Source: Foresight Institute
http://www.foresight.org/News/negativeComments.html Comment in the New York Times one week before the successful
flight of the Kitty Hawk by the Wright brothers: "...We hope that Professor Langley will not put his
substantial greatness as a scientist in further peril by
continuing to waste his time and the money involved, in
further airship experiments. Life is short, and he is capable
of services to humanity incomparably greater than can be
expected to result from trying to fly....For students and
investigators of the Langley type there are more useful
employments." Source: New York Times,
December 10,1903, editorial page. "Outside of the proven impossible, there probably can
be found no better example of the speculative tendency
carrying man to the verge of the chimerical than in his
attempts to imitate the birds, or no field where so much
inventive seed has been sown with so little return as in the
attempts of man to fly successfully through the air. Never,
it would seem, has the human mind so persistently evaded the
issue, begged the questions and, 'wrangling resolutely with
the facts', insisted upon dreams being accepted as actual
performance, as when there has been proclaimed time and again
the proximate and perfect utility of the balloon or of the
flying machine." Source: Melville, Rear Admiral George W. The Engineer
and the Problem of Aerial Navigation. North
American Review, December 1901. pp. 820, 825,
830-831. "... The limit which the rarity of the air places
upon its power of supporting wings, taken in connection with
the combined weight of a man and a machine, make a drawback
which we should not too hastily assume our ability to
overcome. The example of the bird does not prove that man can
fly. The hundred and fifty pounds of dead weight which the
manager of the machine must add to it over and above that
necessary in the bird may well prove an insurmountable
obstacle to success." Source: Newcomb, Simon. Outlook for the Flying
Machine. The Independent,
October 22, 1903. pp. 2508, 2510-2511. Simon Newcomb also wrote: "...The demonstration that no possible combination of
known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of
force, can be united in a practical machine by which man
shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer
as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any
physical fact to be." Source: Clarke, Arthur C. Profiles of
the Future. New York, Harper and Row, 1962.
pp. 2-3. "...The machines will eventually be fast, they will
be used in sport, but they are not to be thought of as
commercial carriers. To say nothing of the danger, the sizes
must remain small and the passengers few, because the weight
will, for the same design, increase as the cube of the
dimensions, while the supporting surfaces will only increase
as the square. It is true that when higher speeds become safe
it will require fewer square feet of surface to carry a man,
and that dimensions will actually decrease, but this will not
be enough to carry much greater extraneous loads, such as a
store of explosives or big guns to shoot them. The power
required will always be great, say something like one horse
power to every hundred pounds of weight, and hence fuel can
not be carried for long single journeys." Source: Chanute, Octave. Aerial Navigation. Popular
Sciences Monthly, March 1904. p. 393. The astronomer, William H. Pickering, said with regard to air
flight after the invention of the airplane: "...The popular mind often pictures gigantic flying
machines speeding across the Atlantic and carrying
innumerable passengers in a way analogous to our modern
steamships...It seems safe to say that such ideas must be
wholly visionary, and even if a machine could get across with
one or two passengers the expense would be prohibitive to any
but the capitalist who could own his own yacht. Another
popular fallacy is to expect enormous speed to be obtained.
It must be remembered that the resistance of the air
increases as the square of the speed and thework as the
cube...If with 30 h.p. we can now attain a speed of 40
m.p.h., then in order to reach a speed of 100 m.p.h., we must
use a motor capable of 470 h.p...it is clear that with our
present devices there is no hope of competing for racing
speed with either our locomotives or our automobiles." Source: Clarke, Arthur C. Profiles of
the Future. New York, Harper and Row, 1962.
