I'd first like thank the Crop Circle Connector for publishing the information they've gathered about this remarkable structure. The same goes for those who supplied the site with photographs. A big thanks also to Paul Jacobs for allowing me to use, in this article, his useful copyright image. 

Initial observations and action

During my first glance at a photograph of the full circle, I was drawn to a strange and conspicuous feature it exhibits: the outer ring of star-like structures contains two boxes [of standing crop], which are corrupting an arrangement that is ostensibly symmetrical, as shown below, where I've highlighted each box with a red cross [Note: I've isolated the formation within a black circle]: 

Fig. 1 

This image reminded me of the type of facsimile we often see, in the media, of a document where an official body, such as a government, has blanked out certain areas, with a thick marker, because of an alleged confidentiality or security risk. I was therefore intrigued as to why this crop circle's architects had seen fit to impose two such boxes over the cited area of the edifice's outer ring, thereby stripping 3 of its 9 star-like structures of their full complement of mini triangles [6 each]. 

It didn't take a giant leap of imagination to deduce that our attention was being drawn, not just to the presence of the large, superfluous-looking boxes but to the 4 mini triangles they had seemingly eclipsed. I therefore hastily reinstated the latter entities [in a symbolic way!], after removing the pair of offending blocks. 

The result is shown, below, where I've highlighted the 4 small, symbolic triangles, by shading them red; and for reasons that will soon be clear, I've also blanked out the circle's central area: 

Fig. 2 

It was quickly apparent that this elementary modification, which I believe we were being invited to undertake, provides us with the means of identifying two important features of the structure, which I always expect to find in an authentic crop circle [as I've stressed in preceding articles]. 

Two marks of authenticity:

[1] the up-to-date mean radius of the earth

In the three star-like structures that had been highlighted - by having been partially covered with boxes - 4 mini triangles were seemingly hidden [the ones I shaded red], whereas the adjoining 14 were not, and my consideration of these two, linked groups of mini triangles led me to a pair of numbers I often encounter during my analyses of crop circles. 

If we assign consecutive, numerical labels to each group, both starting at 1, we form sequences whose digits add up to 10 and 60, respectively, as illustrated below: 

Fig. 3 

And as readers who've studied my earlier articles should recall, the product of the 10^th and 60^th prime numbers¹ is, 6371 [= 23x277], which is the value, in kilometres, of an up-to-date measure of the earth's mean radius². A sphere, of this radius, is also the earth model that has to be used for all geodetic calculations involving crop circles [something I discovered many years ago]³. 

[2] the day the formation was discovered

The highlighting in the described way of the 3 star-like figures, in the formation's outer ring, leaves a sequence of 6 such figures that aren't highlighted. This tells us that that outer ring is split into a 3-6 configuration of star-like figures, as illustrated below: 

Fig. 4 

Clearly, for the purposes of a subtle communication of this type the shown arrangement could be used to infer the number 36. But as we know that the whole ring is also closely tied to a 54 - which is its total endowment of mini triangles [including the red ones] i.e. 9x6 - it's possible to deduce that it [the ring] embodies an association with the number that is the sum of 36 and 54 i.e. 90, and this factor is itself related uniquely to the described, defining characteristic of the formation. 

The circle was found [ref. the calendar used in the UK, where the event occurred] on August 19, which was the year's 231^st day. But when the product of the prime factors of 231 i.e. 3x7x11, is expressed as the product of their three prime ranks⁴, 3px5px6p [= 3^rd prime x the 5^th x the 6^th], the latter can infer the above described: 90 [= 3x5x6]. 

I'd add that the arrangement of the 9 star-like figures in the described ring [≡ O] could, by itself, represent a naïve expression of the factor 90. And when the latter is expressed as the product of 3, 5 & 6 [whose total, 14, is the quota of mini triangles in the above cited group] it can generate, as stated, the number that represents the formation's birth day i.e. 3px5px6p = 231 [= 3x7x11]. 

