Stunning support, within this formation, for the MH370
hypothesis - by Neil Hudson Newman
**
Important preliminary Note**
If this analysis is
validated by others, it will mark a turning point in our perception of
the crop circle phenomenon, which has always been treated contemptuously
by mainstream academia. It will also raise a number of serious
questions, pertaining to the missing Malaysian Airways'* Flight MH370,
*which the investigating authorities will no longer be able to just
brush aside.
**
ANALYSIS**
**
The two marks of authenticity**
I'd first like to
thank the Crop Circle Connector for my use of their photographs. And in
one of them, below - Fig. 1 - I've labelled a number of its dominant
features so I can demonstrate how they enable us, *with flexible
thinking* [always needed for this type of work!], to infer the value
of one of the pivotal factors I expect to identify in a genuine crop
circle: **6371**.
As readers of my
earlier work should know, this is the *geometric mean radius* [in
kilometres] of the ellipsoid employed as the *WGS 84* earth model,
which is accurate to the nearest metre. I have also discovered that a
sphere of this radius is the model that must be used for geodetic
calculations involving crop circles^{1} - where the *WGS 84*
*Zero Meridian* has to be maintained.
Please note that,
below [and subsequently], expressions of the form 'Np' represent 'N^{th}
prime' e.g. 10p ≡ 10^{th} prime [= 23], where **1** must be
seen as the **1**^{st} prime [as stressed in the past]:
Fig. 1** **
Having recognised
that the formation displays this simple link to the factor I consider to
be an important *mark of authenticity*, I decided that the creation
deserved my continued attention.
I soon concluded
that, inside the circle, the structure is comprised of two symbolic
images of an aircraft, superimposed upon one another and pointing in
opposite directions, as illustrated in the symbolic Fig. below [where,
for clarity, I've separated the individual drawings]:
**
Fig. 2 **
And it was clear that
each *craft* displays a subtle manifestation of the 2^{nd}
*mark of authenticity* I expect to find in a genuine formation: a
reference to the day of the year it was discovered, as per the calendar
currently used in the country where the circle appeared i.e. August 22.
There are **2**
small circles, **3** forked stripes and **4** external vertices;
and when these factors are juxtaposed in the order of increasing
magnitude, as just described, they can infer **234**, which defines
the aforementioned day of the year i.e. August 22 was the year's **234**^{th}
day.
But I also couldn't
fail to note that, when the 2 *craft* are considered *together*,
they embody the means of generating another manifestation of the 1^{st}
mark of authenticity - as illustrated in the Fig. below:
**
Fig. 3 **
At this juncture, I
concluded that the formation probably *is* authentic. I therefore
scrutinised it even more closely, and I wanted to investigate one matter
urgently.
Does any tangible
information exist that enables us to identify the aircraft that are
apparently being depicted in those two symbolic figures?
**
A familiar incident is exposed**
It now came to my
attention that if, in Fig. 1, I'd labelled the edifice's inner, *
external vertices* as well as the outer, I'd have produced two lots
of **6**, and this arrangement could have inferred [with the
application, again, of flexible (or *child-like*) thinking] the
factor, **66**. And as each set of *forked lines* possesses **6**
legs, the two of them can likewise infer a **66**. Furthermore, in
both of these cases the product, **6** x **6p** [= 11], can also
generate a **66**:
**
Fig. 4 **
These observations
were of much interest to me because I knew that the repeated, inferred
**66** has intimate links to one of the most perplexing aviation
incidents of the modern era. On day **66** of 2014 [March 07, UTC],
Malaysian Airways *Flight MH370* disappeared without a trace, and
although a time consuming and costly search operation was undertaken,
the aircraft, and the **239** people on board [comprised of 227
passengers and 12 crew], were never found.
I also knew that I'd
uncovered a number of articulate and informative allusions to this event
in earlier formations of this year, starting with the one of April 16,
at Brimslade Farm, and continuing throughout the season^{2}. So
it would come as no surprise to me if I encountered further material
pertaining to the Malaysian Airways incident.
