17 replies to this topic

[G.J.]

Happy anniversary, powered flight!

 

[Pasti]

santos dumont did it first

[hayhaa]

happy chritmas

[AviatorCJ]

Merry Crisis

[Zacca]

SANTOS DUMMONT DID IT FIRST

[G.J.]

 

SANTOS DUMMONT DID IT FIRST

 

EVIDENCE PLEASE

[Zacca]

EVIDENCE PLEASE

Santos Dumont is like God. You don't need evidence, you just gotta believe and He'll bless all of your flights and take care of you through every turbulence

[G.J.]

Santos Dumont is like God. You don't need evidence, you just gotta believe and He'll bless all of your flights and take care of you through every turbulence

SKEPTIC MODE ACTIVATED

[Quintus_Istari]

Not really a question of evidence.

 

Santos Dumond was living in Paris, in the middle of the most air-enthusiast crowd in the world. There is no information about anyone actully denying that he did it years before.

 

The remaining fact is, that the Wright brothers actually flown a catapulted winged device, that could only fly with favourable winds , which was actually not very different from what you would get with a hot air balloon.

 

Dumond flew an actual plane, that could take of on its own power.

 

The only problem with the Brazilian, is that he was not born in north america because if he had, nobody would have ever talk about any Wright brothers.

 

 

The funniest demonstration of the flaws of the Wright's model can be seen 100 years later with president Bush presiding the 100 years cerimony.

he was told to leave before the 100% exact replica was demonstrated, because there was a great chance the device would not get airborne.

In fact, the president was saved fron an embarassment.

 

100 years later, tha replica, did not fly.

 

The Wright brothers didn't have a plane, they had a much better equipment. They had Hollywood, and that is the greatest dream factory in the world.

 

And dreams make the world fly.

[Zacca]

Not really a question of evidence.

 

Santos Dumond was living in Paris, in the middle of the most air-enthusiast crowd in the world. There is no information about anyone actully denying that he did it years before.

 

The remaining fact is, that the Wright brothers actually flown a catapulted winged device, that could only fly with favourable winds , which was actually not very different from what you would get with a hot air balloon.

 

Dumond flew an actual plane, that could take of on its own power.

 

The only problem with the Brazilian, is that he was not born in north america because if he had, nobody would have ever talk about any Wright brothers.

 

 

The funniest demonstration of the flaws of the Wright's model can be seen 100 years later with president Bush presiding the 100 years cerimony.

he was told to leave before the 100% exact replica was demonstrated, because there was a great chance the device would not get airborne.

In fact, the president was saved fron an embarassment.

 

100 years later, tha replica, did not fly.

 

The Wright brothers didn't have a plane, they had a much better equipment. They had Hollywood, and that is the greatest dream factory in the world.

 

And dreams make the world fly.

i love you

you is my boyfriend now

[X-Wing @Aliciousness]

Not really a question of evidence.

 

Santos Dumond was living in Paris, in the middle of the most air-enthusiast crowd in the world. There is no information about anyone actully denying that he did it years before.

 

The remaining fact is, that the Wright brothers actually flown a catapulted winged device, that could only fly with favourable winds , which was actually not very different from what you would get with a hot air balloon.

 

Dumond flew an actual plane, that could take of on its own power.

 

The only problem with the Brazilian, is that he was not born in north america because if he had, nobody would have ever talk about any Wright brothers.

 

 

The funniest demonstration of the flaws of the Wright's model can be seen 100 years later with president Bush presiding the 100 years cerimony.

he was told to leave before the 100% exact replica was demonstrated, because there was a great chance the device would not get airborne.

In fact, the president was saved fron an embarassment.

 

100 years later, tha replica, did not fly.

 

The Wright brothers didn't have a plane, they had a much better equipment. They had Hollywood, and that is the greatest dream factory in the world.

 

And dreams make the world fly.

 

Nice, but there's one issue: the wright flyer flew in 1903, and Santos Dumont flew in 1906.

 

Santos Dumont's 1906 flight was certified in France as having flown 197 feet at a height of 16 feet, admittedly longer and higher than the wright brothers first flight.

 

However, the wright flyer's 1903 flight was by no means the Wright Brother's only flight. by 1904 they had built the Flyer II, capable of flying much farther and higher. In November of 1904, it flew over 2 miles around Huffman Prairie, and by 1905, the Flyer III had certified flights of over 20 miles. All before Santos Dumont even got a plane to fly 200 feet.

 

Santos Dumont wasn't first. End of story.

[Stevphfeniey]

If y’all are gonna s*** on America and Americans then at least be accurate about it

[Stevphfeniey]

The remaining fact is, that the Wright brothers actually flown a catapulted winged device, that could only fly with favourable winds , which was actually not very different from what you would get with a hot air balloon.

Then I guess aircraft launched off CATOBAR style carriers aren’t airplanes either then

[Zacca]

when santos dumont saw his creation being used as a killing machine in world war one, he committed suicide and what about the wright brothers? total apathy. WHY? because wasn't their creation and they didn't care if it was used to kill people. and that not only prove that they didn't fly first but also prove that THEY STOLE SANTOS DUMONT CREATION

 

and I rest my case

[G.J.]

 

when santos dumont saw his creation being used as a killing machine in world war one, he committed suicide and what about the wright brothers? total apathy. WHY? because wasn't their creation and they didn't care if it was used to kill people. and that not only prove that they didn't fly first but also prove that THEY STOLE SANTOS DUMONT CREATION

 

and I rest my case

 

 

The first problem with your 'case' is that it is completely and utterly factually incorrect. The Wright Brothers saw their invention as fire; It could be dangerous, but regardless, it would advance humanity. Also, your whole argument rests on the 'X, therefore Y' fallacy. And what that means is you take a piece of 'evidence' and tie it to a claim that is completely unrelated.

 

I'd also like to point out that the Wright Brothers did NOT use a catapult; it was simply a rail. In all photos there is no equipment that could possibly be a catapult. Even if it was,

Then I guess aircraft launched off CATOBAR style carriers aren’t airplanes either then

[G.J.]

The funniest demonstration of the flaws of the Wright's model can be seen 100 years later with president Bush presiding the 100 years cerimony.
he was told to leave before the 100% exact replica was demonstrated, because there was a great chance the device would not get airborne.
In fact, the president was saved fron an embarassment.

100 years later, tha replica, did not fly.

The Wright brothers didn't have a plane, they had a much better equipment. They had Hollywood, and that is the greatest dream factory in the world.

And dreams make the world fly.

You know what else didn’t fly? Santos Dumont before the Wright Brothers.

[Zacca]

The first problem with your 'case' is that it is completely and utterly factually incorrect. The Wright Brothers saw their invention as fire; It could be dangerous, but regardless, it would advance humanity. Also, your whole argument rests on the 'X, therefore Y' fallacy. And what that means is you take a piece of 'evidence' and tie it to a claim that is completely unrelated.

irony

[ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]

noun, plural i·ro·nies.

1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning:the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature .
   1. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude oppositeto that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
   2. (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression tocontradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicatingdetachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3. Socratic irony.

[G.J.]

i just realized I got r/wooooshed

That might be the longest it’s ever taken for me to realize a roast