Having found the foregoing links, then, between the formation and the two marks of authenticity I usually uncover in a genuine circle, I decided to proceed with my investigation. 

Familiar allusions to an unsolved tragedy

The intimacy I exposed above, between the formation's outer ring and the numbers 36 & 54, was, I believe, of even greater significance than I indicated. 

Whereas we know that their sum is, 90, their difference is, 18, which happens to represent the tally of objects [i.e. 4-sided figures] in the formation's inner circle. The relationship is shown below: 

Fig. 5 

But by juxtaposing these linked factors we can infer the decimal expression, 90.18, which I had encountered repeatedly, last year, in the course of my analyses of a succession of crop circles [four of which were published on this site]⁵. 

After considering a spectrum of persuasive evidence, I'd concluded that the number had been defining, in the context of the missing Malaysian Airways Flight MH370, the longitude [in ° E] of the following point in the Bay of Bengal: 

Fig. 6 

Furthermore, it was now clear that the angle of 20°, which - as can be seen above - defined the latitude [N] of the described point, is also highlighted in this formation i.e. it represents the mean displacement [in °] between adjacent members of the 18 faint, radial lines that are detectable in the original images [but such radii could also be inferred from the inner arrangement of 18 blocks], as can be seen below [where I've enhanced the respective lines]: 

Fig. 7 

And 20 is also the structure's total allotment of 4-sided objects i.e. the 2 boxes I'd deleted plus the 18 blocks in the central area, as illustrated in the following Fig. [where, for the purposes of clarity, I've removed the rest of the crop circle]: 

Fig. 8 

So the formation displays two, easily recognisable and independent links to the number 20, which represents the precise value [in °] of the line of latitude through the point in the Bay of Bengal, which I described last year. And it seems unlikely to be just a consequence of random chance that the first of the two manifestations of the number, I detailed above, is also in the correct form: 20°

But in my 2014 analyses I'd highlighted the fact that one of the ways the quota of people carried by the aircraft - 239 - can be defined is as the summation of the first 14 primes. And we now know that this factor, 14, has a prominent role in the 2015 formation under discussion: it is the tally of mini triangles that are visible in the group of three star-like structures that had been highlighted [by the presence of the two, incongruous boxes]. 

The relationship between these 14 unique mini triangles of the formation, and 239, is depicted below, where the three groups of mini triangles [now symbolic] are set out in the same line: 

Fig. 9 

This impressive link, then, between the 14 highlighted, mini-triangles and the number 239, which, in the context of the MH370 enigma, is of unparalleled importance, is, again, clearly consistent with my belief that the crop circle is providing us with information about that tragedy. 

If we now return to the Fig. 3 arrangement, which shows the numerical labels I assigned to each of the two linked sets of mini triangles, we know that the respective digit sums of the sequences so formed are 10 and 60 [which can generate the all-important geodetic number, 6371]. However, it's evident that the juxtaposition of these two factors could infer the number, 1060, and if this is divided by the tally of groups, 2 [I'll shortly return to this simple arithmetic], we obtain, 530, thus: 

Fig. 10 

And 530 days before the crop circle was discovered, on August 19, Flight MH370 disappeared i.e. on March 07 of 2014 [UTC], thus: 

Fig. 11 

But if, on August 19, a crop-circle investigator had looked back to when the MH370 event had occurred, 530 days earlier, and then returned, he/she would have traversed [in his/her mind] a total of 1060 days, and 1060 is, of course, the factor that can be read directly from the relationship that was depicted in Fig. 10. 

We also know that the 10 & 60 were derived from summations of 4 digits & 19 digits, respectively. And if we add the 4^th prime to the 19^th, we obtain, 66 [= 5+61], which is one of the key numbers depicted in the above Fig.: it represents [as a day of the year], March 07, of 2014, when contact was lost with Malaysian Airways', Flight MH370. 

