned that even eyewitness testimony given just after an event occurs can be flawed. Many of the individuals who were most closely associated with Whitehead, or who were funding his efforts, doubted that he had flown. Stanley Yale Beach, the grandson of the editor of Scientific American and Whitehead’s principle backer, was unequivocal on this issue. “I do not believe that any of his machines ever left the ground…in spite of the assertions of many people who think they saw them fly. I think I was in a better position during the nine years that I was giving Whitehead money to develop his ideas, to know what his machines could do than persons who were employed by him for a short period of time or those who remained silent for thirty-five years about what would have been an historic achievement in aviation.” Perhaps the strongest argument against the Whitehead claims is to be found in the fact that not one of the powered machines that he built after 1902 ever left the ground. Nor did any of those machines resemble the aircraft that he claimed to have flown in 1901-1902. The claimed flight of the Lilienthal winged prototype No. 21 may have been a story about what he planned to do. The reporter who was more interested in a good story than a factual one (common for the era) added an artists rendering since there were no photographs of the No. 21 in flight. There were several static photographs of Whitehead standing next to No. 21 (date unspecified, unknown or invented). Why did he not follow up his early success? Why did Whitehead depart from the basic design that he allegedly claimed had been successful? Are we to assume that he forgot the secret of flight? Anything close to the claimed performance would have delighted his backers and investors. Stanley Yale Beach, backed him for 8 years before giving up on the project. (photo of the prototype available at Wright-Brothers.0rg) Sources and URLs available on request. @crimony: "In the photo you can see, counter rotating props, engine in front of a standing pilot" @Steve Bett:: How can anyone SEE this? I see a man holding part of an engine sitting in front of a center mast supported winged No. 21. @ @H Vermout @Riaz Hassan @Steven Hopkins @Pete Jones @ REF: Places where you can read the actual comments:
@babyboomer9560 Жыл бұрын
Fraud
@riazhassan6570 Жыл бұрын
Much is made of the Wright brothers’ insight that propellers were contoured, rotating wings, yet Whitehead’s propellers also seemed to be constructed on the same realization
@stevebett4947 Жыл бұрын
From Wikipedia: Photographs exist showing the aircraft on the ground,[1] but there are no photographs known of the aircraft in flight. The No.21 was a monoplane powered by two engines-one for the wheels during the ground run, the other for driving the propellers in flight. Design and construction The No.21 was a wire-braced monoplane with bat-like wings and triangular horizontal tail. There was no vertical fin, and lateral control was intended to be accomplished by shifting the pilot's body sideways.[3] The wings were constructed with radial bamboo ribs and covered with silk, and had a span of 36 ft (11 m). They had some dihedral when opened out to the flying position. The fuselage was of rectangular box section with constant height, curved to taper inwards at front and rear when seen from above. Four small wheels were fixed to the bottom. An analysis in 1980 concluded that the design as a whole was flimsy and aerodynamically unsound.[4] Although having two engines and twin propellers, the aircraft was not a conventional twin. It had separate engines for ground running and flight, both designed and made by Whitehead. The ground engine was of 10 hp (7.5 kW) and drove the wheels to reach takeoff speed. Propulsion was then changed to a 20 hp (15 kW) acetylene engine driving two counter-rotating tractor propellers mounted on outriggers.[5] The aircraft was intended to take off under its own power and without assistance. A description and photographs of Whitehead's aircraft appeared in Scientific American in June 1901,[1] stating that the "novel flying machine" had just been completed, and "is now ready for preliminary trials." The article included photographs showing the aircraft on the ground. Claims of flight A minority of commentators claim that the No. 21 flew, but the majority of historians reject these claims. Whitehead was quoted in a July 26 article in the Minneapolis Journal, credited to the New York Sun, in which he described the first two trial flights of his machine on May 3. Andrew Cellie and Daniel Varovi were mentioned as his financial backers who also assisted in the trial flights. The machine was unmanned and carried 220 pounds (100 kilograms) of sand as ballast and flew to an altitude of 40 to 50 feet (12 to 15 m) for an 1/8 of a mile (200 m). According to Whitehead, the machine flew a distance of 1/2 mile (790 m) during its second test flight for one and one-half minutes before crashing into a tree. He also explained his desire to keep the location of any future experiments hidden to avoid drawing a crowd who might make a "snap-shot verdict of failure".[2] Drawing in the Bridgeport Herald of No.21 aloft. - - - - - - - SB: Sounds like good advice. Hyde who promoted the building of the original Wright Flyer for the 2003 Centennial seems to be unconcerned specifying a date. The video of the Centennial failure resulted in dozens of Brazilian Santos-Dumont fans reposting variants of the video as proof that the 1903 Wright Flyer would not fly. No one mentions the fact that no other pre 1909 flying machine would have flown. You can't compare a flight on a rainy day with low air density with flight on a sunny day without wind gusts. The only thing the failure proves is that the 1903 Wright Flyer would not fly unless the head wind was over 15 mph. The Wrights had two other public demonstrations at Huffman Prairie in Ohio that also failed to take off because of engine problems. When this happened to John J. Montgomery, he substituted a glider flight for those who had made the difficult trip. (Wiki) In an article in the August 18, 1901, issue of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald a reporter states that he witnessed a night test of the machine, at first unpiloted and loaded with sand bags, and later with Whitehead at the controls. The story was reprinted in the New York Herald, the Boston Transcript and the Washington Times, which ran it on August 23, 1901. Within months, the story ran in nine other newspapers in all parts of the country, as far away as California and Arizona.[2] A drawing of the aircraft in flight accompanied the Sunday Herald article. According to Whitehead and a reporter who claimed to have witnessed the event, the monoplane's longest flight was 200 feet (61 m) above ground for one-half mile (0.80 km). Whitehead's supporters say that he made four flights that day, which resulted in conflicting accounts from different witnesses. The conflicts have been used by opponents of the claims to question whether any flights took place. These claims are rejected by mainstream historians. Whitehead did not keep a log book or document his work. In 1980 aviation historian C.H. Gibbs-Smith called the story a "flight of fancy".[5] A minority of commentators have supported Whitehead's claim to have flown the No. 21 and this has caused some controversy. In 2013 an editorial by Paul Jackson in the influential industry publication Jane's All the World's Aircraft credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a powered heavier-than-air flying machine.[6] The corporate owner of Jane's subsequently distanced itself from the editorial, stating "the article reflected Mr. Jackson's opinion on the issue and not that of IHS Jane's".[7] Tom Crouch, senior curator of aeronautics for the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) of the Smithsonian Institution, studied evidence for the alleged flight and in 2016 he issued a strong rebuttal, noting many other authorities who had already done so.[8] (more at en.wikipedia.0rg/wiki/Whitehead_No._21 www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Gustav_Whitehead/Gustav_Whitehead.htm www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Santos_Dumont/Santos_Dumont.htm#:~:text=The%20Brazilians%20argue%20the%20Wrights,in%20secret%20for%20the%20military. discussants @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1
@stevebett4947 Жыл бұрын
When John J. Montgomery died from his glider crash injuries, there was no one to take his place. (see WIkipedia for story) His chief test pilot had died earlier when the release mechanism from his balloon failed to release and the attempts to get it to release damaged the glider. Not sure why the pilot did not have a parachute. Perhaps they were too bulky in the early 1900's. I haven't located any detailed information on the rotary engine he was trying to perfect. @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1
@ramoddjob Жыл бұрын
Some entitled idiot who knows a local bureaucrat probably wants the lot. The city has been harassing Curly's for decades.
