what do you guys think about the myth/story/legend/whatever about

Complete and utter bullshit

Wait, is this actually something people claim happened? I've never heard of it.

That being said, it sounds like complete bullshit. It doesn't even make sense, really. During the nineteenth century, most archaeologists were still convinced that America had really been founded by some group from the old world (see the moundbuilder controversy and the other things that influenced Mormonism). Solid proof of that actually happening wouldn't have been covered up.

>>18850965
you mean like how the smithsonian didn't sign a contract with the write brothers to say that no matter what evidence is put forward they would never say anyone bu the right brothers achieved flight first.
i mean they clearly have historical accuracy in mind when making and signing contracts like that

I think it's very, very retarded

>>18850977

One of the early cartographers who mapped the area had a personal interest in Egyptology. So he gave vaguely Egyptian sounding names to some of the rock formations, occasionally based on what they looked like. Years later somebody read a detailed map and saw a bunch of Egyptian names.

It takes a special kind of stupid to think the Egyptians named them.

>>18850987
>spell the Wright brothers incorrectly twice, differently, in the same sentence.

You sound like a guy who knows what he's talking about.

>>18850987
KYS

>>18851000
i might not be the greatest at english, but here is the specific part of the contract
"Neither the Smithsonian Institution or its successors nor any museum or other agency, bureau or facilities, administered for the United States of America by the Smithsonian Institution or its successors, shall publish or permit to be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any aircraft model or design of earlier date than the Wright Aeroplane of 1903, claiming In effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under its own power in controlled flight."

http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Smithsonian_Contract/Smithsonian_Contract.htm

>>18851009
What's your point?

The Wright bros. agreed to give the Smithsonian their airplane, on the terms that Smithsonian would agree that theirs was the first heavier-than-air aircraft capable of carrying a man under its own power in controlled flight.

Which is correct.

>>18851012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Whitehead
he flew 2 years before the wright brothers and it will never be accepted because of that contract, they are legally bound by the wright brothers estate to disregard fact and evidence to preserve their claim to fame

>>18851049
It won't be accepted, because Whitehead never actually flew an airplane. He just embellished his accomplishments later on.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-debunks-claim-gustave-whitehead-was-first-in-flight/

>>18851049
They investigated Whitehead's claim and found it unreliable.

If there's ever proof that Whitehead flew first, like a photograph, they'll retract the claim and return the plane to the Wright heirs.

DId you even read your own article? Oh wait, you got their names wrong twice in the same sentence. Nevermind.

File: 1490541683424.png (189KB, 500x643px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 500x643px

>>18850960
I feel like global conspiracies give humans too much credit.

>>18851067


At least 300 newspapers reported

Whitehead’s 1901/1902 flights

So far, using only non-pay research resources over three-hundred newspaper reports of Whitehead’s 1901/1902 flights have been found, many of them front-page news. The reports came from all inhabited continents. [Note: Orville Wright’s main argument in his attempt to discredit what he called “The Whitehead Myth” (August 1945, “US Air Services”, p.9) was his claim that Whitehead’s flight was only reported on a back page of a local newspaper and not anywhere else. Wright also questioned why that paper had waited four days before reporting the story, oblivious to the fact that it was a weekly newspaper which published the report in its next edition. (In his criticism, Orville neglected to mention that the first report by a journalist who had claimed to see himself fly was published in a fortnightly beekeeper’s journal in the following year and that it had been rejected for publication by Scientific American because it was “too far-fetched”.)]

http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/

ive done alot of research into this my friend, he did fly and there is enough evidence to sway a jury if you even just google first powered flight. if you keep denying your rather ignorant, your beloved Smithsonian

>>18851067
did you not read the my quote from the contract, they are are legally bound to deny anyone other than the Wright bros flew before 1902.

regardless of this tesla had made a 'flying car" around the same time. wright bros are just like westinghouse, just buy the rights to their claims

>>18851114
>300 newspapers reported his flights

Not at the time they didn't. The lack of contemporary accounts is pretty strong evidence it's incorrect. Everything came much later. Much of it based on confusion involving the differences between controlled flight, powered flight, etc.

Again, this is all debunked at the link.