It's clearly the case, then, that by highlighting a link between the factors 4 & 14, within a formation that appeared on August 19, its architects selected a perfect way of expressing, in an ostensibly innocuous way, a time line that's based on the aeronautical mishap. And this achievement is all the more remarkable for the fact that the second of these numbers, 14, embodies the elementary way I described of generating 239, the quota of people that the aircraft carried. 

So in conclusion to this section of my analysis, I would suggest that the evidence I have presented, thus far, raises the possibility that, some 530 days after the Boeing 777 had disappeared, the crop circle architects were still drawing our attention to it. And in this particular formation, they appear to have been alluding to the event's following characteristics: 

its day of occurrence and the cited period between then and the crop circle's appearance; its quota of casualties; and the relationship between it and the point I'd identified in the Bay of Bengal. 

But as they were presumably aware of the aviation authorities' apathy about the plane's alleged link to the Bay site [first identified by GeoResonance]⁶, it would have made little sense for them to have expended more energy just repeating this well-worn and ignored data. So were they simply wasting our time? Or were they seeking to draw our attention to a set of relationships, pertaining to the aircraft's resting place, which we had managed to overlook? 

As it happens, I'm confident that I know the answer to these stark questions. Following my recent scrutiny of a reliable non-crop-circle source, I have access to⁷, I realised that the formations I'd studied last year contained more data than I'd appreciated, at the time. And on the day this crop circle appeared, August 19, I was preparing a document, for submission to this site, which sets out my second analysis of one of them⁸. This explains how, during my first attempt to unravel the circle's meaning, I'd failed to uncover certain pivotally important elements of the communication. But when I realised that this up-to-date circle provides us with an alternative way of exposing the same information, I set aside the other analysis for this one [which I'll now continue with]. 

A definition emerges of a second, aquatic point

Knowing that the 4 eclipsed mini-triangles are of central importance to the crop circle statement, it seemed likely that their arrangement, within the three star-like structures they occupy, embodies additional information of interest. And when I looked more closely at the relationship, which is set out in the Fig., below, I uncovered a feature that warranted further examination: 

Fig. 12 

As 2 of the cited mini triangles are placed in the same star [or star-like structure] - shown on the right, above - whereas the other 2 occupy 1 star each, it was evident that, in relation to the stars, the 4 mini triangles are disposed in a 2-1-1 or, 1-1-2 configuration, depending on which direction the objects are viewed. But knowing that these sequences could have represented naïve allusions to the numbers 211 & 112, I was curious as to whether we are given guidance as to which of these numbers, if any, is significant. 

When I considered the relationship that exists between the 4, theoretical mini triangles that define the numbers and the 2 large boxes that prevented us seeing the shapes, an answer started emerging. 

Those 2, 4-sided objects have close associations with the number 20 i.e. they belong to a group of that size [the other 18, 4-sided objects residing in the formation's centre], and when 20 is added to one of the numbers being investigated, 211, we obtain, 231, which was the factor that represents the day of the formation's discovery, as depicted below [Note the Fig. is symbolic, and the 2, 4-sided objects' interiors are transparent, so that the 4 mini triangles can be seen beneath them]: 

Fig. 13 

As I consider elegant manifestations, within a crop circle, of its date of discovery to be a mark of authenticity [as stated earlier] I investigated the possibility that our attention is being drawn to the cited 211. And as it can be expressed as the sum, 4 [= the tally of mini triangles involved] + 207, I noted that the juxtaposition of these components can infer the factor, 4207. 

I'd already identified this 4-digit expression in the earlier sources I alluded to above, but, having found the described, simplistic manifestation of it, in this formation, it was not difficult to show that the latter is also highlighting it in a range of other, more subtle and definitive ways, which is indicative that the factor could be of far-reaching importance. However, as a full exposition of the respective relationships, here, would take up a lot of space I've omitted them⁹. 