pp.3-4. "The Panama Canal is actually a thing of the past,
and Nature in her works will soon obliterate all traces of
French energy and money expended on the Isthmus." Source: 50 years ago in the Scientific American. Scientific
American, January 1941, p. 4. "...All mankind has heard much of M. Lesseps (?) and
his Suez Canal...I have a very strong opinion that such canal
will not and cannot be made; that all the strength of the
arguments adduced in the matter are hostile to it; and that
steam navigation by land will and ought to be the means of
transit through Egypt." Source: Trollope, Anthony. The West
Indies and the Spanish Main. New York, Harper
and Brothers, 1860. p. 331. Criticism of Darwin's theory: Louis Agassiz, professor of
geology and zoology at Harvard University wrote the following: "My recent studies have made me more adverse than
ever to the new scientific doctrines which are flourishing
now in England. This sensational zeal reminds me of what I
experienced as a young man in Germany, when the
physio-philosophy of Oken had invaded every centre of
scientific activity; and yet, what is there left of it? I
trust to outlive this mania also." Source: Agassiz, Elizabeth C. (Ed.). Louis
Agassiz, His Life and Correspondence.
Cambridge, Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1893. p. 647. "...Have they (geologists) found fossil remains which
they can prove to belong to the progenitors of the eagle, or
of the horse, or of the donkey, or the whale--of any
creature, in short from a mouse or a mole up to a man? I am
aware, indeed, that fossil remains of animals thought to
resemble the horse have been found, but Mr. Darwin might as
easily prove that the donkey is descended from the dromedary,
as that the horses of the present day are descended from the
Hippotherium...Why is it...that naturalists do not come into
light of existing facts, and point out to us some other
living species? They know that existing facts would not bear
them out. Hence they grope their way, by the aid of fossil
bones, millions of ages back into the past; and there, amid
its pitchy darkness, they fancy they see the desired
transformations taking place." Source: Lyon, William Penman, Home (?) versus Darwin,
an (?) Examination of Statements Recently Published by Mr.
Darwin Regarding the Descent of Man. London, Hamilton, Adams
and Co., 1871, pp. 29, 138-139, 140, 145. "There is no plea which will justify the use of
high-tension and alternating currents, either in a scientific
or a commercial sense. They are employed solely to reduce
investment in copper wire and real estate." Source: Edison, Thomas A. The Dangers of Electric
Lighting, North American Review,
November, 1889. pp.630, 632, 633. Thomas A. Edison is also reported to have said: "Just as certain as death, [George] Westinghouse will
kill a customer within six months after he puts in a system
of any size." Source: Blow, Michael. Men of Science
and Invention. New York, American Heritage
Publishing Co., Inc., 1961. p. 95. "The public may rest absolutely assured that safety
will not be secured by burying these wires. The condensation
of moisture, the ingress of water, the dissolving influence
of coal gas and air-oxidation upon the various insulating
compounds will result only in the transfer of deaths to
man-holes, houses, stores, and offices, through the agency of
the telephone, the low-pressure systems, and the apparatus of
the high-tension current itself." Source: Edison, Thomas A., "The Dangers of
Electric Lighting." North American Review,
November 1889. p.629. Sir Arthur Preece, engineer-in-chief of the British Post
Office, said in 1878: "...Subdivision of the electric light as an absolute
ignus fatuus." Source: Clarke, Arthur C. Profiles of
the Future. New York, Harper and Row, 1962.
p. 2. A committee of the British Parliament in 1878 reported Thomas
Edison's ideas of developing an incandescent lamp to be "good enough for our transatlantic friends... but
unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific
men" Source: Clarke, Arthur C. Profiles of
the Future. New York, Harper and Row, 1962.
p. 2. Utility of electric lighting: For general purposes: "...I do not think there is the slightest chance of
its [electricity] competing, in a general way, with gas.
