Leela's Dateability

For some reason my children dearly love the TV show Futurama. They love Bender's exhortation to "bite my shiny metal ass" and Zoidberg's scuttling.  Even the Professor's senile "wha-?"

And so, as a parent, what they watch on TV, I watch on TV.  Believe me when I tell you I can recite the entire script to How To Train Your Dragon as well as Cars.

One thing I've noticed about Futurama is Philip J. Fry's frequent professions of his love for Turanga Leela. As an adult male I must say, Leela definitely has what it takes from the neck down. But it suddenly occurred to me that Futurama is a cartoon. What would Leela look like in real life? The Internet to the rescue once again!

Aaahhhh!  Homer Simpson's anguished scream of horror echoes through my head as I look at this picture.  No, I could not get used to that. Maybe if the eye were a little more human.

Aaahhhh!  Nope, still completely freaks me out. Let's try a little more cartoonish:

Okay, I might be able to get used to that... from about the nose down. Nope, I still can't quite stomach the cyclopian look.

I guess that's it- I'm hopelessly shallow.  I demand a (possibly unrealistic) standard of binocular beauty from women. I could not be Fry- if I worked at Planet Express I'd be trying to date Amy.

Yep, she's rich.

Unintentional Hilarity

My kids and I have been going through all 700+ episodes in five different series of Star Trek. Before embarking on this adventure I dithered about watching the series in broadcast order or chronological order. A co-worker pointed out that people now have the same problem with Star Wars. I think I would go for chronological order with Star Wars- the movies start off really lame with Little Orphan Ani, get steadily worse, then by the fourth installment start getting better, peak with Empire Strikes Back, and then end with the bittersweetness of the Ewoks combined with Princess Leia in that bikini.

But we were talking about Star Trek.  I ultimately decided on a loose broadcast order:  TOS then TNG then DS9 then VOY then ENT.

So, first they got to see Kirk.  Almost immediately I had to pause it and inform the children that "back in the 1960s that was what they called comedy."  Eventually we reached "The Trouble With Tribbles" which I told them "was an attempt at an all comedy episode."

As a good father I told the kids (aged seven and nine) about Redshirts, complete with the phrase "what are the odds he's going to die?" whenever a Redshirt appeared. We got over halfway through the series before I had to tell them "not all Redshirts die. Some lived."

I also introduced them to the phrase "oh, what are the odds Kirk is going to kiss her?" And the obvious answer "one hundred percent." There was the occasional episode in which I had to say "nah, Chekov/Spock/McCoy is going to kiss her. But Kirk really wants to!" But we made it all the way to the third season's "Requiem for Methuselah" before I realized the awful truth about Kirk. In that episode the Enterprise has a raging epidemic.  All hands will soon die if they can't get the right medicine. And despite this, the instant Kirk lays eyes on a pretty blonde all he can think about is getting into her pants. Even after he finds out she's a robot.

"What?!" My wife asked as the children described this to her. "He wanted to kiss a robot?"
"Yes," they replied. "He's kissed robots before."
And that's when I finally realized that Kirk isn't just some starfaring horn-dog. He's pathological. He's got a problem worse than Democrats Anthony "Seymour" Weiner and Filthy Bob Filner combined. What the heck was Starfleet thinking of giving this guy command of a starship?!

The Original Series has even better examples of unintentional hilarity, though. In the episode “Plato’s Stepchildren” Kirk, Spock, and McCoy get captured by a group of aliens with telekinesis.  It finally occurs to McCoy to run a tricorder scan of the aliens and discovers that a substance in their blood called Kirinite gives them their powers.

Kirk: McCoy, there must be a quick way of building up a concentration of Kirinite in our blood.
McCoy: It'll take some doing, but it's possible!
<pulls ampule out of medical kit and inserts it into hypospray>
McCoy: I'm ready.

Wow, that did take some doing, Bones!  And wait a second, you mean McCoy has had an ampule in his medkit this whole time that can give people telekinesis?!  Earlier in the episode we saw the alien's TK was powerful enough to damage the Enterprise.  A little later was an amusing scene in which they forced Kirk to slap the shit out of himself.  So… If Bones has this wonderful TK shot, why don’t they all take it every day? Why do they even bother with phasers?  Next time they encounter the Klingons just force them to slap themselves silly and then wedgie themselves to death before setting the auto-destruct on their ships.

But the long nineteen year hiatus between The Original Series and The Next Generation apparently allowed Rodenberry to really hone his comedic WTF? powers. In the NextGen
ep "Where No One Has gone Before" there's a scene in which Picard is making a shipwide address, somberly informing the crew of the plan to return home. There's various shots
of the crew bustling about preparations for the ship. And then there's this shot:

Uhhh, Captain, why is there some random Asian dude wearing a dress on deck eight? I showed this to a co-worker and after we discussed "what the heck were they thinking when they filmed this?!" I asked the question "...and why does he look so confused to boot?" To which my co-worker replied "well, because. He's obviously... confused."

Another co-worker was more matter-of-fact: "Why wouldn't they have transvestites in the future?"

This whole question came right back just a few eps later with this scene:

Sure enough, my nine year-old asked "Why is Picard wearing a dress?"
"Uh, because it's a formal occasion and he wants to look his best," I replied lamely.
"Then why isn't he wearing a suit or a tux?" My son asked practically.

Because Star Trek is essentially just "Libs in Space" (which explains what Jim Henson was really trying to say with "Pigs In Space" as well as why all the Treknobabble is so nonsensical) and this was probably some ham-handed comment about what liberals euphemistically refer to as "gender stereotypes."  But that's kind of a lot to lay on a nine year-old. Fortunately, my knowledge of history bailed me out.

"It's not a dress, it's a Greatcoat, like the ones worn by the British Navy long ago."

Thankfully, the Internet backed me up on this:

Picard's accent certainly helped.

Where Quantum Computers Fit In

Adam Nash provides a curious summary of Scott Aaronson's 2008 article on computing complexity, and I'm not inspired to improve on it.  But the picture below is interesting in and of itself.

Click here to enlarge

Religious Allegory of Ridley Scott

Fifield and the biologist discover
the "space cobra" (i.e. hammerpede)

Click on this link for a fresh take on the symbolism of Prometheus.  Was Ridley Scott making an allegory?  Did he conceive of this after watching Bladerunner several times in a row?  Does David Weyland dream of electric sheep?

Vickers brought her collapsible chair to LV 223

This Engineer mummy in the movie
 Alien appears to be coccooned. 

Recursion and Inception

If you don't understand recursion, imagine an instance of yourself that is better at understanding recursion and ... Just watch Inception and see if that helps at all.

Was Rod Walker Black In Heinlein's Classic "Tunnel In the Sky?"

No. 

The question was never even raised until decades after Heinlein was safely in the grave and unable to speak up.  Ditto for his wife, Virginia.

Currently the main champion of Rod being black appears to be one Robert James, PhD, who is a member of the Heinlein Society and self-identifies as a "Heinlein researcher and scholar." 

