by Nitpicker » Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:04 am
geckzilla wrote:From reading Goddard's Wikipedia article, this NYT article would seem to have been serious at a time when he was already experiencing a lack of support from academia. There is no indication that the correction and apology, however late it was issued, wasn't sincere.
The infamous editorial in the NYT on 13-Jan-1920, tantamount to defamation, was unsigned. Typically, such editorials are credited to the editor of the newspaper. At that time, the managing editor of the NYT was Carr Van Anda, who had previously studied astronomy and physics.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carr_Van_Anda
It is hard to imagine that an editorial of that nature would have been written or approved by someone like him, and left uncorrected for more than a few days. So, either Van Anda was a poor scientist, or there was some other behind-the-scenes intrigue, forever lost in the mists of time.
[quote="geckzilla"]From reading Goddard's Wikipedia article, this NYT article would seem to have been serious at a time when he was already experiencing a lack of support from academia. There is no indication that the correction and apology, however late it was issued, wasn't sincere.[/quote]
The infamous editorial in the NYT on 13-Jan-1920, tantamount to defamation, was unsigned. Typically, such editorials are credited to the editor of the newspaper. At that time, the managing editor of the NYT was Carr Van Anda, who had previously studied astronomy and physics.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carr_Van_Anda
It is hard to imagine that an editorial of that nature would have been written or approved by someone like him, and left uncorrected for more than a few days. So, either Van Anda was a poor scientist, or there was some other behind-the-scenes intrigue, forever lost in the mists of time.