and part two (the rest):


  At this point Plantier justly reminds us that, on ejection
from the acceleralors of particles utilized in nuclear
laboratories, a distinct luminescence can be observed, which is
due to the action of the corpusclo-undulatory fluid ''vomited''
by the accelerator; as the sudden increase in the intensity of
the field of force of the machine can only be due to similar
acceleration, it can be expected that when the machine takes off
it will present various luminous phenomena, such as changes of
colour, a vivid flash, etc. That is the very behaviour which is
noted time and time again in saucer reports. Moreover, the air
immedialely adjacent to the machine must also be affected by the
luminosity of the field and become incandescent as the result of
ionization. Here Plantier makes a just comparison.

  ''It is known,'' he writes, ''that the American physicist Noel
W. Scott experimentally produced orange-coloured balls in a
rarefied atmosphere simply by the action of a copper ring at
high tension. He thinks that he is thereby demonstrating the
natural electrostatic character of the apparitions, but does he
not rather confirm, without realizing it, an electrical or
electromagnetic aspect of the propulsion of these machines, the
presence of an extremely powerful field of force around the
saucer ?''

  In any case, a strong ionization of the atmosphere surrounding
the machine would fully justify epithets like ''wonderful'' and
''eerie'', used by all who have described nocturnal sightings
(Chiles, Whitted, Tombaugh and numerous French witnesses). Of
course, the aspect of the light, its brilliance and colour,
would vary with the intensity of the field of force, that is to
say, with the manoeuvres of the machine (e.g. the Bocaranga
sighting). In short, Plantier's theory fully accounts for the
changes in the aspect of saucers. His machine would change in
colour and luminosity with every touch of the accelerator, brake
or steering apparatus, and that is exactly what the witnesses
tell us.


  The ex-centric patch

This is certainly one of the features which could not be
invented, at any rate by witnesses who have never heard of it.
How could a number of people independently invent anything as
unimportant - to outward appearances at any rate - as a luminous
patch moving below the saucer at each change of direction ? But
Plantier not only explains this patch; he anticipated it as part
of his machine even before anyone had noticed it. Thus, in the
passage where he deals with the subject of balance, he states
that the shifting of balance (i.e. tilting) is brought about by
the displacement of the field of force. This ex-centration would
appear to be assisted by a screen which is capable of changing
position in relation to the machine, and of nullifying or
diminishing the effect of the field on all exposed surfaces. The
ionization would at once be subject to the same fluctuations, so
that the movements of the screen would be visible from outside,
to an observer on the ground, for instance. The patch in
question can be seen quite clearly in the photograph taken by M.
Fregnale at Lac Chauvet, and it can be assumed that, in all
photographs of saucers, part will be under-exposed if the
aperture of the camera is adjusted to suit the mean luminosity
of the machine; there will always be a dark shadow on the
photograph, more or less near the centre.


  the Turbolent Cumulus

''One of the strangest consequences of propulsion by the field
of force was, as I had anticipated, the risk of seeing a small
cumulus forming, even in the bluest of blue skies, above the
machine when hovering at a low altitude.'' ('Forces Aeriennes
Francaises, page 234)

  In fact, as the column of air subjected to the field of force
more or less ceases to have any ''weight'', there is an upward
rush of air sufficient to cause condensation.

  Plantier recalls that, on January 3rd, 1953, the press
published an article on the adventure of M. Rene Sacle, an ex-
Air Force pilot who, on December 29th, 1952, at Courcon-d'Aunis,
Charente-Maritime, saw, to his amazement, a lonely little
cumulo-nimbus rise vertically in a clear blue sky and then cast
off something vague and shapeless which rapidly disappeared,
leaving a white trail behind it. This seems to suggest that the
pilot of the machine voluntarily took advantage of the
camouflage he had created by the action of his field of force
until he was ready to move off again.

  Another particularly striking description of ''turbulent
cumulus'', well observed, is given by Professor Hall.


  Other Oddities explained or anticipated by Plantier

As we have seen, Lieutenant Plantier's assumptions explain
almost everything which had baffled his predecessors. There are
a few more mysteries on which he throws light. His field of
force accounts for the green and red flames accompanying
extremely swift turns (Chiles and Whitted, for example), the
'fireball' which occurs so frequently (Gorman), the fluttering
descent in very slow manoeuvres, and for the machine appearing
as a ''flying egg'', and even as an up-turned mushroom, at
certain speeds.