Here's what he has to say:

The evidence is slim but definite. First and foremost, outside of the text, there is a letter in which RAH firmly states that Rod is black… As to the text itself, it is implied rather than overt. RAH often played games with the skin color of his characters, in what I see as a disarming tactic against racists who may come to identify with the hero, then realize later on that they have identified with somebody they supposedly hate. He does this in a number of different places. Part of this may also have to do with the publishing mores of the time, which probably would not have let him get away with making his main character black in a juvenile novel. The most telling evidence is that everybody in "Tunnel" expects Rod to end up with Caroline, who is explicitly described as black. While that expectation may seem somewhat racist to us today, it would be a firm hint to the mindset of the fifties, which would have been opposed to interracial marriages. I think RAH himself would have been infuriated by the suggestion that this was racist; indeed, I think it more likely that this was simply the easiest way to signal a reader from the fifties that he's been slipped a wonderful protagonist who is not white. I have taught this novel many times, and at least twice, a teenage student has asked me if Rod was black without me prompting the possibility whatsoever.

First and foremost, it would be nice if the Heinlein Society would provide a copy of this letter to the general public.  Without it, I'm a little suspicious that it does not say what Dr. James claims it does.  Perhaps at some point Heinlein planned to make Rod black but later changed his mind. 

Since the author is long dead, the only thing that can be considered truly canonical is the book itself.  And the book flatly contradicts the notion that Rod Walker was black.

Let's go through the few descriptions of Rod provided.  My copy of the book has this cover:

So when I refer to page numbers it is for this edition.

On page 65 the book states "Rod himself was dressed only in tan, scratches, torn and filthy shorts, and a few scars."  Have you ever heard anyone refer to a black person's coloration as a tan?  I haven't.

Then on page 78, "Rod flushed and kept still."  This goes hand-in-hand with page 100 where "Rod felt himself turning red."  If Rod had been black, Heinlein would have used the phrase "Rod felt himself growing hot."  He's used this phrase elsewhere to describe someone becoming both embarrassed and "fightin' mad."  He chose instead to say that Rod was becoming "flushed" and "red" (presumably in the face).  Not an apt description of an ashamed or angry black man.

Contrast this with the descriptions of the definitely black Joseph in Farnham's Freehold.  He never once had a tan or flushed or turned red.  He felt shame and fear and anger, but never turned other colors.

There is much better evidence in the text that Rod was of British or Scottish ancestry.  First, there's the family name.  Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it: "Walker is a surname of English and Scottish origin." Now, you might be thinking "what's in a name?"  Ordinarily I'd agree with you.  But for this particular book I assert that Heinlein was paying close attention to at least some names.  Grant Cowper's pre-election rhetoric bears a striking similarity to that of US President Herbert Hoover who is associated with the famous campaign slogan "a chicken in every pot."  Similarly, Rod's political opponent makes promises so rosy it almost rises to "granting a cow per person."  I don't think that was a coincidence.

But getting back to Rod's ancestry, there's the fact that both Walker children call their mother by the English idiom "mum." And on page 28 Rod describes his sister Helen as having that well-known bane of English women, thick ankles.

Speaking of Helen, she named her knife "Lady Macbeth" after Shakespeare's "Queen of Scotland." On page 24 she's wearing a kilt- traditional Scottish garb.  When I first read that I assumed that kilts were worn by all members of the Amazon Corps, regardless of race.  I now wonder if the Corps was multicultural enough for everyone to be allowed to wear the garb of their culture as a dress uniform.

But there is also evidence that Rod is Latino.  On page 101 he is referred to as a "cholo."  If Rod were black then the bad guy, Jock McGowan, would have referred to him as "boy" (or worse) a word Heinlein used more than once in Farnham's Freehold.

As for the notion that "everybody expects Rod to end up with Caroline" that's just not true.  NO ONE expects that.  His family questions his relationship with her… and he quickly sets them straight.  Caroline herself says that she's planning on marrying someone identified only by the initial M.  Later she states that she was interested in marrying Grant Cowper.  When she thinks Rod is dead she states she thinks of Rod like a brother, not a romantic interest. In Rod's words "Carol was sweet on half a dozen fellows..."  But never him. They spent two years as very close friends on Tangaroa, but it never turned into anything more.  And no one ever stated an expectation that they would "end up together."

There's really only two pieces of information that can possibly even suggest Rod being black:

1. On page 211 Rod says of Caroline "she looks a bit like you" to Helen.
2. On page 144 Caroline says Rod "always reminded me of my brother Rickie."

Well, look at this:

LL Cool J "looks a bit like" Telly Savalas.  And yet one's black and the other is Greek, thus proving that it is possible for people of dissimilar races to look "a bit" like each other.

Has anyone in your life reminded you of someone else?  Was it because of skin color or because of personality traits?  Samuel L. Jackson has never reminded me of Gary Coleman- despite them both being black.  But Will Smith's character in I Am Legend reminded me a lot of Tom Hanks in Cast Away.  Not because of physical characteristics but because of their behavior and mannerisms.

Now let's deal with the notion that two of Dr. James' students asked if Rod was black and that's somehow proof that he was.  I used to teach Computer Science at a university; in my Advanced Data Structures class I was asked a few times if a binary tree can have more than one root.  The answer, of course, is no.  The very act of some student asking me the question DOES NOT somehow make the answer "yes."

But the best evidence is right on the cover of my edition, which came out in 1977.  Yeah, it's possible Heinlein wanted to make Rod black and an evil racist publisher at Scribeners bullied him out of it.  But by 1977 the Civil Rights revolution was over a decade in the past.  Heinlein already had a sex change character (I Will Fear No Evil) under his belt as well as a Latino, and several blacks. Five years later no one batted an eye over a bi-sexual character (Friday).  At that point in his career he could have easily told Ballantine that Rod was black and they would undoubtedly have made him so on the cover art.  But that didn't happen.  The cover (approved by Heinlein) clearly shows an Anglo White Rod Walker.

Indeed, the notion of a racist Scribeners is belied by the fact that in the 1948 novel Space Cadet, fully integrated officer Lt. Peters is described as "black as the ace of spades" while Heinlein was making the point that racism was unacceptable in the Space Patrol.

The Heinlein Society is evidently seeking to retconn the idea that Heinlein was really a "progressive liberal" all along and Tunnel In the Sky written to champion civil rights.  But as his own work makes so abundantly clear, it just ain't so.  Heinlein did not play games- Juan Rico was unabashedly Argentine, Caroline Mshiyeni was Zulu, Dan Davis was a child molester, and Lazarus Long was quite literally a motherf-  had some Oedipal issues.  His characters were what he said they were.  Heinlein's "agenda" can be summed up in his list of things every person should be able to do:  "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."  No matter the color, no matter the gender, this is the list that defines a Competent Man.  And that's what defines Heinlein's protagonists, not skin color.

Update August 2014:  cheerful iconoclast is 100% correct; Johnny Rico in Starship Troopers was most certainly Filipino.  It's not just that he "spoke Tagalog" at home. He also stated "There ought to be one [a starship] named Magsaysay."  Johnny was referring to Ramon Magsaysay, the seventh President of the Phillipines and hero of WWII.

To Rich Chambers I can only say "so why not post a scan of the letter?"  Why not let us all see so we can judge for ourselves? Why is it no one gets a chance to authenticate the letter?

Even if the letter is genuine, we have no idea what it says because no one is allowed to see it.  For all we know, the letter could read like this:  "...In answer to your question of whether Space Cadets is really based on Verne's Mysterious Island  I can only say 'sure!  And Rod Walker was a negro.'"  Some people would understand the sarcasm, and some would say this is unequivocally Heinlein stating Rod was black.

