Ocean Infinity presented a new MH370 underwater search proposal to Anthony Loke, the Malaysian Minister of Transport in Kuala Lumpur on 2nd May 2024. Anthony Loke said that based on discussions held on Thursday, the company had submitted a proposal paper along with evidence and information for examination by the relevant parties under his ministry.
Josh Broussard, the Chief Technology Officer, of Ocean Infinity led the team making the presentation, together with their Commercial Manager.
Pete Foley, the former ATSB search director, also attended the meeting in Malaysia. Pete has been campaigning for a new search for several years and is advising Ocean Infinity on the new search.
Prof. Simon Maskell, from Liverpool University, is a scientific advisor to Ocean Infinity and was also in attendance at the meeting. Simon leads a team investigating the possibility of using WSPR to detect and track aircraft. Simon plans to add the WSPR data to the particle filter developed by the Australian Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG) described in their book titled “Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370” in order to refine the new MH370 search area.
The new search for MH370 is expected to start in November 2024. Anthony Loke said the whole process of examining the new proposal, including cabinet approval would take about three months. Two representatives of the Association for Families of the Passengers and Crew on board MH370 also attended the meeting. The Association welcomed the new proposal and thanked everyone involved.
@All,
A new article by Geoffrey Thomas at airlineratings.com explains the new search proposal:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/new-search-for-mh370-expected-to-start-in-november/
The probable location of MH370 using WSPR technology is depicted on a bathymetric map of the Indian Ocean at around 29.128°S 99.934°E.
A close up of the WSPR defined search area is shown in the link below, defined by a circle with a radius of 30km centred on 29.128°S 99.934°E:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/irlhsoap5a2cyysjq9vvr/MH370-Crash-Location-Probability-Map-with-circle-radius-30-km.png?rlkey=saq0q191y7v29du0xok3bol18&dl=0
Hi Richard,
I’ve been following your work for quite some time and am truly impressed by your dedication and the impact your research could have on humanity. Recently, I watched an interview on the BBC featuring Simon Maskell, who discussed the ongoing debates among scientists about the credibility of your methods, despite him having co-signed and peer-reviewed your paper.
Since he supports your technique and findings, I’m curious to know more about the additional research that will be conducted to validate your methodology further. Could you elaborate on what kind of studies or investigations are planned to build upon your existing work?
Thank you for your insights, and I look forward to your response.
@Karlo Timmerman,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words!
Given the work that we have conducted to date, Prof. Simon Maskell thinks it is more likely than not that his team, at the University of Liverpool, conclude that WSPR has utility in the context of MH370.
Assuming they do draw that conclusion, we hope the work they are doing on WSPR will enable Ocean Infinity (and others) to share the confidence we will then have in WSPR’s utility in the context of MH370. We are intending to reach a conclusion and, assuming we conclude that WSPR has utility, then define a refined (relative to what DSTG proposed) search area in a timeline that could influence a future search by Ocean Infinity.
The existing Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves are positive, but they are based on a relatively small number of data and there wasn’t time in the BBC documentary or elsewhere to explain ROC curves or even the simpler version of that which we tried to push for.
Up until now, we have ROC curves from a number of flights, but each one is based on up to 244 hundred observations. Here is recent example with 171 observations and an area under the curve of 67%:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xk0ycgjekma2k3zad1izc/Receiver-Operating-Charcteristic-ROC-171-Observations-Area-Under-the-Curve-67.png?rlkey=zia3v1qxo2ozifvv390bvomgg&dl=0
Our hope is that we can generate a ROC curve with, say, 1000 flights of data from Boeing 777s. If the results are as we anticipate based on the initial ROC curves, we feel it will be difficult to argue that WSPR does not provide compelling new evidence.
Simon has collected all the ADS-B data globally during a 24 hour period. There are on average 21,538 aircraft in the air at any one time. Simon has all the WSPR data globally for the same time period and has developed a processing chain to produce a ROC curve based on around 1,000 flights of a Boeing 777. Long haul aircraft like the Boeing 777 make on average 2 flights per day with an average flying time of 8.58 hours each. This gives around 500,000 rows of data for the ROC curve.
