One that's been bugging me for a while now, who was the FIRST to fly.

Thanks PL, I quite agree. however I also reckon that there’s a little bit more good stuff on the web than many reckon, and there’s a lot more rubbish published than most realise! I’d make that a theoretical 5% variance from the expectation, as per your good point though…

JDK and Dave, I would just like to add that as a researcher myself, 1) the web is notorious as a source for incorrect information, due to its nature, anyone can write anything while claiming it to be accurate, and 2) I have discovered many instances of the same mistake being repeated in book after book on the same subject, because the authors are too lazy to check their sources properly.
Large pinches of salt are required when researching, and none more so than when using either the web or recent published literature!
End of warning!

Very well put James, I totally agree with all that.

Everyone else has gone rather quiet on this thread so I think it’s rather past time I shut up and let someone else have a go with their thoughts on this topic (“Hallilujah” I hear you all say!)

Hi Dave,
My blood temp seems OK. 😉 Certainly hope to get to Wanaka in 2006, as there’ll be some interesting aeroplanes, I’m led to believe! Would be good to meet at last. Will you be driving up on the wing of a Proctor? 😀 Errol, Thanks for the roadsign thought. I’ll add it to my developing list!

I’d like to think I’m trying to be a good historian, but that’s for others to judge. What I’m interested in is how we tell the difference between good and bad history and research. As you say, when major chunks of data show up, some still can’t accept it. That’s fine, their loss. The important thing is to try and develop tested theories, and modify them in the light of evidence, rather than predjudice or opinion.

What bothers me in your posts in this thread, Dave, is a kind of que sera sera feel. Everyone using this forum has a part to play. We must not abdicate the responsibility to differentiate between good history and bad. And then, we should support good historical work, rather than bad – buying the right books, magazines, referring to authoritative rather than conspiracy website addresses, and so on; challanging shoddy work, and correcting errors when we can. The tendancy of history is for the general thread to be towards simplified, magnified stories. Good history is showing that it’s not as simple as that. We have a great medium here in being able to challange iffy research, which I know you’ve played a part in before, when the discussions get interesting.

One of my favourite points in a Forum discussion is when someone spits the dummy about freedom of speech or having their own point of view which they know they are right about and everyone else is a blue meenie for disagreeing. It’s interesting, but if they can’t prove it, it’s a unsupported theory at best and probably a cherished and irrational belief. Outside religion, they are bad news.

It’s about here I’m driven to thinking about Issac Newton’s statement about his achievements being great because: “If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulder of giants.” – his preceeding scientists and philosophers. It’s important to make out own small marks in the right place, because we’ve chosen to stand on the right giant’s shoulders! Base your work on dubious forebears or sources, it’s a waste of time and misleading. Check your references, and proceed, and we add a little to knowledge.

The post-Viking Sutton Hoo ship burial in Suffolk had a smashed helmet. It has been rebuilt no less than twice since it was discovered in 1939. Each time it was put together a different way, making a different design. The important bit is that each reconstruction is a better one because better knowledge and theory is applied, builing on the previous ideas. Here, at least, we do progress. But a good archaeologist will leave a bit of the dig site alone too, so future archaeologists can use their more sophisticated techniques on the ‘primary’ source material.

Sorry to go on, but it’s my interest! The rules are useful whether you are researching a medaeval burial or a Spitfire’s colour scheme, or an airman’s account of his war in North Africa.

Cheers!

Sutton Hoo Helmet with no mention of the multiple recostructions! So we look a bit further and find this which does show that fact.

Newton quote.

Errol, I apologise if anything I said offended you or anyone else. I know that you are a historian, as is James and many others reading this thread. I too enjoy researching, discovering and recording history. Cor, I have been called a historian myself in the local press, which rather shocked me!

My comments on historians were not meant to be aimed at anyone personally and not meant to denegrate the work of historians at large, they are just some casual observations I have made about how these things seem to work as far as I see things. We all see things differently, and no doubt we disagree. I’m always happy to listen and learn.

I understood that this thread was about how history has recorded the first flyer – maybe others don’t agree, but I thought my comments were related to the topic. Sorry to all if they are irrelevant

Errol, as I’ve said before I have a lot of respect for your own research, and among your works that I have been fortunate to read, I found your ‘For Your Tomorrow’ books in particular very inspirational when I discovered them. I refer to them often not just for research purposes but sometimes simply to browse through, reflect and remind myself a little of what my own research is about, and the standards I would like to aspire to, in recording my own RNZAF history project. I feel priviledged to have the advise (and even scorn sometimes) of other researchers and historians on this forum, as it is a great learning curve.

In retrospect of what I said earlier, I concede that of course researchers and historians are not all alike. And not all research is the same. There is all kinds of research, I know this and should have made that clear before. Sorry. Much of the historic topics I have worked on myself have never been recorded before specifically, so I have no reference to work from except interviews I conduct. Other parts have been well-recorded over the years and I am simply portraying my interpretation of other people’s resources.