There are defects about the electric light which, unless some
essential change takes place, must entirely prevent its
application to ordinary lighting purposes." Source: Remarks of Mr. Keates, Minutes of Evidence
Taken before the Select Committee on Lighting by Electricity
in Report from the Select Committee on Lighting by
Electricity. London, House of Commons, 1879. p. 146. For use on board ships: "...Without going into the consideration of many
minor objections to the general adoption of such a light on
board ship, it may be sufficient to call attention to the
following serious drawbacks, viz.: That whether fixed,
revolving, or intermittent, a powerful light, such as is
referred to, could not fail to interface very considerably
with the distinctive arrangements for lighting the coasts by
means of light- houses and light vessels. That such powerful
lights would be almost certain to detract very much from the
value of the smaller lights which the law compels all ships
to show by night, and the risks of collision would be
increased. That the glare of such powerful lights in crowded
channels would be perplexing, and would probably cause such
confusion that the risks of collision would be
increased." Source: Remarks of Mr. Farrer, Minutes of Evidence
Taken before the Select Committee on Lighting by Electricity
in Report from the Select Committee on Lighting by
Electricity. London, House of Commons, 1879. pp. 156-14-57. Ford's experiments with gas engines: "...my gas-engine experiments were no more popular
with the president of the company than my first mechanical
leanings were with my father. It was not that my employer
objected to experiments -- only to experiments with gas
engine. I can still hear him say: 'Electricity yes, that's
the coming thing. But gas--no.'" Source: Ford, Henry. My Life and Work.
New York, Doubleday, Page and Company, 1922. pp. 34-35. Ford Motor Company: In 1903 Henry Ford asked that membership
in the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers be
granted to the Ford Motor Company. Frederic L. Smith, President
of A.L.A.M. at that time, later recalled giving this reply: "I remember solemnly telling Henry Ford that his
outfit was really nothing but an 'assemblage plant' -- poison
to the A.L.A.M. -- and that when they had their own plant and
became a factor in the industry they would be
welcome..." Source: Greenleaf, William. Monopoly on
Wheels. Detroit, Wayne State University
Press, 1961. p. 109. Aristotelian professors who were contemporaries of Galileo
made the following pronouncement concerning this discovery: "Jupiter's moons are invisible to the naked eye, and
therefore can have no influence on the earth, and therefore
would be useless, and therefore do not exist." Source: Williams-Ellis, Amabel. Men Who
Found Out. New York, Coward-McCann, Inc.,
1930. p. 43. The idea was ridiculed in the following popular rhyme: "We thankful are that sun and moon Further ridicule came from William H. Wollaston, English
chemist and natural philosopher, who said: "[They] might as well try to light London with a
slice from the moon." Source: Murdock, Alexander. Light Without a Wick, a
Century of Gas- Lighting, 1792-1892. Glasgow, Scotland,
University Press, 1892. p. 45. Criticism of Goddard's Rocket Research: A New York Times
editorial of 1921 said: "That Professor Goddard with his 'chair' in Clark
College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution
does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the
need to have something better than a vacuum against which to
react -- to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems
to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high
schools..." Source: Lehman, Milton. This High Man,
the Life of Robert H. Goddard. New York,
Farrar, Straus and Company, 1963. p. 111. Letter from Charles A. Lindbergh to Harry Guggenheim of the
Guggenheim Foundation, May 1936: "I would much prefer to have Goddard interested in
real scientific development than to have him primarily
interested in more spectacular achievements which are of less
real value." Source: Lehman, Milton. This High Man,
the Life of Robert H. Goddard. New York,
Farrar, Straus and Company, 1963. p. 231. Rocket research as proposed to U. S. Army by Robert H.
Goddard: Letter (excerpts) from Brig. Gen. George H. Brett, Chief
of Materiel, U.S. Army Air Corps, to Robert H. Goddard rejecting
his rocket research proposals (1941): "The proposals as outlined in your letter...have been
carefully reviewed...While the Air Corps is deeply interested
in the research work being carried out by your
organization...it does not, at this time, feel justified in
obligating further funds for basic jet propulsion research
and experimentation..." Source: Lehman, Milton. This High Man,
the Life of Robert H. Goddard. New York,
Farrar, Straus and Company, 1963. p. 310. "The actual building of roads devoted to motor cars
is not for the near future, in spite of many rumors to that
effect." Source: Harpers Weekly,
August 2, 1902. p. 1046. Henry L. Ellsworth, U. S., Commissioner of Patents, said in
1844: "...The advancement of the arts from year to year
taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that
period when further improvements must end." Source: Woods, Ralph L. Prophets Can be Right and
Prophets Can be Wrong. American Legion
Magazine, October 1966. p. 29 John Aubrey, a contemporary, wrote this account of the
response William Harvey received upon publication in 1628 of his
book "De Motu Cordis" in which he described his
discovery of the blood's circulation: "...I heard Harvey say that after his book came out,
he fell mightily in his practice. 'Twas believed by the
vulgar that he was crack-brained, and all the physicians were
against him. I knew several doctors in London that would not
have given threepence for one of his medicines." Source: Williams-Ellis, Amabel. Men Who
Found Out. New York, Coward-McCann, Inc.,
1930. p. 75. Reaction from the English medical profession to Dr. Edward
Jenner's experiments in developing a vaccine for small-pox
(1796): "...It was argued that inoculation of the kind
employed by Jenner would produce a cow-like face; that those
who had been vaccinated (the word 'vaccinate' is derived from
the Latin vacca, a cow) would grow hairy and cough like cows.
