The Hindenburg Was The Pride Of Germany

In 1925 these airships flew around the world. They would fly the beach over  Rio  Janeiro, the Amazon, Europe, the Mideast.

This was Germany's greatest ambassador.

This Air Ship Was Enormous

It was the size of the Queen Mary. Today's Goodyear blimp is approximately 22% of it's size.

What Orchestrated The Disaster

World Jewry had declared war on Germany in 1934. Germany was feed up with them after the Weimar swindle, and Hitler gave them their walking papers.

|

How Was It Done

The generally accepted theory is a German rigger was set up with a communist, thought to be Esther Lieblinsky.

|

Eric Sphel

According to Arthur Hoehling, Spehl  planted in "Gas Cell 4," the location of the initial explosion. The bomb broke the airship's back, a bottle of oxygen mixed with the Hydogen, and the ship was gone in 32 seconds.

Germany's Finest Pilots

Captain Max Pruss, and Ernst Lehmann, were the Zeppelin Company’s most experienced pilots, with hundreds of flights. Both said a bomb took the ship down.

Dr. Hugo Eckener

Eckener was the head of the Zeppelin airship company, and he blamed it on sabatoge.

|

I.

This litigation arises from three separate accounts of the triumphant introduction, last voyage, and tragic destruction of the Hindenburg, the colossal dirigible constructed in Germany during Hitler's reign. The zeppelin, the last and most sophisticated in a fleet of luxury airships, which punctually floated its wealthy passengers from the Third Reich to the United States, exploded into flames and disintegrated in 35 seconds as it hovered above the Lakehurst, New Jersey Naval Air Station at 7:25 p.m. on May 6, 1937. Thirty-six passengers and crew were killed but, fortunately, 52 persons survived. Official investigations conducted by both American and German authorities could ascertain no definitive cause of the disaster, but both suggested the plausibility of static electricity or St. Elmo's Fire, which could have ignited the highly explosive hydrogen that filled the airship. Throughout, the investigators refused to rule out the possibility of sabotage.

The destruction of the Hindenburg marked the concluding chapter in the chronicle of airship passenger service, for after the tragedy at Lakehurst, the Nazi regime permanently grounded the Graf Zeppelin I and discontinued its plan to construct an even larger dirigible, the Graf Zeppelin 11.

The final pages of the airship's story marked the beginning of a series of journalistic, historical, and literary accounts devoted to the Hindenburg and its fate. Indeed, weeks of testimony by a plethora of witnesses before the official investigative panels provided fertile source material for would-be authors. Moreover, both the American and German Commissions issued official reports, detailing all that was then known of the tragedy. A number of newspaper and magazine articles had been written about the Hindenburg in 1936, its first year of trans-Atlantic service, and they, of course, multiplied many fold after the crash. In addition, two passengers Margaret Mather and Gertrud Adelt published separate and detailed accounts of the voyage, C. E. Rosendahl, commander of the Lakehurst Naval Air Station and a pioneer in airship travel himself, wrote a book titled What About the Airship?, in which he endorsed the theory that the Hindenburg was the victim of sabotage. In 1957, Nelson Gidding, who would return to the subject of the Hindenburg some 20 years later, wrote an unpublished "treatment" for a motion picture based on the deliberate destruction of the airship. In that year as well, John Toland published Ships in the Sky which, in its seventeenth chapter, chronicled the last flight of the Hindenburg. In 1962, Dale Titler released Wings of Mystery, in which he too devoted a chapter to the Hindenburg.

Appellant A. A. Hoehling published Who Destroyed the Hindenburg?, a full-length book based on his exhaustive research in 1962. Mr. Hoehling studied the investigative reports, consulted previously published articles and books, and conducted interviews with Survivors of the crash as well as others who possessed information about the Hindenburu. His book is presented as a factual account, written in an objective, reportorial style.

The first half recounts the final crossing of the Hindenburg, from Sunday, May 2, when it left Frankfurt, to Thursday, May 6, when it exploded at Lakehurst. Hoehling describes the airship, its role as an instrument of propaganda in Nazi Germany, its passengers and crew, the danger of hydrogen, and the ominous threats received by German officials, warning that the Hindenburg would be destroyed. The second portion, headed The Quest, sets forth the progress of the official investigations, followed by an account of Hoehling's own research. In the final chapter, spanning eleven pages, Hoehling suggests that all proffered explanations of the explosion, save deliberate destruction, are unconvincing, He concludes that the most likely saboteur is one Eric Spehl, a "rigger" on the Hindenburg crew who was killed at Lakehurst.

According to Hoehling, Spehl had motive, expertise, and opportunity to plant an explosive device, constructed of dry-cell batteries and a flashbulb, in "Gas Cell 4," the location of the initial explosion. An amateur photographer with access to flashbulbs, Spehl could have destroyed the Hindenburg to please his ladyfriend, a Suspected communist dedicated to exploding the myth of Nazi invincibility.

Ten years later appellee Michael MacDonald Mooney published his book, The Hindenburg. Mooney's endeavor might be characterized as more literary than historical in its attempt to weave a number of symbolic themes through the actual events surrounding the tragedy. His dominant theme contrasts the natural beauty of the month of May, when the disaster occurred, with the cold, deliberate progress of "technology." The May theme is expressed not simply by the season, but also by the character of Spehl, portrayed as a sensitive artisan with needle and thread. The Hindenburg, in contrast, is the symbol of technology, as are its German creators and the Reich itself. The destruction is depicted as the ultimate triumph of nature over technology, as Spehl plants the bomb that ignites the hydrogen. Developing this theme from the outset, Mooney begins with an extended review of man's efforts to defy nature through flight, focusing on the evolution of the zeppelin. This story culminates in the construction of the Hindenburg, and the Nazis' claims of its indestructibility. Mooney then traces the fateful voyage, advising the reader almost immediately of Spehl's scheme. The book concludes with the airship's explosion.

Mooney acknowledges, in this case, that he consulted Hoehling's book, and that he relied on it for some details. He asserts that he first discovered the "Spehl -as- saboteur" theory when he read Titler's Wings of Mystery. Indeed, Titler concludes that Spehl was the saboteur, for essentially the reasons stated by Hoehling. Mooney also claims to have studied the complete National Archives and New York Times files concerning the Hindenburg, as well as all previously published material. Moreover, he traveled to Germany, visited Spehl's birthplace, and conducted a number of interviews with survivors.
After Mooney prepared an outline of his anticipated book, his publisher Succeeded in negotiations to sell the motion picture rights to appellee Universal City Studios. Universal then commissioned a screen story by writers Levinson and Link, best known for their television series, Columbo, in which a somewhat disheveled, but wise detective unravels artfully conceived murder mysteries. In their screen story, Levinson and Link created a Columbo-like character who endeavored to identify the saboteur on board the Hindenburg.

