Early Bird Rates For Summer Camp For Those Who Turn In: Fill & Download for Free

To fully understand this conflict, people need to read books not just Quora posts.The animosity between Jews and Arab Muslims started way back with the inception of Islam and the hateful book that they worship called the Koran with its interpretations in the Hadith and Sira.**The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism by Andrew G. Bostom**Description from Amazon books:"This comprehensive, meticulously documented collection of scholarly articles presents indisputable evidence that a readily discernible, uniquely Islamic antisemitism-a specific Muslim hatred of Jews-has been expressed continuously since the advent of Islam. Debunking the conventional wisdom, which continues to assert that Muslim animosity toward Jews is entirely a 20th-century phenomenon fueled mainly by the protracted Arab-Israeli conflict, leading scholars provide example after example of antisemitic motifs in Muslim documents reaching back to the beginnings of Islam. The contributors show that the Koran itself is a significant source of hostility toward Jews, as well as other foundational Muslim texts including the hadith (the words and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by pious Muslim transmitters) and the sira (the earliest Muslim biographies of Muhammad). Many other examples are adduced in the writings of influential Muslim jurists, theologians, and scholars, from the Middle Ages through the contemporary era. These primary sources, and seminal secondary analyses translated here for the first time into English - such as Hartwig Hirschfeld's mid-1880s essays on Muhammad's subjugation of the Jews of Medina and George Vajda's elegant, comprehensive 1937 study of the hadith - detail the sacralized rationale for Islam's anti-Jewish bigotry. Numerous complementary historical accounts illustrate the resulting plight of Jewish communities in the Muslim world across space and time, culminating in the genocidal threat posed to the Jews of Israel today."The Holy Land was conquered several times over the last 2720 years by various empires who robbed, slaughtered and exiled most of the Israeli population from the Holy Land including, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, Arabs again, Ottomans and Brits.After WWI, the League of Nations issued Mandates, made agreements and passed Resolutions including a Mandate for then Palestine which clearly stipulates the Brits will enable the establishment of a Homeland for the Jewish people on their historical ancestral Homeland.After WWII the League of Nations was dismantled and a new organization set up, the UN with a new Charter.The main clause in that new Charter is Article 80.As per Article 80 of the UN Charter, no UN resolution can override Israel’s existing legal rights and title of sovereignty over any region of the Land of Israel based on the above earlier acts of International Law: The Jan Smuts Resolution of January 30, 1919, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, including the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919, the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920, the Mandate for Palestine as confirmed on July 24, 1922 and the Franco-British Convention of December 23, 1920, all of which recognized the historical connection of the Jewish People with the Land of Israel.A Palestinian-Arab state on land lawfully designated for the Jewish state violates U.S. treaty obligations (the 1924 Anglo-American Convention/Treaty and UN Charter) guaranteeing the Jewish people’s rights to the entire mandatory area, including Judea/Samaria.It also contradicts the Oslo Accords, which, as confirmed by then-Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin’s last speech to the Knesset, contemplated a Palestinian entity that is less than a state.Armistice Agreement of 1949http://www.knesset.gov.il/process/docs/armistice_jordan_eng.htm (http://www.knesset.gov.il/process/docs/armistice_jordan_eng.htm)Article 69. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/MandateN2%20-%2010-29-07-English.pdf (http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/MandateN2%20-%2010-29-07-English.pdf)Here is a list of books:**Palestine Betrayed by Prof' Efraim Karsh****The Rape of Palestine by William Ziff****Battleground by Samuel Katz****Full text of "Meinertzhagen Middle East Diary 1917-1958 Excerpts"** (Full text of "Meinertzhagen Middle East Diary 1917-1958 Excerpts")Colonel Meinertzhagen was born in 1878, educatedin Harrow and joined the Army in 1899. He servedwith the Royal Fusiliers in India until 1902, when he transferred to the King's African Rifles.During the 1914-1918 war he served on the Staff inEast Africa, Palestine and France. After the warhe was a member of the Paris Peace Delegation. He served as Chief Political Officer in Palestine andSyria from 1919-1920 and as Military Adviser to the Middle East Department of the Colonial Office from 1921-1924.Throughout this period. he playedan important part in the affairs of the Middle East,and notably Palestine, and his interest in andconnection with the region have continued ever since.During the Second.World War he was on the staffof the \War Office 1939-1940 and served in theHome Guard from 1940-1945.Here is only one of his notes:14.Vl.l919 Paris pa.22Yesterday I met an Italian called Bianehini who professed to be a keen Zionist and had just returned from a pro-longed visit to Palestine, He poured out many complaints against the British Administration in Palestine, asserting that they are encouraging the Arabs to oppose Zionism, that the Arabs are being granted privileges denied to the Jews, that the police are corrupt and that the Jewsregard the Administration as half-hearted regardingthe National Home.I also met Colonel Stirling of General Clayton’s staffwho confirmed Bianehini’ s statement, adding that Ronald Storrs is playing a double game, pretending to favour the Jews whilst intriguing against them.It is clear that the political state of Palestine isunhappy and that is due to lack of a clear policy byH.M.G. and their failure to make it abundantly clearthat the National Home is the declared policy ofAlso the Palestine Administration must bepurged of those elements hostile to Zionism.I have written a memorandum to the D.M.I. embodying these remarks,Weizman tells me that when he met Clemenceau with a view to enlisting his sympathy with the National Home, that he found him unsympathetic and remarked "We Christians can never forgive the Jews for crucifying Christ", to which Weizmann remarked, "Monsieur Clemenceau, you know perfectly well that ifJesus of Nazareth were to apply for a visa to enter France, it would be refused on the grounds that he was a political agitator".Even though the Jews of then Palestine joined the Brits in their battle in Gallipoli, then during WWI in the liberation of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, then during WWII, the Jewish Brigade fought with England against Nazi Germany, while the Arabs of then Palestine joined the Nazis against the Allied Forces, the Brits betrayed the Jews big time. See the links below:Jewish Legion - Wikipedia (Jewish Legion - Wikipedia)Jewish Brigade - Wikipedia (Jewish Brigade - Wikipedia)The Arab Chapter of the Holocaust (The Arab Chapter of the Holocaust)The Palestinian Mufti’s War Against the Jews | Israel Behind the News (The Palestinian Mufti’s War Against the Jews | Israel Behind the News)The White Paper: 80 Years Later (The White Paper: 80 Years Later)MI6 Attacked Jewish Refugee Ships After WWII (MI6 Attacked Jewish Refugee Ships After WWII)During WWII the Brits blocked all entrance of Jewish Refugees escaping from Nazi Europe to then Palestine.Those who succeeded to reach then Palestine were rounded up by the Brits and returned to Europe ending up in the death camps.How many Jews went up in smoke due to the crimes against humanity by the Brits?**The Innocents Abroad by Mark Twain**On the land of PalestineOf all the lands there are for dismal scenery, I think Palestine must be the prince. The hills are barren, they are dull of color, they are unpicturesque in shape. The valleys are unsightly deserts fringed with a feeble vegetation that has an expression about it of being sorrowful and despondent. The Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee sleep in the midst of a vast stretch of hill and plain wherein the eye rests upon no pleasant tint, no striking object, no soft picture dreaming in a purple haze or mottled with the shadows of the clouds. Every outline is harsh, every feature is distinct, there is no perspective--distance works no enchantment here. It is a hopeless, dreary, heart-broken land.Small shreds and patches of it must be very beautiful in the full flush of spring, however, and all the more beautiful by contrast with the far-reaching desolation that surrounds them on every side. I would like much to see the fringes of the Jordan in spring-time, and Shechem, Esdraelon, Ajalon and the borders of Galilee--but even then these spots would seem mere toy gardens set at wide intervals in the waste of a limitless desolation.Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies. Where Sodom and Gomorrah reared their domes and towers, that solemn sea now floods the plain, in whose bitter waters no living thing exists--over whose waveless surface the blistering air hangs motionless and dead-- about whose borders nothing grows but weeds, and scattering tufts of cane, and that treacherous fruit that promises refreshment to parching lips, but turns to ashes at the touch. Nazareth is forlorn; about that ford of Jordan where the hosts of Israel entered the Promised Land with songs of rejoicing, one finds only a squalid camp of fantastic Bedouins of the desert; Jericho the accursed, lies a moldering ruin, to-day, even as Joshua's miracle left it more than three thousand years ago; Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and their humiliation, have nothing about them now to remind one that they once knew the high honor of the Saviour's presence; the hallowed spot where the shepherds watched their flocks by night, and where the angels sang Peace on earth, good will to men, is untenanted by any living creature, and unblessed by any feature that is pleasant to the eye. .... The noted Sea of Galilee, where Roman fleets once rode at anchor and the disciples of the Saviour sailed in their ships, was long ago deserted by the devotees of war and commerce, and its borders are a silent wilderness; Capernaum is a shapeless ruin; Magdala is the home of beggared Arabs; Bethsaida and Chorazin have vanished from the earth, and the "desert places" round about them where thousands of men once listened to the Saviour's voice and ate the miraculous bread, sleep in the hush of a solitude that is inhabited only by birds of prey and skulking foxes.Palestine is desolate and unlovely. And why should it be otherwise? Can the curse of the Deity beautify a land?Palestine is no more of this work-day world. It is sacred to poetry and tradition--it is dream-land.