Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
I glanced at that link this morning. Seems to me that the main
thrust of the article is that due to a lack of documentation, the
author has his doubts about Fessenden's claims.
Yes, "doubts" or possibly the ramblings or wishful thinking of an old
man, but "hoax" might be too strong a word.
However, it also struck me that the author was primarily unhappy that
the event wasn't documented to the heavy degree that something would
be today.
I don't think the author wanted "heavy documentation". I think his
[reasonable] contention is that there was NO documentation at all
--except for *one* PRIVATE letter that was published DECADES later.
He is making the reasonable speculation that such an achievement would
have merited something more than one private letter, decades later,
especially as it has been clearly demonstrated that Fessenden was
-noted- for blowing his own horn and highly publicizing his other
achievements...
|