Director Robert Wise, however, was not satisfied with this version, and called upon Nelson Gidding to write a final screenplay. Gidding, it will be recalled, had engaged in preliminary work on a film about the Hindenburg almost twenty years earlier.
The Gidding screenplay follows what is known in the motion Picture industry as a "Grand Hotel" formula, developing a number of fictional characters and subplots involving them. This formula has become standard fare in so-called "disaster" movies, which have enjoyed a certain popularity in recent years. In the film, which was released in late 1975, a rigger named "Boerth," who has an anti-Nazi ladyfriend, plans to destroy the airship in an effort to embarrass the Reich. Nazi officials, vaguely aware of sabotage threats, station a Luftwaffe intelligence officer on the zeppelin, loosely resembling a Colonel Erdmann who was aboard the Hindenburg. This character is portrayed as a likable fellow who soon discovers that Boerth is the saboteur. Boerth, however, convinces him that the Hindenburg should be destroyed and the two join forces, planning the explosion for several hours after the landing at Lakehurst, when no people would be on board. In Gidding's version, the airship is delayed by a storm, frantic efforts to defuse the bomb fail, and the Hindenburg is destroyed. The film's subplots involve other possible Suspects, including a fictional countess who has had her estate expropriated by the Reich, two fictional confidence men wanted by New York Sq. City police, and an advertising executive rushing to close a business deal in America.

Upon learning of Universal's plans to release the film, Hoehling instituted this action against Universal for copyright infringement and common law unfair competition in the district court for the District of Columbia in October 1975. Judge Smith declined to issue an order restraining release of the film in December, and it was distributed throughout the nation.

In January 1976, Hoehling sought to amend his complaint to include Mooney as a defendant. The district court, however, decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Mooney. In June 1976, Hoehling again attempted to amend his complaint, this time to add Mooney's publishers as defendants. Judge Smith denied this motion as well, but granted Hoehling's request to transfer the litigation to the Southern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), where Mooney himself was successfully included as a party. Judge Metzner, with the assistance of Magistrate Sinclair, supervised extensive discovery through 111ost of 1978. After the completion of discovery, both Mooney and Universal moved for SL1111mary judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, which was granted on August 1, 1979.

II.

It is undisputed that Hoehling has a valid copyright in his book. To prove infringement, however, he must demonstrate that defendants "copied" his work and that they "improperly appropriated" his "expression." Ordinarily, wrongful appropriation is shown by proving a "substantial similarity" of copyrightable expression. Because substantial similarity is customarily an extremely close question of fact, summary judgment has traditionally been frowned upon in copyright litigation.

Saboteur

Hoehling's principal claim is that both Mooney and Universal copied the essential plot of his book i.e., Eric Spehl, influenced by his girlfriend, sabotaged the Hindenburg by placing a crude bomb in Gas Cell 4. In their briefs, and at oral argument, appellees have labored to convince Lis that their plots are not Substantially similar to Hoehling's. While Hoehling's Spehl destroys the airship to please his communist girlfriend, Mooney's character is motivated by an aversion to the technological age. Universal's Boerth, on the other hand, is a fervent anti-fascist who enlists the support of a Luftwaffe colonel who, in turn, unsuccessfully attempts to defuse the bomb at the eleventh hour.

Although this argument has potential merit when presented to a fact finder adjudicating the issue of substantial similarity, it is largely irrelevant to a motion for summary judgment where the issue of substantial similarity has been eliminated by the judge's affirmative assumption. Under Rule 56(c), Summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." Perhaps recognizing this, appellees further argue that Hoehling's plot is an "idea," and ideas are not copyrightable as a matter of law.

Hoehling, however, correctly rejoins that while ideas themselves are not subject to copyright, his "expression" of his idea is copyrightable. He relies on Learned Hand's opinion in Sheldon, holding that Letty Lyiiton infringed Dishonored Lady by copying its story of a woman who poisons her lover, and Augustus Hand's analysis in Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc., concluding that the exploits of "Wondermall" infringed the copyright held by the creators of "Superman," the original indestructible mail. Moreover, Hoehling asserts that, in both these cases, the line between "ideas" and "expression" is drawn, in the first instance, by the fact finder.

Sheldon and Detective Comics, however, dealt with works of fiction, where the distinction between an idea and its expression is especially elusive. But, where, as here, the idea at issue is an interpretation of an historical event, our cases hold that such interpretations are not copyrightable as a matter of law. In Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., we held that the defendant's biography of Howard Hughes did not infringe an earlier biography of the reclusive alleged billionaire. Although the plots of the two works were necessarily similar, there could be no infringement because of the "public benefit in encouraging the development of historical and biographical works and their public distribution." To avoid a chilling effect on authors who contemplate tackling an historical issue or event, broad latitude must be granted to subsequent authors who make use of historical subject matter, including theories or plots. Learned Hand counseled in Myers v. Mail & Express Co., (S. D. N. Y. 1919), "There cannot be any Such thing as copyright in the order of presentation of the facts, nor, indeed, in their selection."
In the instant case, the hypothesis that Eric Spehl destroyed the Hindenburg is based entirely on the interpretation of historical facts, including Spehl's life, his girlfriend's anti-Nazi connections, the explosion's origin in Gas Cell 4, Spehl's duty station, discovery of a dry-cell battery among the wreckage, and rumors about Spehl's involvement dating from a 1938 Gestapo investigation. Such an historical interpretation, whether or not it originated with Mr. Hoehling, is not protected by his copyright and can be freely used by subsequent authors.

The same reasoning governs Hoehling's claim that a number of specific facts, ascertained through his personal research, were copied by appellees. The cases in this circuit, however, make clear that factual information is in the public domain.
All of Hoehling's allegations of copying, therefore, encompass material that is non-copyrightable as a matter of law, rendering summary judgment entirely appropriate.

Zeppelins had an impeccable safety record; the Graf Zeppelin had flown safely for more than 1.6 million km (1 million miles), including making the first circumnavigation of the globe. The Zeppelin company was very proud of the fact that no passenger had ever been injured on one of their airships.

At the time, sabotage was commonly put forward as the cause of the fire, in particular by Hugo Eckener, former head of the Zeppelin company and the "old man" of the German airships. (Eckener later publicly endorsed the static spark theory — see below.)