The significance of this seemingly innocuous number, 4207, becomes evident, I believe, when we attempt to equate it to the fact that the crop circle appears to confirm the relevance of the point I'd identified in the Bay of Bengal. If we return to that spot and construct a circle, of radius 4207 km, centred on it, the massive arc's passage, over the part of the globe that could be of significance in relation to the mysterious movements of the MH370 aircraft, is depicted [approximately] below, where, for reasons that will soon be apparent, two island sites are also identified: 

Fig. 14 

We should first note that if the crop circle builders were telling us that this arc intersects the site where the aircraft is now located, then that site would have to be well north of where the Australian authorities are currently undertaking their deep-sea investigations, following the analysis of what we've been told is the relevant data. The Figure's bottom right corner reveals that the arc is some considerable distance from Australia's North West coast, and the cited exploration of the seabed is being executed a long way south of there. 

However, I was far more interested in the fact that the arc passes between Réunion Island and the Maldives [both of which are labelled in the adapted Google earth graphic we're examining]. 

We know that the first of these remote areas is where debris from a Boeing 777 was found, this year, on July 29 i.e. a beachcomber discovered what turned out to be flaperon from such a plane. And the French aviation authorities confirmed, on September 03, that the component did indeed belong to the aircraft of Flight MH370. 

But the second remote area I cited - The Maldives - could also be linked to the MH370 incident. On the morning that contact was lost with the Flight, various residents of one of the many small islands, Kudahuvadhoo, claim to have seen a massive aircraft - with colours resembling those of Malaysian Airways - flying low, overhead. Furthermore, it seems extraordinary that this array of credible, eyewitness reports, which was well documented in the media and on the Internet¹⁰, has not been investigated thoroughly by those who are supposed to be searching for the aircraft and its priceless, human cargo. Did they assume that the bemused islanders were all congenital idiots? And should we conclude that those highly paid investigators just failed to do their job properly? 

Having observed the above relationship, then, between the arc I'd constructed and the two island sites which, in the context of this enquiry, interested me, I discovered something remarkable. 

When, out of curiosity, I constructed a line [part of a Great Circle] between the point in the Bay of Bengal and Réunion Island, it was bisected exactly at the point where it traverses the Maldives. And the lower half of this line was itself almost bisected by the arc I'd drawn - as illustrated in the Fig. below [where I've replaced the names with single letters]: 

Fig. 15 

Furthermore, the point where the line is cut by the arc [of radius, 4207 km] - labelled A, above - is located very close [in the context of the depicted, global geometry] to another point, within just 60 metres of the arc, whose coordinates can be read, in simple and elegant ways, from the crop circle's unique structure, as explained below. 

One consequence of placing the two large boxes on the formation's dominant outer ring, of 9 star-like figures, is that the latter's allotment of visible mini triangles is reduced from 54 [= 9x6] to 50. 

But if this pivotal factor, 50, is expressed as the sum, 9+41 [9 being the tally of star-like figures; and 41 is the 14^th prime, 14 being highlighted in the formation, and can generate the No., 239], these two numbers' juxtaposition can infer, 9.41. This is interesting because 9.41° S is the latitude of the above cited point, which is very close to A. 

However, the described 50 mini triangles are adjacent to an arrangement of missing mini triangles that is closely linked, as we know, to the number 211 [see Fig. 13], and this exceeds 50 by, 161, which is the prime rank of 941 [which could also have been inferred by juxtaposing the 9 & 41] i.e. the 161^st prime is, 941¹¹. 

But the 50^th prime [= 227] exceeds 161 by, 66, and Flight MH370 disappeared on day 66, of 2014. It's the case, nevertheless, that this 66, which all of my sources have stressed¹², including the many formations I analysed last year, also has a specific interpretation in the context of the image shown in Fig. 15 i.e. 66° E is the longitude of the above cited point, which is adjacent to A. 

The coordinates of that point, then, which I'll label, A', are: 9.41° S  66° E. It is so close to A that, at the minute scale depicted, it's hardly worth attempting to separate the points on a second image. 