...one doctor stated: 'Smallpox is a visitation from God; but
the cowpox is produced by presumptuous man; the former was
what Heaven ordained, the latter is, perhaps, a daring
violation of our holy religion.'" Source: Butler, R. R. Scientific
Discovery. London, English Universities
Press, Ltd., 1947. p. 100. The following excerpts of opinion of many members of the
medical profession and the clergy in the United States illustrate
a similar reaction to inoculation experiments of Dr. Zabdiel
Boylston (about 1721). "...for a man to infect a family in the morning with
smallpox and to pray to God in the evening against the
disease is blasphemy; that the smallpox is 'a judgment of God
on the sins of the people,' and that 'to avert it is but to
provoke him more'; that inoculation is 'an encroachment on
the prerogatives of Jehovah, whose right it is to wound and
smite." Source: White, Andrew D. A History of
the Warfare of Science with Theology. New
York, Dover Publications, Inc., 1960. p. 56 The famed surgeon Alfred Velpeau wrote in 1839: "The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It
is absurd to go on seeking it today. 'Knife' and 'pain' are
two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the
consciousness of the patient. To this compulsory combination
we shall have to adjust ourselves." Source: Gumpert, Martin. Trail-Blazers
of Science. New York, Funk and Wagnalls
Company, 1936. p. 232. Sir John Erichsen (1873): "There cannot always be fresh fields of conquest by
the knife; there must be portions of the human frame that
will ever remain sacred from its intrusions, at least in the
surgeon's hands. That we have already, if not quite, reached
these final limits, there can be little question. The
abdomen, the chest, and the brain will be forever shut from
the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon." Source: Woods, Ralph L. "Prophets Can be Right
and Prophets Can Be Wrong." American
Legion Magazine, October 1966. p. 29. In 1591 Colonel Sir John Smyth advised the British Privy
Council: "...The bow is a simple weapon, firearms are very
complicated things which get out of order in many ways...a
very heavy weapon and tires out soldiers on the march.
Whereas also a bowman can let off six aimed shots a minute, a
musketeer can discharge but one in two minutes." Source: Wintringham, Thomas H. The
Story of Weapons and Tactics. Boston,
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1943. p. 101. Brigadier-General Baker-Carr, first commandant of the British
Army machine-gun school in France wrote this account of the
dislike of traditional battalion commanders for the machine-gun
(1914): "What shall I do with the machine-guns today, sir?'
would be the question frequently asked by the officer in
charge of a field day. 'Take the damn things to a flank and
hide them!' was the usual reply." Source: Wintringham, Thomas H. The
Story of Weapons and Tactics. Boston,
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1943. p. 160. U. S. Rear-Admiral Clark Woodward (1939): "...As far as sinking a ship with a bomb is
concerned, you just can't do it." Franklin D. Roosevelt, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1922):
"The day of the battleship has not passed, and it is
highly unlikely that an airplane, or fleet of them, could
ever successfully sink a fleet of Navy vessels under battle
conditions." Source: Woods, Ralph L. "Prophets Can Be Right
and Prophets Can Be Wrong." American
Legion Magazine, October 1966. p. 29 The editor of Scientific American wrote Willy Ley that this idea was "...too far-fetched to be considered." Source: Ley, Willy. Rockets, Missiles, and Space
Travel. New York, Viking Press, Revised Edition, 1957. p.