For now, I've gotta judge this letter the same way I judge unicorns: Until I see one it does not exist. No, I'm not willing to take the word of someone I've never met. Especially when the text of Tunnel In the Sky flatly refutes that Rod Walker was black. Robert Anson Heinlein was never a coward- he explicitly told us that the heroine of Tunnel in the Sky, Caroline Mshiyeni, was African.  He would have done no less for Rod. To believe that Rod was secretly black is to believe that Heinlein lacked the fortitude, the integrity, to tell us so. And that's one heck of an insult.

The Continuing Case Against Whitehead's Flight, Part 4

Once again, this post means nothing unless you first read my original post debunking the notion that Gustave Whitehead flew a powered airplane in 1901 and also parts 1, 2, and 3 of this series.

And now lets move on to the 1901 Bridgeport Herald article, the main piece of evidence upon which all Whitehead enthusiasts rest their case.  Before I say anything, please go read it, think about it, and form and try to hold onto your own impressions.  I'll wait right here while you do.

Overall, my impression of the article is that it's (probably intentionally) hilarious.  At times it reads like Jules Verne and at times like a Tom Swift book. Let's go through it:

"Gustave Whitehead of Bridgeport and W. D. Custead of Waco, Texas..." 

Note: I looked it up- "whacko" was indeed already slang at the time.

"Mr. Whitehead is employed at the Wilmot & Hobbs works as night watchman..."

WHAT?!  But, but, but he trained as an engine-builder at M.A.N.!  Why wasn't he the Chief Engineer?!

"Mr. Whitehead, Andrew Cellie, and James Dickie, his two partners in the flying machine and a representative of the Herald left the little shed."  

It's only five sentences later! How can the author have already forgotten about Whitehead's partner from Waco, W. D. Custead?!

"The start was made shortly after midnight in order to not attract attention."

So... who was watching Wilmot & Hobbs?  Did the Bridgeport Herald have an article the next day about a break-in at the plant?

Imagine you've just invented the world's first airplane. Someone asks you "when do you want to fly it?"  How stoned would you have to be to respond "the middle of the night- that way I can't see anything. Plus, I can skip out of work!"  How stoned would you have to be to invite a reporter to document you playing hooky from work?

"The two engines were carefully tried before starting out…"

If you read the article carefully, you realize the design of this aircraft was not twin engine as we think of it (each engine powering a propeller) but rather one engine to drive the ground wheels (automobile mode) and one for flight.  Ever see an aircraft like that?  To this day? No, it's ridiculously impractical- once you take flight the "ground propelling" engine plus all other elements in the drive train are just dead weight.  Weight that could be used for cargo or fuel or a bigger, more powerful, flight engine.

"The machine rolls along the ground on small wooden wheels, only a foot in diameter, and, owing to their being so small, the obstructions in the road made it rock from on side to the other in an alarming fashion at times when the speed was fast. After reaching the Protestant Orphan asylum at the corner of Fairfield avenue and Ellsworth street there is a clear stretch of macadam road the flying automobile was sent spinning along the road at the rate of twenty miles an hour. For short distances from then on the speed was close to thirty miles..."

Wait a second, this sounds awfully familiar... yes! This is exactly what was said in the French magazine L'Acetylene.  Wow, we've now discovered that the guy who told a guy who told a guy who writes for L'Aceylene this story got it from reading the Bridgeport Herald!

In all seriousness, make some wooden wheels 12" in diameter and attach them to your car. Then, along an unpaved road (macadam is not tarmacadam) drive at 30 MPH. I will be astounded if you even make it to 10 MPH before those wheels disintegrate.

"The location selected to fly the machine was back of Fairfield along the highway where there is a large field and few trees to avoid in flying..."

Right, because when you've chosen to fly in the middle of the night, "few trees" becomes a necessity.  Realize this contradicts the locations given by most of the sworn witness statements.

"Slowly the machine started at first to run over the ground, but inside of a hundred yards the men who had hold of the ropes and inventor Whitehead were running as fast as their legs would travel. Then Whitehead pulled open the throttle that starts the air propellers or wings and shut off the ground propelling engine."

Really try to picture this: The description is that Whitehead is running as fast as he can alongside an airplane on its take-off roll, and just before it lifts off he reaches into the cockpit and works the controls.  Let's all take another look at his aircraft:

Anyone else see a rather obvious problem with this?  He couldn't even run in front of the plane due to the location of the propellers.

"Whitehead waved his hands enthusiastically and excitedly as he watched his invention rise in the air. He had set the dial so that the power would shut off automatically when it had made one revolution in order that the machine would not keep flying and smash against the trees at the other end of the field."

So he can automate turning the engine off but not on? But there's a worse problem here: Take any aircraft in the world, line it up at the end of a runway, and jam the throttle on full. Watch as plane after plane slams into the overrun fence. That's OK, you're smart- use a rope to tie the stick back!  That won't work either- as any pilot knows you have to get up to take-off speed before you can rotate for take-off. But let's ignore that and assume the plane gets airborne; something else would have to release back pressure on the controls to enable it to level off. Was the wind perfectly lined up with the field? If not, it would not be long before the plane did a wingover and crashed.  The only way this could have worked is if Whitehead's "dial" was a full autopilot.  Well, considering this is already the Batmobile, perhaps one of Charles Babbage's Difference Engines (which I'm sure someone claims was actually invented by Whitehead) was on board as well.

"And now the real test was to be made. Whitehead had determined to fly in the machine himself... An early morning milkman stopped in the road to see what was going on. His horse nearly ran away when the big white wings flapped to see if they were all right."

Remember how earlier when we were going through the L'Acetylene article I wondered if this was a flapping wings story?  Well, here's my answer; yep, it is.

"He stationed his two assistants behind the machine with instructions to hold on to the ropes and not let the machine get away. Then he took up his position in the great bird. He opened the throttle of the ground propeller and shot along the green at a rapid rate.
"I’m going to start the wings!" he yelled. "Hold her now." The two assistants held on the best they could but the ship shot up in the air almost like a kite. It was an exciting moment.
"We can’t hold her!" shrieked one of the rope men.
"Let go then!" shouted Whitehead back. They let go and as they did so the machine darted up through the air like a bird released from a cage."

Again, try to visualize what's being described. Why were there assistants to hold the plane down? Were they running at sprint speed when the wings started flapping?  If they "couldn't hold her" wouldn't they just be picked up?

Let's discuss the very concept of a "flapping wing" aircraft.  It's called an ornithopter and Edward Frost experimented with them starting in 1870 and culminating in his 1904 flight in which an unmanned ornithopter managed to briefly get itself off the ground.  Flash forward 38 years and in 1942 a man named Adalbert Schmid finally managed to make an ornithopter which could carry a man almost a kilometer. Since this was during WWII the Luftwaffe took an interest in Schmid's work and evaluated it for a possible silent recon aircraft.  It was ultimately dismissed as impractical.

But all this is nether here nor there- look at Whitehead's aircraft.  It had a pair of ordinary propellers.  The wings may have folded but they most certainly did not flap. That's what just throws this whole "article" into the realm of fantasy.