As I knew that the set of formation-derived relationships that had led me to point A' are stressed in many other ways, both in this edifice and in the other sources I've studied¹³, I was confident that the point is of far-reaching importance in relation to Flight MH370. 

But I also anticipated that the ingenious creators of the respective sources would have devised a simple and elegant algorithm that will enable us to prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that their communiqué is elucidating that aviation catastrophe. And when I sought this algorithm I did not have to look very far for it. 

The triangle of illumination

Although there's a host of unanswered questions regarding the movements - on that fateful day in March, 2014 - of Flight MH370, there's one element of its geographical history that's beyond dispute: the aircraft's journey commenced at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. I accordingly had no hesitation in posing the following, pertinent question. 

Did the crop circle architects tie the two clearly defined global points I'd derived from a detailed study of their field creations, A' and B, to the Malaysian facility that the aircraft is known to have ascended from that morning? 

In other words, it seemed possible that we were being invited to determine the characteristics of a massive, spherical triangle whose vertices occupy A', B and a third point, say K, in the airport. But as the Kuala Lumpur aviation complex occupies a considerable area it seemed, at first, to be an impossible task to ascertain how the cited vertex, K, of the presumed triangle, can be located. Was it placed somewhere on Runway 1 [14L-32R], from which, I believe, the aircraft took off or, at some other point that we're expected to find? 

Knowing that the two other points' coordinates - 20° N  90.18° E and 9.41° S  66° E - share the noticeable property of possessing numbers that are expressed [in °], exactly, to no more than two decimal places, I concluded that it would make sense if point K also has this feature. I therefore looked for such a point on the cited runway. This exercise, however, proved to be fruitless. 

But when I examined Runway 2 [14R-32L], a point was quickly identified - 2.74° N  101.7° E - as illustrated below: 

Fig. 16 

And having found this point I realised that, if it is evaluated as if it had occurred in a crop circle, it has a number of features that make it look authentic. 

Firstly, the requirement I was seeking, that the numbers defining the coordinates are expressed to no more than 2 places of decimal, is reflected in the Runway's No. i.e. 2. 

Secondly, this simple appellation of that runway, 2, has a unique role in the crop circle: it's the number of boxes that blank out the 2 groups of 2 mini triangles. 

Thirdly, all the digits found in the pair of coordinates are also linked to this factor: we have 2 occurrences of '1'; a 2; a 4, which can be expressed as '2x2'; and 2 occurrences of '7'. And the solitary zero [of 101.7] occupies position No. 2 within the cited number, which defines the value of longitude, a geographical property that, by convention, occurs in position No. 2 [after latitude]. 

I therefore examined the spherical triangle, A'BK, and computed the lengths of all three sides [knowing that BA' is about 60 metres less than the 4207 km of BA (depicted in Figs 14 & 15)]. The geometrical figure, the coordinates of its vertices and the calculated dimensions of its sides [each rounded to the nearest 100 metres]¹⁴ are displayed, below, on another Google earth image:

Fig. 17 

Having recognised that the spherical triangle appears to be drawing our attention to its most acute vertex, A', I noted that the shape's perimeter is, 10677 km [= 4206.9+2290.6+4179.5 km]. And it was soon clear that this dimension [expressed as shown], of the 3-sided figure, exhibits a simple and elegant relationship with the 3 unique members of the crop circle's perimeter structures. 

We know that the most conspicuous feature of the formation's external ring of star-like figures is the two boxes that encroach onto 3 of those figures and appear to be blanking off our view of 4 mini triangles, as depicted below [where the boxes have again been removed]: 

Fig. 18 

I had no doubt that the adept architects of this remarkable field edifice are fully cognisant of the fact that the quota of hidden mini triangles, 4, also represents the position, in the alphabet we use in the UK, of the letter D, which has the additional attribute of being the Latin, 500. 

