I do not agree much with Simplex1's methodology of argument and am admittedly a bit disappointed, as I thought he might just have been leading up to "pulling a rabbit out of a hat".
There are many arguments in history that have only been resolved long after the event . Who murdered the Polish officers in Katyn wood in WW2 and the physical reassessment now under way of "Crook-backed Dick" in the U.K. ( Richard III 1452-1485) being examples. New information, linked to new knowledqe and techniques, overturning previously established articles of faith, many based on suspect evidence.
Analysis is often a process of re evaluation with the derogatory "revisionist" epithet often being employed as a rearguard action by those with vested interests in maintaining the Status Quo... Galileo was a "revisionist" regarding the place of the earth. : without him and his ilk today many would still accept previously accepted dogma and argue vehemently in its defence. I offer no verdict, but refer to the arguments of the 'Creationists' ( mainly living in the land of the "airplane") as an ongoing example.
The evaluation of the Wrights themselves has been subject to official "revision" - the prime example being the Smithsonian affair.
The confusion between 3 axis and otherwise "controlled" light will linger on no doubt. I was amused by a recent correspondent justifying "human powered" controlled flight as being able to be flown a round a figure 8 and then quoting in justification a machine that flew under 2 axis control, in direct contradiction of his attempted 3-axis definition of "controlled flight" argument.
The Wrights made a huge contribution along the way in heavier-than-air flight. The use of roll control obviously greatly improves the degree of precision in controlled flight, but it is not essential and I suggest should should not be used as definition of such. .
Interestingly ,where would the Wrights have been without the previously ( European?) invented rudder and elevator? It's indeed fortunate for the progress of aviation in general that these devices weren't subject to restrictive patenting attempts.
Haraka - Your comments are always measured and respectful, but comparing Galileo and Simplex is a horribly false analogy.
Galileo promoted evidence of a scientific fact that competed with non-scientific belief. Simplex’s frenetic effort to discredit the Wright brothers is based on crazy interpretations and willful disregard for competing evidence.
Simplex is a revisionist, and it seems, not a very good one. It’s vapid nonsense. I doubt that he believes it and suspect that he’s a troll.
His mindset is clear based on his repeated assertion that the Wrights should be labeled as liars because they don’t have any photos from their non-public developmental years, followed by his immediate dismissal of actual flight photographs from 1903, 1904,and 1905 based solely on a newspaper cartoon that he believes shows a downward facing propeller.
He speaks about "primary sources" but scours the net for hearsay.
I am pleased that he has zero affect on the world’s perceptions.