Another proponent of the sabotage hypothesis was Max Pruss, commander of the Hindenburg throughout the airship's career. Pruss flew on nearly every flight of the Graf Zeppelin until the Hindenburg was ready. In a 1960 interview conducted by Kenneth Leish on behalf of Columbia's Oral History Research Office, he described early dirigible use as safe and felt strongly that the fire was caused by sabotage. Pruss stated that on trips to South America, which was a popular destination for German tourists, both ships passed through multiple thunderstorms with lightning striking the ship without any trouble whatsoever.[citation needed]
Jews

Several theories as to the identity of the alleged saboteur have been put forward. In particular, some have alleged that Zionist agents working against anti-semitic Germany were behind the fire.

In 1962, A. Hoehling published a book entitled Who Destroyed the Hindenburg?. In the book, Hoehling considers all explanations, and rejects all but sabotage. He alleges that the most likely saboteur is one Eric Spehl, a rigger on the Hindenburg crew who was killed at Lakehurst.

Ten years later, Michael MacDonald Mooney published his own book, The Hindenburg. He, too, alleges that Spehl was the saboteur.

Those putting Spehl forward as the alleged saboteur focus on several historic threads including: the course of Spehl’s own life; his girlfriend’s anti-Nazi connections (she was reportedly a suspected communist opposed to the Nazis); that the fire started near Gas Cell 4 (Spehl’s duty station); the discovery of a dry-cell battery among the wreckage; the fact that Spehl was an amateur photographer familiar with flashbulbs that could have served as an igniter (presumably wired to the above mentioned dry cells); the fact a few crew members near the lower fin had seen what they described as a flash bulb (see below); and rumors about Spehl’s involvement dating from a 1938 Gestapo investigation.

Another suspect was a German acrobat named Joseph Spah. He actually survived the disaster. He brought with him a German Shepherd dog named Ulla as a surprise for his children. He often visited the dog and fed and talked to it. Some accuse him of planting a bomb when he was with his dog, who died in the disaster, and also point out that he made many anti-Nazi jokes. However, the FBI conducted an investigation on him and found no hard evidence against Spah.

It has even been suggested that Adolf Hitler himself had ordered the Hindenburg to be destroyed in retaliation to Hugo Eckener's anti-Nazi views [12] .

Supporters also point out that crew members stationed in the stern saw a flashbulb-like explosion:

During the landing maneuver the rigger Hans Freund dropped a landing line in front of the lower fin which was caught in the bracing wires of the ship. No. 2 helmsman Helmut Lau climbed up from the lower fin to release it. When both men looked up towards the front of the ship, they were surprised by what they saw. Freund described a flash-bulb like explosion (which remains debatable because some believe he was looking towards the back of the ship), and Lau saw a brilliant reflection between cells four and five, where some believe the fire began. They then heard a muffled detonation and a thud as the Hindenburg's back broke. Some believe that this is evidence that the airship was sabotaged.[citation needed]

However, opponents of the sabotage hypothesis claimed that no firm evidence, only suppositions, supporting sabotage as a cause of the fire was produced at any of the formal hearings on the matter. The opponents also claim that the sabotage theory rests on selective use of the available evidence. They point out that Spehl could be viewed as a convenient scapegoat as he died in the fire and was hence unable to refute the accusations made against him. These opponents also believe that the sabotage theory was fostered by the children of Max Pruss in an effort to exonerate their father. They also point out that neither of the postwar memoirs of Eckener nor Hans von Schiller contained any support for the notion of "suppressed investigation findings" and, given the timing of the memoirs, there would be little incentive for these two airshipmen to perpetuate a cover-up of the then fallen Nazi regime. This is particularly true of Eckener who had been extremely vocal in his opposition to the Nazis during their rise to power.[citation needed]

And finally, opponents point to the fact that neither of the formal investigations (American and German) concluded in favor of any of the sabotage theories. However, proponents of the sabotage theory point out that any finding of sabotage would have been an embarrassment for the Nazi regime. Thus they speculate that such a finding was suppressed for political reasons [13]. Opponents of the theory point out that no such political pressure would have been applied to the American inquiry which also concluded against sabotage.[citation needed]

Static spark theory
Another theory that the fire was started by a spark caused by a buildup of static electricity between the airship and the ground. Proponents of the "static spark" theory point out that the airship's skin was not constructed in a way that allowed its charge to be evenly distributed, and the skin was separated from the duralumin frame by nonconductive ramie cords. This may have allowed a potential difference between the wet Zeppelin and the ground to form. In order to make up for a delay of over 12 hours in its trans-Atlantic flight, the ship passed through a weather front with a high electrical charge and where the humidity was high. This made the mooring lines wet and thus conductive. As the ship moved through the air, its skin may have become charged. When the wet mooring lines connected to the duralumin frame touched the ground, they would have grounded the frame. The grounding of the frame may thus have caused an electrical discharge between the skin and the grounded frame. Some witnesses reported seeing a glow consistent with St. Elmo's fire along the tail portion of the ship just before the flames broke out, although these reports were made after the official inquiry was completed. The hydrogen in the airship did not catch fire until the skin had burned through. Like contemporary metal-framed, fabric-covered aircraft, the Hindenburg's cotton skin was covered with a potentially flammable finish known as "dope". [14] When the mooring line touched the ground, the electricity built up in the frame could have passed through the line and ignited the skin.[15]

Additionally, when the LZ 130 was making its early test flights, measurements were made to determine the static charge on the ship during flight which would be discharged when ground contact was made." A variant on this theory, presented by Addison Bain, is that there was a spark between segments of the Hindenburg itself.

Lightning theory
A. J. Dessler, former director of the Space Science Laboratory at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and a critic of the Incendiary Paint Theory, claims that there is a much simpler explanation for the conflagration: namely, natural lightning. The Hindenburg was not unusual in the fact that it had been struck by lightning several times previously. This does not normally cause a conflagration in hydrogen-lifted airships, despite the high ignition energy, because the hydrogen is not mixed with oxygen. However, many fires have been documented as started by lightning while airships were venting hydrogen in preparation for landing, as the Hindenburg was doing at the time. The vented hydrogen is mixed with air, making it readily combustible. He cites an airship rule from the time, "Never blow off gas during a thunderstorm."[citation needed]

Incendiary Paint Theory
Most current analysis of the accident assumes that ignition due to some form of electricity is correct. However, there is still a controversy as to whether the fabric covering of the ship or the hydrogen used for buoyancy was the initial fuel for the fire.

The Incendiary Paint Theory (IPT) asserts that the major component in the fire was the skin because of the varnishing, or doping compound used on it.