And when I multiplied the 500^th prime number, 3559, by the cited allotment of star-like figures, 3, I obtained - 10677 - the described perimeter [in km] of the massive spherical triangle: A'BK. 

Furthermore, it was clear that this breathtakingly simple and accurate result was not just a freak occurrence that can be dismissed as being the outcome of chance. Astonishingly, the formation's perimeter structures provide us with an alternative, but just as impressive, means of generating the same numerical product - as explained in the following two paragraphs. 

We know that the cited external ring of star-like figures comprises a total of 50 mini triangles that are visible, in addition to the 4 that I have presumed to be hidden. But if the members of the latter, hypothetical group are now numbered, 1, 2, 3 & 4, those labels add up to 10. 

And as the described set of 50 visible mini triangles is endowed with 150 vertices [3 per triangle], it's evident that the product of this factor and the 10 is - 1500 - which can be expressed as: 3x500. And the product of the 3^rd and 500^th primes is, of course, 10677 [= 3x3559]. 

These two methods of producing, from the formation's perimeter structures, the value [in km] of the spherical triangle's perimeter, 10677, are juxtaposed below: 

Fig. 19 

The algorithms' reliance on the formation's endowment of visible and hidden mini triangles is also consistent with the fact that the global figure being alluded to is of a triangular shape. Indeed, the latter's long, slender form clearly resembles the shape of a number of the mini triangles that can be seen in the crop circle. 

In a final act, of pure genius, the formation builders also ensured that their creation's array of 20, 4-sided figures embodies the means of confirming the length [in km] of a unique side the triangle possesses: the one that ties the main point of interest, A', directly to the Airport point, K, as shown, below, in the symbolic Fig. [Note: the 2 boxes, on the left, straddle the 4 hidden mini triangles]: 

Fig. 20 

This also tells us that if a rope could be stretched from point K, in Kuala Lumpur Airport, to A' [along the defined earth model's surface] and back again its length [in km] would be 8359 itself. And 2 x my measurement of A'K differs from this by under 60.93 m, the aircraft's wingspan¹⁵. 

Another feature of the cited groups of 2 & 18, 4-sided boxes, is that the product of 2 & 18 is, 36, a number I had inferred from the set of star-like shapes in the formation's outer ring [see Fig. 4]. I therefore wondered if a pair of 36's could shed more light on the spherical triangle I had found. 

I knew that the 36^th prime is, 149, the reverse of, 941, which had had a pivotal role in my earlier analysis, but two lots of 149 meant little to me. However, when I expressed one of them as the 149^th prime [= 857] I soon uncovered something noteworthy. When I added 127693 [= 149x149p] to 10677, the perimeter of the spherical triangle [in km], I obtained, 138370, whose significance became apparent when I split up its six digits in the following way: 13-8-370. 

As our alphabet's 13^th & 8^th letters are, M & H, I realised that this 13-8-370 can represent: MH370. And I found it of particular interest that the 138370, from which the expression had been derived, had been partly made up of the value [in km] of the spherical triangle's perimeter. In other words, the name of the missing Flight, MH370, is being linked, inextricably, to triangle A'BK. 

Conclusion

I believe that my analysis [an abbreviated form of which has been published here] suggests strongly that the ET architects of this crop formation [and its predecessors] were providing us with accurate details about the missing Boeing 777-200ER of Malaysian Airways' Flight MH370. And their most profound disclosure is that the location of the aircraft and its 239 human occupants is closely tied to the spherical triangle I've defined, whose sharp, focal point, which I labelled A', lies between the Maldives and Réunion Island, of coordinates [WGS 84]: 9.41° S  66° E. 

I realise, nevertheless, that this apparent solution to the mystery doesn't answer all the questions that surround the event, and the following three, in particular, immediately spring to mind: 

1] If the plane ended up near point A', what 'pings' led the authorities to a different search area? 