**The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 by**Kenneth W. Stein**Product description in Amazon books:"The control of land remains the crucial issue in the Arab-Israel conflict. Kenneth Stein investigates in detail and without polemics how and why Jews acquired land from Arabs in Palestine during the British Mandate, and he reaches conclusions that are challenging and suprising.Stein contends that Zionists were able to purchase the core of a national territory in Palestine during this period for three reasons: they had the single-mindedness of purpose, as well as the capital, to buy the land; the Arabs, economically impoverished, politically fragmented, and socially atomized, were willing to sell the land; and the British were largely ineffective in regulating land sales and protecting Arab tenants.Neither Arab opposition to land sales nor British attempts to regulate them actually limited land acquisition. There were always more Arab offers to sell land than there were Zionist funds. In fact, many sales were made by Arab politicians who publicly opposed Zionism and even led agitation against land acquisition by Jews. Zionists furthered their own ambitions by skillfully using their understanding of the bureaucracy to write laws and to influence key administrative appointments. Further, they knew how to take advantage of social and economic cleavages within Arab society.The overwhelming contribution of Arab land sales to the creation of ageographic nucleus for a Jewish national home was not only astonishing in the amount of land transferred by Arabs (which continued to rise after 1930), but was also marked by the preeminent role of Palestinian Arabs who guided the nationalist cause in the I910s and early 1930s. It is not to be argued here whether the Arab Executive did or did not effectively represent or reflect the interests of the entire Palestinian Arab population. In fact, the Arab Executive accepted the responsibility of representing Palestinian Arab interests to the Palestine administration and to HMG in London. Of the eighty-nine members elected to the Arab Executive between 1920 and June 1928, at least one-quarter can be identified, personally or through immediate family, as having directly participated in land sales to Jews. Of the forty-eight members of the Arab Executive in attendance at the Seventh Arab Congress in June 1928, at least fourteen had by that date been involved in land sales." Members of the various Palestine Arab delegations to London appear to have been deeply involved in the land-sale process. For many of these individuals who sold land, their participation at an early juncture did not preclude the development of overwhelming hostility to land sales at a later date. A detailed, but neither exhaustive nor complete list of Palestinian Arabs involved in land sales to Jews appears in Appendix 3.Based primarily on archival research,The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 offers an unusually balanced analysis of the social and political history of land sales in Palestine during this critical period. It provides exceptional and essential insight into one of the most troubling conflicts in today's world.ReviewThe first comprehensive, amply documented analysis of the land question in Palestine between the two world wars.-- New York Times**The Claim of Dissposession by Arie L. Avinery**Product description in Amazon books:"This study sheds new light on the historic background of the contemporary Palestinian problem. Avneri traces the spread of Jewish settlements over the seventy-year period before the establishment of the State of Israel, in order to see how it affected the existing Arab community's economy and social and cultural institutions. He demonstrates that there is no historical evidence for the eviction of the Palestinians from Israel previous to the founding of the state. Most of those who left afterwards did so on their own volition.Answer to Did the Arab Palestinians sell their lands to the Zionist movement during the Mandate for Palestine? by Jim Braiden Jim Braiden's answer to Did the Arab Palestinians sell their lands to the Zionist movement during the Mandate for Palestine? (Jim Braiden's answer to Did the Arab Palestinians sell their lands to the Zionist movement during the Mandate for Palestine?)**Chapters from the Annals of the Yishuv 1878-1952 by Moshe Smilansky**Contains comprehensive data of Arab land sales to Jews.The Jewish Agency made sure that no deed of sale be executed without the authorization of the British Administration.**From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters**Product description in Amazon books:"This monumental and fascinating book, the product of seven years of original research, will forever change the terms of the debate about the conflicting claims of the Arabs and the Jews in the Middle East.The weight of the comprehensive evidence found and brilliantly analyzed by historian and journalist Joan Peters answers many crucial questions, among them: Why are the Arab refugees from Israel seen in a different light from all the other, far more numerous peoples who were displaced after World War II? Why, indeed, are they seen differently from the Jewish refugees who were forced, in 1948 and after, to leave the Arab countries to find a haven in Israel? Who, in fact, are the Arabs who were living within the borders of present-day Israel, and where did they come from?Joan Peters's highly readable and moving development of the answers to these and related questions will appear startling, even to those on both sides of the argument who have considered themselves to be in command of the facts. On the basis of a definitive weight of hitherto unexamined population and other historical data, much of it buried in untouched archives, Peters demonstrates that Jews did not displace Arabs in Palestine-just the reverse: Arabs displaced Jews; that a hidden but major Arab migration and immigration took place into areas settled by Jews in pre-Israel Palestine; that a substantial number of the Arab refugees called Palestinians in reality had foreign roots; that for every Arab refugee who left Israel in 1948, there was a Jewish refugee who fled or was expelled from his Arab birthplace at the same time-today's much discussed Sephardic majority in Israel is in fact composed mainly of these Arab-born Jewish refugees or their offspring; that Britain, the Mandatory power, winked at and even encouraged Arab immigration into Palestine between the two World Wars; that by disguising the Arab immigrants as "indigenous native Palestinian Arabs," the British justified their restrictions on Jewish immigration and settlement, dooming masses of European Jews to destruction in the Nazi camps.Joan Peters also unfolds a historical record to shatter the widely held belief that Arabs and Jews harmoniously coexisted for centuries in the Arab world-the fact is that the Jews, along with other non-Muslims, were second-class citizens, oppressed in the Muslim world for more than a millennium. And this continuing prejudicial tradition of hostility underlies, as well, every Arab action toward the state of Israel.In addition to her pioneering archival researches, Joan Peters has frequently traveled in the Middle East, conducting numerous interviews and gathering the personal observations of the first-rate reporter she is. The result is a book that has already had a major impact on policy discussions of one of the most vital and intractable of the world's problems, shrouded until now in a fog of misinformation and ignorance.Distributed exclusively by Jonathan David Publishers.Review"...will change the mind of our generation. If understood, it could also affect the history of the future." -- New Republic"A remarkable document in itself. . . . The refugees are not the problem but the excuse." --Washington Post Book World"Contains much valuable information...deserving the attention of anyone seriously concerned with the Palestinian problem." -- S.D. Goitein, The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton"This book is a historical event in itself..." -- Barbara Tuchman**The Question of Palestine 1914-1918 by Prof' Isaiah Friedman**Product description in Amazon books:"This brilliant and groundbreaking study of international relations in the Middle East during World War I traces the complex course of events that led to the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Isaiah Friedman offers an original and authoritatively documented reassessment of many crucial and controversial issues relating to the question of Palestine, issues that have bedevilled Middle Eastern politics until the present day. The book won the Kaplan Prize in Israeli Studies of The National Jewish Book Council when it initially appeared.The author's primary concern is with the motivations of British policy toward the Zionist movement In his new introduction, Friedman traces in detail the evolving attitudes of prominent English statesmen and public men toward the idea of Jewish settlement in Palestine. He challenges the view current among many British historians that the Balfour Declaration was the result of a miscalculation, a product of sentiment rather than of considered interests of state. He shows that one of the most important motives in British support of the Zionists was to counter the posssibilty of a Turkish-German protectorate of a Jewish Palestine emerging in the aftermath of the war. He also sheds new light on the Sykes-Picot Agreement and examines the intricate question of whether or not Palestine was a "twice promised land," an issue that still has political bearing today.Review“A superlative model of scholarly restraint and objectivity that offers important reassessments of the origins of the Palestine Question. . . . This is an absolute must for all advanced libraries.”