4 ms·
The OP writes: "He was crucial in the development of radar, so he doesn’t seem to be a crackpot worthy of obscurity." While the linked http://wikirota.org/en/M
by m_for_monkey 15y ago
The OP writes: "He was crucial in the development of radar, so he doesn’t seem to be a crackpot worthy of obscurity."
While the linked http://wikirota.org/en/Main_Page http://wikirota.org/en/Main_Page site claims that he was "a pioneer in the development of the radar", the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radar) doesn't even mention the name.
He does seem to be a crackpot worthy of obscurity.
- stroboskop 15y agoI don't know if he was a "crackpot" or not, but your criteria (Wikipedia mention) is invalid. Wikipedia is neither complete, nor unbiased, nor objective, nor free of controversy. As a first step in improving your criteria, look at the argumentum e contrario: Do you think there are no crackpots worthy of obscurity who have a Wikipedia entry?
- m_for_monkey 15y agoYou are right, of course, and I wasn't clear. Use Google, try to find any information on the guy or his theories outside of his fan wiki. If he was really "crucial in the development of radar", he can't be that obscure. http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Louis+Rota%22+radar http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Louis+Rota%22+radar
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- pnathan 15y agoI would suggest searching in French. I would, but I don't speak French.