The story behind the New York Times’ 1903 claim that human flight was between one and ten million years away is even worse than it looks.

X ^ | 04/04/2026 | Hans Mahnke

[SmokingJoe]

The story behind the New York Times’ 1903 claim that human flight was between one and ten million years away is even worse than it looks.

Once you understand the backstory, you realize that the New York Times story is not really about flight at all but about how elites and credentialed “experts” mistake their own failures for the boundaries of possibility.

The New York Times did not dismiss the possibility of powered flight at random. There was a very specific reason behind it. At the time, America’s most prominent scientific authority, Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Langley, had been showered with large amounts of taxpayer funding to build an aircraft, the Langley Aerodrome. Despite all the money, institutional backing, and elite prestige, Langley and his team could not get it to fly, culminating in a series of very public failures, the last on December 8, 1903.

So when the New York Times declared that flight was millions of years away, what it was really saying was that if the most credentialed and well-funded “experts” cannot do it, then it cannot be done.

A mere nine days later, the elites’ proclamation of impossibility lay in ruins. Two totally unknown bicycle mechanics from Ohio achieved the first powered flight using improvised parts, a few hundred dollars of their own money, and sheer persistence.

The story of flight is, at its core, a story of the triumph of American individualism over elite credentialism. The fact that it was the New York Times that inadvertently delivered the proof is the most fitting conclusion imaginable.

---

TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 1903; chat; chatforum; durantytimes; fakenewstimes; godsgravesglyphs; governmentwaste; history; langley; langleyaerodrome; liberaltruth; newyork; newyorkcity; newyorkslimes; newyorktimes; nyt; samuellangley; smithsonian; walterdurantytimes; weights; wrightbros; wrightbrothers

[SmokingJoe]

NYT blew it again. Kinda like their climate change predictions. Still waiting for New York City to be totally under water or for the ice to totally melt at North Pole.

[BenLurkin]

[SmokingJoe]

The NYT has a horrible and voluminous history of getting it wrong for a range of reasons like this one. @AshleyRindsberg's book The Gray Lady Winked is the definitive book on this particular topic. The book exposes how the NYT has repeatedly misreported or distorted major historical events by errors which often were not accidental but rather shaped by ideology, power, or institutional interests.

https://x.com/i/status/2040878689974681770

[SunkenCiv]

[Flag_This]

The Wright brothers don’t get nearly the amount of credit they deserve.

The North Carolina license plates that say “First in Flight” are a little irritating. The Wright brothers only went there because it was consistently windy at that particular spot.

[fidelis]

Other things villains should avoid:

1. Explaining your whole plan to the hero right before you kill him. Heroes invariably escape and live to thwart your plan.
2. Having a clearly marked and easily accessible self-destruct button in your fortress hideout or master weapon.
3. Avoid hiring stupid henchmen. Ask for resumes and references.
4. Having a talking pet who will spill the beans to the hero.
5. Having a beautiful lonely daughter who will fall in love with the hero, help him escape, and end up dying.
6. Engaging in extended witty repartee with the hero giving his sidekick time to come to the hero's rescue and destroy your plans.
7. Engage in maniacal laughter. It is distracting, wastes time, and accomplishes little.
8. Giving extended ultimatums. Just do it.
9. Wearing flowing costumes or capes that could get caught in the machinery of your own doomsday device.
10. Insisting on being present to witness your "final triumph."
11.When setting up a device to kill the hero, do not insist on long timers. The shorter the better.
12. Avoid supplying clues and puzzles for your adversaries to figure out your plans.

[JimRed]

IOW, any Batman (1960s TV) episode!

[Nateman]

Austin Powers in his elaborate death scene.

[dfwgator]

The “experts” sucked then, too.

[Ancesthntr]

The NY Slimes: shamelessly distorting the truth since 1851.

[TigersEye]

[Salamander]

😆

[Salamander]

I thought the headline meant that one day we’d all have wings.

I’m very disappointed.

[Salamander]

😂

[Salamander]

💯

[Bullish]

The NY Times... “The paper of Blowhards”

[Theophilus]

And sandy, soft and steep. Kill Devil Hills is an amazing place for gliding. I loved my visit.

[metmom]

That’s because the government can’t not screw up anything.

[Theophilus]

• Wright brothers relationship with langley
• The relationship between the Wright brothers and Samuel P. Langley was characterized by professional competition rather than collaboration. While initially corresponding with the Smithsonian, the Wrights viewed Langley's heavily funded, power-focused approach with caution, ultimately succeeding through methodical, practical testing while Langley’s "Aerodrome" failed publicly.
• Key Aspects of the Relationship:
• Initial Correspondence: In 1899, Wilbur Wright wrote to the Smithsonian requesting information, acknowledging Langley’s influence on their early belief in human flight.Competing Approaches: Langley, the Secretary of the Smithsonian, used \(\$50,000\) in government funding, focusing on immense power. The Wrights used their own limited funds, focusing on control and stability.
• Controversy and Rivalry: Following the 1903 failures of Langley's machine, the Smithsonian later attempted to credit Langley with creating the first "capable" aircraft. This led to a long-running feud and legal battle involving Glen Curtiss, prompting Orville Wright to send their 1903 flyer to a British museum in protest.
• Failed Public Tests: Langley’s Aerodrome famously failed twice, diving into the Potomac River shortly before the Wrights’ success at Kitty Hawk, creating a stark contrast between academic theory and practical engineering.

[Theophilus]

German pioneer Otto Lilienthal (1848–1896) was the most significant influence on the Wright Brothers, pioneering gliders with nearly 2,000 successful flights. His research into wing shapes and aerodynamics provided the foundational data the Wrights used, while his death in a glider crash inspired them to focus on flight control and safety.

• Key Connections and Contributions:
• Inspiration & Data: The Wrights adopted Lilienthal's approach of starting with glider experiments and used his published tables on lift and drag as a starting point.
• Scientific Approach: Lilienthal proved human flight was possible, conducting extensive research on bird flight and wing shapes.
• Experimental Gliders: Lilienthal conducted over 2,000 flights between 1891 and 1896, specializing in hang gliders (monoplanes and biplanes) and shifting his weight to control them.
• Impact of Death: Lilienthal died in 1896 after stalling his glider, a tragic event that motivated the Wright brothers to prioritize control systems—such as wing warping and forward elevators—to prevent similar crashes.