>you didn't read the quote from the contract

No, apparently you haven't. The Smithsonian can claim that other people invented the airplane earlier. But if they do, then they have to given the Wright's airplane back to the heirs. Which wouldn't be that big of a deal, because if there were an earlier flight, then there's wouldn't matter much.

>Tesla had a flying car

No he didn't.

What's this got to do with the Grand Canyon and Ancient Egypt anyway?

>>18850960
I think it's the first I've ever heard of it. Until the guys from Ancient Aliens do a special about it, I won't believe it.

>>18851132
>No, apparently you haven't.
if your talking about It simply says that should the Smithsonian take the position that someone other than the Wright brothers made a controlled and powered flight before 17 December 1903, they should be prepared to forfeit the airplane.
the contract says no such thing, and if your verse your self in the language of law you would know that statement is false. point out to me, in the contract, where it states they can investigate others and where if it is confirmed someone else had the first powered flight that the plane will go back to the wright estate?...
>No he didn't.
keep telling yourself that, i am actually building an 'anti-gravity' device based off the research of his i can track down. has saying something more ever made it true? no, proof does, and those who will not seek proof themselves shall never know truth, only what they are told. call me crazy a liar i dont care, but in the next few decade people will see just how much has been hidden.


>What's this got to do with the Grand Canyon and Ancient Egypt anyway?
only trying to show you that the people who tell your your history are lieing, so OP could be entirely correct, but we wont know unless we actually go and seek out the proof ourself, and not just internet searching, but fact finding, going to the site and investigating for yourself

>>18851215
>he didn't read his own link

>I'm building an anti gravity device

No you're not. You're probably fucking around with some magnets or some shit, but you're never going to build an anti-gravity device. I doubt you even understand basic child-age physics.

>people who tell you your history are lying

First off, you haven't proven the Smithsonian is lying. All evidence points to them being correct about the Wright flight.

Second, they don't have anything to do with the cartographers that gave Grand Canyon place names.

There was an old hoax that the Smithsonian found ancient egyptian artifacts, but it was never from the Smithsonian.

File: line.jpg (109KB, 592x591px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 592x591px

Its nice to see /x/ actually have a legit conversation. But your just shitting up this thread. Start your own conspiracy one. That's what /x/ is for.

>>18851242
>No you're not. You're probably fucking around with some magnets or some shit, but you're never going to build an anti-gravity device. I doubt you even understand basic child-age physics.
no actually it involves no magnets, and infact, even a retard should be able to figure out magnets don't have an effect on gravity and i would nearly guarantee i know more in any given field of physics than you'd not some child that stumbled across the works of an engineer, i actually work with electricians and electrical engineers to ensure things are going to work. you think you know everything because you went though community collage and got some shit house degree that amounts to nothing.

>>18851242
>First off, you haven't proven the Smithsonian is lying. All evidence points to them being correct about the Wright flight.
so says you, your link does not debunk all 300 newspaper articles nor the eyewitness accounts, you are just blindly following one source instead of researching. so i am done. you ignorance is beyond comprehension

>>18851287
>I actually know things about physics

Doubtful

>I work with electricians and engineers

I wouldn't trust you to throw in a lightbulb

>your link doesn't debunk all 300 newspapers

Not every individual story, but it debunks them all en masse.

>eye witness accounts

Debunks those too. Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Furthermore, the "eye wtinesses" were only interviewed about it years later.

>blindly following one source

What an ironic thing to accuse other people of doing.

Cunts killing an interesting thread again.

Isn't there also a theory about Egyptians in the South?

>>18853206
i know there was a pyramid in gympie Australia, though i am not sure it was Egyptian, i think it was from the Inca

>>18850987
You are retarded

>>18850960

It wouldn't surprise if if secret societies had all sorts of secrets that they keep from the general public.... it would surprise me this was one of them.

>>18851132
There's also the Alberto Santos Dumont flight, that got reported and tested in public.

The smithsonian clause also blocks that, it would make a lot of sense to keep this up given that they were there when things happened and there's alot of money and legal issues involved.

>>18850987
haha

>>18851049
and as we all have agreed, the smithsonian is the sole arbiter of fact

>>18853423
I miss the tyranic reign of the royal academy of science.