Proponents of the IPT
Proponents point out that the coatings on the fabric contained both iron oxide and aluminium-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB). These components were potentially reactive. In fact, iron oxide and aluminum are sometimes used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite. In fact, the propellant for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster includes "aluminum (fuel, 16%),(and) iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4%)" [[4]] [citation needed]

Bain also received permission from the German government to look through the old archives and discovered that the German scientists during the time of the Nazi regime concluded that the paint on the canvas of the Hindenburg was indeed the cause of the conflagration. Bain interviewed the wife of the lead scientist of the German investigation, and she confirmed that her husband had told her all about the discovery and instructed her to not tell anyone about it. The results of the German conclusion would likely have embarrassed the Nazi government.[16]

Proponents of the IPT claim that the hydrogen gas in the Hindenburg was "odorized" with garlic[citation needed] so that any gas leaks could be detected, and that there were no reports of garlic odors during the flight or prior to the fire. Opponents of the IPT point out that odorized hydrogen would only be detected in the area of a leak. The fire started near the ship's top, an area devoid of personnel. Since any leaking hydrogen would have moved upward, away from any personnel, there could possibly have been a hydrogen leak in the area where the fire started with no detected odor. Some even think this was added just to simply reject hydrogen as the cause of the fire. They also point out that the garlic odor would be masked by some of the other odors emanating from the fire, like burnt flesh and rubber as reported by many witnesses. Proponents of the IPT also point out that Hindenburg was also seen to stay aloft for a relatively long period of time after the fire started, instead of immediately tilting and falling as it would have if the hydrogen cells were ruptured. [citation needed]

Bain also claims that the fire most likely started on the starboard side behind the upper fin, not seen by most witnesses except for a few in the starboard side of the ship as well as a crew member in the lower fin that saw a fire on the starboard side. Opponents point out that this crew member is Helmut Lau (see above), who saw a brilliant reflection in between cells four and five, inside the ship, supporting the sabotage theory. He also said that the fire was spreading more to the starboard side, but that the fire began in the axial catwalk [17].

Opponents of the IPT
Opponents of the IPT point out that cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB) varnish is rated within the plastics industry as combustible but nonflammable. It will burn when placed within a fire but will not readily ignite by itself. It is considered to be self-extinguishing. The fact that so many pieces of the Hindenburg's fabric remain despite such a fierce firestorm are cited as proof of this. While the coating components were potentially reactive, they were not only in opposite proportions, but also only applied on part of the ship and were separated by a layer of CAB that would have prevented their mingling and reaction. Occasionally the Hindenburg's CAB is incorrectly identified as (or stated as being similar to) cellulose nitrate, which, like most nitrates, burns readily. Claims of the material being like "rocket fuel" are dismissed as being misguided on several counts, such as the presence of an oxidizer in rocket fuels and a misunderstanding of the rate at which rocket fuels burn, which are nowhere near the requisite velocity and require high pressures. [citation needed]

The ignition of the fabric is similarly dismissed. They note that in addition to the Hindenburg having suffered lightning strikes in the past, Bain had to use a high-energy ignition source and orient the fabric properly just to get it to burn.

While proponents of the IPT point out that, after the disaster, the Zeppelin company's engineers determined this skin material was the cause, opponents of the theory counter that Hindenburg had flown for over a year (and through several lightning storms, taking several strikes) with no reports of adverse chemical reactions, and no fires on the fabric. The IPT proponents ignore the fact that after the aft portion of the wreckage was on the ground, flames from burning hydrogen and gas cells was exiting the nose (ducted up the axial walkway) while the outer cover survived. It was surviving until the nose hit the ground in some places. [citation needed]

The photographs of the early stages of the disaster show the Hindenburg with the gas cells of the entire aft section fully aflame, with the burning gas exiting the top of the ship in a fireball, and the resulting low pressure inside causing the air pressure on the envelop to make the hull to cave inwards. If the gas was not burning but the envelope was, this would not have happened. [citation needed]

Opponents of the IPT claim that any delay in the ship's descent was the result of buoyancy forces and their effect upon the inertia of the ship's considerable mass. They point to pictures which show the fire burning along straight lines that happen to be the boundaries between different gas cells, suggesting that the fire was not burning along the skin (which was continuous), but within discrete cells. The total event, initiation of the fire and its near total destruction upon the ground, took only 32-37 seconds (number is in dispute, some say 32 seconds, while others say 34 or 37 seconds). Also, crew members stationed in the stern saw the cells burning [17].

Opponents also point out that the witnesses on the field, as well as the crew members stationed in the stern saw a glow inside cell 4, much before any fire broke out of the skin, indicating that the fire began inside the ship. The newsreel footage supports this [13].

Mythbusters and the IPT
The Discovery Channel series MythBusters explored the IPT in an episode which aired January 10, 2007 (Season 5, Episode 70). Using a 1:50 scale model, the show's hosts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman demonstrated that, while a thermite reaction was possible with the Hindenburg's paint configuration and a significant factor in the burn process, the hydrogen was the main driver of the burn. The model burned twice as fast when the model was filled with hydrogen, as compared to being filled with inert gases. The scale experiment produced a burn process which (visually) matched the newsreel footage quite well. Their conclusion was that both the hydrogen and the paint contributed to the disaster.

Rate of flame propagation
Regardless of the source of ignition or the initial fuel for the fire, there remains a third point of controversy with regard to the cause of the rapid spread of the flames along the length of the ship. Here again the debate has centered on the culpability of fabric covering of the ship vs. the hydrogen used for buoyancy.

The proponents of the IPT also contend that the fabric coatings were responsible for the rapid spread of the flames. They point out that the combustion of hydrogen is not visible, but burns in the ultraviolet range. This means that what can be seen burning in the photographs cannot be hydrogen. The motion picture films show the combustion burning downward.

Opponents of the IPT point out that once the fire started, all of the components of the ship (fabric, gas, metal, etc.) burned. So, while it may be that the combustion of the metal and fabric changed the color of the flame, the presence of color does not imply that hydrogen did not also burn. Also, while all fires generally tend to burn upward, including hydrogen fires, the enormous radiant heat from the burning of all of the materials of the ship would have quickly led to ignition over the entire surface of the ship, thus explaining the downward propagation of the flames. Some also think that what looked like downward burning was in fact burning pieces of fabric, metal and other materials. They observe that World War I airships filled with hydrogen, but constructed of completely different materials, also burned visibly, suggesting that the glow is produced mechanically like a gas lantern.

Opponents also cite recent technical papers which claim that even if the ship had been coated with typical rocket fuel (as is often stated in the press), it would have taken many hours to burn — not the 32-37 seconds that it actually took.[18] Proponents claim that this doesn't take into account the conditions that lead to firestorms, such as convection and ignition from radiant energy.