@stevebett4947 Жыл бұрын
@H Vermout wrote: Why do you say he couldn't repeat it? Do you have any evidence that he did? Here is an accouint from the Smithsonian magazine. The original Bridgeport Sunday Herald story, written as if it was an eyewitness account, sounds impressive. It is important to note, however, that the editor did not rush into print with a front page story. The article appeared on page five, four days after the alleged event, in a feature story headlined with four witches steering their brooms through the word “Flying.” In the story, Howell notes two witnesses other than himself - James Dickie and Andrew Cellic. When an interviewer returned to Bridgeport to research the claims in 1936, he could not find anyone who remembered Cellic. He did find Dickie, however. “I believe the entire story of the Herald was imaginary and grew out of the comments of Whitehead discussing what he hoped to get from his plane,” the supposed witness commented. “I was not present and did not witness any airplane flight on August 14, 1901, I do not remember or recall ever hearing of a flight with this particular plane or any other that Whitehead ever built.” Between 1934 and 1974 researchers supporting Whitehead’s claim interviewed 22 additional persons who said that they had seen him fly at one time or another during the period 1901-1902. These individuals were being interviewed about an event that had occurred over three decades earlier, by researchers who were anxious to prove that Whitehead had flown. In this day and age we have learned that even eyewitness testimony given just after an event occurs can be flawed. Many of the individuals who were most closely associated with Whitehead, or who were funding his efforts, doubted that he had flown. Stanley Yale Beach, the grandson of the editor of Scientific American and Whitehead’s principle backer, was unequivocal on this issue. “I do not believe that any of his machines ever left the ground…in spite of the assertions of many people who think they saw them fly. I think I was in a better position during the nine years that I was giving Whitehead money to develop his ideas, to know what his machines could do than persons who were employed by him for a short period of time or those who remained silent for thirty-five years about what would have been an historic achievement in aviation.” Perhaps the strongest argument against the Whitehead claims is to be found in the fact that not one of the powered machines that he built after 1902 ever left the ground. Nor did any of those machines resemble the aircraft that he claimed to have flown in 1901-1902. The claimed flight of the Lilienthal winged prototype No. 21 may have been a story about what he planned to do. The reporter who was more interested in a good story than a factual one (common for the era) added an artists rendering since there were no photographs of the No. 21 in flight. There were several static photographs of Whitehead standing next to No. 21 (date unknown). Why did he not follow up his early success? Why did Whitehead depart from the basic design that he claimed had been successful? Are we to assume that he forgot the secret of flight? Anything close to the claimed performance would have delighted his backers and investors. Stanley Yale Beach, backed him for 8 years before giving up on the project. (photo of the prototype available at Wright-Brothers.0rg) Sources and URLs available on request.
@stevebett4947 Жыл бұрын
Harworth's elder brother, Nicholas Horvath, who operates a drug-store in Bridgeport, asserts that he never once heard his younger brother mention the alleged one and one-half mile flight or the seven mile flight. It was news to him that Whitehead had made such flights. In fact, it was news to everyone of Whitehead's old neighbors and former helpers who still live in the vicinity of Pine Street. Even Louis Darvarich, who was Whitehead's first partner in flying experiments in Pittsburgh in 1899, and who accompanied Whitehead to Bridgeport and lived near him for several years, had never heard of the alleged one and one-half mile flight or the seven mile flight. " Whitehead was not a master mechanic as claimed. His former foreman, Mr. August Wahlquist, states that he was not a highly skilled mechanic, and was not allowed to operate a machine in the plant. He was paid $12 a week while master mechanics received $20 a week or more. The plant did build automotive steam engines very similar to the one found on the pictures of prototype No. 21 and on the two non-fiying replicas that are often displayed at aviation events. Dvorack came to Bridgeport to finance an airplane "After staying several weeks (in Bridgeport in 1904) I came to the conclusion that Whitehead was incapable of building a satisfactory motor, and became disgusted and left. I talked with Beach, the editor of the Scientific American, who was interested in Whitehead's experiments (and who lived near Bridgeport) and Beach himself told me he had never seen Whitehead make a flight. "I do not believe that Whitehead made any flights, although it is possible he may have made short straightaway hops Greg's airplanes and automobiles KZread video on Whitehead kzread.info/dash/bejne/hHV8zslriaTThtY.html
@hvermout4248 Жыл бұрын
Weisskopf at the time probably didn't really realise the significance of his hobby ...
@stevebett4947 Жыл бұрын
@H Vermout HV: Weisskopf at the time probably didn't really realise the significance of his hobby ... SB: That may be true. Finding new backers and investors was his priority. It was his livelihood. He had problems satisfying his investors and some refused to pay. On supported his for almost 8 years until he finally concluded that Whitehead was not going to build a flying machine that actually flew. Had the No. 21 flew 50 ft. He could have used the same design and satisfied most of his backer. .... said that Whitehead never ,made any claims abut an earlier success. @iChiphead @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1 ref:
@renaldjbacigalupi688 Жыл бұрын
Nah that's kino der toten
@oscarhhs1 Жыл бұрын
How many rounds of zombies are you surviving
@jamesmason2228 Жыл бұрын
If you think that "first to fly" can be proven by marketing claims? Without ever seeing a concrete record of the engineering R&D process that such a thing requires? You are apt to be persuaded by the "fake it till you make it" crowd - including Whitehead and others. If any of these folks had really accomplished anything note worthy? There would be a subsequently reviewable documentary record of their process. And you never find that. Except for the Wrights.
@OrcaHarcode Жыл бұрын
Guys I have the raygun
@jkk8609 Жыл бұрын
Olga4stamford. 2023 148th
@jkk8609 Жыл бұрын
Stand your ground! Well done. Curley's
@mikeschumacher9715 Жыл бұрын
What a bunch of snivelers. Around here it's 3 days to get the city plowed. Main routes first, residential last.
@crimony3054 Жыл бұрын
Whitehead's legitimate contributions are diminished by attempts to claim he was the first to fly.
@cardinalRG Жыл бұрын
Well said.
@stevebett4947 Жыл бұрын
@crimony "Whitehead's legitimate contributions are diminished by attempts to claim he was the first to fly." sb: What were his legitimate contributions? I have lists of contributions for the Wright-Brothers and Santos Dumont. I don't have one for Gustave Whitehouse. A contribution has to be documented. (also) Another aerial pioneer has to have adopted and adapted it to his design. @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1
@crimony3054 Жыл бұрын
@@stevebett4947 You can see that in 1901, Whitehead had a dual, counter-rotating propellers, which the Wrights chose also in Spring 1903. He had the engine in front of the pilot, an important safety feature. He had a center mast supporting the wings. He had a canvas-covered fuselage to increase aerodynamics. He had wheels, not skids.