**In the Anglo-Arab Labyrinth: The McMahon Correspondence and it's Interpretation, 1919-1939****By Prof' Elie Kedourie.**Product description in Amazon books:"The McMahon-Husayn correspondence has been at the heart of Anglo-Arab relations since World War I. It aroused great controversy, particularly over Palestine. Here, it is examined in historical context to determine why it was so obscure and what lay in the minds of those who drafted it."The McMahon-Husayn correspondence greatly affected Anglo-Arab relations after the First World War. Written in obscure and ambiguous terms, it aroused great controversy, particularly over the issue of Palestine. Originally published in 1976, this study brought together for the first time all the available evidence from British, French and Arabic sources and elucidated the meaning of the correspondence."**The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law by Howard Grief.**M. D Roberts·November 15, 2010Superb. Lays bare so much propaganda & revisionist history.This excellent detailed study by Professor Howard Grief addressing both Israel's legal foundation and borders is an absolute must read. The culmination of 25 years of study addresses a plethora of issues including the San Remo peace conference & a detailed appraisal of the Palestine Mandate, including its original intent, interpretation and application.The study pulls no punches in showing that the Balfour Declaration, Mandate and League of Nations were intent upon the rebirth of not just a Jewish national home but a Jewish state based upon a historical formula founded upon the 1st/2nd Temple period territories, including lands up to the Litani Valley in present day Lebanon. The present borders of Israel are shown to be clearly not those originally designated for the Jewish people by the aforementioned international agreements.Detailed reference reveals how it was originally agreed between Britain & France that the borders of a Jewish Palestine would be based on the historical or Biblical formula, "from Dan to Beersheba", a phrase appearing several times in the Bible.This shown to have been interpreted up until 1920 by Prime Minister Lloyd George & other British officials to mean that Palestine would include all the lands or regions historically associated with the Jewish People. That is all territory which at one time or other was conquered, settled & governed by the Israelites in the 1st /2nd Temple periods.The historical formula for determining these boundaries was accepted at the San Remo Peace Conference & referred to to in the Mandate Charter, which referred to the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine. The British themselves relying on George Adam Smith's "Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land", published in 1915, in particular on Plate No. 34 that depicted the territory under David and Solomon.The book makes sobering reading as the British are shown to have not abided by their obligations under the Mandate, instead giving precedence to their own political self interests, regional expedience & their relationship with the Arab/Islamic world. The influence of French interests in the region also playing a considerable part as Western entities reneged upon their responsibilities & obligations pertaining to a Jewish home/state in what was Palestine.The reader is shown how international agreements then made & still make it quite clear today, that Israel had/has a perfect legal right to settle land in the disputed territories in 1967, since this was the right assigned to the Jewish people under International Law. Law which continues to be in force despite the political nuances of today which are expedient to the larger pro-Arab international community.Self serving political machinations & expedience are again shown when, under Article 5 of the Mandate Britain - which was not allowed to partition the land - Britain then did so by severing 77% to create the Arab state of Transjordan which, from the moment of its creation, was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement - a clear betrayal of the British promise the tones of which resound even now.Under Article 6 of the Mandate Britain,was supposed to encourage Jewish immigration % settlement all over the now disputed territory - a Jewish right which exists to this day under International Law, despite the Mandate treaty's enactment in 1948.Yet Britain is shown to have reneged upon this responsibility too. British foreign policy of the time, extending to the present day, shown to be that of appeasing the Arab/Islamic world as it appears to continually sacrifice Israel upon the altar of political expedience.In November 1938 the British 'Cabinet Committee For Palestine' held a meeting which effectively resulted in the reneging upon of the Balfour Declaration & the League of Nations Mandate. Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, told the Committee that "the Government would have to choose between it's commitments to the world of Jewry & it's commitments to the world of Islam..." It was subsequently decided that Britain could not afford to antagonise the Muslim world. This resulted in the British White Paper of 1939 which served to appease the Arab/Islamic world & severely restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine. This was the British policy as the Holocaust descended upon the Jews of Europe.It is virtually impossible to do justice to the vast amount of evidence available in this 700+ page study. I can but highly recommend this work to anyone interesting in the Jewish state, the Arab-Israeli conflict & the manner in which the latter is portrayed/perceived in our day.With such a vast array of facts at your fingertips the individual is left to ponder a number of issues. Not least being how the international community has seemingly side-stepped history & embraced the creation of a Palestinian state in territories promised to the Jewish people & to which they have a heritage spanning many thousands of years. The prerequisite of such a state's creation being the removal/ethnic cleansing of the entire Jewish presence from these areas.With due reference to the contents of this study, the conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. Such a case is blown completely out of the water by reference to the factual history. Though routinely referred to nowadays as "Palestinian" land, at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) been under Palestinian sovereignty in any sense of the term.This compelling account (the book) shows the reader how the public is clearly being completely and utterly deceived by the manner in which the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is being presented to them (in the media), in the face of skillfully orchestrated revisionist history (meaning the “new historians") and a tidal wave of anti-Israel propaganda.This is a book that desperately needs to be read & re-read. International leaders, including those within Israel itself, need to avail themselves of the information provided here.Red Horizons by Ion Michai PacepaA former chief of Romania's foreign intelligence service reveals the extraordinary corruption of the Nicolae Ceausescu government of Romania, its brutal machinery of oppression, and its Machiavellian relationship with the West. An in side story of how Communist Party leaders really live.**The Arab States****Their Contemporary History and Politics by Yaacov Shimoni****Philistine-To-Palestine: Exposing the World's Biggest Deception by Joseph D. Shellim**DescriptionA global chaos and mayhem has extended across the nations. All was blamed on the Middle East Conflict. Yet now a different manifestation has emerged, affirming this was never a local issue about Palestine or of land occupation: Israel holds less than 0.5% of land in Arabia. There was never any land issue across the nations, yet the mayhem extended globally. Thereby, was this conflict wrongly accounted - or was it designed to erupt as it has – and for what purposes?Exposing the long suppressed and omitted issues will cause intense debating; it may even change your views. The issues of Palestine and its global impacts are now exposed as never before – historically, theologically and politically, of both ancient and modern times. The big questions:Who Are “Palestinians”? Why was this name transferred from Jews to Arabs after 2,000 years in 1964?Why were the 3000 year names of Hebrew towns changed to West Bank in 1950? Was King David of Bethlehem, or Jesus of Nazareth, as Palestinians? What was the message of the Dead Sea Scrolls that was hidden from the world?Chamberlain, Hitler and Hajj Amin:Why did Britain appoint Hajj Amin as Grand Mayor of Jerusalem in contradiction of the Balfour Mandate? Was Britain’s division of Palestine and her White Paper Policy legal or crimes against humanity?Who are Arabs? A historical enquiry traces the origins of the Arab group and their first emerging. The issue becomes controversial when the people called as Arabs are connected with Canaan, Abraham, Ishmael, Israel, Judea and Jesus Christ.Today’s Global Refugee Crisis:Why are Millions of Christians and Arabs fleeing their ancient homelands? Why were no ruling conditions placed on the new Arab states – and how does it impact all nations today?Is today’s chaos and mayhem circumstantial or designed?Whatever your views of the modern world’s most controversial issue, this book will arm you with long suppressed and de-classified archives, exposing a host of deceptions created to cover great errors of the 20th century. These have backfired and plunged humanity into chaos and mayhem. Causes and effects apply. “Philistine-To-Palestine” is presented with quotes and interviews from the widest range of credible sources. From Scholars, Theologians, Clerics, Lawyers, Presidents, Kings, Ottoman Sultans, Arabian Emirs, Ambassadors, Authors, Talk Show Hosts, Human Rights Advocates and Bloggers.A 3,000 year population survey of Palestine and 40 historical images expose the great deceptions of the modern world that have come to haunt all nations. Perhaps we are driving on the wrong lane of this highway?Knowledge is power. Arm yourself.