172. Dr. Vannevar Bush said in December of 1945: "There has been a great deal said about a 3,000 miles
high-angle rocket. In my opinion such a thing is impossible
for many years. The people who have been writing these things
that annoy me, have been talking about a 3,000 mile
high-angle rocket shot from one continent to another,
carrying an atomic bomb and so directed as to be a precise
weapon which would land exactly on a certain target, such as
a city. I say, technically, I don't think anyone in the world
knows how to do such a thing, and I feel confident that it
will not be done for a very long period of time to come...I
think we can leave that out of our thinking. I wish the
American public would leave that out of their thinking."
Source: Clarke, Arthur C., Profiles of
the Future. New York, Harper and Row, 1962.
p. 9. Adm. William Leahy told President Truman in 1945: "That is the biggest fool thing we have ever
done...The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert
in explosives." Source: Truman, Harry D. Memoirs, Vol
I: Year of Decisions, Garden City, Doubleday
and Company, Inc., 1955. p. 11. When George Simon Ohm's theory of electricity was published in
1827 in his book "The Galvanic Chain, Mathematically Worked
Out," it was called "a web of naked fancies." One critic wrote: "...he who looks on the world with the eye of
reverence must turn aside from this book as the result of an
incurable delusion, whose sole effort is to detract from the
dignity of nature." The German Minister of Education said that "...a physicist who professed such heresies was
unworthy to teach science." Source: Hart, Ivor B. Makers of Science.
London, Oxford University Press, 1923. p. 243. Lee de Forest: In 1913 Lee de Forest, inventor of the audion
tube, which device makes radio broadcasting possible, was brought
to trial on charges of fraudulently using the U. S. mails to sell
the public stock in the Radio Telephone Company, a worthless
enterprise. In the court proceedings, the District Attorney
charged that "De Forest has said in many newspapers and over his
signature that it would be possible to transmit human voice
across the Atlantic before many years. Based on these absurd
and deliberately misleading statements, the misguided
public...has been persuaded to purchase stock in his
company..." De Forest was acquitted, but the judge advised him "to get a common garden variety of job and stick to
it." Source: Archer, L. History of Radio.
New York, American Historical Society, 1938. p. 110. W. W. Dean, President of the Dean Telephone Company told Lee
de Forest in 1907: "...You could put in this room [his office], de
Forest, all the radiotelephone apparatus that the country
will ever need!" Source: De Forest, Lee. Father of
Radio, the Autobiography of Lee de Forest.
Chicago, Wilcox and Follett Co., 1950. p. 232. Friends of Lee de Forest asked: "Well, then of what possible use can your
'radiotelephone' be? It can't compare with the wire phone,
you say, and it can't cover the distances that the wireless
telegraph can cover. Then what the hell use is it anyway
Lee?" Source: De Forest Lee. Father of Radio,
the Autobiography of Lee de Forest. Chicago,
Wilcox and Follett Co., 1950. p. 227. Limitations of railroads and locomotive engines: "...the most ridiculous ideas have been formed, and
circulated of their powers; and though I am of the opinion,
when made the subject of attention amongst engineers, they
will advance in improvement like other machines, they must as
yet be considered only in their infancy, and as not having
reached beyond the trammels of prejudice. It is far from my
wish to promulgate to the world that the ridiculous
expectations, or rather professions, of the enthusiastic
speculist will be realised, and that we shall see them
travelling at the rate of 12, 16, 18, or 20 miles an hour:
nothing could do more harm towards their adoption, or general
improvement, than the promulgation of such nonsense." Source: Wood, Nicholas. Practical
Treatise on Railroads. London, Knight and
Lacey, 1825. pp. 290-291. "....that any general systems of conveying passengers
would answer, to go at a velocity exceeding 10 miles an hour,
or thereabouts, is extremely improbable." Source: Tredgold, Thomas. Practical
Treatise on Rail-Roads and Carriages. London,
J. B. Nichols and Son, 2nd edition, 1835. P. 119. At the instance of the introduction of a bill in Parliament in
1825 to build a railway between Liverpool and Manchester,
England, many hysterical statements were made. Mr. Samuel Smilez,
in his biography of George Stephenson, describes them as follows:
"...pamphlets were written and newspapers were hired
to revile the railway. It was declared that its formation
would prevent cows grazing and hens laying. The poisoned air
from the locomotives would kill birds as they flew over them,
and render the preservation of pheasants and foxes no longer
possible. Householders adjoining the projected line were told
that their houses would be burnt up by the fire thrown from
the engine-chimneys, while the air around would be polluted
by clouds of smoke. There would no longer be any use for
horses; and if railways extended, the species would become
extinguished, and oats and hay unsalable commodities.