2] If the plane isn't at point B, why did both GeoResonance and the formations highlight that area? 

3] If the plane flew low over Kudahuvadhoo, why is point A' so far from that island [≈ 1540 km]? 

However, I believe that answers to these demanding questions [and others] do exist, and they are as extraordinary as the relationship I exposed between the crop circle and the spherical triangle. Furthermore, the explanation behind them is hinted at in the formation's most prominent area. 

When the edifice's architects inserted the two boxes where the four mini triangles should have been, they knew that their image would look as if its original form had been doctored by a censor. And my consideration of this one detail, of course, enabled me to start unravelling the meaning of the underlying communication. 

But we can be assured that by employing this odd technique the architects were also drawing our attention to that process. So what they're really telling us is that the subject matter their formation is now elucidating, pertaining to the mystery of Flight MH370, has, at some point in time, been obfuscated by the deliberate actions of a party. And the identity of that party couldn't be defined more clearly: the hyper intelligent beings who designed and built the crop circle. In other words, the anonymous ET's are claiming responsibility for the confused messages that have engulfed us from the moment the aircraft's oral contact with Air Traffic Control ceased. 

Although I knew that this conclusion would be dismissed by most rational people, the crop-circle-derived information came as no surprise to me. I have proof that ET's have been dabbling in human affairs for a very long time indeed. And given their massive technological superiority over ours [which could be the result of many thousands of years of additional development] they will be capable of performing feats that look miraculous to us. Indeed, on 9/11, 2001, the world looked on as a series of modern, steel-framed buildings collapsed, in their own footprint, at a speed that defies logic. And yet many discerning individuals, who realised the absurdity of what they'd seen, preferred to believe that the country's President had brought the towers down than face the reality of the situation: a power infinitely more potent than anything Mr. Bush could muster was at work! 

So the ostensibly intractable problems outlined in the above three points would have been easy for ET's to have engineered. Those famed 'pings' could have been corrupted versions of the real ones; and perhaps GeoResonance's sensors, over the Bay of Bengal, did pick up data that appeared to be indicative of a submerged aircraft; it may also have been necessary for the Maldive Islanders to have seen and heard what looked like a Boeing 777 so that the link to the Indian Ocean's western sector isn't forgotten by analysts who are determined to find out what really happened to the plane. 

I would therefore suggest that the next stage in the international investigation of the MH370 tragedy should be for the individuals involved, and the government authorities they work for, to study this brief article. 

I'd also hope that, in the longer term, a new international body shall be set up to establish why certain relevant facts were ignored, by the earlier investigators, simply because they did not fit in with their set of assumptions about what had happened to the aircraft. Trained scientists should have known that if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, that theory is probably flawed. 

Neil Hudson Newman © September 15, 2015 

Notes 

1

Readers should also be aware of my belief that, to understand crop circles and a range of other sources, 1 has to be considered to be the 1^st prime. Care must therefore be taken when identifying primes from published lists [such as those on line and in Mobile apps]. And for the current case: those sources will show the 10^th & 60^th primes as '29 & 281' [but they're really the 11^th & 61^st]. 

2

This is the geometric mean radius of the ellipsoid used as the earth model in the WGS 84 system. The computed radius differs from the quoted 6371 km by approximately 1 metre. 

3

I'll be using this spherical earth model for all the geodetic calculations I undertake in my analysis. 

4

A prime's rank is its position in the infinite list of primes. So the rank of 1 is 1, and that of 7 is, 5. However, when a number is expressed as the product of its primes, or its prime ranks, 1 must not be included because it can be represented as 1^infinity. It is this unique property of 1 that probably persuaded mathematicians to exclude the number from the family of primes. But a better solution to the problem is to classify it as the supreme prime, categorising the others as secondary. 

5

Echoes of missing Flight MH370: Part 1. May 23. [Brimslade Farm. April 16].

A new set of authentic-looking echoes of the MH370 disaster, which cannot be ignored. July 02. [Temple Farm (2). June 22].