**How can this conflict be solved?**It will, when the wells of petro-dollars dry up and the swamps of terrorism decease to exist.Maybe not in our generation but there is light at the end of the tunnel.Those who think that the UN, Useless defunctional corrupt organisation can or wants to do anything, read this:UN folly & CorruptionNorwegian coverage of the UNRWA summer camp for weapons instruction | Israel Behind the News (Norwegian coverage of the UNRWA summer camp for weapons instruction | Israel Behind the News)Hamas 'Partners' with UN | Clarion Project (Hamas 'Partners' with UN | Clarion Project)SMITH & WESTROP: New Evidence Shows U.N. Engulfed In Bin Laden-Linked Charity Scandal (SMITH & WESTROP: New Evidence Shows U.N. Engulfed In Bin Laden-Linked Charity Scandal)The hypocrisy of the UN by AIPAC"The hypocrisy of the BDS campaign against Israel can be especially seen at the United Nations, where agencies like the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) have long records of hostility toward Israel.Since its inception in 2006, the UNHRC has passed 83 resolutions condemning Israel, more than all other nations combined. It has now compiled a blacklist of 22 American companies doing business in Israel and is moving toward a boycott of those firms.Other U.N. bodies have absurdly characterized Israel as the world’s leading abuser of women’s rights, labor rights, even mental health.This is all part of the double standards and hypocrisy the Jewish state routinely faces. "UN Singles Out Israel as World's Only Violator of Women's Rights; Iran, Saudi Arabia & Yemen Among the Voters - UN Watch (UN Singles Out Israel as World's Only Violator of Women's Rights; Iran, Saudi Arabia & Yemen Among the Voters - UN Watch)The incendiary balloon of international law (The incendiary balloon of international law)The UN continues its bias against Israel (The UN continues its bias against Israel)https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/singling_out_israel.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/singling_out_israel.html)UNRWA CorruptionReport alleges ethical abuses at UN agency for Palestinians (Report alleges ethical abuses at UN agency for Palestinians)Ethics report accuses UNRWA leadership of abuse of power (Ethics report accuses UNRWA leadership of abuse of power)https://honestreporting.com/unrwa-refugees-explained/ (The UNRWA Refugee Controversy Explained)Swiss Funding Freeze in Wake of UNRWA Corruption Allegations Piles On Palestinian Refugee Agency’s Woes (Swiss Funding Freeze in Wake of UNRWA Corruption Allegations Piles On Palestinian Refugee Agency’s Woes)https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/07/31/schadenfreude-and-the-unrwa-scandal/ (Schadenfreude and the UNRWA Scandal)https://m.jpost.com/Middle-East/Belgium-suspends-UNRWA-funds-following-reports-of-ethical-misconduct-597561 (https://m.jpost.com/Middle-East/Belgium-suspends-UNRWA-funds-following-reports-of-ethical-misconduct-597561)https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-u-n-agency-for-palestinians-is-even-worse-than-you-imagine-11565131636 (Opinion | The U.N. Agency for Palestinians Is Even Worse Than You Imagine)https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-n-agency-for-palestinians-is-even-worse-than-you-imagine-11565131636?utm_source=Middle+East+Forum&utm_campaign=c3cfb658b0-Joffe_Romirowsky_CAMPAIGN_2019_08_09_01_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-c3cfb658b0-33930445&goal=0_086cfd423c-c3cfb658b0-33930445 (Opinion | The U.N. Agency for Palestinians Is Even Worse Than You Imagine)https://israelbehindthenews.com/who-benefits-from-unrwa-services/18913/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ibn-today (https://israelbehindthenews.com/who-benefits-from-unrwa-services/18913/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ibn-today)https://israelbehindthenews.com/another-example-of-how-unrwa-wastes-the-worlds-money/18930/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ibn-today (https://israelbehindthenews.com/another-example-of-how-unrwa-wastes-the-worlds-money/18930/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ibn-today)How Trump Started a Civil War Between the UN and Hamas (How Trump Started a Civil War Between the UN and Hamas)Confronting UNRWA education antisemitism at the UN | Israel Behind the News (https://israelbehindthenews.com/confronting-unrwa-education-antisemitism-at-the-un/18950/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ibn-today)

▲Generally, steam engines were too heavy for aircraft, but one steam-powered airplane did manage to fly in 1890. Clement Ader's bat-winged Éole flew 165 feet (so meters), but only 8 inches (20 centimeters) above ground. Ader later built a larger version, Avion III (above), which he claimed flew 984 feet (300 meters) in 1897. Ader’s flight preceded the Wrights’ by 13 years, and has a reasonable claim to be considered the first successful manned and powered flight in history. Plus, he is a European: and Europeans are sure peeved at Americans taking away all the glory.Although the Russians pretended at one time to have invented the airplane along with everything else, and a French researcher named Clement Ader had in 1890 a reasonable claim to having achieved powered heavier-than-air flight, the laurels are traditionally given to the Wrights because they successfully dealt with the problem of control.It was, in fact, in the field of control that they remained for several years in advance of their foreign rivals.European experimenters were dumbfounded by the flying displays put on by Wilbur Wright at Le Mans in 1908; "We don't even exist!" cried one French flier in dismay.According to some, the first flight by a manned, gasoline-driven airplane was actually achieved by an Austrian, Wilhelm Kress, in 1901. Kress "hopped" from a reservoir, powered by a 30-hp Daimler engine, thus garnering the "first seaplane" laurels as well as "first manned powered flight".A German, Karl Jatho, also "hopped" 98 feet on September 23, 1903, in a powered biplane; records do not mention what kind of powerplant Jatho used. By November he had reached 197 feet, a longer flight than the Wrights' first one. But, like those characters in Greek plays, Jatho had a tragic flaw—sincere modesty. He called his flights "Iuftsprung," or simply aerial leaps. So history passed him by.These fellows are sunk in obscurity, whereas the Wrights, who did not fly until December 1903, live in memory. Why?My guess is as good as yours.[The first blind landing? Jimmy Doolittle, in a Consolidated NY2 borrowed from the army, on Sept 24, 1929? Now hold it right there. Two days after Doolittle’s flight, a Guggenheim Foundation official, a sponsor of Doolittle’s research, was quoted in a New York Times editorial, "Something of the kind has been done before by transport companies." That "something of the kind" was probably the work of the real father of instrument flight, a colorless but brilliant man named Howard Stark.Few know anything of him. You won't find his name in history books; you have to build his story from old magazine stories, a back-page news item, a remembered conversation with an ancient airline pilot. Stark first turns up in early Autumn—probably September, for leaves were still on trees—in a forgotten year at a Long Island airport. He bought a surplus Jenny, took a couple of hours dual, and then disappeared. He may have barnstormed some; it's rumored he flew mail through tropical thunderstorms in South America during the mid-twenties; records show he flew mail over the "Hell-Stretch," New York to Cleveland. He developed the 1-2-3 system of blind flight and taught it to Eastern and Royal Dutch Airlines captains. He wrote the book on instrument flying techniques. Then in 1936 he flew off into the Utah Rockies in a snowstorm to investigate mysterious bends in radio beams. Days later his plane was found, hardly damaged. An instrument man to the end, he had re-moved the compass and started walking. He died in the cold. He had an affair with immortality, but Fate didn't tell anybody.]Beware of Dame History: cantankerous, irascible, perverse: just waiting for a chance to trip you up!TWO YOUNG AMERICANS invented the flying machine at the dawn of this century. As to those who claim that X or Y or Z was really first, ahead of the Wright brothers; there may have been (and in fact, there were, and let’s give due credit to them) experimenters who contrived to get an inch or three of air under their wheels, but they achieved nothing remotely approaching the controlled, sustained, powered flight of the Wrights, duly witnessed.Wilbur and Orville were intensely curious about all things mechanical. One such was flight; they had made kites and bat-winged devices and helicopter toys as children, and a fascination with flying persisted into manhood. In 1895, they read of the hang-gliding experiments in Germany of Otto Lilienthal; and a year later, that he had been killed gliding.Perhaps they might go on from where he and others had left off?They had, after all, a reputation among the neighbors for "crazy doings."But they did nothing about it for a year or two more.Then, on May 30, 1899, when he was 32 years old and Orville 28, Wilbur boldly wrote to the Smithsonian Institution, whose director, Samuel P. Langley, had been making aeronautical studies."I have been interested in human and mechanical flight since . . . a boy," he wrote. "I believe that simple flight at least is possible to man . . . I am about to begin a systematic study of the subject in preparation for practical work to which I expect to devote what time I can spare from my regular business . . . I am an enthusiast but not a crank . . ."He sought information and a list of books, which the Smithsonian supplied.The Wrights read avidly, and they also watched birds. Wilbur noticed something that other bird-watchers seemed to have missed: that a gliding buzzard retains its lateral balance by a torsion of the tips of its wings. And while toying with a long cardboard box one day, he found that even with its end sides remaining rigid, the box could be twisted so that the top and bottom pieces of card became differently inclined at the ends.From this grew their concept of warping (twisting) the wingtips of a flying machine to vary their lift laterally and so achieve roll control.This wing-warping was the foundation of their success. It was a revolutionary step; most earlier experimenters had not appreciated the need for aerodynamic control but had apparently assumed that a flying machine could be expected to be naturally stable.True, Lilienthal had tried to control his gliders by weight-shifting, swinging his own body about. While this works (within limits) in today's hang-gliders with their inherently stable Rogallo wing form, it can hardly have been very effective with Lilienthal's bat-shaped wings.Written accounts of the earliest pioneers were grist for the Wrights' intellectual mill. They analyzed the efforts of Sir George Cayley, the English squire who, in the first half of the nineteenth century, conceived the modern form of an airplane.