Traveling by road would be rendered highly dangerous, and
country inns would be ruined. Boilers would burst and blow
passengers to atoms. But there was always this consolation to
wind up with -- that the weight of the locomotive would
completely prevent its moving, and that railways, even if
made, could never be worked by steam-power!" Source: Smiles, Samuel. The Life of
George Stephenson, Railway Engineer.
Columbus, Ohio, Follett, Foster, and Company, 1859. p. 205. "...We are not the advocates for visionary projects
that interfere with useful establishments; we scout the idea
of a general rail-road, as altogether impracticable; or, as
one, at least, which will be rendered nugatory in lines,
where the traffic is so small that the receipts would
scarcely pay for this consumption of coals. As to those
persons who speculate on making rail-ways general throughout
the kingdom, and superseding all the canals, all the waggons,
mail and stage-coaches, post-chaises, and, in short, every
other mode of conveyance by land and by water, we deem them
and their visionary schemes unworthy of notice....The gross
exaggerations of the powers of the locomotive steam-engine,
or, to speak in plain English, the steam-carriages, may
delude for a time, but must end in the mortification of those
concerned. ...It is certainly some consolation to those who
are to be whirled at the rate of eighteen or twenty miles an
hour, by means of a high pressure engine, to be told that
they are in no danger of being seasick while on shore; that
they are not to be scalded to death nor drowned by the
bursting of the boiler; and that they need not mind being
shot by the scattered fragments, or dashed in pieces by the
flying off, or the breaking of a wheel, But with all these
assurances, we should as soon expect the people of Woolwich
to suffer themselves to be fired off upon one of Congreve's
ricochet rockets, as trust themselves to the mercy of such a
machine, going at such a rate;...we will back old father
Thames against the Woolwich rail-way for any sum." Source: Quarterly Review (Gt. Britain),
March 1825. pp. 361-362. "I see what will be the effect of it; that it will
set the whole world a-gadding. Twenty miles an hour, sir! -
Why, you will not be able to keep an apprentice boy at his
work! Every Saturday evening he must have a trip to Ohio to
spend a Sunday with his sweetheart. Grave plodding citizens
will be flying about like comets. All local attachments will
be at an end. It will encourage flightiness of intellect.
Veracious people will turn into the most immeasurable liars.
