My question:
What about the eleven witnesses that responded to the author(s) of Scientific American's article dated April 7, 1906?
Mr. Simplex's response
Honestly, it's pretty difficult to keep track of your disjointed posts, much less glean your reason for making them, but I just read it again.
Your prior post says that it's your opinion that the 11 witnesses are not credible because Scientific American didn't print their names, and that the Charles Webbert letter they did print as representative of the witness accounts is "highly suspicious" because Webbert's niece was married to somebody connected to the Wrights.
By the way, you referred to Webbert's neice as somebody's "whife." That reminds me - where are you from and what is your native language?
At any rate, the Scientific American article expressed healthy skepticism and, so far as I know, was a legitimate source of news. Do you have evidence that that Scientific American falsely claimed to seek out and review written communications from 17 witnesses, 11 of whom responded?
You also said that the Webbert letter itself is suspicious because, in your opinion, it "brought nothing new" beyond what the Wrights said "before."
In essence, you oddly conclude that the Webbert letter is highly suspicious" because it's
consistent with the Wright brothers prior statements. Wow, would it have been "
super duper highly suspicious" had it been
inconsistent?
I look forward to your reply.