Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)

Bill Gill (William.Gill-1@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov)
Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:21:18 -0800

Jim Carr wrote:
>
> Jukka Korpela <jkorpela@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
> }
> } If this kind of "news" had any truth in them,
> } and especially if they were unquestionable, we would certainly have
> } read about them in reputable scientific magazines - which would really
> } struggle for the right to publish such revolutionary reports before
> } their competitors.
>
> In any case, the whole thing is documented on the web, including
> microscopic analysis of the so-called bone fragments.
>
> ian@knowledge.co.uk (Ian Tresman) writes:
> >
> >You're joking. "In 1906, more than two years after the Wrights had
> >first flown, Scientific American carried an article ridiculing the
> >'alleged' flights...
>
> Despite their claims to the contrary, Dayton and Kitty Hawk *were*
> remote in 1906, and the writers in New York could not read the
> local newspaper accounts of the flights via the WWW. I might add
> that if you have ever read the Scientific American from that era
> you would find it to be somewhat below Popular Science in its
> approach to the subject.
>
> --
> James A. Carr <jac@scri.fsu.edu> | "The half of knowledge is knowing
> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.

I saw something on TV just the other night that said that the Wright
brothers in fact did not seek wide publicity for their first flight.
They waited several years, until they had improved their machines enough
to provide really impressive (more than an hour) flight times. After
that they started manufacturing them for sale.

Bill Gill