Additional opposition to the IPT is found in a set of modern experiments, recreating the fabric and coating materials of the Hindenburg, which dispel the IPT theory.[19] These experiments conclude that it would have taken about 40 hours for the Hindenburg to burn if the fire had been driven by combustible fabric. These experiments, as well as other industrial tests of the coating materials, conclude that the covering materials were combustible but nonflammable. Two additional scientific papers also strongly reject the IPT.[20]

Other controversial hypotheses

Structural Failure
In the Zeppelin Museum in Friedrichshafen a 33-foot full scale replica of the Hindenburg's passenger quarters shows some metal fatigue. Although Captain Pruss believed that the ship could withstand tight turns without much damage, others believe that the ship would have been weakened by being repeatedly stressed, leading to the puncture theory below.

There was also evidence of damage on previous flights. The ship did not get much routine inspection and once lost an engine and almost drifted over Africa where it could have crashed. Dr. Eckener was furious and ordered all section chiefs to inspect the ship during flight. In March of 1936, the Graf Zeppelin and the Hindenburg made a three day flight dropping leaflets and broadcasting speeches via a loudspeaker. On one day during this tour, Captain Ernst Lehmann flew the Hindenburg in very gusty conditions at full engine power to impress those watching. The ship's tail struck the ground and part of the lower fin was broken [5]. Many spectators had their cameras confiscated that day to prevent negative publicity. However Harold G. Dick hid his camera and took pictures of the damaged fin. Dr. Eckener was very upset and criticized Captain Lehmann in this manner:

"How could you, Herr Lehmann, order the ship to be brought out in such wind conditions. You had the best excuse in the world for postponing this idiotic flight; instead, you risk the ship, merely to avoid annoying Herr Goebbels. Do you call this showing a sense of responsibility towards our enterprise?" [21]

The Hindenburg can also be seen in the film footage and the pictures of the disaster cracking or bending, leading some to say that the ship's structure was rather weak.

This theory has not been very popular because it has to be combined with another theory.

Puncture theory
Another popular theory put forward referred to the film footage taken during the disaster, as well as the plan of the landing maneuver, in which the Hindenburg can be seen and planned taking a rather sharp turn prior to bursting into flames. Some experts speculate that one of the many bracing wires within the structure of the airship may have snapped and punctured the fabric of one or more of the internal gas cells. They refer to gauges found in the wreckage that showed that the tension of the wires was much too high. They also point out that even if you make cable the same, there is some variability, as they tested two bracing wires and noticed that the second one broke at only 70 percent of the load it was designed for [13].The punctured cells would have allowed hydrogen out of the Hindenburg, which could have been ignited by the static discharge mentioned previously. Advocates of this theory believe that the hydrogen began to leak approximately eight minutes prior to the explosion, building up until the spark ignited the gas. This theory, however, remains speculation, because no concrete evidence has shown that the gas cells were punctured.

However, witness statements seem to back up the hypothesis. Some witnesses reported seeing a flapping piece of fabric, where a static discharge could have entered into the leaking cell. The witnesses said that the fire began there. This leads some to believe a hydrogen leak in places other than the vent. Persons on board the ship also reported hearing a muffled sound and a ground crew member on the starboard side reported hearing a crack which some speculate to be a bracing wire cracking. Additionally, Dr. Eckener blamed Captain Max Pruss for rushing the entire landing maneuver and how he handled it [13], and privately at least he continued to believe that Pruss was to blame for the disaster [13].

Fuel leak
The 2001 documentary Hindenburg Disaster: Probable Cause suggested another theory. A 16-year-old boy had smelled what he described as gasoline when he was standing below the Hindenburg's aft port engine. During the investigation, commander Charles Rosendahl dismissed this clue. Some have suggested he had smelled diesel fuel, which could have leaked and could have created highly flammable oil vapor that could have ignited the ship. They also suggested that overheating engines may have played a role in the theory. This theory is thought by some to be misleading because it may have misinterpreted the statements by the crewmen of the lower fin. The show thought the crewmen saw a flash in the keel catwalk, when in reality they saw something in the axial catwalk.

Luger Pistol among wreckage
Some more sensational newspapers at the time said that a person on board committed suicide because a Luger pistol with one shell fired was found among the wreckage [21]. Another possibility would be that the Hindenburg was shot with the pistol. Most historians discount this story as having only circumstantial and incidental evidence.

Both ships were designed to be run with helium, but the United States had already placed a ban on exporting any of its helium supply, so hydrogen had to be used instead. The Germans used these ships as instruments of propaganda and espionage as the ships criss-crossed the globe during the 1936 season, flying north of the equator from May to September, and in the Southern Hemisphere the rest of the year. During the 1936 Olympics, which were held in Germany, the Hindenburg was everywhere, providing a sinister psychological edge for German athletes as it hovered over the games. In May 1937, after a late summer run to Rio de Janeiro, the Hindenburg began its service to the United  States with a flight from Berlin to New York.

On May 6, as it approached Lakehurst, it waited for a squall to pass (as many other dirigibles had done in the past). At 7:20 in the evening, the Hindenburg headed for New Jersey and prepared to tie up at the mooring tower. What happened next has been the subject of many hundreds of hours of investigation and speculation. What was apparent to the eye and to the camera (and what was described by radio reporter Herb Morrison in one of broadcasting’s most unforgettable moments) was that an explosion engulfed the rear of the dirigible and quickly spread to the entire ship, bringing it crashing to the ground in flames.

The manifest listed ninety-seven passengers, unusually large because it included trainees for the Graf Zeppelin II, then under construction. Commanding the flight was Captain Max Pruss, one of the Zeppelin Company’s most experienced pilots, and along for the flight (supervising the training program) was the company’s premier pilot, Ernst Lehmann.

Of the ninety-seven  aboard, thirty-six died, including thirteen “civilian” (paying) passengers, the first passengers of this kind killed in a dirigible accident. (Past fatalities had been crew members and military personnel, never paying passengers.) Captain Pruss was saved, but Captain Lehmann staggered out of the fire only to die in the hospital a few hours later. Before he died, however, he was interviewed by one of the investigators sent hastily to Lakehurst to determine what had happened—none other than Charles Rosendahl. As Lehmann lay dying, he muttered to Rosendahl that the explosion must have been caused by an incendiary bullet shot from the ground. Lehmann’s dying words, “It must have been an infernal machine,” were often quoted, though no one was quite sure what he meant. The Germans conducted an elaborate Nazi funeral in New Jersey for the victims, milking the occasion for maximum propaganda and implying that the tragedy could have been averted if the United States had been willing to sell Germany some of its helium.

When Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes refused to let Germany have any helium, Hugo Eckener came to Washington to appeal to him personally. At first, Ickes relented, and tankers were dispatched from Germany. Before the pickup could be made, however, Hitler annexed Austria in March 1938, and Ickes, convinced that the Nazis were bent on war, rescinded the order.

