100 Lt.-Col. C. D. Durnfoid on 



upwards to tlie height of 20 feet above the surface of the 

 ■water, whilst under ordinary circuaistauces tliey keep close 

 to it." 



The above is fairly representative of the aeroplane theory. 

 There are, however, several variants to it, the most notable 

 being the addition by later writers of the use of the tail, both 

 as a propeller in air, and also as an explanation of the loud 

 buzzing sound always heard when the tisli tly near or over a 

 boat, and which is really made — it seems odd to have to write 

 it — hj the rapid whirring of the wings. 



Of this whirring or flapping motion Professor Whitman 

 writes, " It is so rapid that it is not easily recognised at any 

 great distance until experience has sharpened the eye/'' 

 Therein lies, I think, the cause of the birth of the aeroplane 

 theory, though I must add that experience need not necessarily 

 sharpen even good natural sight into being able to see tlie 

 wing-movement. Knack or chance may come in in such 

 matters. Some time ago, for instance, I was astonished, 

 whilst testing the shooting of a shot-and-ball gun at the butts, 

 to find that in certain lights I could plainly see tlie ball 

 during its whole flight, whilst tlie attendant, whose daily 

 business it was to test rifles and guns, and whose sight was 

 far superior to mine, tried over and over again but could not 

 pick it up. So have I seen many watch the whirring wings 

 and declare them to be still. 



It is commonly accepted that in matters of observation an 

 affirmative evidence is superior to a negative one. In the 

 special case under consideration, the value of the affirmative 

 true flight evidence is very greatly increased by the fact that 

 the aeroplane contradiction thereof must be in proof of a 

 unique act in nature without a known parallel. Flying 

 lizards and flying squirrels are perhaps the nearest, but m 

 both cases the aeroplane is, I believe, greater by far compared 

 with the weight borne, and — of more importance — the course 

 is certainly far less and falling, not horizontal, or rising, as is 

 that of the flying- fish. 



Surely, therefore, it is not too much to ask from the aero- 

 planists either a reference to some mechanical parallel, or else 

 absolutely overwhelming evidence in favour of the marvellous 

 — a fair expression if no parallel be produced. We do not 

 receive the evidence, for, as before noted, it consists of a 

 series of witnesses very fairly divided as to whether they can 

 or cannot see the wing-moveiuent, although scientific writers 

 on the subject nearly all follow tiie latter. We do receive 

 reference to certain parallels, and I shall endeavour to 

 examine these with such lights as I can find. The parallels 