  Plantier's theory also accounts for the zig-zag movements, the
crazy manceuvres and even what would appear to be the oddest
spectacle of all, the ''Threads of the Virgin'' which were
gathered in large quantities from fields, trees and house-tops
at Gaillac and Oloron in October 1952, after a whole formation
of unknown machines had passed.

  On this Plantier says that the ionization of the atmosphere
behind the machine could, by reason of the tremendous intensity
of the field of force, produce ultra-heavy positive corpuscles
which, on contact with the molecules of oxygen, nitrogen, water,
etc., in the surrounding air, in turn produce unknown chemical
reactions. The product of such reactions - the famous threads -
would disintegrate as the effect of ionization wore off.


  Plantier's Machine and Space-Travel

It is obvious that if Plantier's field of force materialized, it
would fully solve the problem of space-travel. In particular, it
would provide a very neat solution of the problem presented by
the danger of colliding with the millions of meteorites
travelling in space at terrific speeds.

  Large meteorites are not very dangerous, thanks to their size
and comparative rarity. Their size makes them easy to pick up by
radar, and their rarity enables the aeronaut to slip out of the
way with little or no chance of a second meeting. But the small
ones swarm like ants, and the risk of collision would be very
high. Plantier's field of force might have the advantage of
simply forcing them aside as the machine passed. In a word, the
small meteorites and sidereal dust, which technicians regard as
one of the chief perils of future space-travel, would behave in
the same way as molecules of air in the presence of the field of
force. Drawn in by it, they would simply change course and
follow the machine without coming into contact with it.


  Breakdowns and Accidents

''It is difficult for an accident to happen to the machine,''
says Plantier himself ('Forces Aeriennes Francaises', September
1953, page 233). ''By merely inverting the field of force, the
pilot has a perfect brake at his disposal. At need, a simple
device of radar type releases this brake at the approach of any
object.''

  What happens if the mechanism creating the field of force
fails to work or the field of force disappears ? Here are two
possibilities:

  1. If the breakdown occurs at low speed, i.e. for such a
machine a speed arproximating that of a jet, the machine suffers
the fate of any ordinary aircraft; it crashes, unless another
machine in the vicinity snatches it into its own field of force.

  2. If the field of force suddenly vanishes when it is
travelling very fast, the surrounding air ceases to be swept
along, and the machine, continuing on its course, strikes
against the motionless air with prodigious kinetic force;
disintegration and thermic volatilization are a matter of
seconds, there is a noise like thunder and, if at night, a vivid
flash, which lasts until the particles have cooled, that is, for
several seconds.

  How can this alarming picture fail to remind us of the
occurrcnce over Dieppe on January 7th at 4.27 in the morning ?
What mysterious drama lay behind that fantastic explosion which
shot the good people of Dieppe out of bed and shattered windows
over a radius of several kilometres ?


The Astrophysicai Laboratory pronounced that all this was the
work of a meteor. But the phenomenon followed an interrupted or
curving course, coming down from North of Douai, via Arras, to
Gournay in the Seine Inferieure department, where it turned
sharply, flew over Serqueux and then exploded over Dieppe. Could
a meteor have made such a sharp turn before exploding ?

  Plantier quotes two other reports which also seem to point
to some breakdown of his machine. One was sent in by two
pilots of the Aero-Club of Morocco, who were overtaken in
September 1952 by a cigar which vanished in a shower of
sparks. The second was of an unexplained explosion which
shook the Glancove district, near New York, a month later.


  What is the final verdict on the Plantier theory ?

Criticism of the Plantier theory is all the easier because the
author has had the good sense to indulge in it himself.