More support, within another formation, for the MH370 hypothesis. July 10. [Hackpen Hill, July 08].

Stunning support, within this formation, for the MH370 hypothesis. September 05. [Ackling Dyke (2). August 22]. 

6

GeoResonance, an Australian company, told the relevant authorities, privately, not long after the aircraft had vanished, that they'd acquired data of interest concerning a point in the Bay of Bengal. Their verbal description of the site revealed that it must have been near the one I later identified. 

7

It would be absurd if ET's involved themselves in our affairs solely through the medium of crop circles, and some years ago I came across a residence, in Reading, that demonstrated this point spectacularly. It had become the focal point of ET communication after family members had experienced lost time during a Florida holiday. For more than fifteen years, now, I've used the source to test a spectrum of my theories and it has never let me down. 

The most recent message relayed information pertaining to two projects I'd been labouring over: an ancient puzzle in the hilltop town of Llantrisant, in S/East Wales; and the MH370 mystery. 

Having replicated the coordinates [known only to myself] of what I believe is the entrance to a Llantrisant treasure chamber, of immense antiquity, which I'd identified through a geodetic analysis of extant, topographical features, I visited the remote site and discovered, at the point, a large, sculptured stone, just beneath the turf. 

This resounding success persuaded me that the MH370 information is just as potent, and most of it is set out in this article. 

8

The additional investigation I was undertaking pertained to the Ackling Dyke (2) formation, my first analysis of which is referred to in Note 5, above. 

9

A key manifestation of the number, expressed in km, occurs in the dimensional relationship that exists between the crop circle and the point in the Bay of Bengal. And a similar link, to another aquatic point I identify, embodies the dimension in a similar way. But as a description of these would consume too much space, in this necessarily abbreviated article, I have had to omit them. However, within the formation, 4207 is alluded to in many other subtle ways e.g. Fig. 7 reveals that the 4 missing triangles are contained within 5 radii, and the area outside the radii is occupied by a total of 7 star-like figures [6 complete and, two fragmented ones that make up a whole]. So the 4 missing mini triangles, which are hidden by members of a set of 20 boxes, are encompassed by 7 star-like figures - a description that highlights the sequence 4-20-7, which can infer: 4207. 

10

An online search, today, for data on the incident in the Maldives, produces a plethora of articles, many of which are by reputable sources, including: The Mail; The Telegraph and The Express. 

11

161 is also linked to 50 in an arithmetic way. In our base-10 system, 50 means, literally, 5 tens and zero units. And if the cited product, 5x10, is expressed as, 5px10p, it yields 161 [= 7x23]. 

12

The number has already been highlighted in this analysis, of course i.e. I pointed out, just beneath Fig. 11, that the sum of the 4^th and 19^th primes is, 66. 

13

Again, it would take up too much space, here, to explain how all my sources [including this one], highlight the point. I can say, however, that the 4 and 19, quoted above [i.e. in Note 12], which generated 66, the point's longitude [in ° E], can also manufacture its latitude [in ° S]. If the 19 is placed above the 4, reading clockwise from the 9 can infer the described expression: 9.41. 

14

The three dimensions, as calculated, are: 

A'K: 4179.5 km + 25.27 metres. KB: 2290.6 km + 11.48 m. BA': 4206.9 km + 41.58 m. 

15

The main, external dimensions of a Boeing 777-200ER are: 63.73 m x 60.93 m [wingspan]. 

As we know, from Note 14, the measured length of side A'K doubled, is: 8359 km + 50.54 m. And it can be seen that the 'error' of 50.54 metres is more than 10 m less than the cited 60.93 m. 

It's also notable that the total 'error' in the three side dimensions of the massive triangle, A'KB, as shown in Fig. 17 - 78.33 m [= (25.27+11.48+41.58) m] - is less than a diagonal of the aeroplane's rectangular footprint i.e. 88.17 m.