I guess no matter what the source is though, and who has worked on it before for better or worse, it is how well we make use of it ourselves that makes all the difference.

I would also gladly stand you a few pints in the local if you’re ever up this way Errol. I’d be glad of any opportunity to have a chat with you, and I KNOW I would certainly learn a lot.

James,

Thanks for your input, with which I am in full agreement.

Dave, I respectfully suggest you go back and read James’ post No.29 again, coolly and calmly, and reflect on your own statements (rant?) about ‘history’ and ‘historians’, many of which are, quite frankly, just plain silly and do not advance the subject one iota.

James, a further addition to your
Roadsign Philosophy 2:

“Turn left right here” Navigator’s instruction

Errol

No James, I totally disagree!!

Haha, just kidding! I don’t disagree at all – just seeing if your blood would boil. hehe.

Sorry, I ddn’t mean to come across as a ranting, raving luney. Your points are quite true, and I did actually think about both as I wrote my last post. Yes, you would have to be omnipresent to be ‘there’ when it happens. I guess it is one of those cases when the question is asked, you can actually say “God knows!” hehe

And yes, setting out to disprove someting is the same as setting out to prove something in a case like this. Is it worth the trouble. Maybe you’ll get personal satisfaction, maybe some recognition too, but you’ll never convince everyone. I think if a full accounted diary of any of the other people is found, with photos stuffed in the back, etc., and all the works, proing that they flew first, there’d still be Wright supporters who disbelieve it.

Personally, I would never set out to disprove the Wrights. I would not set out to prove anyone else’s claim either. I am happy to accept history as it is, whilst taking into account the factors I mentioned. Every other possibility is interesting and should be explored if someone has the time and energy to do so, but at the end of the day, it makes little difference. The fact is, someone flew first, and this event coupled with input from plenty of other designers, scientists and backyard boffins, set the world on a path that has meant that now almost everyone can fly. Great stuff.

I look forward to that pint someday. Will you be over for Wanaka 2006? if so, I’ll buy you a few mate.

Hey Dave, Chill! 😀

I’m not fussed about the Pierce issue – what I wrote was for general interest about how to evaluate data as a historian can, and should, and your additions have elabourated on that nicely. I was explaining why a book such as the Hamish Keith one is to be treated with caution, and why Phil Jarrett’s articles should be taken as good research.

I don’t disagree with the majority of your statements – just a couple of glosses. ‘Being there’ is not ‘proof’! In the case of the first to fly question, you’d have to be ‘everywhere’ for quite a while is a good clock! Secondly, and cop will tell you eye witnesses are highly unreliable, as they are, even with the best of intent.

Your point regarding the Wrights is an excellent one. So apply it – if someone can’t prove they’ve done it, in such a case as this, they may as well not have bothered, bluntly! Most contenders ensured some kind of record was made – but, I’d agree with you, the Wrights picked the camera and data better than most. They get credit for that at the very least.

First to fly is a minor point. First to fly a powered, heavier that air craft, that was controllable is an achievement. Documenting it is wise. Developing, testing, explaining and exploring the methodology is the big achievement.

We’ll call that the second drink at the bar I hope!

Cheers

JDK – are you under the impression that I think Pearce was definately the first flyer because Hamish Keith says so???

That is completely not the case and you did not need to spend all that time writing a lecture for me about something I’m already aware of. I have studied history and heard of the notions you have put forward, and am well aware of them.

I think a lot of people have completely missed my very point here – despite my trying to put it into black and white – this thread started off with people disputing what was known as the “truth” or “fact” by historians because they’ve read otherwise written by other historians and now they think others may be the contender. I was attempting to point out how bad books by ‘proper historians’ can be, trying to show an example that clearly points out that ALL written history is open to debate and you can never be certain of anything in a history book.

(just ask a Yank who discovered the continent of North America for a case in point there! It was clearly not Columbus because he never went there)

Though very useful, even primary sources are at best subjective to the author’s point of view and won’t tell the “whole” truth, and then these can then be misconstrued by the researcher attempting to interpret it themselves into their own way of thinking.

Had Richard Pearse written in 1910 in his own handwriting (primary resource) that he was definately first to flyin the world, would everyone doubt it/believe it without any other information to back it up?

Even if the primary resource is absolutely spot on right and provable, it is seldom going to be the only view of a subject that should be used. Eg the Wrights had everything on photograph, film, paper, etc – but that alone does not make them undoubtedly proven as the first to fly in the world. It makes them the first people known to have documented themselves as flying.

History is constantly being changed. Just when you become comfortable with what all the “experts” are saying, they change it. Historians always claim they’ve found new evidence, blah blah, when usually all they’ve done is looked at the same evidence with a different subjectivity and interpreted it in different ways. I’m sure you are fully aware of all this.