  In the present state of knowledge it must be regarded as a
purely intellectual conception. Of course, there is a fair
probability that cosmic rays originate in some sidereal source
filling the whole of space - since these rays come from all
parts of the sky - which has not yet been identified. But other
explanations have been put forward, explanations quite as
speculative, until science has advanced further. The most
familiar of these links is the existence of cosmic rays with
Abbe Lemaitre's original atom and his theory of the expanding
universe. As Plantier's assumptions are of a very general
character, and hitherto not much work on the mathematical side
has been done on them there is no actual proof that the two
theories are not complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

  But Plantier's theory does not stand or fall by any apparent
dependence on cosmic rays. Since the publication of his article
in the service journal he has been under treatment for a
tropical disease in a hospital in Indo-China, and has been using
his enforced leisure to revise and clarify his ideas. On
November 6th, 1953.he wrote to me:

  ''I merely wanted to show that, as soon as it was possible to
attack the atomic nucleus with a force which one can vary and
direct at will, the first three mysteries of the saucers (the
absence of sound, resistance to heat and manoeuvrability) would
be solved, and the fourth (changes in appearance) also, for it
is probable that this breach in the ivory tower of the nucleus
will not remain without repercussions on its various electronic
layers, the chances being ninety to one hundred that such
repercussions will be manifested as luminous phenomena....''

  That is the root of the matter, Plantier's fundamental
conception, ''the possibility of applying a force which one can
vary and direct at will to every atomic nucleus of a machine and
its contents''. If this possibility be granted, all the rest
follows, with or without recourse to ''cosmic energy''.

  But is there any such possibility ? In nature, of course,
every atom is subject to the force of gravitation. But neither
the strength nor the direction of that force can be varied. So
far, only the novelists have been able to do what they like with
it, thanks to the imaginary substance they call ''cavorite'',
which takes the most remarkable liberties with established
principles - Carnot's law, for instance. Magnetic fields also
act on every nucleus. But not of all bodies. Even remembering
that some bodies only are sensitive to the magnetic field, the
possibilities of this field seem too limited to allow of the
construction of machines anything like Plantier's. Yet technical
periodicals and news agencies frequently refer to secret
research work which they say has been proceeding in Canada since
1952. A news agency telegram, reporting a statement by an
anonymous official, said roundly that Canadian scientific
experts were now working on terrestrial magnetism, and that the
first results justified the hope that revolutionary developments
were in sight. What does this language mean ? Why are these
investigations secret ? Are they connected in any way with the
statement of Field Marshal Montgomery, fresh from inspecting a
secret factory in Canada, that he had seen incredible things ?
Or do they refer to the flying saucers observatory at Shirley's
Bay ? For the time being, the mystery remains a mystery.

  But to return to Plantier. I have already said that he has
been his own critic in advance. ''It is obvious,'' he writes,
''that we do not yet know any fields of force with the
attractive characteristic of being so susceptible to control
both in space and time.''

  Even admitting the possibility, the classic laws of mechanics
postulate a system of reference in relation to reaction and the
equally classic laws of physics do not suggest that there can be
one. Cosmic energy could easily provide one through a sort of
difference of its potential, but cosmic energy itself is equally
theoretical. If the genesis of cosrnic rays can be attributed to
it, how can we explain the fact that we have not identified it
by other interferences in electro-magnetism ?

  It will be seen that Plantier is as severe in self-criticism
as courageous in his deductions. He insists that the very
principles upon which he bases his ideas are no more than
suppositions. I hope he will not object if someone who feels
deeply concerned at what he writes offers himself as his
advocate in this book.

  Of course, it is quite true that, for the moment, his
assumptions arc at least 99 per cent pure speculation, but what
is mere speculation today can be proved to-morrow, and if proved
must be true now. The atomic philosophy of Epicurus and
Lucretius was pure speculation and yet true for two thousand
years. To tell the truth, if we did not need the Plantier
theory, its 99 per cent pure speculation would tempt us to leave
it to the poets. But it happens to be the only theory which
explains the mystery of the flying saucers, apart from blank
denial that they exist.

  So I think that we are justified in adopting a common-sense
attitude, on the following lines: either the flying saucers are
a myth, and we dismiss the Plantier theory (at any rate for the
time being), or they actually exist. If they do, where shall we
look for as convincing an explanation of the turbulent cumulus
discussed by Professor Hall, M. Sacle and others, the silence,
the resistance to heat, the manaeuvrability and the changes in
appearance ? If flying saucers actually do exist, there are
ninetynine chances out of one hundred that the purely
speculative assumptions are valid.

  It is the attitude which Plantier himself takes up towards his
own theory. ''These phenomena'' (saucers), he says, ''must be
the subject of rational investigation. If natural, so much the
worse for my theories and my pride. But if it is proved that
they are real machines which can fly, no effort should be spared
to discover their nature and origin.''