@tonylong7627 Жыл бұрын
Seriously,,,,,,, dude,,,,,,,,get a life🥱🥱🥱🥱😔😔😔😔👇👇👇👇👇
@fenderfetish Жыл бұрын
2:39 Mr Brown states ‘the exact wording’ then gives a vague overview. I encourage anyone to do some reading on the Smithsonian contract; it’s not the malicious document it’s made out to be. The chief concern with the contract is the effort made by Glen Curtiss to retrofit the Aerodrome and claim its airworthiness, over a decade after it failed to fly. It’s almost like what some are trying to do with Mr Whitehead’s achievements…
@stevebett4947 Жыл бұрын
@Andy The Smithsonian contract is not the maliciouis document that Brown makes it out to be. SB: I agree. All of Brown's unsupported claims need to be checked out. This is is fairly easy today. The actual contract is available for review. The reason for its wording is a little more difficult to track down. The judge threw out Curtiss' claim that Whitehead succeeded before the Wrights, Curtiss was unable to produce the evidence, Unsupported claims that happen to be published in a newspaper does not count as evidence. Curtiss then tried a couple of other stunts. He proved that Langley's Aerodrome could have flown with pontoons. Only later did he admit that there were at least 50 updates to the design of the look-alike replica. @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1
@frankierobinsonsr277 Жыл бұрын
Anybody who can even think.of tearing these buildings down should be kicked in the ass. Bridgeport has torn down anuff of the city's history already.you have anuff empty lots as it is and you haven't built anything on those.when are the people of Bridgeport going to vote somebody in office who really cares about the city.how can this be the largest city in Connecticut looking like this..Stamford and Hartford .Hell even New Haven make Bridgeport look like a dump.the mayor should be ashamed to say he runs Bridgeport. He's not proud of the city because if he was it wouldn't look the way it does. Stop voting criminals in office and maybe the city will start to look like something
@generalsoulja8644 Жыл бұрын
Whidah=Whydah=Juda=Ajudah=Jew Dahome=Da Home=Dan's Tribe A whole lot hidden in history. Joel 3:5-6 [5]Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my goodly pleasant things: [6]The children also of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border. The Bible is our History book.
@generalsoulja8644 Жыл бұрын
Genesis 49:16-18 [16]Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel. [17]Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward. [18]I have waited for thy salvation, O LORD.
@votered1552 Жыл бұрын
Pickup isn’t plowing that street.
@dolorestaylor2993 Жыл бұрын
I too remember these theaters so much,spent many days with my sister and with friends there. sometimes watching 2-3 movies there till dark and then afraid to walk home to Benham Ave. such great memories. lets please save our theaters..
@sksjdhhsbd5599 Жыл бұрын
i need to know wtf a charter is for school tmmr please help a girl out🙏
@AnacesardaLuz26daLuz772 жыл бұрын
❄❄🌨🌨☃️☃️🌬👍
@AnacesardaLuz26daLuz772 жыл бұрын
❄❄🌨🌨🌬☃️👍
@AnacesardaLuz26daLuz772 жыл бұрын
❄❄❄🌨🌨🌬🌬☃️☃️👍
@AnacesardaLuz26daLuz772 жыл бұрын
❄❄❄🌨☃️🌬👍
@one_nation_fanwear2 жыл бұрын
I’m a Poli. My family still resides in Bridgeport / Fairfield. Every time we drive by the ruins boarded up covered in graffiti my nonna would tell my siblings and I that was built by your family. I still own property in downtown BPT and have watched it slowly come back downtown. I hope they do this architectural masterpiece justice cause my family still haunts the place.
@liamp6491 Жыл бұрын
what nationality?
@Jagdtyger2A2 жыл бұрын
I am glad Janes qualified the Navigable description of the flight. Hiram S Maxim managed an uncontrolled flight a bit earlier, using steam power
@stevebett4947 Жыл бұрын
Janes also said that the pro-Whitehead argument was the opinion of the editor of that issue and not the position of the journal. . IHS Janes: “As for Mr. Whitehead, an IHS Jane’s spokesman said in an emailed statement this month that the journal’s article “was intended to stimulate discussion about first in flight,” and “reflected Mr. Jackson's opinion. The editor's opinion on the issue (Who should be credited with making the world's first powered airplane flight?) was his alone and not that of IHS Jane’s.” (New York Times, April 18, 2015). There is no quick answer to the question - who was first in powered flight? If you read just one opinionated book on the topic, you will likely be persuaded. Santos-Dumont fans would certainly find fault with the suggestion that Whitehead was first. The evidence provided by Whitehead fans is suspect and inconsistent. There were newspaper articles and illustrations but neither the reporters or artists were witnesses. The prototype 21 bird winged flying machine was photographed but not in the air. The SD fans also think that the Wright's claim was suspect. The difference is that the WB described their planned series of aviation experiments in a peer reviewed engineering journal in 1901 and then photographed and reported on each experiment in their development of a practical prototype. @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1 @
@tombeck27922 жыл бұрын
How about not parking in the street the night before?
@BigmoRivera2 жыл бұрын
Thank God Their Was No Emergency Calls 🤦🏼♂️
@paulthesoundguy12 жыл бұрын
Your an idiot…the pickup truck and plow could never remove 24” of snow blown across the street
@edwinheredia43052 жыл бұрын
The City of Bridgeport sucks they are bunch of lazy asses
@jamiereid402 жыл бұрын
A truck plow would not move that snow, why are they out stay home stay safe, the heavy equipment is going to have to be used to clean that snow up Dum people on the roads stay home, let them do their jobs, they can not do their jobs with all of you in the way
@edwinheredia43052 жыл бұрын
The City of Bridgeport sucks when it come to snow plow they won't do the job right they are lazy and they want overtime and at the end of the year they make sure they get that budget at the end of the year...
@stevebett49472 жыл бұрын
The look alike replica of Whitehead's No. 21 flies as smoothly as Alan Calassa's modernized No. 14 AKA 14-bis. I think that such demonstrations are valuable. I am waiting for a successful flight of other modernized prototypes with a claim on being the first to fly. Such flights, however, do not represent how the historic prototype flew. They just show that with a modern powerplant and efficient propeller they would have flown.
@gghhhfghgh Жыл бұрын
Comenta aí da réplica do Flyers I que caiu na vala em 2003!? Kkkkkkk
@stevebett4947 Жыл бұрын
@@gghhhfghgh I have commented on the failure of the exact replica of the Wright Flyer 1903 to fly on a rainy day with no wind. No one in the know would have predicted a successful flight. There is another film of this flight which shows that if the flyer had flown, it would have hit someone in the crowd of spectators who were less than 50 ft. (17 m) away from the end of the mono-rail. All the 100 year anniversary flight proved was that the motorized glider could not take off when the wind was less than 15 mph. That fact is central in the pro Santos-Dumont fans argument. I am not sure why you would make fun of it by LOL. The 14-bis could taxi to its take off speed, the minimalist Wright prototype could not. I am not sure that any of the early birds (1895-1909) could have made it off the ground on that day. The Wrights' would have waited for dry weather with high winds. the main problems would have been 1. getting the motor to run in damp rainy weather. 2. wet fabric would have been heavy and may have lost some of its airfoil shape. 3. Getting bicycle wheels to work in sand. There are two videos showing a more successful test flight several weeks earlier on a dry day with 15 mph winds. They are not impressive flights since the pilot had minimal control and only covered about 100 ft. It does suggest that the Wright Brothers' claims are plausible when the winds are higher and the pilots are more experienced. Please comment after viewing this video. I will provide a comment in Portuguese later.