▲Cayley seems to have achieved first-ever recognized manned flight in 1849. Actually the flight was boyed (with a 10-year old boy aboard), not manned, and what sets it apart from earlier successful glides is the fact that it was better documented. At any rate, Cayley repeated the accomplishment in 1853, this time using his reluctant coachman as a pilot. The man flew several hundred yards, and after a rough landing, famously gave notice to his employer: “Sire, I was hired to drive, not to fly!”They knew of the 1842 plans that William Samuel Henson had for an "Aerial Steam Carriage" with a monoplane wing, a tailplane, a vertical stabilizer, tricycle landing gear and a propeller; and of the smaller, more practical steam-powered model built by his friend John Stringfellow.▲John Stringfellow’s Model, 1858. FIFTY-FIVE years before the Wright Brothers' flight, an obscure English inventor named John Stringfellow built the world's first power-driven model plane. Powered by a tiny steam engine, the craft flew 66 feet in 1848—the first time an aircraft was able to sustain itself in flight by means of its own power-plant.The Wrights' skill as thorough researchers served them well.Useful too was their friendship with a middle-aged civil engineer named Octave Chanute—an American of French birth—who had tried hang-gliding, and who passed on to his young friends his own notion of employing the classic bridge-builder's multi-bay Pratt truss to construct a light but strong biplane wing.▲Chanute’s biplane gliderThat summer, they made and flew such a five-foot-span biplane kite and proved the effectiveness of wing-warping. By September of 1900, they had made a full-size glider, 17 feet in span, embodying wing-warping and a movable front elevator but with no vertical stabilizer.They chose the Carolina coastal sandhills, far indeed from Dayton, as a testing ground, thinking that the strong prevailing winds, even slopes and soft sand in which to fall might make an ideal place to learn about flying.Kill Devil Hills was the spot selected, near the Kitty Hawk telegraph station, and their annual pilgrimages there became their longed-for vacations. At first they camped in a tent, but in later years put up sheds wherein they and their ma-chines dwelt in some comfort."They think life at Kitty Hawk cures all ills, you know," wrote their sister Katharine to their father.Like all their early machines, their first glider was unstable—a fundamentally different approach from that of earlier experimenters. They flew it mostly as a kite but also made a handful of free glides, some with one of them aboard, lying on the lower wing.In 1901, they began a program of research, testing wing forms by mounting them on a spar projecting ahead of a bicycle; they also assessed them in homemade wind tunnels—their first was constructed from an old starch box.Soon it became obvious that almost all the published information on aerodynamics, and particularly the tables of force measurements, were simply wrong. They returned to Kitty Hawk with a still-bigger glider, its wing-warping controlled by the prone pilot rocking his hips in a body cradle, and achieved a glide they measured at 389 feet.But the 1901 machine was generally unmanageable, and the lift of its wing less than the previous glider's.On the journey back to Dayton, Will said gloomily he didn't think man would learn to fly in a thousand years.In the summer of 1902, however, they journeyed back to Kitty Hawk, this time with a huge machine that measured 32 feet in span and 303 square feet in wing area. Besides the warp and the front elevator, the new glider also sported fixed rear fins.Now they made good glides—some of over 500 feet—but were plagued by an odd tendency: about one time in 50, the airplane would turn up sideways and slide to the ground, despite full warp to lift the dropped wing.The Wrights called this "well-digging"; they had discovered the incipient spin.The solution was to install a movable tail fin, linked to work in opposition to the warp mechanism to correct the warp drag that corresponds to aileron drag in our modern airplanes.Thus they had achieved three-axis aerodynamic control: at last, their major breakthrough and a thoroughly controllable flying machine.By the time of their return to Dayton that winter, they had made several hundred glides, at least one of more than 600 feet and nearly half a minute's endurance.Powerfully encouraged, this astonishing pair began immediately to construct a four-cylinder gasoline motor (its design based on a smaller unit they had already built to drive their wind tunnel) to power a still-bigger aircraft to be tested during their next vacation, in the fall and winter of 1903.For the first time, they were confronted with the need to design screw propellers—and here again they found that everything that had been published on the subject was, in Orville's words, simply "all wrong."The new machine (which had cost them almost $1,000) was transported to their Carolina campsite in September 1903; while making preparations to test it, they continued to practice piloting with their 1902 glider and to establish new endurance records of more than one minute.They encountered intractable problems, however, with the power transmission to the twin counter-rotating propellers of their new machine: it wasn't until December 14 that they were ready to try a takeoff from their monorail "runway."Success came three days later when four flights—the last the best, covering 852 feet in 59 seconds—were made.▲The Wright Flyer, then and now.The machine followed an undulating flight path just above the sands; with the forward-mounted elevator located on a short moment arm and hinged not far ahead of its midpoint, the aircraft must have been strongly divergent in pitch—almost unflyable.It was damaged on the last landing and rather more thoroughly wrecked later by a gust of wind as Will and Orv, exhilarated beyond dreams, stood discussing their stupendous success with a group of spectators and helpers from the nearby Coast Guard station.But it was time for the brothers to pack up and get back to their bicycle business anyway.They cabled news of their success home to their father, instructing him to inform the press.This was done, and a handful of papers ran a garbled version of the story, among them the Washington Post, which gave it six paragraphs on the front page. (The city editor of the Dayton Journal is on record as not thinking a flight of less than a minute to be worth a news item; indeed, he seemed to be annoyed at being bothered about such nonsense.During 1904 and 1905, the Wright Brothers conducted numerous experimental flights at Simms Station, eight miles from Dayton. They flew from Huffman Field, alongside the interurban line, and people who watched the flights from the interurban cars used to flock into the Dayton Daily News office and demand to know why there was nothing in the newspaper about them.[Dan Kumler, city editor, explained in 1940 why they didn't publish the stories."We just didn't believe it. Of course you remember that the Wrights at that time were terribly secretive."He was asked: "You mean that they were secretive about the fact that they were flying over an open field along the interurban line?"Kumler hesitated and replied, "I guess the truth is that we were just plain dumb."]A flying machine must have seemed about as probable then as a perpetual-motion machine does today; and of what conceivable use might such an outlandish device be even if the story were true?) .Today, the measure of what the extraordinary Wrights had achieved seems awe-inspiring.They had solved the intractable problems of manned flight inside five years, in their spare time from running the cycle business; financed the entire project from that business' modest profits (never more than $3,000 a year); done all the patient, painstaking research and calculations—on just a high-school education; taught themselves to be pilots along the way; designed and constructed their own aircraft, propellers and gasoline engines.For the five years following 1903, they were at least five years ahead of every experimenter in the field—even those whose machines benefited from published details of the Wrights' early discoveries.Wilbur and Orville Wright may just be the two greatest men in aviation's history.The Wrights had begun their experimenting principally for pleasure, seeing small prospect in aviation beyond its being a costly hobby that might easily earn them the same fate that had befallen Lilienthal. Then it dawned on them that there was "a slight possibility of fame and fortune."By 1904, it had become a very large possibility indeed. In that year and the next, they built improved Flyers and polished their piloting skills, operating now from a meadow near Dayton.By the end of 1905, both brothers had made flights of more than 30 minutes, circling at very low altitudes above their borrowed pasture.Despite this field's being bordered by two highways and a busy railroad and the flights having been seen by dozens of people, almost no press attention had been aroused.Then these two astonishing fellows, the only men in the world who knew how to fly, gave up flying altogether for two and a half years, till they had succeeded in closing a deal to sell and profit from their invention; sensibly, they declined to make any public demonstration (and risk having their ideas pirated) until firm contracts had been signed.Deals were finally concluded with the U.S. Government and the French; and it was in France, on August 8, 1908, that Wilbur Wright gave his first public exhibition.