And here's where I'm going to stop picking at this bit of "journalism" for a very good reason: It's been over fifteen years since I first read the 1901 Bridgeport Herald article. And here, after all these years, I finally see it for what it really is: Mean. Vindictive. Just plain cruel.

Bridgeport wasn't that big a town in those days; everybody must have known, at least somewhat, Gustave Whitehead. The local man who was mad for aviation.  Realize that aviation filled the papers in those days- Names like Alberto Santos Dumont, Otto Lilienthal, Octave Chanute, Ferdinand von Zeppelin. All of them royalty or rich or an internationally respected engineer or some combination thereof. Compare this with the guy who has no formal education and works as the night watchman at Wilmot and Hobbs.

He was the local crank.

Passionate as he was about flight, do you think he talked about it in the local pub? Until everyone was sick of hearing about it? How many times was he asked "yeah, but when are you going to get it to work?"  And poor Gustave would launch into more excited talk about engines and wings and lift coefficients. And they laughed at him. Ridiculed him.  Exactly what was happening to the Wright Brothers in Dayton.  You think they were secretive just because they wanted to secure their patents?  People laughed at them too.  But with Whitehead, in the end someone made the unkindest cut and wrote this "article."

Whitehead was not an idiot- his No. 21 had propellers.  He knew he needed a single powerful yet light engine to turn them.  He knew he needed wings to generate lift.  To suggest that he would create some Rube Goldberg flapping contraption flown by the light of the moon is an insult.  A means for an entire town to have a good laugh at the local crackpot.

It was a different time, with different sensibilities. The world was a cruel place, and people had thicker skins. And still, I can't help but feel for the poor man when he first read that story. All the times for years afterwards someone on the street brought it up and laughed.  And I've come to realize that's the likeliest motivation for the affidavits that suddenly appeared in the mid 1930s. They all felt guilty.  And so they tried to give Gustave in death what they could not afford him in life: Dignity.

But as much pity as we feel for this man, it nonetheless is not right to rob the legacy of the true inventors of heavier-than-air flight, Wilbur and Orville Wright.

The bottom line is that in my original post on this topic I discussed the fact that Glenn Curtiss was desperate to break the Wright's patents and that his main tactic was "prior art."  Curtiss knew of the Whitehead story and he sent his paid investigators to try to find ANYONE willing to give a sworn witness deposition.  The fact that Curtiss dismissed Whitehead as a fraud demonstrates that his investigators were unable to find anyone. That was true all the way to and through WWI, which finally resulted in the "aviation patent pool."  Absolutely no individual (other than an unknown author at the Bridgeport Herald) claimed to have witnessed a Whitehead flight all the way up until 1934, more than thirty years later!  Indeed, Curtiss's team tried hard to identify the author of the 1901 article and get them to sign a deposition... but were unable to do so.

So, how would you judge a sworn statement refused at the time of an alleged incident but given thirty or even sixty years later?  Would you believe any such thing?  Who could find this credible? Apparently one John Brown, the editor of Jane's, and an entire State Legislature.

(Fact-Check: of the witnesses to the 1st 1903 powered flight of the Wrights, only two made written statements. Daniels said the plane took off from the slope of a sand dune and flew toward the beach below head height. The other witness wrote, he saw what Daniels saw, i.e. he made no statement of his own. Neither witness testified under oath.

Why would they testify under oath?  There was never a trial.  And this also brings up the central difference between the Wrights and Whitehead.  When the Wrights claimed to have invented the airplane they could offer the most effective proof of all- invite you watch them as they flew their latest plane. Or, within a short time, go for a ride with them in their latest plane. Their proof was sufficient for the US Patent Office.  Go to the Wings Over Rockies air museum and you can meet a docent whose father received flight training from Orville Wright.  His pilot's license hangs on the wall- signed by Orville himself.

Contrast that with Whitehead:  A claimed single flight that was never reproduced.  No career building aircraft.  No history (other than the one flight) of him ever flying in a powered airplane. He couldn't even afford to buy one from the Wrights.  He died a lowly factory worker (apparently after losing the night watchman job) a forgotten footnote for decades.

That’s what that famous photo shows. A hillside launch into a 27mph headwind gliding down to MSL in ground effect – I’m not making this up.). 

Oh, yes you are.  Let's all look at the photo of the first flight of the Wright Flyer:

Looks pretty darn flat to me- my driveway has more of a slope!  Underneath the Flyer you can see its launch track- that plane rose to that height using lift generated by its wings on level ground. That's why they needed to use a catapult assist!

MSL is "mean sea level"  and unlike Whitehead the Flyer did not make a water landing at the end of the flight; they were almost half a mile from the ocean.  

The only part you didn't make up is the part the Wright Brothers themselves described: The 27 MPH headwind.  Indeed, the brothers traveled there for specifically that reason.  It's also why aircraft carriers, when launching aircraft, turn into the wind and steam at maximum speed.  It reduced the necessary ground speed for flight.  When an F-18 does a catapult launch off a carrier, is that a flight of a motorized heavier-than-air craft or not?

So, there you have it! Once again, facts are getting in the way of another religious-type legend!

As I hope I've shown to everyone, if I were a proponent of Whitehead being the first to fly "the facts" are the last thing I'd want to bring up… for the simple reason that the facts prove the exact opposite!

When it comes to the Connecticut Legislature I now suspect they did the same thing the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives admitted to doing with Obamacare:  They passed it without actually reading it.

As for the pejorative phrase "religious-type legend," it's not dogma when you believe something for which you have objective evidence such as patents and photographs.  It does take a leap of faith to have "sworn witness statements!" which directly contradict one another and yet somehow believe that they are all still somehow true.  It takes religious devotion to look at a photo of an airplane which clearly has propellers and then produce as proof of that airplane's flight an article in which it flies by means of flapping wings.

Indeed, facts get in the way of the religious-type legend that Whitehead flew before the Wright Brothers.

The Continuing Case Against Whitehead's Flight, Part 3

As before, this post means nothing unless you first read my original post debunking the notion that Gustave Whitehead flew a powered airplane in 1901 and also the part 1 and part 2 of this series.

You assert, there was only one witness of Whitehead flying. Actually, there were 17 (14 of them, under oath).

Mr. Brown, thank goodness you provided all that source material for this. Now that you've educated me, can I change my assertion? There were in fact NO witnesses, that's zero with a 'z', to Whitehead's flight.

Before we go through all 17 witnesses and their statements, let's address your favorite phrase: "Sworn under oath!"

Many of us saw Bill Clinton swear he "had never had..." let's say relations "with that woman." And then the dress with the embarrassing evidence appeared.  And then the media pointed out the many thousands of people who are in prison for perjury- a.k.a as lying while "sworn under oath!"  This serves as evidence that no deity appears to be smiting people for saying things that aren't true.  Even, and perhaps especially, when those things are "sworn under oath!"

Here's the overall problem with the witness statements:  They can't all be true because they contradict one another.  Many of them claim that not only did Whitehead fly but that they co-invented the plane with him.  Or that they were on board for that first flight.  Or both. 

The 1901 Bridgeport Herald article I will go through separately.  In this section let's just go through the named individual's statements.  I'm not going through them in the order in which Brown presented; I'm going in order of "least ridiculous" to "most ridiculous."