But were the apparent
links between the number **66** - which we know was closely tied to
the MH370 mystery - and this particular formation, with its two
plane-like images, *intended*, or were they just the outcome of
random chance?
Fortunately, I
believe the formation provides us with a simple way of resolving this
dilemma and, in so doing, leads us to an extraordinary spectacle of
ingenuity and precision.
Knowing that the
factor representing the day the formation was discovered, **234**, is
engrained on the edifice, it seemed logical to expect that this date
would be linked in a meaningful way to the other date the same
architects had apparently elected to highlight: day **66**. And when
I looked at the relationship between the two numbers, I was provided
with a definitive answer!
Firstly, the *sum*
of 234 & 66 is, **300**, which equals the sum of **23** & **277**,
the 2 *prime factors* of the key geodetic number **6371**, which
the formation highlights in the ways I've described i.e. the *product*
of **23** & **277** had yielded the **6371** in the
computations shown in Figs. 1 & 3.
Secondly, the *
difference* between 234 & 66 is, **168**, a number whose digit
sequence, **1**-**6**-**8**, is linked unambiguously to the
flag of Malaysia, which adorned the Boeing aircraft involved in
Malaysian Airways Flight MH370. The flag is illustrated at the bottom of
the following Fig., but I've added a number of relevant facts about it,
including its link to the cited **168**:
**
Fig. 5 **
Clearly, then, within
the blue box that occupies the flag's upper left area, an arrangement
can be seen, which comprises a symbolic image of **1** crescent moon,
whose extremities isolate **6** of the adjacent star's points [which
I've marked with white spheres], leaving the remaining **8** points
[marked with red spheres], of the 14-pointed luminary, outside the
moon's embrace.
In other words, the
flag's conspicuous insert displays the sequence **1**-**6**-**8**,
which can infer the number we've now derived from the formation: **168**.
But it's also the case that this sequence, **1**-**6**-**8** [→**168**],
can be inferred from the flag in an additional way: the **1** blue
insert straddles **6** red & white stripes and is disposed alongside
the remaining **8** of them.
These links between
the Malaysian flag and the **168** days timespan that separated the
MH370 incident from the day the formation was discovered, when
considered in relation to my earlier findings, left little doubt in my
mind that the crop circle architects were again wanting to shed light on
the tragic and mysterious loss of the Malaysian aircraft.
And as I knew that
the factor **14**, which has a conspicuous role on the flag, is
unambiguously [but curiously!] related to that Flight's most profound
statistic - the sum of the first **14** primes,
1+2+3+5+7+11+13+17+19+23+29+31+37+41, **239**, was the number of its
human occupants - I was keen to identify what other secrets this
formation holds. I particularly wanted to know what the symbolic images
of the **2** aircraft flying in *opposite directions* means.** **
**
The unveiling of a breath-taking dimension**
In previous analyses
of crop circles, I've been involved with, a link between a formation's
day of discovery and some other relevant day of that year, such as the
one we've been discussing, has often been matched with an emphasis of a
similar relationship between the year involved and another year of
interest [again as per the calendar we are now all familiar with].
So knowing that the
difference between the number we use to define the current year, **2014**,
and **66**, which the formation highlights in the ways I've
described, is, **1948**, I was curious as to whether that year, or
the number associated with it, has a relevance in the current context.
Although I was aware
that **1948** was the year that the *State of Israel* was
formed, I could not imagine how that distant event could have had a
bearing on the fate of Flight MH370. I knew, of course, that Malaysia is
a predominantly Moslem country but it seemed unlikely that Israel would
have perpetrated a covert act of aggression against it, especially one
that resulted in the deaths of **227** international passengers. I
therefore focussed my attention on *the number* **1948**.
I then discovered
that the first three digits of the **1948**^{th} prime^{3}
- **168**83 - replicate the '**168**' I'd found in the formation.