@stevebett4947 Жыл бұрын
@@gghhhfghgh: " Comenta aí da réplica do Flyers I que caiu na vala em 2003!? Kkkkkkk " @Flávio Farias Comentei sobre a falha da réplica exata do Wright Flyer 1903 em voar em um dia chuvoso sem vento. Ninguém no saber teria previsto um vôo bem sucedido. Há outro filme deste voo que mostra que se o passageiro tivesse voado, teria atingido alguém na multidão de espectadores que estavam a menos de 50 pés (17 m) do final do monotrilho. Tudo o que o vôo do aniversário de 100 anos provou foi que o planador motorizado não podia decolar quando o vento estava menos forte do que 15 km/h. Esse fato é central no argumento dos torcedores pró Santos-Dumont. Eu não sei por que você iria tirar sarro disso por LOL (kkkk). O 14-bis poderia taxiar até sua velocidade de decolagem, o protótipo minimalista de Wright não. Não tenho certeza se algum dos primeiros pássaros (1895-1909) poderia ter decolado naquele dia. Os Wrights teriam esperado por tempo seco com ventos fortes. os principais problemas seriam 1. fazer o motor funcionar em tempo chuvoso e úmido. 2. o tecido molhado teria sido pesado e pode ter perdido parte de sua forma de aerofólio. 3. Colocar rodas de bicicleta para trabalhar na areia. Há dois vídeos mostrando um voo de teste mais bem-sucedido várias semanas antes em um dia seco com ventos de 15 mph. Eles não são voos impressionantes, pois o piloto tinha controle mínimo e cobria apenas cerca de 100 pés. Isso sugere que as alegações dos irmãos Wright são plausíveis quando os ventos são mais altos e os pilotos são mais experientes. Por favor, comente depois de ver este vídeo.
@gghhhfghgh Жыл бұрын
@@stevebett4947 sempre uma desculpa! Mil teóricas e gente falando pra caralho. Mas tudo relacionado aos suposto vôo do Wright sempre fica faltando uma peça! Kkkkkkkkk
@gghhhfghgh Жыл бұрын
@@stevebett4947 Santos Dumont vôo em 1906 isso e histórico! - Ainda em 1906 existiam 3 premiações para quem voasse com o mais pesado que o ar com critérios rígidos. - Santos Dumont venceu 2 prêmios - Tinha uma comissão científica especializada em aviação para homologar que de fato foi um vôo. Tinha imprensa internacional acompanhando e centenas de testemunhas. Suposto vôo dos Wright 1903, flyers pesava 340 Kg com piloto e apenas 12 HP de potência. Foto do suposto vôo de 1903, apareceu somente em 1908, 5 anos depois dos fatos. Foto sem data alguns centímetros acima da corrediça. Uma carta de telégrafo escrita pelos Wright. Supostamente era secreto mas os irmãos faziam questão de informa a imprensa sobre os vôo. Revistas e jornais sem foto escritas pelos Wright. Testemunhas apontadas pelos Wright. Sem comissão científica especializada para homologar se de fato foi um vôo. Kkkkkk da vontade de rir!
@kellwood14042 жыл бұрын
Check out Montreal’s snow clearing. It’s amazing. In my city, we get main highways and main streets only.
@moniquepowell94992 жыл бұрын
I bet you all the drug addicts were able to get out!!!!! And there driving hoopty 2 wheel drive.....😂😂😂😂😂
@bobo-wf1jv2 жыл бұрын
Really amazing, here in rural Wisconsin we usually get plowed out within two hours of the storm.
@rrud592 жыл бұрын
Hey 8 years later Bridgeport still sucks and this dude still whining
@badandy1022 жыл бұрын
In a big snow storm the major roads are done first. Then secondary streets. Then neighborhoods. Don't want to be snowed in, move somewhere it doesn't snow.
@boostbythepound93032 жыл бұрын
You are the guy us snow removal guys hate. You have no idea how hard it is to remove that much snow.
@prestonprtcobra81092 жыл бұрын
Should of put down the camera & helped out cleaning the snow but you would rather be a complainer & do nothing.
@jimmcconnell58292 жыл бұрын
Looks like Peoria Illinois after a storm
@ricardov82492 жыл бұрын
He said yea if we can I like that guy. Feels like he told this guy no sh*t it is wat were doin. That guy is a doer n this camera guy is a complainer
@ricardov82492 жыл бұрын
Wa wa wa complain complain complain stop crying you dont like it move to Florida you'll never have to worry snow takes time to move they dont focus on your street but I bet when they went by then you complain because they pushed snow in front of your driveway
Пікірлер
I spoke to the Whitehead family myself and have confirmed that Gustave Whitehead did indeed fly as detailed in this video in 1901 in Bridgeport Connecticut. Additionally, when I vacationed on the Outer Banks, NC (OBX), I visited the Kitty Hawk Museum which gives credit only to the Wright Brothers, and the Park Rangers there personally told me they know that Whithead flew before the Wright Brothers and then pulled out a copy of Jane's Aviation, the most respected Reference work for the Aviation Industry, to prove that Whitehead did indeed beat the Wright Brothers by at least 2 years if not more. What more proof can a person ask for??
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for giving recognition and credit to Gustave Whitehead. There is ample, ample evidence including Bridgeport Police logs of Whitehead flying overhead. I seriously propose a Whitehead Museum be built in Bridgeport to mark this achievement. It should be professionally done and built, and possibly include the Sikorsky Museum of Helicopter flight to raise the public awareness.
That hotel would make a great performing arts academy…
These beautiful theaters would make beautiful concert halls for ballet/opera companies or symphony orchestras. They should be developed into performing arts centers, and it would be great to see that pipe organ restored… that organ deserves to have Bach‘s Toccata and Fugue played on it, I bet that the acoustics are awesome in that beautiful theater!!! I can imagine annual productions of The Nutcracker or Swan Lake being performed on that stage, and I bet that a Steinway or Bosendörfer concert grand would look awesome on that stage!!! I hope that those beautiful theaters are restored and made into performing arts centers…
Calling the Smithsonian a "scientific" entity might be stretching it a bit. They're are foremost a museum, and rely on ticket sales and benefactors to sustain them. They got a lot of egg on their face over their decades-long defense of Langley.... They probably do not want to cause a skirmish with the Whitehead situation.