Simon should soon be able to provide a ROC curve that is based on the large amount of data that they have collated. Simon is very conscious that the conclusions from that work are likely to be contentious. They have overtly avoided being funded to do the work thus far. That should make it easier than it would be otherwise to argue that they are not being biased by any commercial considerations. Simon also plans for a peer review by 4 other academic institutions, who have expertise in Bayesian methods and are familiar with the DSTG work, their particle filter and ROC curves.
Assuming that the ROC curve indicates that WSPR has some utility, Simon anticipates a period of refining their algorithm, for example to hone their processing chain and/or analysis to understand how turns, climbs, descents, geography and solar weather impinge on the ROC curve.
Simon also plans to generate a revised search area based on using the statistics from the ROC curve to enable them to augment the analysis that the DSTG did previously, but this time to include WSPR. Simon acted as an adviser to the DSTG book on “Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370”, which defines the particle filter they used to determine the ATSB search area. Simon plans to extend that particle filter to include the WSPR ROC curve from his research.
Hello Richard Godfrey,
I am very impressed with your work regarding WSPR. Very nice work. I was thinking about the Malaysian government’s decision regarding the new search. Not many people familiar about WSPR, so how about proposing three locations (WSPR, Captain Belly-Jean Luc Marchand, and Independent Group-Victor Iannello) in one search?
There is a possibility that the Malaysian government will accept the proposal, especially when the media is aware of the proposal (three location in one search). Otherwise, they will be questioned by the public. Ocean Infinity has great ships and technologies. Previously, in 2018, they searched for MH370 for six months, covering 120,000km2 with one ship and eight Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV). Everything will get easier with the advancement of technology.
That’s why important of three team (WSPR, Captain Belly-Jean Luc Marchand, and Independent Group-Victor Iannello) need to sit together, discuss with Ocean Infinity, cooperate together, increase possibilities. ATSB and DSTG may need to be involved. Three locations in one search (total 120,000km2), once in lifetime, for history, the world will remember about this search many years to come. Thank you.
@Billy,
Welcome to the blog and many thanks for the kind words!
Ocean Infinity reported at the MH370 remembrance event on 6th March 2024 that they are already talking to Aalto University, Linköping University, Liverpool University, Independent Group, Richard Godfrey, Capt. Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4688b5gnwhgee698bl1r9/Research-Summary.png?rlkey=pyhdzm6ktp8i34id7melhxhtd&dl=0
Prof. Simon Maskell, Dr. Hannes Coetzee and I have shared all our findings with Ocean Infinity as well as Pete Foley, ATSB, DSTG and others. We had a video conference call with Andy Sherrell of Ocean Infinity and Pete Foley explaining our WSPR research and findings.
Prof. Simon Maskell attended the Ocean Infinity meeting with Anthony Loke on 2nd May 2024.
Petter Hörnfeldt in his Mentour Pilot documentary on MH370 also suggested searching the areas defined by Capt. Patrick Blelly and Jean-Luc Marchand as well as defined by Prof. Simon Maskell, Dr. Hannes Coetzee and myself.
We also already proposed, what you suggest in our post titled “MH370 – A New Hope” published 16th March 2024.
Great news about a new search!!
Presumably the iron parts of the two Rolls-Royce Trent engines will not have moved much since hitting the ocean floor ten years ago.
If the engines are close to each other and to the remnants of the fuselage and cargo containers it might suggest that the wings remained attached (ie a relatively ‘soft’ ditching).
A harder landing may have caused one or both of the engines to detatch from the wings, or the wings to detach from the fuselage, so the engines could be some distance apart.
Given the documented role of faulty heat exchanger design in previous aircraft emergencies, the age and condition of the heat exchangers from the engines on 9M-MRO might be worth closer inspection, upon recovery.