Right up to the invasion of Poland by Germany in September 1939, U.S. agencies pressured Ickes to let the Germans have the helium. When war came, Ickes gloated that he had been right all along. The Los Angeles was dismantled and sold for scrap. In Germany, the two Graf Zeppelins were stripped of anything that could be used in aircraft, and then the Germans did what the Allied countries had threatened to do since the end of World War I: they levelled the  Zeppelin hangars at Frankfurt and closed down the factory at Friedrichshafen.

The age of the great airships had come to an end.

H. F. T. v. Buttlar-Brandenfels, E. A. Lehmann, M. Pruss und H. v. Schiller

On May 6, 1937, while landing at Lakehurst, N.J., on the first of its scheduled 1937 trans-Atlantic crossings, the hydrogen-inflated Hindenburg burst into flames (see photograph) and was completely destroyed. Thirty-six of the 97 persons aboard were killed. The fire was generally attributed to a discharge of atmospheric electricity in the vicinity of a hydrogen gas leak from the airship, though it has also been speculated that the dirigible was the victim of an anti-Nazi act of sabotage. The Hindenburg disaster marked the end of the use of rigid airships in commercial air transportation.

There lay the real cause of the Hindenburg disaster, for Germany has no helium. It is a U. S. monopoly. The willingness of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt to sell Germany enough helium to fly the Graf and the Hindenburg on peaceful missions was offset by the price factor (more than 30 times as expensive, for 20% less payload efficiency) and by covert political opposition. As Columnist Dorothy Thompson wrote: "The destruction of the Hindenburg was an act of sabotage. For the peaceful world today, the world that seeks to join hands in the perfection of greater technologies, that seeks mutual enrichment and mutual understanding by all means of physical, intellectual and spiritual intercourse, is, indeed, being sabotaged by the fear and the threat of war. The Hindenburg represented the world and for that reason our eyes lighted when we saw its silver grandeur in the sky. It contended with another world which might make it at any moment an object of terror and of hatred."

In command was 45-year-old Captain Max Pruss, who went to work for old Count von Zeppelin in 1911, had made 170 flights across the Atlantic. Last year he commanded the Hindenburg on one flight from Lakehurst to Frankfort and on several to South America. As his adviser came famed Captain Ernst Lehmann, second only to great Dr. Hugo Eckener as a dirigible expert. He began flying airships in 1912 and was the man who conceived and supervised the Zeppelin raids on London. Tired old (65) Dr. Eckener, with full trust in his two subordinates, was last week off on a vacation in Austria.

But a sharp thunderstorm came up and when he reached the Naval reservation, Captain Pruss took no chances, turned off to sea. At dusk, while a drizzle fell from a sombre sky and a fitful breeze jerked the windsock, the Hindenburg once more poked her nose over Lakehurst. began maneuvering to land. It circled twice, then dropped to 500 ft., occasionally spewing water ballast. At 7:20 p.m. precisely, two lines fell from the bow. A trained squad of Navy men grabbed one, a squad of civilians the other. Gently the two groups began coaxing the big bag to the mooring mast. The breeze teasing the tail made it more difficult than usual. Captain Pruss put the two Mercedes-Benz Diesel engines in the stern gondolas into reverse to keep from overshooting the mast. Witnesses noticed that the port motor was backfiring.

Suddenly a stab of flame gashed the airship's flank near the port stern gondola. So swiftly that to many it seemed instantaneous the flame engulfed the whole rear half of the ship. There was a

Suddenly a stab of flame gashed the airship's flank near the port stern gondola. So swiftly that to many it seemed instantaneous the flame engulfed the whole rear half of the ship. There was a muffled, booming WHOOSH and a huge belch of white fire and smoke mushroomed skyward.

With a Cra-a-a-ack! the ship buckled. Down on the ground went the stern with a peculiarly gentle crash amid clouds of dust and smoke. As the still undamaged bow tilted up at 45°, the flame rushed through the middle and geysered in a long bright plume from the nose. For an instant the Hindenburg seemed a rearing reptile darting its tongue in anger. Then it was a gigantic halfback tackled behind the knees and falling forward on its face. The huge bag settled slowly to earth with fire roaring over it 50 yd. a second. Last place it reached was the passenger section in the belly, about one-third back from the bow. Silhouetted by the holocaust, passengers began dropping out of the windows like peas from a collander. From the control cabin swarmed officers and crew. Struggling figures emerged from the blazing hulk, stumbled, rose, fell again in fiery suffocation or from broken legs, shock, concussion. Down on the slowest ones then smashed the enormous incandescent mass in a blazing blizzard of fabric, crashing girders, melted duralumin. Still out of the inferno crept struggling figures, afire from head to foot, some stark naked, their clothes burned away, their skin and flesh in sizzling tatters.

The flames began to subside, but dense black smoke still poured from the twisted heap of redhot girders and the smoldering pud- dle of fuel oil. Not until next morning was the wreckage cool enough for men to pry out all the crisped bodies within, many of them only tentatively identifiable. The dawn score of deaths stood at eleven passengers, 21 crew, while 28 passengers and 49 crew miraculously escaped. One member of the ground-crew— Civilian Allen Hagaman—also died of burns. Most survivors were badly burned and three more crew and one more passenger presently perished. One of the first to go was Captain Lehmann. Just before he died he said: "I intended to stay with the ship as long as I could, until we could land her, if possible. But it was impossible. Everything around me was on fire. The windows were open in the central control cabin and I jumped about 100 ft. My clothes were all ablaze."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757837-1,00.html

According to the dramatic sabotage legend, a letter had arrived at the German Embassy in Washington, D.C., the day before the flight warning of a saboteur among the paying passengers. As a result, security was unusually thorough, and Captain Ernst Lehmann, the newly appointed director of the Zeppelin Company (his predecessor having resigned in disgrace), and two SS officials scrutinized the passengers. By journey's end, Captain Lehmann was convinced the letter was a figment of SS paranoia. Nothing of import had transpired. He did not know that Erich Spehl, a young rigger on the ship whose job it was to tend to the bags of highly flammable hydrogen within the aluminum superstructure, had surreptitiously planted a bomb within Gas Cell IV long before the ship had left its hangar. It was left to Spehl to rip open the gas bag shortly before landing and set the timer on his rudimentary bomb. It was not Spehl's intention to kill anyone: the innocent farm lad was motivated to perform his "act of genius" by his older, sophisticated girlfriend under whose tutelage Spehl had grown violently opposed to the Nazi regime. As the Hindenburg circled to position itself for landing, Erich Spehl slit the gas cell and set the bomb's timer for two hours, long after the passengers and crew should have disembarked. Unfortunately, the timer malfunctioned, or in his haste, he set it wrong. The Hindenburg was just preparing to dock when the bomb exploded, burning the silk bag and allowing air to rush in and mix with the highly flammable hydrogen.