Hamish Keith has undoubtedly based his statements that I quoted upon ‘knowledge’ deducted by historians at the time. Some of it would have been accepted as fact, some still up for debate. Just like now. But since then, as everyone keeps pointing out ad nauseum, the whole premise that Pearce flew first has been debunked. fair enough, I have never argued with that. I have the magazine and did read it when it came out. Still doesn’t change my view that the evidence presented is the writer’s view. he may be right 100%, I’m willing to accept that. But just because someone has written something different from what has been done before, and people claim it is definitive, doesn’t make it so, if you know what I mean.

I do not know either way who flew first and never will because I was not there. It doesn’t even matter in the big picture of things. But in ten years time someone else will review the situation again and the current claims will again be debunked, and counter-claims made by someone else, guaranteed. That is how history works. And the further down the track in time it is, the more radically different from the original recordings they seem to turn out.

Yet there are still a lot of people in this world who think because they read something in a book, and it is referenced, etc., it is gospel truth. Well, maybe it is, but who can really say? Basically all the references help with is for the next historian to look up the sources and form their own opinion so they can write their own account of something saying the last person was right or wrong, about something they had nothing to do with at the original time.

I hope this has been clear to all who read – sorry if it is not, I am pretty stressed right now.

Oh dear.

tsk, tsk, tsk.

All this discussion of research, and no mention of ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ sources. No mention of weighing evidence, contemporary information and that old favourite the ‘invented here syndrome’ (Alter ego of the ‘Not invented here syndrome’ ). 😉

We will never know

Be of greater heart, my Kiwi friend! Come along Dave, it’s quite simple. One does proper research, using original information, one weighs the evidence, documents ones sources properly (footnotes, or specific credits, not a big pile of “I read these, look” at the back) and publishes in a reputable place or format. It helps if you know your way around the subject, rather than being an author producing a mass market book (nothing wrong with them, but they are ‘tertiary’ sources at best. If you want to know, for the (I think third time) may I recommend Phil Jarrett’s series in aeroplane? It carefully considers and debunks many of the pretenders, including Pierce.

The basic axiom is “You can say what you like, but can you prove it?” Yes, it’s often difficult to prove it, but there are lots of little tests anyone can, and should, apply. A short easy version follows:

1. Is it likely to be special pleading? (national or local bias – subjects heroism or status too high / perfect?)

2. What’s the sources / references? Are the quoted properly? (lots of footnotes leading to wako websites are a big clues, as are lack of footnotes at all. General ‘further reading’ does NOT support the author’s thesis.)

3. Can you retrace the author’s path? If not, why not? (Sloppy citations, ‘Documents in Secret Archives’ are warnings.)

4. Is s/he knowledgeable in the field? If not basic errors are both likely and to be watched for. (e.g. Naval authors often make silly, basic errors when writing about aircraft. I have checked hundreds of highly regarded Naval history books for references to the Supermarine Walrus. The quality of information (when indexed – it’s not a ship, or a seaman, so it’s often overlooked) is all over the place. To be fair, aviation authors can be as bad when writing about naval matters. A ‘highly regarded’ general author or historian writing about aviation starts a long way behind either of these!)

5. Do the bits you know about seem correct? If so it’s POSSIBLE that the rest is of the same quality. If the bits you know don’t match up, it’s CERTAIN to be the same (unreliable) quality.

And my favourite:
6. Are there ‘direct quotes’ from people? Wooo! Warning! Can they be substantiated (No, 90% of the time). Clive Custler ‘quoted’ Nungasser and Colli on their last flight – exactly what they said, despite the fact that they and their aircraft have never been found (how did he know?!)

7. Claims of ‘Revelations’ are always worrying. Small bits are usually added, rather than the whole edifice of what we know being overturned.

Being a historian, like many other things, requires expertise and training. Like plumbers, you want to be careful who you trust! Find out where and how they learned what they learnt.

A core fact in history and research:

Primary source From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

A primary source is any piece of information that is used for constructing history as an artifact of its times. These often include works created by someone who witnessed first-hand or was part of the historical events that are being described, but can also include physical objects like coins, journal entries, letters, or newspaper articles. They can be, however, almost any form of information: advertisements from the 1950s can be primary sources in a work on perceptions of modern technology, for example.

What distinguishes a primary source from a secondary source is how it is used more than what it actually contains as content. A secondary source is generally a historical description built up from primary sources, but historians often use secondary sources themselves as artifacts of their times (as such, primary sources) when attending to issues of historiography (for example, a book on the history of the computer might note that other books on the history of the computer ignore its military origins, or focus too much on its technical aspects).