Furthermore, it was evident that the whole expression exhibits a clear
concordance with a digit sequence that can be read from the *complete
*Malaysian flag. Indeed, I concluded that as the relationship is
actually transparent we must have been *invited* to find it - as
explained below, where I start by showing a repetition of the insert
provided in Fig. 5:
**
Fig. 6 **
To read the **168**
we had to travel from *left* to *right *i.e. we started at the
**1** I'd positioned in the crescent moon, and then moved to the **6**
star points placed to the right of the 1, finally moving to the **8**
star points placed to the right of the 6.
But if we'd continued
moving in that direction we'd have left the blue box and entered a 2^{nd}
part of the flag, directly alongside, which is characterised by its set
of **8** red & white stripes. So our brief journey, from the left of
the flag to its right, has taken us past structures that are clearly
linked to the numbers **1**, **6**, **8** & **8** *in that
order*, which could infer the number **1688**.
However, although it
would no longer be possible to move from left to right, within the flag,
we know that a **3**^{rd} part of the structure sits directly
beneath the other two, as depicted below, where I've isolated that
bottom section and placed the cited **3** in it; I've also inserted
the other two numbers in their respective positions [whilst removing the
images from the blue box]:
**
Fig. 7 **
So by reading *
clockwise* from the upper left digit, **1**, we can infer, **
16883**, which we know is the **1948**^{th} prime, where
the **1948** was derived from data I'd acquired from the formation.
And my belief that
the crop circle was stressing this **16883 **was backed when I
reconsidered the arrangement shown in Fig. 1. The numerical labels of
the 10 depicted *enclosed areas* of the formation add up to **55**
[= 1+…+10], and **55p** [= 251] can be expressed as, **168**+**83**:
**
Fig. 8 **
Surprisingly, I
discovered that this elementary link between the formation's 10 areas
that are enclosed between straight lines, and the cited **16883**,
holds the key to this number's meaning. These areas embody subtle links
to the values of the geographical coordinates of the point I'd located
in the Bay of Bengal - **20° N 90.18° E** - in the context of the
missing Flight MH370^{4}.
Firstly, **2** of
the **10** enclosed areas also *contain* enclosures i.e. each of
them encompasses one of the *small circles *I cited earlier. And
the product of these 2 linked numbers, **2** & **10** i.e. **20**,
is the described value of the point's latitude [in ° N].
The link to the value
of the point's longitude [in ° E] is just as definitive but as it
entails more stages than the above process I've presented it in the
Notes^{5}.
Confronted with the
possibility that the 5-digit number, **16883**, somehow links the
crop circle to the described point in the Bay of Bengal, I decided to
estimate the WGS 84 coordinates of what I considered to be two points of
interest in the formation, the two *aircraft*'s front tips, so I
could compute their huge displacements from the minuscule spot in the
ocean.
By comparing, with a
*Google earth* image, the following Crop Circle Connector
photograph, I obtained the *provisional* estimates shown below,
where I've now highlighted the *tips* of the 2 *aircraft* and
labelled the points '**A** and **B**' [I'll explain the
significance of the '**O**' shortly]:
**
Fig. 9 **
Although I knew that
the quoted coordinates are likely to contain errors, when I computed the
accurate displacement [measured on the surface of the cited *spherical
earth model*] from each point to the one in the Bay of Bengal, I
could barely believe my eyes. The 2 dimensions were as follows [where
each is expressed to the nearest 1/10^{th} metre].
__
A____→the
Bay of Bengal point__
= **8441.5104** km. __B____→the Bay of Bengal point__
= **8441.4688** km.
So this revealed that
a point exists, along the axis joining the *plane tips*, whose
displacement from the ocean point can be expressed as, exactly **½**
of **16883** km**, **that point being the above cited **O**, of
coordinates: **50.952402° N 1.976982° W**. And this **O** splits
the axis in a **1**:**3** ratio, at a point of interest: where the
**1**^{st} set of **3** forked lines starts [when viewed
from that end]^{6}.