All conceptions will be exaggerated by the magnificent
notions of distance. -- Only a hundred miles off!--Tut,
nonsense, I'll step across, madam, and bring your fan'...And
then, sir, there will be barrels of port, cargoes of flour,
chaldrons of coal, and even lead and whiskey, and such like
sober things that have always been used to slow travelling --
whisking away like a sky rocket. It will upset all the
gravity of the nation...Upon the whole, sir, it is a
pestilential, topsy-turvy, harm-scarum whirligig. Give me the
old, solemn, straight forward, regular Dutch Canal - three
miles an hour for expresses, and two rod jog-trot journeys --
with a yoke of oxen for heavy loads. I go for beasts of
burden. It is more formative and scriptural, and suits a
moral and religious people better. -- None of your hop skip
and jump whimsies for me." Source: From the Western Sun
of Vincennes, Indiana, July 24, 1830, as quoted by Seymour
Dunbar in A History of Travel in America,
Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1915, Vol. III. p. 938. Proposal to apply steam power to ships (early 1800's.): Sir
Joseph Banks, English explorer-naturalist and President of the
British Royal Society, said: "...a pretty plan; but there is just one point
overlooked -- that the steam engine requires a firm basis on
which to work!" Source: Butler, R. R. Scientific
Discovery. London, English Universities
Press, Ltd., 1947. p. 68. Proposal to drive a steamboat by screw-propeller: Sir William
Symonds, Surveyor of the British Navy, commented in 1837: "...even if the propeller had the power of propelling
a vessel, it would be found altogether useless in practice,
because the power being applied in the stern it would be
absolutely impossible to make the vessel steer." Source: Church, William Conant. The
Life of John Ericsson, New York, Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1890. p. 90. Reaction of Senator Smith of Indiana after a demonstration by
Samuel Morse of his telegraph before Congressional members in
1842: "I watched his countenance closely, to see if he was
not deranged....and I was assured by other Senators after we
left the room that they had no confidence in it." Source: Dunbar, Seymour. A History of
Travel in America. Indianapolis,
Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1915, Vol. III. p. 1048. When Samuel F. B. Morse offered to sell his telegraph to the
U.S. government for $100,000, the Postmaster General rejected the
offer on the basis that "...the operation of the telegraph between Washington
and Baltimore had not satisfied him that under any rate of
postage that could be adopted, its revenues could be made
equal to its expenditures." Source: Reid, James D. The Telegraph in
America. New York, Derby Brothers, 1879. p.
108. When the bill to appropriate money ($8,000) for maintenance of
the telegraph line between Washington and Baltimore came up in
Congress in 1845, amendment was offered in the Senate providing
that money also be appropriated for construction of a telegraph
line between Baltimore and New York City, the cost of which was
estimated at $100,000. The following objection was raised: "...What was this telegraph to do? Would it transmit
letters and newspapers? Under what power in the constitution
did Senators propose to erect this telegraph? He was not
aware of any authority except under the clause for the
establishment of post roads. And besides the telegraph might
be made very mischievous, and secret information after
communicated to the prejudice of merchants." Source: Statement of Senator George McDuffie, Congressional
Globe, 28th Congress, 2nd session, 1344-45.
p. 366. At a meeting of stockholders of the Western Telegraph Company
in 1907, Sir John Wolfe-Barry remarked: "...As far as I can judge, I do not look upon any
system of wireless telegraphy as a serious competitor with
our cables. Some years ago I said the same thing and nothing
has since occurred to alter my views." Source: Dunlap's Radio and Television
Almanac. New York, Harper, 1951. p. 44. Source: Foresight Institute
http://www.foresight.org/News/negativeComments.html
Please contact Foresight Institute for information about them and how to support their worthwhile projects!
The following material was originally taken from a
Congressional Research Report on Erroneous Predictions
and Negative Comments Concerning Scientific and
Technological Developments, CB 150, F-381, by Nancy
T. Gamarra, Research Assistant in National Security,
Foreign Affairs Division, May 29 1969 (revised).
It has since been edited, modified and augmented.
Aircraft
Samuel Langley's experiments with airplanes
Possibility of building a successful
flying machine
"...Should man succeed in building a machine small
enough to fly and large enough to carry himself, then in
attempting to build a still larger machine he will find
himself limited by the strength of his materials in the same
manner and for the same reasons that nature has."
"...there is no basis for the ardent hopes and positive
statements made as to the safety and successful use of the
dirigible balloon or flying machine, or both, for commercial
transportation or as weapons of war, and that, therefore, it
would be a wrong, whether willful or unknowing, to lead the
people and perhaps governments at this time to believe the
contrary;..."