▲The Wright Type A, which, in 1908, was the first aircraft able to fly significant distances.In truth, the Wrights had left it as late as they dared, for the Europeans were now flying, albeit in a rickety fashion. One had even managed 20 minutes aloft, and a circular kilometer had been flown; but the European pilots, though they had some knowledge of the Wrights' discoveries, had not appreciated how vital was roll control and instead relied on the uncertain natural stability of large box-kite tail surfaces and some wing dihedral.The audience that waited for Wilbur to launch off that day in 1908 was "the most combative imaginable," half of them still disbelieving all rumors of the Wrights' capabilities.Bluffeurs, one French paper called them.So it was on that high summer day on the race course near Le Mans: every would-be aviator in Europe who could manage it was there. Wilbur took on and flew for less than two minutes; but his union with and mastery of his graceful machine as he effortlessly banked through two circles stunned them all to silence."Eh Bien!" said the veteran pioneer Delagrange, breaking the silence. "We are beaten! By comparison with that, we just don't exist!"The London Times wrote of "the complete triumph of the American aviator . . . the enthusiasm was indescribable . . ." and the French papers called the performance "marvelous," "glorious," "sensational."The aviation "explosion" that continues to this day began at that moment: Wilbur Wright had shown the world how to fly.Tragedy spoiled the triumph of Orville's acceptance trials for the U.S. Army in September of the same year. He began on the third; made the first flight of over an hour on the ninth; but on the seventeenth, making his third flight with a passenger, had a propeller split and crashed from 75 feet altitude. His Army passenger died, and Orville was gravely injured.Wilbur, aware that his younger brother was more of a daredevil and less painstaking than himself, had been dreading just such an accident. "The worry over leaving Orville alone to undertake those trials was one of the chief things in almost breaking me down a few weeks ago," he wrote to his sister. But to Orville, in the hospital, reminding him of their pact to remain bachelors, he wrote: "I understand that it was your right side that was injured, but I have cautioned [sister) Kate to guard against internal injuries under the ribs of your left side. Hospitals are awfully dangerous places for bachelors."But they closed their deals. I am happy to inform you of something the history books often omit: that the Wrights did make a substantial fortune from their invention. In 16 months during 1909 and 1910, they received $200,000 in America; in 1911, they bought a 17-acre estate in a Dayton suburb.When Wilbur died in 1912 of typhoid, aged only 45, the two brothers were worth more than $300,000—and in 1912 dollars. (Orville lived until 1948.)Once the Wrights had shown the world their design for a successful flying machine, the world went away and quickly improved upon it.Many of the Wrights' cherished concepts did not long endure.Divergent instability was the first to go; the French soon found that a stable airplane was just as maneuverable and far easier to fly.The Wrights' twin counter-rotating, geared-down pusher propellers, driven through shafts and long bicycle chains, were elegant theoretically but complex to make; Bleriot's idea of slapping a tractor propeller onto the end of the crank, at the front of the airplane, and to hell with torque and gears, was easier and lighter and is still with us.▲Louis Bleriot. At 4:41 a.m. on July 25, 1909, in near-perfect weather conditions, Mr. Blériot took to the air, the plane’s engine belching clouds of black smoke. He skirted the French coastline and then veered north, flying about 30 yards above the water. Blériot set out from Les Baraques – a neighborhood of southern Calais since renamed Blériot-Plage – and spent 37 minutes in the air before touching down in a field below Dover Castle, smashing his propeller and undercarriage. He was later given a hero’s welcome back in Paris.Ailerons were simpler and more effective than warping, and they enabled you to build a stiff wing.Mounting the machine on bicycle wheels was enormously simpler than the Wrights' skids, launch rail and falling-weight-in-a-tower catapult takeoff technique.It was also Bleriot who worked out the system of pilot's controls that we use to this day: hand throttle, rudder pedals and a universally jointed stick you tilt left-right, fore-and-aft for roll and pitch. (Though it can be argued that rudder pedals, then and now. work in the wrong sense.)Orville and Wilbur both worked out different control systems (it must have been the only thing they fundamentally disagreed on), each of which seems back-handed today, with two levers and no pedals. Orville warped his wings by moving a lever fore and aft; Wilbur chose that control to work his rudder.All sorts of control systems were tried by those pioneer aviators. Glenn Curtiss, for example, used a rocking shoulder cradle for roll control—the pilot leaned left or right—and a ship's wheel for the rudder; his throttle was a gas pedal, as in an automobile.▲Glenn CurtissBut Bleriot's sensible and natural layout soon prevailed over all others.What did it take to be a pioneer aviator?Principally money.One English birdman proclaimed that his repair bills for his machine averaged £1,500 ($7,500) a month.Bleriot dissipated a fortune he'd made from automobile acetylene lamps on his aviation experiments; his motive for his desperate, but lucky, attempt to fly the 21-mile English Channel in 1909 was quite largely that he needed the $5,000 prize a London newspaper was offering for the feat. He made the flight (which concluded with a crash on the English cliffs) and a new fortune with his Type XI monoplane—in many ways the first modern airplane.▲Bleriot Type XI monoplane—in many ways the first modern airplane.Another Parisian aviator was a Brazilian coffee millionaire; Alberto Santos-Dumont, aviation's first great show-off.Glenn Curtiss, born in Upstate New York, was a bicycle-maker like the Wrights; a taste for speed led him into building and racing motorcycles (in 1904, he covered 10 miles at an average of 67 mph, a record that stood for seven years). Three years later, he did a mile at 136 mph, becoming the fastest man on earth. Curtiss' engines attracted the attention of Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, who hired the young speedster to head a group of aviation experimenters known as the Aerial Experiment Association. Curtiss' June Bug pusher biplane, front-elevatored like the Wright Flyers but with ailerons instead of warping, won a Scientific American trophy for the first public flight of a kilometer, on the Fourth of July, 1908—even before the Wrights' first public exhibitions.Orville promptly charged Glenn Curtiss with patent infringements, and a bitter legal battle ensued for years. The Wrights thought Curtiss and his cronies "a gang of pirates" out to "steal everything we have," but Curtiss was undeterred. (It is ironic that much later, moneymen decided to merge the two aviation corporations, Curtiss and Wright.)Curtiss' achievements, and those of his airplanes and his powerful V engines, were significant. In June 1910, a Curtiss demonstrated that a warship could be bombed from the air; in August, that radio messages could be sent from an aircraft; in November, that an airplane could take off from a ship; and in January 1911, that it could land back on one.The marriage of air and water fascinated Curtiss; he developed the first seaplanes and flying boats. and he sold many of these (as well as landplanes) to wealthy sportsmen.In 1914, one of his flying boats was used for the first demonstrations of the Sperry gyroscope autopilot, with the pilot standing in the cockpit holding his hands above his head and his mechanic passenger clinging to an inter-plane wing strut several feet out from the hull.By then. Glenn Curtiss was engaged in designing a flying boat to cross the Atlantic; in 1919, another of his designs, the NC-4, was the first aircraft to do so.By the end of 1912. 2.480 people held pilot certificates, 966 of them French. And until 1910, only seven people had been killed flying. In that year, 32 were. Today, more than 500 can die in a single accident. Progress has its price.And now, some snapshots from mankind’s journey toward flight:▲The First Monoplane: Over a century ago, an Englishman named William Samuel Henson proposed to fly commercially between England and China. His model airship (pictured here) prophesied the pusher-type engine and the single wing. Henson believed wrongly that by slanting the wing upward enough air would be forced under the wing to support the machine.▲The aircraft of Henri Farman, 1910▲Alberto Santos-Dumont’s 1909 Demoiselle▲How many do you recognize?