The testimony of Alexander Gluck on July 19th, 1934:

Approximately 1901 or 1902 when I was only ten or twelve years of age, I was present on an occasion when Mr. Whitehead succeeded in flying his machine, propelled by motor on a flight of some distance, at a height of four or five feet from the ground. The machine used by Mr. Whitehead was a monoplane with folding wings. I recall its having been pushed from the yard back of the residence where the Whitehead family then lived, 241 Pine Street, Bridgeport Connecticut, which was opposite my residence at the time. The plane was set in motion in the street in front of the house and when it flew was propelled by an engine. I do not recall what time of year this was, but believe it was in summer or fall. It was at some time when school was not in session, as many other children were present and followed the airplane.

Location of Flight: 241 Pine Street, Bridgeport Connecticut

Date of Flight: 1901 – 1902 (vague)

Now this is the way to li-, er give testimony:  Few details, very vague but includes the one necessary salient assertion: "propelled by motor…"  It's the lack of details that make it so hard to pick this apart.  The only objections I can raise to this one are:

1. Wow, that must have been one wide and long street for a plane to have been flown on it. Even the Bridgeport Herald article claims that the airplane was pushed to the street and then driven to an open area.  Amazing how no one was worried about the safety of such a thing.
2. Where the heck were you and all these other children and all the other people who must have been present when Curtiss's men came to town looking to break the Wright's patents?  Why didn't we hear about this for 32 years?  Of course, ALL of the "sworn testimony" has this same problem.

The testimony of John A. Ciglar on January 3rd, 1936:

I was present in the summer of 1901 or 1902, probably July or August of one of those years, when one of the planes constructed by the late Gustave Whitehead rose from the ground to a height of approximately twelve feet and traveled under its own motor power a distance of approximately thirty feet before it fell to the ground and burst into flames. This plane was a bi-plane and the flight occurred on Pine Street.

Location of Flight: Pine Street

Date of Flight: 1901 – 1902 (vague)

This would be just as good as Gluck's testimony (actually, the fact that they're almost the same word-for-word is a little suspicious in itself).  The problem is that he describes a bi-plane, and as Mr. Brown so stiffly corrected me, Whitehead's plane was a monoplane.

And, of course, it has the same two problems as Gluck's statement.

The testimony of Joseph Ratzenberger on January 28th, 1936:

I recall a time, which I think was probably July or August of 1901 or 1902, when this plane was started in flight on the lot between Pine and Cherry Streets. The plane flew at a height of about twelve feet from the ground, I should judge, and traveled the distance to Bostwick Avenue before it came to the ground. I recall the incident very well because I was one of several boys who clung to the back of the plane as it rose into the air and carried us off our feet until we were driven away by some of the men working with Gustave Whitehead.

Location of Flight: Vacant lot between Pine and Cherry

Date of Flight: 1901 – 1902 (vague)

This is the first of the "I was on that first flight with Whitehead" stories.  And, unfortunately Ratzenberger dropped mention of the motor.  But try to picture this:  World's first airplane and it's got several boys clinging to the empennage during its takeoff roll.  And they're safely picked up by the plane and fly until shooed away by men on the ground.  

The testimony of Michael Werer on September 24th, 1934:

I, Michael Werer… do depose and say that I was personally acquainted with the late Gustave Whitehead and was associated (or employed by) with him during his experiments with heavier than air flying machines.
On about Sept or Oct 1901 I was present on the occasion when Mr. Whitehead succeeded in flying his machine, propelled by motor on a flight of about four hundred feet, at about six feet off the ground, for a length of time approximating half minute.
The type of machine used by Mr. Whitehead was a folding wing Monoplane. This flight took place on Tunxis Hill Road near Mountain Grove Cemetery, Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Location of Flight: Tunxis Hill Road near Mountain Grove Cemetery

Date of Flight: Sept – Oct 1901

This one would go to the top in terms of credibility if Brown hadn't included a photo of Werer's deposition.  Take a look at this:

I'm no handwriting expert but I do have eyes.  Remember, 1934 was before the advent of ball-point pens.  People were still using fountain pens with nibs.  "Penmanship" in those days meant more than just how well you formed your letters, it was also how well you wielded the pen itself.  

Michael Werer's signature is blobby.  The lines are thick, the letters poorly formed and defined.  This is the penmanship of someone with little schooling.  Contrast this with the handwritten description of the aircraft and location of flight:  The lines are spidery, the letters crisp and uniform.  This is the penmanship of an well-educated man.  Matter of fact, to me it really looks like Steve Kelemen's signature matches perfectly that handwriting.

Call me paranoid, but I have to wonder if all those details were filled in by Steve after Werer had already signed.  Perhaps even long after, without his knowledge.  At this point, there's just no way to know.

There are some other problems with this testimony.  Apparently Steve had great penmanship but didn't do so well in math.  Four hundred feet in thirty seconds is about 9 MPH.  Unless this was a VTOL aircraft, which nobody claims, there had to be about a 25 MPH wind blowing for Whitehead to take off into.  Kill Devil Hills in North Carolina is known for such winds.  Bridgeport, being shielded from the Atlantic by Long Island, is not.

The testimony of Junius Harworth III on August 21st, 1934:

The machine used was constructed entirely by Whitehead with my assistance, was known as a monoplane having a four cylinder two cycle motor located forward and using two propellers. Ignition was of the make and break type and used Columbia dry batteries. The gas tank was gravity feed and held two gallons of petrol…

Location of Flight: Lordship Manor, Connecticut

Date of Flight: 8/14/1901

This is the second of the "Whitehead and I co-invented the airplane" stories (Werer being the first).  Petrol engine?  What about the article in L'Acetylene?!   What about the Bridgeport Herald's description of a new type of acetylene generator and "secret chemicals?"  This can't be right.

The testimony of Anton Pruckner on July 16th, 1934:

…In the construction of motors we experimented with gun powder, but...he finally gave up using it.  We also experimented with steam-driven motors. At last we worked on gasoline-driven air-cooled motors, only.
I personally know the facts, as stated in Mr. Whitehead's letter to the Editor of the American Inventor, and published in the issue of April 1, 1902, to be true.  I flew in this machine with Mr. Whitehead in the first flight he mentions as having taken place on January 17, 1902…
…It was intended to fly only short distances, but the machine behaved so well that at the first trial it covered nearly two miles over the water of Long Island Sound, and settled into the water without mishap to either machine or operator...

Location of Flight: Not Stated
Date of Flight: 1/17/1902

Ah, yet another "I was on board and made that first flight with Whitehead" story.  And, we've got gunpowder, steam, and finally gasoline as fuels.  Again, no mention of acetylene. Because, of course, Pruckner was competent enough a mechanic to know such a thing to be ridiculous.

Go take a look at the original photo of the statement.  Notice at the bottom that this one is actually notarized.  Then notice that the claim "in the first flight he mentions as having taken place on January 17, 1902" is crossed out.  I'm suspicious that the notary forced him to back off on that claim and cross it out before he would sign it.

As for the last paragraph, Pruckner is claiming that Whitehead ditched at sea without damaging the aircraft.  Really?  An untrained pilot on his first flight in an experimental aircraft managed such a feat? Then why did we all make such a big deal out of it when Captain Sully Sullenberger brought his Airbus down safely on the Hudson River in 2009?