Steve Bett @H Vermout Original Question:: " Why do you say he couldn't repeat it?" SB: Do you have any evidence that he did? Here is an account from the Smithsonian magazine. (which might be a little biased but the claims are supported with facts) The original Bridgeport Sunday Herald story (...), written as if it was an eyewitness account, sounds impressive. Reporter: Howell Claimed Witnesses: James Dickie and Andrew Cellic. Read what Cellic says today about what happened years ago: I believe the story in the Bridgeport Herald was imaginary. Cellic says, "I was not present ... I do not recall of a flight of (No. 21) or any other that Whitehead ever built." It is important to note, however, that the editor (of the Herald) did not rush into print with a front page story. The article appeared on page five, four days after the alleged event, in a feature story headlined with four witches steering their brooms through the word “Flying.” In the story, Howell notes two witnesses other than himself - James Dickie and Andrew Cellic (Cellie?). When an interviewer returned to Bridgeport to research the claims in 1936, he could not find anyone who remembered Cellic. He did find Dickie, however. “I believe the entire story of the Herald was imaginary and grew out of the comments of Whitehead discussing what he hoped to get from his plane,” the supposed witness commented. “I was not present and did not witness any airplane flight on August 14, 1901, I do not remember or recall ever hearing of a flight with this particular plane or any other that Whitehead ever built.” Between 1934 and 1974 researchers supporting Whitehead’s claim they interviewed 22 additional persons who said that they had seen him fly at one time or another during the period 1901-1902. These individuals were being interviewed about an event that had occurred over three decades earlier, by researchers who were anxious to prove that Whitehead had flown. In this day and age we have learned that even eyewitness testimony given just after an event occurs can be flawed. Many of the individuals who were most closely associated with Whitehead, or who were funding his efforts, doubted that he had flown. Stanley Yale Beach, the grandson of the editor of Scientific American and Whitehead’s principle backer, was unequivocal on this issue. “I do not believe that any of his machines ever left the ground…in spite of the assertions of many people who think they saw them fly. I think I was in a better position during the nine years that I was giving Whitehead money to develop his ideas, to know what his machines could do than persons who were employed by him for a short period of time or those who remained silent for thirty-five years about what would have been an historic achievement in aviation.” Perhaps the strongest argument against the Whitehead claims is to be found in the fact that not one of the powered machines that he built after 1902 ever left the ground. Nor did any of those machines resemble the aircraft that he claimed to have flown in 1901-1902. The claimed flight of the Lilienthal winged prototype No. 21 may have been a story about what he planned to do. The reporter who was more interested in a good story than a factual one (common for the era) added an artists rendering since there were no photographs of the No. 21 in flight. There were several static photographs of Whitehead standing next to No. 21 (date unspecified, unknown or invented). Why did he not follow up his early success? Why did Whitehead depart from the basic design that he allegedly claimed had been successful? Are we to assume that he forgot the secret of flight? Anything close to the claimed performance would have delighted his backers and investors. Stanley Yale Beach, backed him for 8 years before giving up on the project. (photo of the prototype available at Wright-Brothers.0rg) SB: I have yet to receive a comment from a Whitehead fan who had read the counter arguments. The counterarguments may be supported by historical facts but historical facts are non certain or incontestable. Sources and URLs available on request. Places where you can read the actual comments can be found elsewhere in this discussion: Greg's airplanes and automobiles KZread video on Whitehead kzread.info/dash/bejne/hHV8zslriaTThtY.html @crimony: "In the photo you can see, counter rotating props, engine in front of a standing pilot" @Steve Bett:: How can anyone SEE this? I see a man holding part of an engine sitting in front of a center mast supported winged No. 21. You can sometimes see the Wright's counter-rotating props in a video. You can't say it can be seen in a static photo. @H Vermout @Riaz Hassan @Steven Hopkins @Pete Jones @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1
Steve Bett @H Vermout Original Question:: " Why do you say he couldn't repeat it?" SB: Do you have any evidence that he did? Here is an account from the Smithsonian magazine. (which might be a little biased but the claims are supported with facts) The original Bridgeport Sunday Herald story (...), written as if it was an eyewitness account, sounds impressive. Reporter: Howell Claimed Witnesses: James Dickie and Andrew Cellic. Read what Cellic says today about what happened years ago: I believe the story in the Bridgeport Herald was imaginary. Cellic says, "I was not present ... I do not recall of a flight of (No. 21) or any other that Whitehead ever built." It is important to note, however, that the editor (of the Herald) did not rush into print with a front page story. The article appeared on page five, four days after the alleged event, in a feature story headlined with four witches steering their brooms through the word “Flying.” In the story, Howell notes two witnesses other than himself - James Dickie and Andrew Cellic. When an interviewer returned to Bridgeport to research the claims in 1936, he could not find anyone who remembered Cellic. He did find Dickie, however. “I believe the entire story of the Herald was imaginary and grew out of the comments of Whitehead discussing what he hoped to get from his plane,” the supposed witness commented. “I was not present and did not witness any airplane flight on August 14, 1901, I do not remember or recall ever hearing of a flight with this particular plane or any other that Whitehead ever built.” Between 1934 and 1974 researchers supporting Whitehead’s claim they interviewed 22 additional persons who said that they had seen him fly at one time or another during the period 1901-1902. These individuals were being interviewed about an event that had occurred over three decades earlier, by researchers who were anxious to prove that Whitehead had flown. In this day and age we have learned that even eyewitness testimony given just after an event occurs can be flawed. Many of the individuals who were most closely associated with Whitehead, or who were funding his efforts, doubted that he had flown. Stanley Yale Beach, the grandson of the editor of Scientific American and Whitehead’s principle backer, was unequivocal on this issue. “I do not believe that any of his machines ever left the ground…in spite of the assertions of many people who think they saw them fly. I think I was in a better position during the nine years that I was giving Whitehead money to develop his ideas, to know what his machines could do than persons who were employed by him for a short period of time or those who remained silent for thirty-five years about what would have been an historic achievement in aviation.” Perhaps the strongest argument against the Whitehead claims is to be found in the fact that not one of the powered machines that he built after 1902 ever left the ground. Nor did any of those machines resemble the aircraft that he claimed to have flown in 1901-1902. The claimed flight of the Lilienthal winged prototype No. 21 may have been a story about what he planned to do. The reporter who was more interested in a good story than a factual one (common for the era) added an artists rendering since there were no photographs of the No. 21 in flight. There were several static photographs of Whitehead standing next to No. 21 (date unspecified, unknown or invented). Why did he not follow up his early success? Why did Whitehead depart from the basic design that he allegedly claimed had been successful? Are we to assume that he forgot the secret of flight? Anything close to the claimed performance would have delighted his backers and investors. Stanley Yale Beach, backed him for 8 years before giving up on the project. (photo of the prototype available at Wright-Brothers.0rg) Sources and URLs available on request. @crimony: "In the photo you can see, counter rotating props, engine in front of a standing pilot" @Steve Bett:: How can anyone SEE this? I see a man holding part of an engine sitting in front of a center mast supported winged No. 21. @ @H Vermout @Riaz Hassan @Steven Hopkins @Pete Jones @ REF: Places where you can read the actual comments:
Fraud
Much is made of the Wright brothers’ insight that propellers were contoured, rotating wings, yet Whitehead’s propellers also seemed to be constructed on the same realization