Editor's Note: This post is updated monthly. Bookmark this page and come back every month to see what unknown classics are being added to Netflix.Who needs real friends when there are Friends available to stream at any time, friends who are likely much funnier than your actual friends (and also come with their very own laugh track)? Comedy and streaming services are about as good a match as anything. What could be more conducive to binge-watching than a series of 22-minute episodes?Netflix has a particularly deep roster of TV comedies. Here we've compiled the best TV comedies on Netflix so you can plan your next big binge accordingly.Wet Hot American Summer: First Day of CampIt’s kind of remarkable how such a silly, ridiculous project has managed to turn into one of Netflix’s most successful original programs. First Day of Camp acts as a continuation of the wonderful 2001 cult film, Wet Hot American Summer (which is also available on Netflix), and is actually a prequel. The warped minds and incredible comedic talents that are brought together here are responsible for comedic triumphs among the likes of The State, Stella, Childrens Hospital, The Ten, and much more. It’s just fun watching these actors –who have all become considerably more famous since their meager film came out—play around and goof off with each other. Plus, all of the new additions to the cast—talents like Jason Schwartzman, Jon Hamm, and Jordan Peele, all blend in sublimely as they help amplify the series’ crazy comedy.Even if you haven’t seen the film that First Day of Camp is based on, there’s still plenty to get excited about with the series delivering a pitch-perfect satire of not only camp films, but also the ‘80s. The jokes come at a relentless pace and even though the series is heavily playing into fun tropes, you’ll really have no idea where some of these ridiculous gags are heading. For nothing else, First Day of Camp is worth checking out to see how Paul Rudd hasn’t aged over the course of 15 years.- Daniel KurlandWet Hot American Summer: Ten Years LaterThe best part of the Wet Hot American summer "saga" if we can call it that is how it stacks absurdity upon absurdity upon absurdity. The series began with a movie in which middle-aged comedians portrayed teenagers. Then the first season on the Netflix show depicted those comedians - now mostly in their 40s - portraying even younger teenagers. Now a year later the cast will be portraying characters in their mid-twenties. It's like a Russian nesting doll of age-related absurdity.Wet Hot American Summer: Ten Years Later fulfills the promise of a throwaway line from the end of the original film and follows its characters ten years after their fateful experience at summer camp. Presumably, more absurdity will ensue.- Alec BojaladThe OfficeThis show really put a new and appealing light on “mockumentary.” It stood out as an incredibly original sitcom. No laugh track, no audience clapping at each punchline. Every gesture, facial expression, and comment was vital to the story. If the conversation was happening behind closed doors, the camera was there peering through a gap in the blinds. If the characters were talking without their mikes, the camera was watching from a far, leaving it up to the viewer to decipher what was going on. Every side glance, every jab or joke—all of it were what made The Office so enticing.It was hard to believe that this adaptation from England could be so successful. But with Steve Carell leading its diverse cast of characters, it’s no wonder the show ran for nine seasons. With a stellar group of writers (many who appeared in the show like BJ Novak and Mindy Kaling) and a variety of directors (Joss Whedon, Bryan Cranston, etc.) the show was always coming up with new ways to make audiences laugh whether it was Dwight and Jim’s ongoing battle between each other or Michael’s hate for Toby. To turn a job in a paper company and make it one of the best comedies of the early 2000s was masterful. Once you start on The Office, you’re hooked.- Lindsey McGheeNew GirlMany people had reservations when the news broke that Zooey Deschanel would be headlining a sitcom. Now five seasons later, New Girl has not only managed to shatter the expectations of the skeptical, but also become one of the flagship programs on Fox’s strong comedy lineup. While it might not be my favorite show, at times it can elicits big belly laughs like no other show (I’m still laughing at Nick thinking Edward Scissorhands’ name is “Rick Snips.”).New Girl is all about friendship and the idea of growing up and bettering yourself. It might be guilty of dipping into a bunch of sitcom tropes and rom-com clichés sometimes—and arguably dating and relationships have taken up a ton of focus on the show—but New Girl approaches all of this respectfully. It uses this romantic drama as a conduit for the changes that are happening around everyone. After spinning its wheels for a little, the show is back on track, and it’s sometimes more exciting when a show can course correct itself so successfully and show you that it can be trusted. I also hope the show’s steady weird-ification of Winston never, ever stops.- Daniel KurlandDocumentary NowIf you love documentaries, you will fall head over heels in love with this show. If you merely like documentaries, you will still laugh uncontrollably. And if you absolutely hate documentaries, you’re still going to find this show to be one of the funniest comedies on the air. That’s how much of a powerhouse it is. Documentary Now delivers seamless documentary parodies with there being so much humor in the actual jokes, but also a ton coming from the cinema parodies and juxtapositions in play.Bill Hader and Fred Armisen completely rise to the occasion. Doc Now is such a different, impressive way to go about sketch comedy. The direction and artifice is also out of this world and it’s crazy to believe how spot on the production team is here. Documentary Now is smart comedy that you don’t need to be smart to fall in love with.- Daniel KurlandParks and RecreationParks and Recreation is the rarest of breeds: the nearly conflict-free sitcom. Sure there are minor conflicts that drive the action of Parks and Rec: city council meetings that get out of hand, tense elections (that now kind of creepily mirror the 2016 Presidential elections) and the death of a beautiful, angelic miniature horse. But for the most part Parks and Rec is a comedy about capable ambitious people who all respect one another.The real strength is the characters: the irascible deputy city councilwoman Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler), the dour libertarian Ron Swanson (Nick Offerman) and Aziz Ansari (playing a character named Tom Haverford but the differences between Ansari and Haverford seem negligible in hindsight). It doesn’t hurt that all these characters inhabit the most hilarious and richly-realized fictional town since Springfield. Pawnee is a strange place…and also deserves to be your happy place for seven eminently bingeable seasons. Parks and Rec truly one of the best comedies on Netflix - or anywhere else.- Alec BojaladOrange is the New BlackWhile House of Cards might have been the first real piece of original programming that helped define Netflix’s burgeoning network, at this point it certainly feels like Orange is the New Black has usurped the melodramatic series as Netflix’s de facto golden child. And it’s not without good reason. Jenji Kohan’s (Weeds) prison dramedy has dramatically upped its game with each year, turning it into one of the more complex shows on television.Orange is the New Black began by charting Piper Chapman’s indoctrination into a women’s correctional facility. Yet the series has been steadily extending its boundaries to its strong supporting cast. Part of this show’s charm is not only in showing the growth of the characters that have been their from the start, but also meeting new people and seeing how they add to the mix. Orange is the New Black is one of the richest, diverse, satisfying character studies on the network, and it also happens to be pretty damn funny when it wants to be, too.- Daniel KurlandArrested DevelopmentIt’s hard to beat Arrested Development in terms of sheer work ethic. The first three seasons of the ex-Fox comedy are as finely-calibrated comedy as you are ever likely to see. The story from Mitchell Hurwitz about a wealthy family who loses everything and the one who has no choice but to keep them all together (Jason Bateman) is a near-perfect piece of comedic art.Every moment in the show matters and every moment is a possible comedic callback or clue for a future joke. The poorly-edited fourth season of the show may be a disappointment but still a worthwhile part of the Arrested Development experience.- Alec BojaladUnbreakable Kimmy SchmidtTina Fey’s place is comedy history was more than assured after her stint on SNL and the creation of the classic 30 Rock. Still be thankful she decided to not rest on her laurels because now we have Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt: pound for pound one of the funniest shows on television. Sure, there is a subtle, touching tale of victim empowerment here with the young, naive Kimmy Schmidt breaking away from a doomsday cult led by Jon Hamm to move to the big city.The real appeal, however, is the jokes. And what jokes they are! They come so fast and furious and are so consistently hilarious that Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt is one of the most pleasant viewing experience on Netflix or any other service.- Alec BojaladLovesickIt’s about 30 seconds into the first of episode of Lovesick (originally titled, Scrotal Recall) that the audience is introduced to Dylan (Johnny Flynn) and his unfortunate diagnosis of Chlamydia. According to his best friend, Luke (Daniel Ings), it is the “missionary position of sexual diseases.” Nevertheless, Dylan, an incredibly hopeless romantic, decides against sending out the standard “I’ve got Chlymadia” cards to his past love interests, and instead embarks on contacting them all directly.From there, audiences are treated to both Dylan’s past and present, watching him fall in and out of love, and his adventures with best friends Evie (Antonia Thomas) and Luke, always at his side along the way. However, Dylan’s feelings for Evie turn from friendship to something more and a deeper level to this lighthearted comedy is added as Dylan figures out whether or not it’s too late for them.This British sitcom is the kind of show you want to watch when you are searching for a happy-go-lucky, feel good show that will both tug at your heartstrings and make you laugh at the same time. Johnny Flynn as Dylan will completely win you over with his sweet and awkward sensibility, paired to perfection with the dynamic of his best friends. This was one of creator Tom Edge’s first productions and it easily sweeps you off your feet.