Whether the explosion was caused by such a saboteur or not, a more dramatic black eye for the Nazi regime could scarcely have been planned. The disaster was featured in newsreels within the week, and it made a phenomenal spectacle, the bright white flames leaping into the dark sky as the silhouetted bulk of the zeppelin descended gracefully toward the earth. The German government, hoping to avoid an international incident, ascribed the disaster to "an act of God." A binational commission was convened, but the Germans had been expressly warned not to find any evidence of sabotage. The FBI, in turn, played along, but the commission met nightly, and convictions were aired off the record. The decision to sweep the mess under the rug abruptly brought any further experiments with passenger airships to an end.

It was not long after the glowing hot metal had cooled when theories about the cause of the disaster began to emerge. Both the United States and Germany conducted investigations into the crash, and both concluded that sabotage was a distinct possibility. One of the reasons in favor of sabotage was that the Hindenburg was viewed as a powerful symbol of Nazi Germany and its destruction would damage Nazi prestige. Eric Spehl, a crewman aboard the vessel who died in the crash, was even named as the most likely saboteur . Spehl served as a rigger who was stationed near Gas Cell 4 where the fire that destroyed the ship is believed to have begun. Further evidence used against Spehl includes the fact that his girlfriend was a suspected communist who had anti-Nazi connections and the discovery of a dry-cell battery in the Hindenburg wreckage. Spehl was an amateur photographer acquainted with flashbulbs, and the theory is that one of these bulbs powered by the battery was used as an ignition source to start the catastrophic fire.

http://www.nlhs.com/passenger-list.htm

http://altfrankfurt.com/Spezial/Zeppelin/   great pictures

I.

This litigation arises from three separate accounts of the triumphant introduction, last voyage, and tragic destruction of the Hindenburg, the colossal dirigible constructed in Germany during Hitler's reign. The zeppelin, the last and most sophisticated in a fleet of luxury airships, which punctually floated its wealthy passengers from the Third Reich to the United States, exploded into flames and disintegrated in 35 seconds as it hovered above the Lakehurst, New Jersey Naval Air Station at 7:25 p.m. on May 6, 1937. Thirty-six passengers and crew were killed but, fortunately, 52 persons survived. Official investigations conducted by both American and German authorities could ascertain no definitive cause of the disaster, but both suggested the plausibility of static electricity or St. Elmo's Fire, which could have ignited the highly explosive hydrogen that filled the airship. Throughout, the investigators refused to rule out the possibility of sabotage.

The destruction of the Hindenburg marked the concluding chapter in the chronicle of airship passenger service, for after the tragedy at Lakehurst, the Nazi regime permanently grounded the Graf Zeppelin I and discontinued its plan to construct an even larger dirigible, the Graf Zeppelin 11.

The final pages of the airship's story marked the beginning of a series of journalistic, historical, and literary accounts devoted to the Hindenburg and its fate. Indeed, weeks of testimony by a plethora of witnesses before the official investigative panels provided fertile source material for would-be authors. Moreover, both the American and German Commissions issued official reports, detailing all that was then known of the tragedy. A number of newspaper and magazine articles had been written about the Hindenburg in 1936, its first year of trans-Atlantic service, and they, of course, multiplied many fold after the crash. In addition, two passengers Margaret Mather and Gertrud Adelt published separate and detailed accounts of the voyage, C. E. Rosendahl, commander of the Lakehurst Naval Air Station and a pioneer in airship travel himself, wrote a book titled What About the Airship?, in which he endorsed the theory that the Hindenburg was the victim of sabotage. In 1957, Nelson Gidding, who would return to the subject of the Hindenburg some 20 years later, wrote an unpublished "treatment" for a motion picture based on the deliberate destruction of the airship. In that year as well, John Toland published Ships in the Sky which, in its seventeenth chapter, chronicled the last flight of the Hindenburg. In 1962, Dale Titler released Wings of Mystery, in which he too devoted a chapter to the Hindenburg.

Appellant A. A. Hoehling published Who Destroyed the Hindenburg?, a full-length book based on his exhaustive research in 1962. Mr. Hoehling studied the investigative reports, consulted previously published articles and books, and conducted interviews with Survivors of the crash as well as others who possessed information about the Hindenburu. His book is presented as a factual account, written in an objective, reportorial style.

The first half recounts the final crossing of the Hindenburg, from Sunday, May 2, when it left Frankfurt, to Thursday, May 6, when it exploded at Lakehurst. Hoehling describes the airship, its role as an instrument of propaganda in Nazi Germany, its passengers and crew, the danger of hydrogen, and the ominous threats received by German officials, warning that the Hindenburg would be destroyed. The second portion, headed The Quest, sets forth the progress of the official investigations, followed by an account of Hoehling's own research. In the final chapter, spanning eleven pages, Hoehling suggests that all proffered explanations of the explosion, save deliberate destruction, are unconvincing, He concludes that the most likely saboteur is one Eric Spehl, a "rigger" on the Hindenburg crew who was killed at Lakehurst.

According to Hoehling, Spehl had motive, expertise, and opportunity to plant an explosive device, constructed of dry-cell batteries and a flashbulb, in "Gas Cell 4," the location of the initial explosion. An amateur photographer with access to flashbulbs, Spehl could have destroyed the Hindenburg to please his ladyfriend, a Suspected communist dedicated to exploding the myth of Nazi invincibility.

Ten years later appellee Michael MacDonald Mooney published his book, The Hindenburg. Mooney's endeavor might be characterized as more literary than historical in its attempt to weave a number of symbolic themes through the actual events surrounding the tragedy. His dominant theme contrasts the natural beauty of the month of May, when the disaster occurred, with the cold, deliberate progress of "technology." The May theme is expressed not simply by the season, but also by the character of Spehl, portrayed as a sensitive artisan with needle and thread. The Hindenburg, in contrast, is the symbol of technology, as are its German creators and the Reich itself. The destruction is depicted as the ultimate triumph of nature over technology, as Spehl plants the bomb that ignites the hydrogen. Developing this theme from the outset, Mooney begins with an extended review of man's efforts to defy nature through flight, focusing on the evolution of the zeppelin. This story culminates in the construction of the Hindenburg, and the Nazis' claims of its indestructibility. Mooney then traces the fateful voyage, advising the reader almost immediately of Spehl's scheme. The book concludes with the airship's explosion.