Because it's not that easy.  Heck, the FAA has a separate pilot's rating for seaplanes- aircraft designed to land on the water.  It takes six to ten hours of instruction on top of already having a pilot's license to get the rating.  The notion that someone made a perfect water landing on their first ever flight has got to be up there as one the most ridiculous parts of this whole story.

The testimony of John J. Lesko on January 4th, 1936:

Mr. Whitehead flew his folding winged plane in August, 1902 on Fairfield Avenue, and again a little later at Gypsy Spring.  

Once Whitehead tested a motor in a boat, but could not stop the engine. The ignition and carburetor pulled loose and there was no way to shut off the motor.  

Mr. Whitehead used to make his own motors. He would go to the shop and get a solid block of iron and go home and construct the motor from it.

Location of Flight: Fairfield Avenue
Date of Flight: August 1902

This would have been so much better of a "sworn witness statement" if it had ended at the first paragraph.  It doesn't claim Whitehead flew in the plane or that it was a powered flight, but at least it doesn't reflect poorly on the witness.

Paragragh two talks about an engine that continued to run even when the carburetor (source of fuel) and ignition had "pulled loose."  That is one magic engine!

Perhaps the magic is derived from the fact that it's machined (or perhaps whittled) out of a solid block of iron.

The testimony of Louis Darvarich on July 19th, 1934:

In approximately April or May, 1899, I was present and flew with Mr. Whitehead on the occasion when he succeeded in flying his machine, propelled by steam motor, on a flight of approximately a half mile distance, at a height of about 20 to 25 feet from the ground. This flight occurred in Pittsburgh, and the type machine used by mr. Whitehead was a monoplane. We were unable to rise high enough to avoid a three-story building in our path and when the machine fell I was scalded severely by the steam, for I had been firing the boiler. 

In 1902 I was present on another occasion, this time in Bridgeport, Connecticut, when Mr. Whitehead succeeded in flying his machine, propelled by motor, approximately four or five feet off the ground. The airplane used was a monoplane with folding wings…, which had been constructed in the yard back of the Whitehead residence at 241 Pine Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut. The airplane was pushed into the street from the yard back of the house, and the flight took place in the street. I recall also that Mr. Whitehead constructed a revolving motor of hexagon shape, but do not recall what use was made of it.

Location of Flight: Pittsburgh
Date of Flight: Sometime in 1899

So, the first flight did not occur in 1901 but rather 1899 and in Pittsburgh!  Propelled by a steam motor, with a boiler stoked by the witness who was on the plane with Whitehead!

If I were running the "Whitehead flew first" bit I would do everything in my power to suppress that first paragraph.  Or I would just never mention Davarich and hope no one else would either.

Let's say someone did manage to suppress the first paragraph.  The second fits right in with the others all the way up until we get to the part about the "revolving motor of hexagon shape." Sounds to me like Davarich is claiming Whitehead invented the Gnome rotary engine.  Which he didn't.

The witness statements go rapidly downhill from here.

In the statement from Cecil A. Steeves he never even claims that Whitehead flew in a plane, merely that he tested models tied to a stake in his yard.

Thomas Schweikert gives no date and makes no mention of a motor.

Frank Layne of Waterbury, Connecticut, "was interviewed on tape. He was bewildered when asked for an interview, saying, "I know nothing about the technical matters concerning airplanes and I never knew Whitehead, nor anything at all about his aircraft. All I did was watch him fly."

Mr. Layne recalled the date of the flights as being 1901 because he'd just been discharged from Navy Service in Cuba where the battleship Maine had been sunk. He went to Bridgeport as soon as possible to visit friends he hadn't seen during the War. Together they went to Fairfield Beach to watch Whitehead fly."

By this time you might trust me enough to take my word for it:  The Maine sank in 1898.  The Spanish-American War began and ended that same year.

Notice we've passed beyond the realm of "sworn witness statements!" and into the realm of secondhand notes from other researchers.

Here's the testimony of one John Havery, made in (Brown states) May of 1948.  It's apparently obtained from a pair of Whitehead-proponent books:

From "Before the Wrights Flew", p.85:
Report by Mr. K.I.Ghormley of C.D.Hudson publishers:

Re: John Havery, 130 Quail Street, Stratford:
"Talked with this party on the phone , who is now 55 years old and working regularly. Stated positively that he saw Whitehead at least ten feet in the air and that he travelled several hundred feet. This took place on the old circus grounds between Cherry and Bostwick Streets."

From "History by Contract", p.58:
John Havery, 130 Quail Street, Stratford, Connecticut, was 12 years old when he saw Whitehead fly at least 10 feet in the air over a distance of several hundred feet.

Okay, let's do some math here.  If John Havery was 55 in 1948 then he was 12 years old in 1905.  Then why is this being presented as evidence Whitehead was first?

So, you tell me, are there ANY credible witnesses?  When no one can agree on the date, the place, or the description of the aircraft or engine?  When the witnesses are actually described as "bewildered" and go on to prove it?

Tune in next time when we finish up this series with the Bridgeport Herald article.

Click here to go on to part 4.

The Continuing Case Against Whitehead's Flight, Part 2

This post means nothing unless you first read my original post post debunking the notion that Gustave Whitehead flew a powered airplane in 1901 and also part 1 of this series responding to comments from John Brown.  Don't start in the middle- read both before you read this.

"In 1901, he was already selling lightweight engines to airship-builders."

Really?  To whom?  Certainly not Alberto Santos-Dumont; his dirigibles were powered by Buchet engines.  Certainly not those used on Zeppelins; those were designed by Wilhelm Maybach of Daimler-Motoren-Gesellschaft. Indeed, the only reference I can find to such a thing was a letter dated July 3, 1901 and sent from Octave Chanute to Wilbur Wright:
"I have a letter from Carl E. Myers, the balloon maker, stating that a Mr. Whitehead has invented a light weight motor, and has engaged to build for Mr. Arnot of Elmira "a motor of 10 I.H.P. to weigh with supplies for 2 hours and accessories about 30 lbs. as estimated." It is to be hoped that it will "mote." Mr. Myers talks of applying it to his "Skycycle.""

No record exists that I can locate of a Mr. Meyers with a "Skycycle" powered by a Whitehead engine.  I'm unable to find a single bill of sale to any successful airship builder.

The Continuing Case Against Whitehead's Flight, Part 1

Amazingly, one John Brown, who purports to have done the research behind the Connecticut legislation to declare that Gustave Whitehead of Bridgeport flew before the Wright Brothers, responded with a rebuttal.  Since he posted it to this site, I feel free to reprint it here:

"The Connecticut Assembly's decision is based on my research, which was peer-reviewed and confirmed earlier this year. I’ve posted it here: www.gustave-whitehead.com. (Readers interested in the new findings will find more of “a different take” there than at the Wright website to which you refer them.)

Being a "geek" usually involves "complete and utter" attention to the facts. Have you examined them?

You write, “to the untrained eye” the Whitehead plane “looked kind of like the Wright Flyer”. Actually, Whitehead’s wing was an exact replica of the one Otto Lilienthal used to provably make almost 2,500 controlled glides up to 1896. So it’s pretty clear, Whitehead had an airworthy wing – and that his monoplane didn’t look anything like the Wrights’ biplane.

