This article argues that the Wright Brothers’ claim to have achieved the first controlled powered flight in 1903 is a fabrication, based on what the author, Miles Mathis, views as a history of deception. Mathis scrutinizes a famous photograph of the Wright Flyer, suggesting it’s staged due to inconsistencies like sagging wingtips and the positioning of Wilbur Wright. He also questions the credibility of early photographic evidence and film footage, pointing out alleged anachronisms and fabricated elements. The author highlights the Wrights’ patent struggles, their claimed loss of negatives during a flood, and the financial backing of wealthy industrialists, suggesting these factors point to a manufactured success. Mathis further proposes that the Wrights were part of a centuries-old network of “Phoenicians” and “spooks,” including Freemasons and Arminius’s followers, who have a history of orchestrating such frauds. He contrasts the Wrights’ story with that of other early aviators like Clement Ader, Felix du Temple, and Gustave Whitehead, whose contributions, he argues, were suppressed. The article concludes that the Wrights were more interested in legal battles and financial gain than genuine aviation innovation, and that their fame is a result of promotion by powerful figures and families, including the Vanderbilts. The author also speculates about the personal lives of Wilbur and Orville Wright, suggesting they may have faked Wilbur’s death and were possibly gay.
Here is a list of the subjects, names, references, locations, companies, etc. from the text, marked with double square brackets:
The article challenges the historical narrative of the Wright Brothers’ 1903 flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. The author, Miles Mathis, asserts that this event, along with later flights by Lindbergh, are part of a larger historical fraud. Mathis critiques a photograph of the Wright Flyer, arguing it shows signs of being staged, possibly with the plane on an invisible stand, evidenced by sagging wingtips and Wilbur Wright’s unusual placement. He dismisses early photographic and film evidence as unreliable, citing the lack of filmmakers among the few witnesses and claims that later footage features older Wright Brothers and aircraft with seats, suggesting it’s from subsequent flights like the Flyer 3.
Mathis points to the Wright Brothers’ patent issues, noting their 1903 patent was denied, and they only received a patent in 1906 for a glider, not a powered aircraft. He questions their decision to test their only plane in harsh December weather and their subsequent loss of all their flight negatives during the Dayton flood of 1913, deeming it a suspicious event, akin to the lost Moon Landing tapes. The author suggests this loss was intentional to hide alterations.
The article also delves into the Wrights’ background, noting their father was a bishop in the United Brethren in Christ, a group Mathis associates with Arminians and Freemasons, whom he links to historical deception. Their mother, from the Koerner family, also had an unusual education in math and science for the era, further fueling Mathis’s suspicion. He connects their family to prominent lineages like the Cummings, Comnene, Cohen, Crowell, bell, clark, Lyon, Van Cleve, Benham, and Cowenhoven, suggesting a “Phoenician” heritage and hinting at connections to the King of England and the King of Bulgaria. Mathis posits that Wilbur and Orville Wright “look very Jewish” and that “all famous people are Jewish.”
The author details the Wrights’ legal battles, particularly their patent infringement lawsuit against Glenn Curtiss over the aileron, despite the Wrights using wing warping and a 1868 British patent for ailerons by Boulton existing. He cites Russell Klingaman, an aviation attorney, who critiqued the Wright-Curtiss lawsuit, alleging judicial misconduct, including ex-parte hearings, suggesting judges were paid off. This legal focus, Mathis argues, stifled US aviation development, forcing American forces to use French machines in World War I in April 1917, as the Wright Company and Curtiss Company blocked innovation.
Mathis reveals the Wright Company was incorporated in November 1909 by “prominent industrialists” including Cornelius Vanderbilt III, August Belmont, Jr., Allan Fortune Ryan, Robert Collier, Freedman, Nicoll, Shonts, Berwind, Gould, and Plant, suggesting it was a subsidiary of IRT, New York. These industrialists, he claims, prioritized patent protection over aircraft development.
The article then proposes that Clement Ader achieved powered flight in 1890, and Felix du Temple in 1874, and Gustave Whitehead in 1902 and before, arguing their claims were suppressed by the Vanderbilts to favor the Wrights. Whitehead’s aircraft, unlike the Wrights’ Flyer I, had wheels and a twin-propeller setup, and replicas have flown. Mathis criticizes Scientific American and its editor Stanley Beach for initially supporting Whitehead and then retracting, suggesting Vanderbilt influence. He also notes the Smithsonian Institution had a contract with the Wrights that prohibited positive comments on earlier aircraft like Langley’s Aerodome and Whitehead’s “Moth.” Karl Jatho is also mentioned as having made powered flights in Germany in August 1903 before the Wrights, though his flights are deemed not controlled.
Mathis further compares the Wrights’ promotion to the “Lindbergh fake,” claiming Frenchmen like Rene Fonck were also buried by American industrialists. He then briefly discusses unpowered flight, crediting Sir George Cayley (a “baronet” and “Phoenician”) with the first modern glider flight in 1848, and mentioning Leonardo.
Finally, the author speculates on Wilbur Wright’s death at 45 in 1912 from typhoid fever or bad clams as suspicious, suggesting it was possibly a faked death to facilitate retirement in Europe, possibly with a male partner, given the brothers were allegedly gay or sexless. Orville Wright retired from flying in 1918 at 47, became furious when his sister Kate married at 51, and died in 1948 at 76 after decades of inactivity. Mathis concludes that the Wrights’ success was due to extensive promotion rather than genuine pioneering achievement, and that critical information is readily available in mainstream sources like Wikipedia if one reads closely. The text references Edward Roach’s “The Wright Company” and mentions Theodore Beza and Calvin. It also refers to claims about early flights being gravity-assisted or wind-assisted, and the concept of lift generated by speed relative to the ground. The article also mentions Clement Bollee and his wife Carlotta Bollée (née Messinisi), and their child Elisabeth, along with events at Fort Meyer.