[This is from an article that covers over 11 predictions made by the Jewish-owned New York Times in the past. You can read them all at the link below. But I will focus only on some of them. I removed the various pop junk and focused mostly on technology. The article contains a lot of junk about Hitler. Hitler would have laughed at this. He would have mocked "Jewish science". Check out what the Jews had to say about aircraft and rockets!!! Jan]
last updated March 22, 2018 · originally written July 8, 2016
The New York Times has made terrible predictions on everything from bagels to Picasso to Apple to computers to air and space travel.
The New York Times is not good at making predictions. And that’s fine, because it’s a newspaper, not a Magic 8-Ball, so it isn’t expected to be a go-to source for soothsaying.
And yet… they just won’t stop making predictions. And subsequently whiffing on so many of them so very, very hard.
I’ve collected these 11 examples of bad, misguided, sometimes racist/anti-Semitic, and always flat-out wrong predictions made in the pages of the New York Times, dating back more than a century. Enjoy, and be happy the future didn’t work out the way they saw it…
1 | On television, 1939
The problem with television is that the people must sit and keep their eyes glued on a screen; the average American family hasn’t time for it.
A NYT reporter wrote the above assessment of television after seeing it at 1939 World’s Fair in New York City. Little did he realize that the average American family really WOULD somehow find the time to “sit and keep their eyes glued on a screen.” In fact, they’d come to prioritize that time over time spent doing literally anything else.
4 | On whether airplanes were feasible in 1903… then whether space travel was feasible in 1920
First, an editorial on airplanes…
Hence, if it requires, say, a thousand years to fit for easy flight a bird which started with rudimentary wings, or ten thousand for one with started with no wings at all and had to sprout them ab initio, it might be assumed that the flying machine which will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years — provided, of course, we can meanwhile eliminate such little drawbacks and embarrassments as the existing relation between weight and strength in inorganic materials.
So just before the Wright Brothers’ first flight, the New York Times declared we were still millions of years away from air travel. They were only off by, approximately, millions of years, but whatever, it was natural to question something that seemed so futuristically far-fetched. But surely, then, the Times would learn from its misplaced skepticism when the idea of space travel came up 17 years later, right?
Nope. Here were their thoughts on that…
That [rocket pioneer Robert] Goddard… 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.
To their credit, the day after the moon landing in 1969, they published a tongue-in-cheek and self-effacing correction for this story.
7 | On laptop computers, 1985
On the whole, people don’t want to lug a computer with them to the beach or on a train to while away hours they would rather spend reading the sports or business section of the newspaper… the real future of the laptop computer will remain in the specialized niche markets. Because no matter how inexpensive the machines become, and no matter how sophisticated their software, I still can’t imagine the average user taking one along when going fishing.
This writer couldn’t foresee just how light, powerful and versatile laptops would get, to the point where, starting in the early 2000s, they even became permanently more popular than desktop computers. I’m still not sure if people take them fishing, though, so good call on that part.
9 | On (a super racist look at) the future of cocaine, 1914 – What cocaine does to Blacks
The drug produces several other conditions that make the ‘fiend’ a peculiarly dangerous criminal. One of these conditions is a temporary immunity to shock, a resistance to the knock down effects of fatal wounds… seems to be produced in the cocaine-sniffing no. … Once the no has formed the habit, he is irreclaimable. The only method to keep him from taking the drug is by imprisoning him. … For the thousands of n***oes who have not yet acquired the habit, but who will do so eventually if present conditions continue, the outlook is scarcely more hopeful.
I’m wondering if the New York Times could Men in Black zap away one story in its history so it was immediately dropped from the record and everyone’s memories, would this be it? It’s between this and “Hitler’s not such a bad guy,” right? Because this one is genuinely sickening in every way.