(Fact-Check: You cite CFD-analysis. Did you know, every mathematical, CFD, and wind-tunnel analysis of the 1903 Wright Flyer shows it was unairworthy? No true model or replica of it has ever flown successfully – not to be confused with the later versions. That might interest a scientist.)

Whitehead was trained as an engine-builder at M.A.N.. In 1901, he was already selling lightweight engines to airship-builders. The acetylene engine he used to fly in 1901 was written up twice in the French peer journal, “L,Acétylène”. It had a much better power-to-weight ratio than the Wrights’ engine. This was confirmed by Wilbur Wright himself in a July 4, 1901 letter to Octave Chanute. It was also confirmed by the man who later became President Wilson’s Advisor for Aeronautics, Charles Wittemann. In 1908, Wittemann personally examined Whitehead’s 1901 engine and swore, under oath, that it was airworthy. So his engine was the best of its time too.

(Fact-Check: J. Carpenter writes, the Wright engine was simply a Pope-Toledo automobile engine which had been given an aluminum block. Charles Taylor’s only prior engine experience had been to repair one car – not much more could have been expected of him.)

You assert, there was only one witness of Whitehead flying. Actually, there were 17 (14 of them, under oath).

(Fact-Check: of the witnesses to the 1st 1903 powered flight of the Wrights, only two made written statements. Daniels said the plane took off from the slope of a sand dune and flew toward the beach below head height. The other witness wrote, he saw what Daniels saw, i.e. he made no statement of his own. That’s what that famous photo shows. A hillside launch into a 27mph headwind gliding down to MSL in ground effect – I’m not making this up.). Neither witness testified under oath.

So, there you have it! Once again, facts are getting in the way of another religious-type legend!"

So, who is this guy John Brown?  It's tough to say. Try Googling his name and you'll get a ton of information about a 19th century abolitionist. Probably not the same person.

Here's what he has to say about himself. But other than his self-published website I can't seem to find any books or articles written by him.  Perhaps he will respond with a bibliography.

In the meantime I'm going to make the charitable assumption that John Brown is a legitimate (although perhaps amateur) aviation historian, that his motives are pure and that he truly believes what he is saying.  And yet he and I hold contradictory positions- how to resolve this?  He challenged me to "complete and utter attention to the facts."  So lets do that.

Queen Alien Crustacean Phronima

How many of you remember the Alien poster with the ominously hatching egg?

Even though the original Xenomorph of James Cameron's Alien appears to be inspired entirely by H.R. Giger's vision of a hell of mechanistic demons, the sequel Aliens took a more entomological slant.  The more familiar cyborganic reptilian humanoid became more bug-like in form and society.  We were introduced to a hive, and hives must have a queen.

The first movie introduced us to enormous eggs, and a mysterious pattern of alternating generations (such as a fern or jellyfish would) where the animal form that hatches the egg is definitely not the animal form that lays the egg.  The second movie answers the question of what makes and lays these monstrous eggs.  It is all textbook entomology.

It wouldn't be far-fetched that in addition to drawing inspiration with regard to arthropod society and reproduction the filmmakers similarly drew inspiration  for the form of the queen alien which differs markedly from all other forms of the xenomorph.  Certainly, the specialized egg-laying chamber of the queen's abdomen (the part she forceably detaches at some point) is entomologically inspired.

Termite queen with abdomen converted into
monstrous egg-laying factory.

A fascinating conjecture has been made that the crustacean parasite Phronima may well have provided this inspiration.  The crest and hunched posture of the creature is highly evocative of the queen.

General Comment on Geekiness and Geekhood

I've been thinking about the term "geek" ever since hobbyist John Brown rode his hobbyhorse around in a fierce showing in favor of anti-Wright Brothers revisionism.  Hey, I'm not against revisionism, in general--history often gets it wrong--but I have enough controversies already that I try to follow before competing with John Brown for "most well-informed opinion of aeronautics history" award.  The "geek" designation was, ironically, an attempt to keep things light and let the more serious information speak for itself.

My thoughts instead are drawn to a curious phrase that Brown introduces with regard to geekhood: "complete and utter."  As far as I can tell, just as there is no "separation of church and state" clause in the First Amendment, there is no "complete and utter" clause in the Geek Amendment to the Constitution.  Brown implies several things with this.  One is that a "true" geek is not allowed to have interests, only obsessions.  I don't begrudge Brown his obsession; I have my own obsessions.  But even an obsession does not guarantee "complete and utter" expertise, and I've met quite a few people that believe that their obsession has given them complete and utter command of the relevant facts.  Even though Brown has made a name for himself leading the charge against Wright enthusiasm, I remain skeptical of any narrative, even though it does make for interesting reading.  In fact, his tone indicates to me that he has a "religious-type" belief in his heterodox narrative.

Star Trek: The Red Hour

Could a recent science fiction movie have been inspired by this Star Trek episode?

What 'Science' Has Become

You may have to 'open image in new tab' in order to read the print.  If you like this, look up Frank Tipler's thought-provoking article on peer review in science.  As a Ph.D. he may know something about it.  It should bring up what we think about when we talk about the difference between religion and organized religion.

Science vs. Zombies

Zombies.  Films more and more often are trying to legitimize horror/sci-fi concepts with scientific plausibility.  Jedi have midichlorians, and, often now, vampires have their preternatural powers conferred by virus. But zombies somehow seem more plausible yet as a sort of sophisticated version of rabies.

Not all movies give zombies the same characteristics and powers, but they tend to have a lot in common.  I'm not talking about the supernaturally undead, of course, but those becoming undead by infection with the zombie virus.  For example, zombies are immune and near-indestructible.  A bullet to the brain.  That's what it seems to take.  Stab 'em, shoot 'em, dismember 'em, and they go on.  Sometimes a body part will crawl on its own, refusing to die.  Sometimes a zombie (sometimes half a zombie) is seen wasting away to nothing, but still conscious of its surroundings in whatever way a zombie can be.

Zombie gives the Energizer Bunny a run for his money...

The problem is that there is no pathogen that can make an animal immune to toxemia.  Exposure to bacteria and other microscopic scavengers leads to sepsis, and sepsis fouls up all physiological systems.  A body still needs oxygen supplied, needs nerve-mediated coordination, needs parts of the brain for hand-eye/foot-eye coordination.  Inner ear infections will still foul the sense of balance.  A zombie is still, physiologically speaking, a cannibal, and its exposure to prions will also be its undoing.

If there were such a pathogen, it would've evolved by now.  In fact, instead of being a pathogen, why wouldn't it exist as an immunity-conferring plasmid in the organism's cells.  This pathogen seems to selectively destroy the brain matter dealing with cognition and emotion and leaves alone the parts that are needed for chasing and killing.  Not quite leave it alone.  It must keep this part of the brain alive.  Maybe even enhance the parts that deal with olfactory sense.

In spite of being largely unthinking, zombies also seem to avoid the obvious food sources available to them -- themselves -- and shuffle around starving until a hapless uninfected human being shows up on their radar.  Usually, the means of distinguishing zombies from other human beings is that they smell different.  Sometimes it is that the "living" simply do not smell decomposed.  See the above paragraphs for the obvious problem with this idea.