From Wikipedia: Photographs exist showing the aircraft on the ground,[1] but there are no photographs known of the aircraft in flight. The No.21 was a monoplane powered by two engines-one for the wheels during the ground run, the other for driving the propellers in flight. Design and construction The No.21 was a wire-braced monoplane with bat-like wings and triangular horizontal tail. There was no vertical fin, and lateral control was intended to be accomplished by shifting the pilot's body sideways.[3] The wings were constructed with radial bamboo ribs and covered with silk, and had a span of 36 ft (11 m). They had some dihedral when opened out to the flying position. The fuselage was of rectangular box section with constant height, curved to taper inwards at front and rear when seen from above. Four small wheels were fixed to the bottom. An analysis in 1980 concluded that the design as a whole was flimsy and aerodynamically unsound.[4] Although having two engines and twin propellers, the aircraft was not a conventional twin. It had separate engines for ground running and flight, both designed and made by Whitehead. The ground engine was of 10 hp (7.5 kW) and drove the wheels to reach takeoff speed. Propulsion was then changed to a 20 hp (15 kW) acetylene engine driving two counter-rotating tractor propellers mounted on outriggers.[5] The aircraft was intended to take off under its own power and without assistance. A description and photographs of Whitehead's aircraft appeared in Scientific American in June 1901,[1] stating that the "novel flying machine" had just been completed, and "is now ready for preliminary trials." The article included photographs showing the aircraft on the ground. Claims of flight A minority of commentators claim that the No. 21 flew, but the majority of historians reject these claims. Whitehead was quoted in a July 26 article in the Minneapolis Journal, credited to the New York Sun, in which he described the first two trial flights of his machine on May 3. Andrew Cellie and Daniel Varovi were mentioned as his financial backers who also assisted in the trial flights. The machine was unmanned and carried 220 pounds (100 kilograms) of sand as ballast and flew to an altitude of 40 to 50 feet (12 to 15 m) for an 1/8 of a mile (200 m). According to Whitehead, the machine flew a distance of 1/2 mile (790 m) during its second test flight for one and one-half minutes before crashing into a tree. He also explained his desire to keep the location of any future experiments hidden to avoid drawing a crowd who might make a "snap-shot verdict of failure".[2] Drawing in the Bridgeport Herald of No.21 aloft. - - - - - - - SB: Sounds like good advice. Hyde who promoted the building of the original Wright Flyer for the 2003 Centennial seems to be unconcerned specifying a date. The video of the Centennial failure resulted in dozens of Brazilian Santos-Dumont fans reposting variants of the video as proof that the 1903 Wright Flyer would not fly. No one mentions the fact that no other pre 1909 flying machine would have flown. You can't compare a flight on a rainy day with low air density with flight on a sunny day without wind gusts. The only thing the failure proves is that the 1903 Wright Flyer would not fly unless the head wind was over 15 mph. The Wrights had two other public demonstrations at Huffman Prairie in Ohio that also failed to take off because of engine problems. When this happened to John J. Montgomery, he substituted a glider flight for those who had made the difficult trip. (Wiki) In an article in the August 18, 1901, issue of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald a reporter states that he witnessed a night test of the machine, at first unpiloted and loaded with sand bags, and later with Whitehead at the controls. The story was reprinted in the New York Herald, the Boston Transcript and the Washington Times, which ran it on August 23, 1901. Within months, the story ran in nine other newspapers in all parts of the country, as far away as California and Arizona.[2] A drawing of the aircraft in flight accompanied the Sunday Herald article. According to Whitehead and a reporter who claimed to have witnessed the event, the monoplane's longest flight was 200 feet (61 m) above ground for one-half mile (0.80 km). Whitehead's supporters say that he made four flights that day, which resulted in conflicting accounts from different witnesses. The conflicts have been used by opponents of the claims to question whether any flights took place. These claims are rejected by mainstream historians. Whitehead did not keep a log book or document his work. In 1980 aviation historian C.H. Gibbs-Smith called the story a "flight of fancy".[5] A minority of commentators have supported Whitehead's claim to have flown the No. 21 and this has caused some controversy. In 2013 an editorial by Paul Jackson in the influential industry publication Jane's All the World's Aircraft credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a powered heavier-than-air flying machine.[6] The corporate owner of Jane's subsequently distanced itself from the editorial, stating "the article reflected Mr. Jackson's opinion on the issue and not that of IHS Jane's".[7] Tom Crouch, senior curator of aeronautics for the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) of the Smithsonian Institution, studied evidence for the alleged flight and in 2016 he issued a strong rebuttal, noting many other authorities who had already done so.[8] (more at en.wikipedia.0rg/wiki/Whitehead_No._21 www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Gustav_Whitehead/Gustav_Whitehead.htm www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Santos_Dumont/Santos_Dumont.htm#:~:text=The%20Brazilians%20argue%20the%20Wrights,in%20secret%20for%20the%20military. discussants @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1
When John J. Montgomery died from his glider crash injuries, there was no one to take his place. (see WIkipedia for story) His chief test pilot had died earlier when the release mechanism from his balloon failed to release and the attempts to get it to release damaged the glider. Not sure why the pilot did not have a parachute. Perhaps they were too bulky in the early 1900's. I haven't located any detailed information on the rotary engine he was trying to perfect. @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1
Some entitled idiot who knows a local bureaucrat probably wants the lot. The city has been harassing Curly's for decades.
@H Vermout wrote: Why do you say he couldn't repeat it? Do you have any evidence that he did? Here is an accouint from the Smithsonian magazine. The original Bridgeport Sunday Herald story, written as if it was an eyewitness account, sounds impressive. It is important to note, however, that the editor did not rush into print with a front page story. The article appeared on page five, four days after the alleged event, in a feature story headlined with four witches steering their brooms through the word “Flying.” In the story, Howell notes two witnesses other than himself - James Dickie and Andrew Cellic. When an interviewer returned to Bridgeport to research the claims in 1936, he could not find anyone who remembered Cellic. He did find Dickie, however. “I believe the entire story of the Herald was imaginary and grew out of the comments of Whitehead discussing what he hoped to get from his plane,” the supposed witness commented. “I was not present and did not witness any airplane flight on August 14, 1901, I do not remember or recall ever hearing of a flight with this particular plane or any other that Whitehead ever built.” Between 1934 and 1974 researchers supporting Whitehead’s claim interviewed 22 additional persons who said that they had seen him fly at one time or another during the period 1901-1902. These individuals were being interviewed about an event that had occurred over three decades earlier, by researchers who were anxious to prove that Whitehead had flown. In this day and age we have learned that even eyewitness testimony given just after an event occurs can be flawed. Many of the individuals who were most closely associated with Whitehead, or who were funding his efforts, doubted that he had flown. Stanley Yale Beach, the grandson of the editor of Scientific American and Whitehead’s principle backer, was unequivocal on this issue. “I do not believe that any of his machines ever left the ground…in spite of the assertions of many people who think they saw them fly. I think I was in a better position during the nine years that I was giving Whitehead money to develop his ideas, to know what his machines could do than persons who were employed by him for a short period of time or those who remained silent for thirty-five years about what would have been an historic achievement in aviation.” Perhaps the strongest argument against the Whitehead claims is to be found in the fact that not one of the powered machines that he built after 1902 ever left the ground. Nor did any of those machines resemble the aircraft that he claimed to have flown in 1901-1902. The claimed flight of the Lilienthal winged prototype No. 21 may have been a story about what he planned to do. The reporter who was more interested in a good story than a factual one (common for the era) added an artists rendering since there were no photographs of the No. 21 in flight. There were several static photographs of Whitehead standing next to No. 21 (date unknown). Why did he not follow up his early success? Why did Whitehead depart from the basic design that he claimed had been successful? Are we to assume that he forgot the secret of flight? Anything close to the claimed performance would have delighted his backers and investors. Stanley Yale Beach, backed him for 8 years before giving up on the project. (photo of the prototype available at Wright-Brothers.0rg) Sources and URLs available on request.