Mooney acknowledges, in this case, that he consulted Hoehling's book, and that he relied on it for some details. He asserts that he first discovered the "Spehl -as- saboteur" theory when he read Titler's Wings of Mystery. Indeed, Titler concludes that Spehl was the saboteur, for essentially the reasons stated by Hoehling. Mooney also claims to have studied the complete National Archives and New York Times files concerning the Hindenburg, as well as all previously published material. Moreover, he traveled to Germany, visited Spehl's birthplace, and conducted a number of interviews with survivors.
After Mooney prepared an outline of his anticipated book, his publisher Succeeded in negotiations to sell the motion picture rights to appellee Universal City Studios. Universal then commissioned a screen story by writers Levinson and Link, best known for their television series, Columbo, in which a somewhat disheveled, but wise detective unravels artfully conceived murder mysteries. In their screen story, Levinson and Link created a Columbo-like character who endeavored to identify the saboteur on board the Hindenburg.

Director Robert Wise, however, was not satisfied with this version, and called upon Nelson Gidding to write a final screenplay. Gidding, it will be recalled, had engaged in preliminary work on a film about the Hindenburg almost twenty years earlier.
The Gidding screenplay follows what is known in the motion Picture industry as a "Grand Hotel" formula, developing a number of fictional characters and subplots involving them. This formula has become standard fare in so-called "disaster" movies, which have enjoyed a certain popularity in recent years. In the film, which was released in late 1975, a rigger named "Boerth," who has an anti-Nazi ladyfriend, plans to destroy the airship in an effort to embarrass the Reich. Nazi officials, vaguely aware of sabotage threats, station a Luftwaffe intelligence officer on the zeppelin, loosely resembling a Colonel Erdmann who was aboard the Hindenburg. This character is portrayed as a likable fellow who soon discovers that Boerth is the saboteur. Boerth, however, convinces him that the Hindenburg should be destroyed and the two join forces, planning the explosion for several hours after the landing at Lakehurst, when no people would be on board. In Gidding's version, the airship is delayed by a storm, frantic efforts to defuse the bomb fail, and the Hindenburg is destroyed. The film's subplots involve other possible Suspects, including a fictional countess who has had her estate expropriated by the Reich, two fictional confidence men wanted by New York Sq. City police, and an advertising executive rushing to close a business deal in America.

Upon learning of Universal's plans to release the film, Hoehling instituted this action against Universal for copyright infringement and common law unfair competition in the district court for the District of Columbia in October 1975. Judge Smith declined to issue an order restraining release of the film in December, and it was distributed throughout the nation.

In January 1976, Hoehling sought to amend his complaint to include Mooney as a defendant. The district court, however, decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Mooney. In June 1976, Hoehling again attempted to amend his complaint, this time to add Mooney's publishers as defendants. Judge Smith denied this motion as well, but granted Hoehling's request to transfer the litigation to the Southern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), where Mooney himself was successfully included as a party. Judge Metzner, with the assistance of Magistrate Sinclair, supervised extensive discovery through 111ost of 1978. After the completion of discovery, both Mooney and Universal moved for SL1111mary judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, which was granted on August 1, 1979.

II.

It is undisputed that Hoehling has a valid copyright in his book. To prove infringement, however, he must demonstrate that defendants "copied" his work and that they "improperly appropriated" his "expression." Ordinarily, wrongful appropriation is shown by proving a "substantial similarity" of copyrightable expression. Because substantial similarity is customarily an extremely close question of fact, summary judgment has traditionally been frowned upon in copyright litigation.
Hoehling's principal claim is that both Mooney and Universal copied the essential plot of his book i.e., Eric Spehl, influenced by his girlfriend, sabotaged the Hindenburg by placing a crude bomb in Gas Cell 4. In their briefs, and at oral argument, appellees have labored to convince Lis that their plots are not Substantially similar to Hoehling's. While Hoehling's Spehl destroys the airship to please his communist girlfriend, Mooney's character is motivated by an aversion to the technological age. Universal's Boerth, on the other hand, is a fervent anti-fascist who enlists the support of a Luftwaffe colonel who, in turn, unsuccessfully attempts to defuse the bomb at the eleventh hour.

Although this argument has potential merit when presented to a fact finder adjudicating the issue of substantial similarity, it is largely irrelevant to a motion for summary judgment where the issue of substantial similarity has been eliminated by the judge's affirmative assumption. Under Rule 56(c), Summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." Perhaps recognizing this, appellees further argue that Hoehling's plot is an "idea," and ideas are not copyrightable as a matter of law.

Hoehling, however, correctly rejoins that while ideas themselves are not subject to copyright, his "expression" of his idea is copyrightable. He relies on Learned Hand's opinion in Sheldon, holding that Letty Lyiiton infringed Dishonored Lady by copying its story of a woman who poisons her lover, and Augustus Hand's analysis in Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc., concluding that the exploits of "Wondermall" infringed the copyright held by the creators of "Superman," the original indestructible mail. Moreover, Hoehling asserts that, in both these cases, the line between "ideas" and "expression" is drawn, in the first instance, by the fact finder.

Sheldon and Detective Comics, however, dealt with works of fiction, where the distinction between an idea and its expression is especially elusive. But, where, as here, the idea at issue is an interpretation of an historical event, our cases hold that such interpretations are not copyrightable as a matter of law. In Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., we held that the defendant's biography of Howard Hughes did not infringe an earlier biography of the reclusive alleged billionaire. Although the plots of the two works were necessarily similar, there could be no infringement because of the "public benefit in encouraging the development of historical and biographical works and their public distribution." To avoid a chilling effect on authors who contemplate tackling an historical issue or event, broad latitude must be granted to subsequent authors who make use of historical subject matter, including theories or plots. Learned Hand counseled in Myers v. Mail & Express Co., (S. D. N. Y. 1919), "There cannot be any Such thing as copyright in the order of presentation of the facts, nor, indeed, in their selection."
In the instant case, the hypothesis that Eric Spehl destroyed the Hindenburg is based entirely on the interpretation of historical facts, including Spehl's life, his girlfriend's anti-Nazi connections, the explosion's origin in Gas Cell 4, Spehl's duty station, discovery of a dry-cell battery among the wreckage, and rumors about Spehl's involvement dating from a 1938 Gestapo investigation. Such an historical interpretation, whether or not it originated with Mr. Hoehling, is not protected by his copyright and can be freely used by subsequent authors.

The same reasoning governs Hoehling's claim that a number of specific facts, ascertained through his personal research, were copied by appellees. The cases in this circuit, however, make clear that factual information is in the public domain.
All of Hoehling's allegations of copying, therefore, encompass material that is non-copyrightable as a matter of law, rendering summary judgment entirely appropriate.