CONNECTICUT -- Connecticut is officially recognizing Gustave Whitehead as the first person in flight. The Governor signed the bill into law yesterday.
Local experts say there's little evidence to prove Whitehead first flew a plane in 1901, which is two years before Ohio's Wilbur and Orville Wright.
Earlier coverage:
Is Dayton Really the Birthplace of Aviation?
DAYTON -- Dayton is now in a fight for who is first in flight. The Connecticut Senate just passed a bill trying to delete the Wright brothers from history, saying the first powered flight was not by the Wright Brothers, but someone in Connecticut.
Have you ever heard of Gustave Whitehead? Some aviation experts say he started it all by flying over Connecticut on Aug. 14, 1901, two years, four months, and three days before the Wright brothers.
"I've never even heard of Connecticut being involved in the first flight," said Sarah Butterbaugh. Her reaction is pretty common.
"This is silly, this type of thing comes up periodically," said Alex Hackman of Carillon Historical Park.
One of the biggest arguments against Gustave Whitehead is where is the proof? With the Wright brothers you see years of artifacts, evidence, photos, but with Gustav, where is the proof? Right now, all we have to go along with the claim is a couple of blurry pictures.
"If someone like a Gustav Whitehead had flown in 1901 there should be some evidence other than a single grainy photograph, there should be a step-by-step process detailing their progression, and you just don't have that," said Hackman.
"The evidence that they've presented to me has been very thin, and there is volumes and volumes and rooms of evidence showing the Wright brothers are the first in flight," said Stephen Wright, Wilbur Wright's great-grandnephew.
He says the arguments against Dayton being the birthplace of aviation come about every few years, but at the end of the day they hold no weight.
"To me it's not possible," he said.
"I can tell you I invented the cell phone, I can get a couple friends to say, yeah, yeah, he did it but there's no photographs, no artifacts to prove it," said Hackman.
So until we see proof otherwise, we'll go with what we know.
Local experts say there's little evidence to prove Whitehead first flew a plane in 1901, which is two years before Ohio's Wilbur and Orville Wright.
Earlier coverage:
Is Dayton Really the Birthplace of Aviation?
DAYTON -- Dayton is now in a fight for who is first in flight. The Connecticut Senate just passed a bill trying to delete the Wright brothers from history, saying the first powered flight was not by the Wright Brothers, but someone in Connecticut.
Have you ever heard of Gustave Whitehead? Some aviation experts say he started it all by flying over Connecticut on Aug. 14, 1901, two years, four months, and three days before the Wright brothers.
"I've never even heard of Connecticut being involved in the first flight," said Sarah Butterbaugh. Her reaction is pretty common.
"This is silly, this type of thing comes up periodically," said Alex Hackman of Carillon Historical Park.
One of the biggest arguments against Gustave Whitehead is where is the proof? With the Wright brothers you see years of artifacts, evidence, photos, but with Gustav, where is the proof? Right now, all we have to go along with the claim is a couple of blurry pictures.
"If someone like a Gustav Whitehead had flown in 1901 there should be some evidence other than a single grainy photograph, there should be a step-by-step process detailing their progression, and you just don't have that," said Hackman.
"The evidence that they've presented to me has been very thin, and there is volumes and volumes and rooms of evidence showing the Wright brothers are the first in flight," said Stephen Wright, Wilbur Wright's great-grandnephew.
He says the arguments against Dayton being the birthplace of aviation come about every few years, but at the end of the day they hold no weight.
"To me it's not possible," he said.
"I can tell you I invented the cell phone, I can get a couple friends to say, yeah, yeah, he did it but there's no photographs, no artifacts to prove it," said Hackman.
So until we see proof otherwise, we'll go with what we know.