"The Hunt for Zero Point" by Nick Cook

The U.S. government kept it all under wraps for years, but probably implemented some of it in the B2 bomber. Why didn't the U.S. make more widespread use of this technology? Partly because it would have disrupted the existing aerospace industry, with its expertise in winged aircraft. Partly because anti-gravity might tap into energies just too destructive to tamper with. And "... in the 1940s and 1950s, it wasn't as if the world really needed it."

It's a story that strains credulity. But unless we're after cheap laughs, our hope when we pick up a book like this is that the author will, against the odds, build a careful, reasonable and convincing case. Cook isn't that author.

The first problem is that Cook is no help sorting out the physics he's writing about. His explanation of "zero point energy" (a quantum effect caused by virtual particles winking in and out of existence) is acceptable. But he's also capable of explaining that the Repulsine made air molecules "pack so tightly together that their molecular and nuclear binding energies were affected in a way that triggered the anti-gravity effect." Both explanations sound equally weird to the layman. But the first is recognized science, the second pseudo-science.

OK, so physics is hard, and Cook is a journalist. But we should at least expect him to bring a journalist's care to the sources he uses and the conclusions he draws. Instead, we're bombarded with a hodgepodge of information trawled up from the Internet, other books and UFO and anti-gravity enthusiasts, along with some firsthand reporting. Although he makes a show of weighing this information with the critical eye of a trained aerospace expert, he doesn't prove worthy of much confidence.

A perfect example is his reliance on Witkowski, the Polish researcher, whose information is key to Cook's conclusions. Where did the information come from? Witkowski says a Polish government official (whom he refuses to name) allowed him to see some documents, but not make copies of them. Why does Cook believe Witkowski?

"Witkowski had been recommended to me by Polish sources through my work at Jane's as someone who was both highly knowledgeable and reliable ... Had Witkowski been in any way a lightweight, I would have turned around and got on the first plane home. But when I saw him, I knew he was OK."

Just as shaky are most of Cook's conclusions. For instance, the old Army Air Force memo in which Twining says UFO-type aircraft are "within the present U.S. knowledge" runs like a mantra through the book. Cook thinks it means that even in 1947 the U.S. could have built an aircraft capable of tremendous acceleration and instantaneous changes of direction, a craft that would require anti-gravity to work.

Twining actually says, "It is possible within the present U.S. knowledge ... to construct a piloted aircraft which has the general description of the object in subparagraph (e) above." What's that description? Metallic, saucer-shaped, quiet, no trail, capable of flying in formation, with a cruising speed of 300 knots. Right or wrong, Twining's not talking about the same astonishing capabilities as Cook is.

Or look at his conclusions about Kammler, the SS official Cook thinks traded the anti-gravity technology to the U.S. By the end of the war Kammler was the administrator in charge of most advanced research programs, including the V-2 rocket factories. But where's the evidence he traded any technology -- much less anti-gravity technology -- to the U.S.? Well, a lot of Germans with technological knowledge tried to cut deals with the U.S. Kammler's movements at the end of the war are mysterious, and there are contradictory reports about his death. Besides, Cook thinks it's the kind of thing Kammler would do.

"My feeling was Kammler would offer them something so spectacular they'd have no choice but to enter into negotiations with him."

In fact, a lot of the evidence here is based on Cook's feelings. A minor but typical example is a feeling he gets while reading a "recovered transcript," supposedly of a phone call between two Air Force officers discussing Brown's work. Gen. Victor E. Bertrandias is the chatty one; a general named Craig doesn't say much -- only "No" and later "I see." It's Craig who catches Cook's interest.

"The man's urbane delivery earmarked him, to me at least, as someone big in Air Force intelligence." All that from, "I see."

What is instructive about the book is the insight we get into how conspiracy theories seduce otherwise reasonable people. Like all of us, Cook knows that real conspiracies exist. No one questions, for instance, that military technologies are being developed in secret, and that the government "conspires" to keep details from the public.

But what do you look for when you think direct evidence has been withheld or suppressed? Before searching some old records, Cook realizes "it was inconceivable that the ... intelligence teams would have documented the discovery [of German flying saucers] for the world to read about ... I wasn't searching for the obvious, because the obvious would have been picked up by the censors." So Cook is reduced to ferreting out minor inconsistencies and odd, ambiguous details which he tries to puff up into proof.

Likewise, information that is available has to be suspected as possible government disinformation. Perhaps the military has encouraged UFO reports to disguise its own flying saucer tests. Maybe the mythical Philadelphia Experiment (in which a Navy ship was supposedly sent into another dimension) was really just a story designed to discredit Brown. But, since the best disinformation always contains a grain of truth, maybe there really is a connection between anti-gravity and other dimensions.

Using this reasoning, all bets are soon off, and almost anything you turn up -- lack of evidence, official denials, unsubstantiated rumors, wild conjecture -- becomes evidence for what you're trying to prove.

In the end, Cook's argument boils down to the old proverb he invokes several times -- Where there's smoke there must be fire. But sometimes, someone's just blowing smoke.

• View blog reactions