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 numbers*^{1} is, **6371** [= 23x277], which is the
value, in kilometres, of an up-to-date measure of the earth's mean
radius^{2}. 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.
**3**x**7**x**11**, is expressed as the product of their three
*prime ranks*^{4}, **3p**x**5p**x**6p** [= **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. **3p**x**5p**x**6p **= **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 to^{7}, 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 them^{8}. 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 them^{9}.

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 W*est 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 Internet^{10}, 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, **941**^{11}.

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
stressed^{12}, 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 studied^{13}, 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 '**2**x**2**'; and **2**
occurrences of '**7**'. And the solitary **zero** [of 1**0**1.7]
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: **3**x**500**. 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 wingspan^{15}.

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** [= **
149**x**149p**] 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, **5**x**10**, is expressed as, **5p**x**10p**,
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**.