Harworth's elder brother, Nicholas Horvath, who operates a drug-store in Bridgeport, asserts that he never once heard his younger brother mention the alleged one and one-half mile flight or the seven mile flight. It was news to him that Whitehead had made such flights. In fact, it was news to everyone of Whitehead's old neighbors and former helpers who still live in the vicinity of Pine Street. Even Louis Darvarich, who was Whitehead's first partner in flying experiments in Pittsburgh in 1899, and who accompanied Whitehead to Bridgeport and lived near him for several years, had never heard of the alleged one and one-half mile flight or the seven mile flight. " Whitehead was not a master mechanic as claimed. His former foreman, Mr. August Wahlquist, states that he was not a highly skilled mechanic, and was not allowed to operate a machine in the plant. He was paid $12 a week while master mechanics received $20 a week or more. The plant did build automotive steam engines very similar to the one found on the pictures of prototype No. 21 and on the two non-fiying replicas that are often displayed at aviation events. Dvorack came to Bridgeport to finance an airplane "After staying several weeks (in Bridgeport in 1904) I came to the conclusion that Whitehead was incapable of building a satisfactory motor, and became disgusted and left. I talked with Beach, the editor of the Scientific American, who was interested in Whitehead's experiments (and who lived near Bridgeport) and Beach himself told me he had never seen Whitehead make a flight. "I do not believe that Whitehead made any flights, although it is possible he may have made short straightaway hops Greg's airplanes and automobiles KZread video on Whitehead kzread.info/dash/bejne/hHV8zslriaTThtY.html
Weisskopf at the time probably didn't really realise the significance of his hobby ...
@H Vermout HV: Weisskopf at the time probably didn't really realise the significance of his hobby ... SB: That may be true. Finding new backers and investors was his priority. It was his livelihood. He had problems satisfying his investors and some refused to pay. On supported his for almost 8 years until he finally concluded that Whitehead was not going to build a flying machine that actually flew. Had the No. 21 flew 50 ft. He could have used the same design and satisfied most of his backer. .... said that Whitehead never ,made any claims abut an earlier success. @iChiphead @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1 ref:
Nah that's kino der toten
How many rounds of zombies are you surviving
If you think that "first to fly" can be proven by marketing claims? Without ever seeing a concrete record of the engineering R&D process that such a thing requires? You are apt to be persuaded by the "fake it till you make it" crowd - including Whitehead and others. If any of these folks had really accomplished anything note worthy? There would be a subsequently reviewable documentary record of their process. And you never find that. Except for the Wrights.
Guys I have the raygun
Olga4stamford. 2023 148th
Stand your ground! Well done. Curley's
What a bunch of snivelers. Around here it's 3 days to get the city plowed. Main routes first, residential last.
Whitehead's legitimate contributions are diminished by attempts to claim he was the first to fly.
Well said.
@crimony "Whitehead's legitimate contributions are diminished by attempts to claim he was the first to fly." sb: What were his legitimate contributions? I have lists of contributions for the Wright-Brothers and Santos Dumont. I don't have one for Gustave Whitehouse. A contribution has to be documented. (also) Another aerial pioneer has to have adopted and adapted it to his design. @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1
@@stevebett4947 You can see that in 1901, Whitehead had a dual, counter-rotating propellers, which the Wrights chose also in Spring 1903. He had the engine in front of the pilot, an important safety feature. He had a center mast supporting the wings. He had a canvas-covered fuselage to increase aerodynamics. He had wheels, not skids.
Seriously,,,,,,, dude,,,,,,,,get a life🥱🥱🥱🥱😔😔😔😔👇👇👇👇👇
2:39 Mr Brown states ‘the exact wording’ then gives a vague overview. I encourage anyone to do some reading on the Smithsonian contract; it’s not the malicious document it’s made out to be. The chief concern with the contract is the effort made by Glen Curtiss to retrofit the Aerodrome and claim its airworthiness, over a decade after it failed to fly. It’s almost like what some are trying to do with Mr Whitehead’s achievements…
@Andy The Smithsonian contract is not the maliciouis document that Brown makes it out to be. SB: I agree. All of Brown's unsupported claims need to be checked out. This is is fairly easy today. The actual contract is available for review. The reason for its wording is a little more difficult to track down. The judge threw out Curtiss' claim that Whitehead succeeded before the Wrights, Curtiss was unable to produce the evidence, Unsupported claims that happen to be published in a newspaper does not count as evidence. Curtiss then tried a couple of other stunts. He proved that Langley's Aerodrome could have flown with pontoons. Only later did he admit that there were at least 50 updates to the design of the look-alike replica. @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1
Anybody who can even think.of tearing these buildings down should be kicked in the ass. Bridgeport has torn down anuff of the city's history already.you have anuff empty lots as it is and you haven't built anything on those.when are the people of Bridgeport going to vote somebody in office who really cares about the city.how can this be the largest city in Connecticut looking like this..Stamford and Hartford .Hell even New Haven make Bridgeport look like a dump.the mayor should be ashamed to say he runs Bridgeport. He's not proud of the city because if he was it wouldn't look the way it does. Stop voting criminals in office and maybe the city will start to look like something
Whidah=Whydah=Juda=Ajudah=Jew Dahome=Da Home=Dan's Tribe A whole lot hidden in history. Joel 3:5-6 [5]Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my goodly pleasant things: [6]The children also of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border. The Bible is our History book.
Genesis 49:16-18 [16]Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel. [17]Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward. [18]I have waited for thy salvation, O LORD.
Pickup isn’t plowing that street.
I too remember these theaters so much,spent many days with my sister and with friends there. sometimes watching 2-3 movies there till dark and then afraid to walk home to Benham Ave. such great memories. lets please save our theaters..
i need to know wtf a charter is for school tmmr please help a girl out🙏
❄❄🌨🌨☃️☃️🌬👍
❄❄🌨🌨🌬☃️👍
❄❄❄🌨🌨🌬🌬☃️☃️👍
❄❄❄🌨☃️🌬👍
I’m a Poli. My family still resides in Bridgeport / Fairfield. Every time we drive by the ruins boarded up covered in graffiti my nonna would tell my siblings and I that was built by your family. I still own property in downtown BPT and have watched it slowly come back downtown. I hope they do this architectural masterpiece justice cause my family still haunts the place.
what nationality?
