1.2 An introduction to critical thinking 11
Here are three more negative points that
you could have made, and quite probably did
make. Firstly, the photograph of Whitehead’s
plane does not show it in the air. The Wrights’
Flyer, by contrast, is doing exactly what its
name implies: flying. ‘No. 21’ might have
flown. (Apparently some ‘experts’ have
concluded from its design that it was capable
of flight.) But that is not the same as a
photograph of it in flight; and had there been
such a photograph, surely Jacey Dare would
have used it in preference to one that shows
the machine stationary and on the ground.
The clear implication is that there is no
photograph of a Whitehead machine airborne.
Secondly, the New York Herald report is not
a first-hand account: it quotes a single
unnamed ‘witness’, but the reporter himself
clearly was not there, or he would have given
his own account. Thirdly Stella Randolf’s
article and book were published 34 years after
the alleged flight of ‘No. 21’, and the
testimony of Louis Daravich was not made
public until then either. Why? There are
many possible reasons; but one, all-too-
plausible reason is that it simply wasn’t true.An overstated conclusion
Another major weakness in Jacey Dare’s
argument is that she claims too much. The
evidence she provides does not give
sufficiently compelling grounds for rewriting
the record books. What can be said, however,
is that it raises a question mark over the
Wright brothers’ claim to fame. For even if the
argument fails to show that they were not the
first to fly, it doesn’t follow that they were.
Lack of evidence for something does not prove
that it is false, or that the opposite is true.
There is a way, therefore, to be a little more
positive about the document. We can interpret
it as doing no more than opening up a debate.
On that reading, the wording of the headline
is just down to journalistic style. If webelievable; and (b) whether they support the
headline claim. You cannot be expected to
know whether or not the claims are true unless
you have done some research. But it can be said
with some confidence that they are believable.
For one thing they could easily be checked.
As it happens, most if not all of the claims
in the first four paragraphs are basically true.
Firstly there are people who believe that
Whitehead flew planes successfully before
- (You only need to look up Whitehead
on the internet to see how many supporters
he has. It is hard to say whether they count as
‘aviation experts’ or ‘historians’, but we can
let that pass.) It is also true that Stella Randolf
wrote books and articles in which she refers to
numerous witnesses giving signed statements
that they saw Whitehead flying. There really
was a story in the New York Herald in 1901,
reporting a half-mile flight by Whitehead, and
quoting a witness as saying that the plane
‘worked perfectly’. The photograph of
Whitehead with his ‘No. 21’ is understood to
be genuine; and no one disputes that
Whitehead built aircraft. Lastly, it is a fact that
Whitehead was a poor German immigrant,
and it is thought that the Smithsonian had
some sort of agreement with the Wrights in
return for their donating the Flyer.
If all these claims are so believable, is the
headline believable too? No single one of the
claims would persuade anyone, but added
together they do seem to carry some weight.
That, however, is an illusion. Even collectively
the evidence is inadequate. Not one of the
claims is a first-hand record of a confirmed
and dated Whitehead flight pre-1903. All the
evidence consists of is a list of people who
said that Whitehead flew. Author Jacey Dare
reports that author Stella Randolf wrote that
Louis Daravich said that he flew with
Whitehead. Such evidence is inherently weak.
It is what lawyers call ‘hearsay’ evidence, and
in legal terms it counts for very little.