At a stroke, then,
I'd established not only what the number **16883** means, in the
context of the formation, but also why the edifice's 2 symbolic aircraft
were pointing in opposite directions.
**
16883 **
km** **is the exact distance that would be traversed by a
hypothetical vehicle flying from **O**, in the formation, to the
point in the Bay of Bengal - *and back again* - along the same
great circle of the described earth model, as depicted below, where I've
disposed the *two-way* flight path on a *Google earth* image:
**
Fig. 10 **
Although the quoted
coordinates for the 3 formation points, A, B & O, are only *estimates*,
the possible errors involved will be counted in metres [or less] and not
tens of them. We can say, therefore, that a great circle arc - of length
**8 **million,** 441 **thousand and **500** metres *exactly*
i.e. **16883**/**2 **km - centred on the Bay of Bengal point,
would definitely intersect the formation.
And as both the
latter structure and the Malaysian flag are closely linked to the factor
**16883**, in the ways I have shown, we can be assured that the crop
circle makers, who had conceived of the 2 symbolic aircraft facing in
opposite directions^{7}, were making a clear statement about the
described aquatic point, as summarised below.
**
The point in the Bay of Bengal is closely linked to the missing
Malaysian Flight MH370 **
[which concurs with what *GeoResonance* had suggested, shortly
after the event].
**
Notes**
**
1**
Such calculations,
ref. the cited sphere, can be undertaken *online* or with *apps*
for Mobiles.
**
2**
My article on the
Brimslade Farm formation, dated May 23^{rd} and entitled, *
Echoes of missing Flight MH370: Part 1*, was published on this site.
A second article, ref. The Temple Farm [2] formation, was dated July 02,
*A new set of authentic-looking echoes of the MH370 disaster, which
cannot be ignored*. And a third, ref. the Hackpen Hill formation, was
dated July 10, *More support, within another formation, for the MH370
hypothesis*. But most of the articles I've written this year have not
been published because I've put them to one side after one or more other
circles have appeared. In all of the formations I've studied, however,
references to the MH370 incident have been conspicuous.** **
**
3**
Long lists of primes
are readily available on the Internet or, Mobile apps. But as stressed
in previous articles, care must be taken when using them because they
all [as far as I can see] fail to count **1** as the first prime.
These sources will therefore state that **16889** is the 1948^{th}
prime, but that is actually the 1949^{th}. The 1948^{th}
is as I've quoted in the text: **16883**.
**
4**
The quoted
coordinates, of the point in the Bay of Bengal, were first identified in
my article on the Brimslade Farm formation [referred to in Note 1,
above] but I encountered repeated references to them in subsequent
formations.** **
**
5**
The 10 enclosures
comprise 8 triangles and 2 quadrilaterals [where the 2 circles are
located], and the sum of their *internal angles* is, **2160**°
[= 180°x8 + 360°x2], which can be expressed as the product of 4 small
primes, **3**x**3**x**3**x**2**, and **40°**, where **40**
exhibits a unique relationship with the highlighted **20** i.e.
40p+20p = **234** [= 167+67], the day the circle was found.
But the product, **
40**x**3**x**3**x**3**x**2**°, can infer, **40p**x**3**x**3**x**3**x**2**°,
which yields **9018**° [= 167x3^{3}x2°]. And when this angle
is divided by **100**, which can be inferred from the relationship
between the **10** and **2** i.e. **10**^{2}, we
obtain, **90.18**°, the cited value of the point's longitude [East].
**
6**
The relationship
between points A, B and O can't be reliably defined because the
coordinates of A and B [and hence of O, also] were* estimated*.
Clearly, individual positional errors of just a few metres would change
it.
**
7**
The arrangement can
actually infer **16883** *independently*:
**
Fig. 11 **
© Neil Hudson Newman MSc. [Construction Management]; 05 September, 2014 |