I am glad Janes qualified the Navigable description of the flight. Hiram S Maxim managed an uncontrolled flight a bit earlier, using steam power
Janes also said that the pro-Whitehead argument was the opinion of the editor of that issue and not the position of the journal. . IHS Janes: “As for Mr. Whitehead, an IHS Jane’s spokesman said in an emailed statement this month that the journal’s article “was intended to stimulate discussion about first in flight,” and “reflected Mr. Jackson's opinion. The editor's opinion on the issue (Who should be credited with making the world's first powered airplane flight?) was his alone and not that of IHS Jane’s.” (New York Times, April 18, 2015). There is no quick answer to the question - who was first in powered flight? If you read just one opinionated book on the topic, you will likely be persuaded. Santos-Dumont fans would certainly find fault with the suggestion that Whitehead was first. The evidence provided by Whitehead fans is suspect and inconsistent. There were newspaper articles and illustrations but neither the reporters or artists were witnesses. The prototype 21 bird winged flying machine was photographed but not in the air. The SD fans also think that the Wright's claim was suspect. The difference is that the WB described their planned series of aviation experiments in a peer reviewed engineering journal in 1901 and then photographed and reported on each experiment in their development of a practical prototype. @CITADEL5 @Steven Hopkins @Flavio Farias @Endangered Hominid @mrdlore1 @
How about not parking in the street the night before?
Thank God Their Was No Emergency Calls 🤦🏼♂️
Your an idiot…the pickup truck and plow could never remove 24” of snow blown across the street
The City of Bridgeport sucks they are bunch of lazy asses
A truck plow would not move that snow, why are they out stay home stay safe, the heavy equipment is going to have to be used to clean that snow up Dum people on the roads stay home, let them do their jobs, they can not do their jobs with all of you in the way
The City of Bridgeport sucks when it come to snow plow they won't do the job right they are lazy and they want overtime and at the end of the year they make sure they get that budget at the end of the year...
The look alike replica of Whitehead's No. 21 flies as smoothly as Alan Calassa's modernized No. 14 AKA 14-bis. I think that such demonstrations are valuable. I am waiting for a successful flight of other modernized prototypes with a claim on being the first to fly. Such flights, however, do not represent how the historic prototype flew. They just show that with a modern powerplant and efficient propeller they would have flown.
Comenta aí da réplica do Flyers I que caiu na vala em 2003!? Kkkkkkk
@@gghhhfghgh I have commented on the failure of the exact replica of the Wright Flyer 1903 to fly on a rainy day with no wind. No one in the know would have predicted a successful flight. There is another film of this flight which shows that if the flyer had flown, it would have hit someone in the crowd of spectators who were less than 50 ft. (17 m) away from the end of the mono-rail. All the 100 year anniversary flight proved was that the motorized glider could not take off when the wind was less than 15 mph. That fact is central in the pro Santos-Dumont fans argument. I am not sure why you would make fun of it by LOL. The 14-bis could taxi to its take off speed, the minimalist Wright prototype could not. I am not sure that any of the early birds (1895-1909) could have made it off the ground on that day. The Wrights' would have waited for dry weather with high winds. the main problems would have been 1. getting the motor to run in damp rainy weather. 2. wet fabric would have been heavy and may have lost some of its airfoil shape. 3. Getting bicycle wheels to work in sand. There are two videos showing a more successful test flight several weeks earlier on a dry day with 15 mph winds. They are not impressive flights since the pilot had minimal control and only covered about 100 ft. It does suggest that the Wright Brothers' claims are plausible when the winds are higher and the pilots are more experienced. Please comment after viewing this video. I will provide a comment in Portuguese later.
@@gghhhfghgh: " Comenta aí da réplica do Flyers I que caiu na vala em 2003!? Kkkkkkk " @Flávio Farias Comentei sobre a falha da réplica exata do Wright Flyer 1903 em voar em um dia chuvoso sem vento. Ninguém no saber teria previsto um vôo bem sucedido. Há outro filme deste voo que mostra que se o passageiro tivesse voado, teria atingido alguém na multidão de espectadores que estavam a menos de 50 pés (17 m) do final do monotrilho. Tudo o que o vôo do aniversário de 100 anos provou foi que o planador motorizado não podia decolar quando o vento estava menos forte do que 15 km/h. Esse fato é central no argumento dos torcedores pró Santos-Dumont. Eu não sei por que você iria tirar sarro disso por LOL (kkkk). O 14-bis poderia taxiar até sua velocidade de decolagem, o protótipo minimalista de Wright não. Não tenho certeza se algum dos primeiros pássaros (1895-1909) poderia ter decolado naquele dia. Os Wrights teriam esperado por tempo seco com ventos fortes. os principais problemas seriam 1. fazer o motor funcionar em tempo chuvoso e úmido. 2. o tecido molhado teria sido pesado e pode ter perdido parte de sua forma de aerofólio. 3. Colocar rodas de bicicleta para trabalhar na areia. Há dois vídeos mostrando um voo de teste mais bem-sucedido várias semanas antes em um dia seco com ventos de 15 mph. Eles não são voos impressionantes, pois o piloto tinha controle mínimo e cobria apenas cerca de 100 pés. Isso sugere que as alegações dos irmãos Wright são plausíveis quando os ventos são mais altos e os pilotos são mais experientes. Por favor, comente depois de ver este vídeo.
@@stevebett4947 sempre uma desculpa! Mil teóricas e gente falando pra caralho. Mas tudo relacionado aos suposto vôo do Wright sempre fica faltando uma peça! Kkkkkkkkk
@@stevebett4947 Santos Dumont vôo em 1906 isso e histórico! - Ainda em 1906 existiam 3 premiações para quem voasse com o mais pesado que o ar com critérios rígidos. - Santos Dumont venceu 2 prêmios - Tinha uma comissão científica especializada em aviação para homologar que de fato foi um vôo. Tinha imprensa internacional acompanhando e centenas de testemunhas. Suposto vôo dos Wright 1903, flyers pesava 340 Kg com piloto e apenas 12 HP de potência. Foto do suposto vôo de 1903, apareceu somente em 1908, 5 anos depois dos fatos. Foto sem data alguns centímetros acima da corrediça. Uma carta de telégrafo escrita pelos Wright. Supostamente era secreto mas os irmãos faziam questão de informa a imprensa sobre os vôo. Revistas e jornais sem foto escritas pelos Wright. Testemunhas apontadas pelos Wright. Sem comissão científica especializada para homologar se de fato foi um vôo. Kkkkkk da vontade de rir!
Check out Montreal’s snow clearing. It’s amazing. In my city, we get main highways and main streets only.
I bet you all the drug addicts were able to get out!!!!! And there driving hoopty 2 wheel drive.....😂😂😂😂😂
Really amazing, here in rural Wisconsin we usually get plowed out within two hours of the storm.
Hey 8 years later Bridgeport still sucks and this dude still whining
In a big snow storm the major roads are done first. Then secondary streets. Then neighborhoods. Don't want to be snowed in, move somewhere it doesn't snow.
You are the guy us snow removal guys hate. You have no idea how hard it is to remove that much snow.
Should of put down the camera & helped out cleaning the snow but you would rather be a complainer & do nothing.
Looks like Peoria Illinois after a storm
He said yea if we can I like that guy. Feels like he told this guy no sh*t it is wat were doin. That guy is a doer n this camera guy is a complainer
Wa wa wa complain complain complain stop crying you dont like it move to Florida you'll never have to worry snow takes time to move they dont focus on your street but I bet when they went by then you complain because they pushed snow in front of your driveway