-Lindsey McGheeCheersWithout Cheers, there wouldn’t be most of the countless other formative television comedies that have graced our screens over the years. Seriously, I mean, it’s great that Cheers’ 11 seasons are all available on Netflix, but it’s also something that should be a no-brainer. This is an institution of television. This is something that should be pre-loaded on the streaming service as mandatory viewing.Cheers is the original underdog that turned a ratings failure of a first season that was nearly cancelled into a show that ran for over a decade. Not to mention also birthing the spinoff, Frasier, that ran for another impressive 11 years. This is a show that is infinitely affable and full of characters that you wanted to hang out with, much like the show’s theme song sang about.New Girl was highlighted here in regard to its will they/won’t they relationship fuel, but Cheers is the true master of the form. The series would pull off this romantic tension to an insanely successful degree with not just Sam and Diane, but then again with Sam and Rebecca. Cheersdoes everything that a sitcom is supposed to do incredibly right, and has over 200 hundred episodes to show you just how damn good it is at all of it. Lose yourself in this one. Seriously, just spend an entire day—24 hours—watching Cheers. You’ll be happy you did.- Daniel KurlandShameless (U.S.)Just as The Office separated and elevated from its U.K. roots, Shamelesstook on an entirely different feel when Showtime brought it from Manchester to the South Side of Chicago. The U.S. series had the luxury of Emmy winner and Oscar nominee William H. Macy stealing (sometimes literally) scenes whether he’s in a drunken monologue or conning the government for a disability check. But it didn’t need Macy for long.Shameless grew out of relying on Macy to carry the show as the ensemble cast led by Emmy Rossum (Fiona) and Jeremy Allen White (Lip) took over the household. The expanded the narrative scope of the series in later seasons touches on the overwhelming realities of being in a poor household where you’re forced to grow up too fast. Seven seasons deep, this show still can surprise, disgust, and make you burst out laughing. There’s no shame in that.- Chris LongoFriendsUnless you’re 10 years old or have been living under a rock for the last two decades, you have likely seen Friends. I don’t have to sell you on this one. It’s Netflix comfort food. Throw it on while you cook and let Monica make you feel like a competent chef. Grab a pint of ice cream after a bad breakup and laugh at Ross. Flashback to Thanksgiving past with the Gellers. Forget that Joey was a spinoff.Hulu may have exclusive rights to Seinfeld, but Friends is Netflix’s ‘90s answer. You need a show like this that you can watch over and over and feel perfectly good about not indecisively scrolling through the Netflix feed for hours. Isn’t that what streaming is all about?- Chris LongoF is for FamilyF is for Family is all Bill Burr. Fans of the comedian should recognize both the show's irreverent sense of humor and equally reverent regard for days gone by. F is for Family is one of Netflix's lesser-known originals which is a shame. The first season was both funny and entertaining and the second season will be debuting in May.The show is loosely based on Burr's own childhood experiences and we'll leave it to Freud to suss out the significance of Burr voicing what essentially amounts to his own father.- Alec BojaladComedy Bang! Bang!Now that the final season of IFC's Comedy Bang! Bang! is coming to Netflix, there's no excuse not to watch. Bang! Bang! is based on the podcast of the same name from Scott "Thot Awkwardness" Aukerman.Each episode Scott welcomes a new guest onto the show to engage in a nice conversation in a talkshow format. Things...usually do not go so well.- Alec BojaladThe Good PlaceThe Good Place represents the platonic ideal of all network TV sitcoms. It has a high-concept premise that studios, networks, advertisers and audiences all love in equal measure. A woman named Eleanor Shellstrop (Kristen Bell) dies in a tragic grocery store parking lot accident and ends up in "The Good Place" a.k.a. heaven.After she meets some of her neighbors and the neighborhood's architect Michael (Ted Danson) she realizes something troubling: they've got the wrong Eleanor Shellstrop. She isn't meant to be in the Good Place. Beyond the intriguing premise, The Good Place is legitimatley great.It's funny, smart and compelling - something to be expected from Parks and Recreation creator Michael Schur.- Alec BojaladPortlandiaPortlandia should never have been as funny or essential as it ended up being. "Portland is weird? Solid premise, jerkwads," I probably muttered at some point in 2010. But here we are 7 seasons later and Fred Armisen and Carrie Bronstein's semi-sketch/semi-serialized show about the denizens of Portland remains excellent.Beyond just the viral sensations like "put a bird on it," the show has succeeded in producing a strange, uncategorizable yet completely hilarious brand of comedy that somehow includes Kyle McLaughlin being the mayor of Portland. Also this clip remains one of the most randomly stunning things I've ever seen on a comedy show.- Alec BojaladMaster of NoneMaster of None attacks the millennial culture with the perfect amount of cynicism and New York vibe. Aziz Ansari and co-creator Alan Yang constructed a quasi-Seinfeld for the 21st century.Aziz’s character, Dev, is doing his best at navigating his career, family, friends and relationships against the canvas of pop-up concerts and craft beer. It’s a beautifully crafted series that doesn’t shy away from shining light on the hard truths of existing in this day and age.- Daniella BondarAmerican VandalAfter American Vandal, you can never claim that Netflix doesn't have a sense of humor about itself. American Vandal is a brilliantly thought out and well-executed satire of a certain type of true crime documentary best typified by Netflix's own Making a Murderer.On March 2016, students of the fictional Hanover High School in Oceanside, California awake to discover that an unknown vandal has spray-painted dicks over 27 teachers' cars. The school immediately accuses known dick-drawer and burnout Dylan Maxwell but amateur documentarians Peter and Sam think the story of the dicks must go deeper.- Alec BojaladBig MouthWhere on Earth is Netflix finding all of these brilliant animated comedies? As if BoJack Horseman and F is For Family weren't enough, Netflix decided to add yet another hilarious and weirdly touching animated series from high quality creative minds.Big Mouth comes from comedian extraordinaire Nick Kroll and his writing partner Andrew Goldberg. It's the story of young Nick (voiced by Kroll), Andrew (John Mulaney), and all their other preteen friends as they go through the terrifying prospect of puberty and growing up together.It's hard to imagine puberty alone being a broad enough subject to sustain a show but those who think that likely forgot how scary, confusing, and hilarious the whole process can be.- Alec BojaladLady DynamiteOftentimes perspective is the key to great comedic television and it's hard to imagine anyone with more perspective and creative experience than comedian Maria Bamford. Bamford is one of the most beloved comics of her generation despite dropping out of the public eye several times to tend to her mental health and bipolar disorder.Lady Dynamite is a touching exploration of Maria's life and struggles and at the same time is a wickedly hilarious and bizarre acid trip of a comedy helmed by Arrested Development's Mitch Hurwitz. Enter the Super Grisham now while you still can.- Alec BojaladThe LetdownAh the magic of motherhood: the sleeplessness, the stress, the existential dread, the pain, the terror, the responsibility. Australian series The Letdowncovers all those exciting facts of parenting life in hilarious fashion.Allison Bell stars as Audrey, a (kind-of single) mother to a brand new infant who must deal with all the various stresses of motherhood by joining a support group with other equally stressed and quirky mothers. Audrey finding out something that people have done for generations is almost supernaturally hard makes for a funny, at times touching series.- Alec BojaladGLOWGLOW is an atom bomb of excessive '80s fun.In 1985, struggling actress Ruth Wilder (Alison Brie) decides to join a new, unheard of professional wrestling league called "Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling (GLOW)" along with a handful of other women. GLOW is based on a real-world wrestling league of the same name. It doesn't tell the story of that league in full but rather uses it as a jumping off point to tell stories about women of all stripes, colors, shapes, and sizes.- Alec BojaladGreat NewsGreat News comes from the Tina Fey/Robert Carlock 30 Rock talent tree so you know it's good.The show was created and produced by 30 Rock writer Tracey Wigfield. It follows a television news producer, Kate Wendelson (Briga Heelan), who in addition to all of the various stresses of her job must deal with a brash new intern: her mother.Great News was canceled by NBC after two seasons but if anything that makes it a more appealing binge option. There are only 23 half-hour episodes to enjoy. That's a much smaller barrier to entry than most sitcoms but after those 23 episodes you'll be so bummed there's not more.- Alec BojaladDisenchantmentSimpsons creator Matt Groenig enters the streaming world and he does so in style. Disenchantment features the similar animation to The Simpsonsand Futurama but it's fantasy world setting has clearly inspired the animators.Abbi Jacbobson stars as Tiabeanie Mariabeanie De La Rochambeaux Drunkowitz (or just "Princess Bean"), a hard drinking, hard living lady of the Kingdom of Dreamland. Together with her elf friend, Elfo (Nat Faxon) and personal demon Luci (Eric Andre), Bean sets out on many adventures on the kingdom's behalf - and also to fight off boredom.