"The practical difficulties in the way of realizing the
movement of such an object are obvious. The aeroplane must
have its propellers. These must be driven by an engine with a
source of power. Weight is an essential quality of every
engine. The propellers must be made of metal, which has its
weakness, and which is liable to give way when its speed
attains a certain limit. And, granting complete success,
imagine the proud possessor of the aeroplane darting through
the air at a speed of several hundred feet per second! It is
the speed alone that sustains him. Once he slackens his
speed, down he begins to fall. He may, indeed, increase the
inclination of his aeroplane. Then he increases the
resistance necessary to move it. Once he stops he falls a
dead mass. How shall he reach the ground without destroying
his delicate machinery?"
Limitations of airplanes
Canals
Panama Canal
Suez Canal
Darwin's theory of evolution
"...What, then, is the sum of the changes which Mr.
Darwin is able to point to within the historic period as
tending to prove his hypothesis? It amounts absolutely to
nothing. ...There are...many animals living now which can be
compared with their progenitors of the 3,000th generation
back. Can Mr. Darwin show, then, in the case of any one of
them, that, by successive variations accumulated during 3,000
generations, it has sensibly advanced towards some higher
form? Can he show that 3,000 generations have, in any
instance, done aught towards proving the truth of his
hypothesis? It appears that he cannot point to a single such
case as yielding him support. 3,000 generations have done
literally nothing for his hypothesis, If so, neither would
30,000, nor 300,000; for,...if you multiply nothing by a
million it will be nothing still."
"There are...absolutely no facts either in the records
of geology, or in the history of the past, or in the
experience of the present, that can be referred to as proving
evolution, or the development of one species from another by
selection of any kind whatever."
"Those who accept Mr. Darwin's account of the descent of
man must accept along with it not a little that is, if
possible, even more incredible. For example, while a certain
monkey race has, by a series of insensible gradations,
occurring during a period of enormous length, developed into
man, other monkey races, during a yet longer period, have
remained monkeys, making no progress whatever! Mr. Darwin, I
presume, would maintain that at least half a million of years
have passed since man emerged into humanity from the last of
his ape-like progenitors How far remote, then, must be the
time when the ape from which man has descended, branched away
from the stem of the Old World monkeys! But during this
period - so long that, to us, it is practically an
eternity--Old World monkeys have remained Old World monkeys,
with the solitary exception of that wonderful member of the
ancient series of the Primates, with his plastic frame, of
which Mr. Darwin catches "an obscure glance"
through the dim vista of ages."
Electricity
Opposition to the use of alternating current
"...My personal desire would be to prohibit entirely the
use of alternating currents. They are unnecessary as they are
dangerous...I can therefore see no justification for the
introduction of a system which has no element of permanency
and every elements of danger to life and property."
"...I have always consistently opposed high-tension and
alternating systems of electric lighting...not only on
account of danger, but because of their general unreliability
and unsuitability for any general system of
distribution."
Opposition to placing electric wires
underground
Development of the incandescent lamp
Ford, Henry and the Ford Motor Company
"The Edison Company offered me the general
superintendency of the company but only on condition that I
would give up my gas engine and devote myself to something
really useful."
Galileo's discovery of Jupiter's moons by
telescope
Gas Lighting
Proposal to light English cities by gas (early 1800's)
Were placed so very high
That no tempestuous hand might reach
To tear them from the sky.
Were it not so, we soon should find
That some reforming ass
Would straight propose to snuff them out,
And light the world with Gas."
Robert Goddard's Rocket Research
Highways
Inventions (general)
Medicine
William Harvey's discovery of the circulations of the blood
Opposition to inoculation
Opposition to use of anesthesia
Limitation of surgery
Military Technology
Opposition to the change from bow to musket
Opposition within the British military
to machine guns
Inability of airplanes to sink naval
vessels
Proposal for developing a
rocket-accelerated airplane bomb (1940)
Possibility of developing
intercontinental missiles
Development of the atomic bomb
Ohm's Law
Radio
Limited utility of radio
Railroads and locomotives
Opposition to building a railway in
England
Railway travel (general)
Steamships
Telegraphy
Samuel F. B. Morse
Opposition to providing funds to build a
telegraph line between Baltimore and New York City
Wireless telegraphy
Please contact Foresight Institute for information about them and how to support their worthwhile projects!