A primary source is not, by default, more authoritative or accurate than a secondary source. Secondary sources often are subjected to peer review, are well documented, and are often produced through institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the future of the author’s career and reputation. A primary source like a journal entry, at best, only reflects one person’s take on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate, or complete. Historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny.

As a general rule, however, modern historians prefer to go back to primary sources, if available, as well as seeking new ones. Primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions and most modern history revolves around heavy use of archives for the purpose of finding useful primary sources. A work on history is not likely to be taken seriously if it only cites secondary sources, as it does not indicate that original research has been done.

As for the Wrights, their main contribution was that they were among the few who approached aviation as a quantifiable science – and they published their results, when they believed it was viable to do so. Most of the other claimants were, frankly, unable to document what they had, perhaps, achieved. None of us want an aircraft that flew once, but we don’t know why!

The use, if not the actual invention of the wind tunnel was their great single contribution. Talk of them ‘holding up’ aviation development is missing the point. Many ignored their patents, and anyone could pay and get on with it. They were certainly held back and made ill by patent defences, no one else was slowed down unless, like Curtiss and Langley, they chose to be.

There’s a lot of rubbish out there. The fun’s sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Cheers!

Does this include gliders? Otto Lillenthal made a few good flights I believe, and didn’t George Cayley as well ?

Cayley’s coachman, IIRC. He resigned – said he wasn’t hired to fly new-fangled flying machines.

Just been watching a programme on the history about Percy Pilcher who built a powered triplane 4 years before the Wrights and an exact replica that was built to see if it would fly and fly further than the Flyer (as Pilcher was killed in his gilder before he could test the powered machine)

The replica flew for 1m27s IIRC.

http://www.flyingmachines.org/pilc.html

Does this include gliders? Otto Lillenthal made a few good flights I believe, and didn’t George Cayley as well ?

Yes. There is a massive list of fine-printed references and acknowledgements in the back. As the book covers all sorts of aspects of social history and a lot of individual people’s names, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact source of one topic, if you understand what I mean. So I don’t know exactly where he referenced the info from – but a few that do stick out as possibles –

Civil Aviation in New Zealand by David Rendel (Reed)

The Riddle of Richard Pearse by Gordon Ogilvie (Reed)

The Kiwi’s First Wings by David Mulgan (Wingfield Press)

And George Bolt – Pioneer Aviator by Edgar Harvie (a man who did know what he was talking about when he wrote, he was a pioneer himself and knew almost all the others)

Plus there are lots of books with generic history titles like Cyclopedia of New Zealand and Encyclopedia of New Zealand, etc. and books with titles that are non-specific to their content matter.

Also there is mention of a lot of museums and archives where he could have found the info including Auckland War Memorial. And the Television New Zealand Documentary Section is a possible source too, as is the Radio New Zealand Sound Archive which is a valuable source of unwritten history, also credited here.

Loads of libraries and universities are also credited. He must have done years of research for this excellent book, I guess the occassional mistake is forgivable when covering such a wide topic without specialist knowledge in every field.

I’ll bet if we asked him today he wouldn’t have a clue where he found the info either.

Cheers.

Dave,

“Keith must have got his “facts” from somewhere – as you say, he’s not an aviation researcher, though he is into art, literature and some areas of history. He IS a very noted author and he knows the ropes of researching. I would not consider Hamish Keith the type to simply pluck sentences out of the blue for the heck of it, would you? He must have researched this and got what he wrote from somewhere……..surely……

So, where did he get this from????????”

If HK ‘knows the ropes of researching’, as you so confidently put it, he will naturally have explained and identified his sources in the book. Yes?

Errol

Or Tensing? They’ve never officially said, AFAIK.

Mallory is quite possible but I can’t imagine it will ever be proved.

Better get back on topic befoe we’re banished to GD. 🙁

How can I resist a cat amongst the pigeons with a ‘New Zealand’ slant..

New Question

“One that’s been bugging me for a while now, who was the FIRST to climb Everest. “

Howabout Mallory and not Hilary? :p

This is a very interesting subject. I think that the Wrights must still be regarded officially as the first to fly because their flight is the earliest that can be proved to have actually taken place from the film and photographic evidence. Until proved otherwise, the others must remain theories but very interesting theories at that.

Speaking of theories, an elderly relative from Northern Ireland swears that there was someone from there that actually flew first. Don’t know any details i’m afraid. Has anybody else heard this?

Stuart

Yes, you’re correct as usual Peter.

Sorry if my posts seemed like heated argument, they were never meant to come across like that. I’m not arguing with anything or anyone, simply stating a point of view. Some may agree, some may not. So be it.
Cheers,

Before the arguments get too heated, I should like to point out that the question is “. . . who was the first to fly” with no mention of controlled flight. This brings many earlier pioneers than the Wright brothers into the frame . . . and if you include balloon flight, EN830 in #6 seems to answer the question.