Perhaps instead zombies' metabolism produces proteins that give off a highly recognizable smell, a smell that masks human scent.  Rarely though, do you see a group of zombies chasing after animals.  They only show interest in the other white meat.  So the zombie virus, in some stories, would presumably confer a kind of new intelligence in its host, an awareness of human scents and an instinct to avoid eating anything else.

Much more plausible would be a disease like rabies, which causes a less discriminate response in infected animals.   More effectively contagious (and less elaborate) still would be a virus that caused its host to deliberately sneeze in other people's faces.  Or caused the host to develop various compulsive behaviors that would allow the disease to spread quickly and silently.

Assuming that nature, rather than cobbling together quick and dirty means to its ends, prefers elaborate schemes, another problem with the idea of zombies constantly seeking out fresh meat is that their attacks are too coordinated.  A swarm of zombies descends on a vulnerable human prey and gorges like lions around a gazelle.  Assuming that they don't devour so much that the victim can't come back as a zombie, the new convert to the zombie cult will probably not be in very good shape for chasing down uninfected humans.  It's a multi-level marketing scheme that very quickly runs out of steam and collapses under the weight of its short-sighted avarice.

Zombies, if not supernatural creatures, are simply organisms.  A zombie might be considered a composite organism, where the host and the pathogen together form a kind of elaborate vector for disease transmission.  But a composite organism, even if more than the sum of its parts, is still subject to all the organismal problems of energy, metabolism, waste/toxicity, homeostasis, immunity, etc.

The Little Immigrant Who Didn't: Glenn Curtiss' Failed Attempt to Fight the Wright's Flight

A little over a week ago the Connecticut State Legislature passed a bill recognizing one of their residents, Gustave Whitehead, as being the first to invent and fly a heavier-than-air aircraft.  First as in "before the Wright Brothers."

Complete and utter nonsense.  Absolutely not possible.  And here's why:

The Wrights were not the only ones interested in heavier-than-air aircraft (balloons using hot air or light gas such as hydrogen had existed for over a century.  These flew using the principal that their total volume weighed less than an identical volume composed of atmospheric air and thus were termed "lighter-than-air aircraft").  Hundreds of scientists, engineers, and tinkerers had been working on the problem for decades.  The ones that were really serious recognized that flight is all about generating lift and used formal engineering analysis on their designs to maximize lift while minimizing drag.  Unfortunately, almost everyone built upon the work of John Smeaton, a brilliant and well-respected 18th century engineer who, among other things, developed an equation for calculating lift.  The problem was that Smeaton's equation included a constant coefficient which happened to be wrong.  Not just a little bit wrong at the sixth decimal place but off by a whopping 33%.  It was this mistake which doomed design after design to failure- including many of the Wright Brothers early gliders.  They were the first ones to suspect something was wrong with the equation and so they were the first ones to build a wind tunnel to experimentally test the equation and discover the correct coefficient value.  So, there at the dawn of flight, the Wrights were the only ones using the right equation to design an airfoil.

The wind tunnel and their methodical and empirical scientific discovery of the correct equation for lift wasn't the only innovation necessary to build an airplane.  Arguably more critical than wing design is propulsion design.  In order to generate lift a wing also generates drag and the engine of the airplane must be powerful enough to completely overcome that drag.  Remember that this was at the dawn of not only aviation but automobiles and internal combustion engines as well.  Engines had recently been developed which could provide the necessary horsepower to allow an airplane to fly- but they were made out of cast iron, steel, and bronze and weighed hundreds of pounds.  Good enough for automobiles, they were just too heavy to get off the ground.  So the Wrights gave the task of creating a suitable engine to one of the employees in their bike shop, Charles Edward Taylor.  Mentored by the Wrights, Taylor also applied scientific and engineering analysis to the problem and realized that a relatively new metal had the strength-to-weight properties necessary: Aluminum.  While aluminum had been known as a metal for over a century the lack of a suitable refining process made it as valuable as gold for most of its history.  It had come on the market as a cost-effective building material only ten years before the Wright Brother's first flight.  So, when Taylor provided the Wright with that first engine which produced 12HP but weighed only 150 pounds, the brothers possessed the only engine in the world with a power-to-weight ratio sufficient to enable an airplane to fly.

Having the right engine is only half of the propulsion problem, though- the engine still needs to apply its power to flight.  The Wrights chose to use two counter-rotating propellers hand-carved from wood.  Initially they thought to adapt tried-and-true marine propellers (screws) to the task but swiftly realized that wouldn't work because of the vastly different densities of the working mediums (water vs. air).  A few weeks of research uncovered that no one had theretofore developed a good propeller for use in air.  They would (again) be breaking new ground.  After considering the problem the brothers realized that the correct approach was to think of the propeller as a set of rotating wings.  They had already tested over forty different airfoil designs in their wind tunnel so they selected one which would maximize efficiency as a propeller.  And it worked- when they were done their props developed an astonishing 70% efficiency (70% of the engine's output went to propel the aircraft).  That was over double the efficiency of the propellers used by all the other airplane inventors of the time.  Even today, with computational fluid dynamics, CAD, and wind tunnel testing wooden propellers have only reached 85% efficiency.

So, to summarize, the Wrights were the only people in the world who possessed an equation of lift with the correct coefficient, the only ones who had used this equation in a wind tunnel to develop adequate airfoil designs, the only ones who possessed an engine with a sufficient power-to-weight ratio, and the only ones with an efficient propeller for the engine to drive.  Without all of these key ingredients it would be impossible for anyone to build an airplane capable of flight.

So what about Whitehead?  He had a wood-and-fabric aircraft (that decades later he claimed was really aluminum and fabric) that to the untrained eye looked kind of like the Wright Flyer.  He claimed to have flown it.  Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen him fly.  Why would anyone lie?  The answer is simple:  They were paid.  The problem with the Wright's numerous inventions related to flight was that they patented them, and expected to be paid licensing fees by aircraft manufacturers.  One of these early aviation pioneers was Glenn Curtiss who absolutely hated having to pay royalties to the Wrights- so he didn't, forcing the Wrights to sue for patent infringement.  Curtiss then began a long legal campaign to break the Wright's patents, and the main tactic for breaking any patent is to present what is known as "prior art."  In other words, prove that someone else invented the item prior to the patent holder.  This was big business, and Curtiss' company had plenty of bribe money- some of which found its way into the pocket of one Albert Zahm, consultant at the Smithsonian Aerodynamical Laboratory and later Chief Engineer at Curtiss.  During one of the patent lawsuit trials Orville Wright managed to thoroughly (and publicly) discredit Zahm, which Zahm never forgave.  He spent the next forty years writing articles trying to discredit the Wrights, and even offered a bounty paid out of his own pocket for any proof that Whitehead flew.  Other than a single eyewitness account, none was ever tendered.  Indeed, Curtiss himself gave up on the Whitehead story as ridiculous and pursued other avenues.

Whitehead was certainly a visionary- he recognized aviation as a very important future industry.  And he certainly put a lot of time, effort, and money into inventing an airplane.  Unfortunately he lacked the scientific rigor and genius possessed by two young men in Dayton, Ohio, and all of the necessary elements of flight which they alone possessed.  Whitehead never got off the ground in any of the many airplanes which he built, and thus joined the ranks of the many hundreds of scientists, engineers, and garage tinkerers who didn't invent the airplane.

For a somewhat different take on the Whitehead story, take a look at: Who Was First?