Item 51 in Appendix 1.6A of the MH370 Safety Report, “Recent Technical Log Entries” contains the following entry:
“S/N 4880475 – 28 February 2014
Maint entry – To c/out physically chk both heat exchanger S/No
and due date as per card no STR 1400567-001
Task carried out.
Found LH heat exchanger S/No 200310115
and RH Heat exchanger S/No 9709161.
Unfortunately can’t find due date on both heat exchanger.”
In particular, it might be important to establish whether or not the heat exchangers had been upgraded in accordance with A09-19-20 (2009).
The serial numbers 2003-10115 and 97-09161 may indicate that the heat exchangers on the engines on 9M-MRO in March 2014 were from 2003 (left engine) and 1997 (right engine).
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A09_19_20.pdf
I am less hopeful we will find anything, the data from hydrophone stations show no acoustic signals which indicates any crashes in arc 7.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-60529-1
“The official investigation of MH370 supports the conclusion that a substantial crash should have taken place near the 7th arc9. In this case, the acoustic signal would have travelled approximately 1600 km to reach the nearest hydrophone station (H01W), a considerably shorter distance than any other acoustic signal analysed here. An aircraft with a mass of 200 tons impacting the water surface at a velocity of 200 m/s possesses a kinetic energy of 4 GJ, equivalent to 956 kg of TNT or an earthquake of magnitude 3.2. Considering half that velocity, the released energy would still be large, i.e., 1 GJ, equivalent to 239 kg of TNT or an earthquake of magnitude 2.8. Even with a significantly lower impact velocity of 30 m/s, the resulting energy release would be 89 MJ, equivalent to 21 kg of TNT or an earthquake of magnitude 2.1. Evidently, such earthquakes can be detected by distant hydrophones, just as the M 2.7 earthquake (see Fig. 2 for the location of the earthquake on the map; and Fig. 17 in “Methods” for the bearing). Therefore, it is highly unlikely for MH370 to have crashed near the 7th arc without leaving a discernible acoustic signature. “
Are you going to talk to the Cardiff University researchers about the hydrophone signals mentioned in this article? http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/mystery-of-flight-mh370-could-be-solved-by-underwater-microphones/ar-BB1oo9gn
I read a good quote about MH370 that went something like ‘lots of very clever people think they know what happened to MH370 – the problem is, none of them are talking to each other’
@Mark I,
Welcome to the blog!
As scientific advisor to Ocean Infinity for their current MH370 search proposal, Prof. Simon Maskell is talking to a large number of researchers from around the world in various disciplines including mathematics, physics, various fields of engineering, computer science, oceanography, acoustics, statistics, drift analysis, CTBTO data analysis, autonomous systems, etc.
A member of Simon’s team is specifically looking at the models for acoustic propagation through the oceans and assessing whether there is anything useful we can extract from both the data and the lack of data.
The assumption that none of the “very clever people” are talking to each other is complete nonsense and a fabrication.
I know for a fact that the following people are talking to each other as I have been privileged to have participated in many of the discussions. I am sure there are thousands of other discussions between academics on MH370, that I do not know about.
Prof. Simon Maskell of Liverpool University in England.
Dr. Hannes Coetzee of Pretoria University in South Africa.
Prof. Charitha Pattiaratchi of the University of Western Australia.
Dr. David Griffin of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia.
Prof. Frederik Gustafsson of Linköping University in Sweden.
Asst. Prof. Simo Särkkä of Aalto university in Finland.
Dr. Larry Stone the Chief Scientist of Metron in the USA.
Dr. Samuel Davey of Adelaide University in Australia.
Dr. Neil Gordon of the Defence Science and Technology Group in Australia.
Dr. Ian Holland of the Defence Science and Technology Group in Australia.
Dr. Mark Rutten of the Defence Science and Technology Group in Australia.
Dr. Jason Williams of the Defence Science and Technology Group in Australia.
Prof. Simon Godsill of Cambridge University in England.
Prof. Thomas Schön of Uppsala University in Sweden.
Dr. Alec Duncan of Curtin University in Australia.
Dr. Usama Kadri of Cardiff University in Wales.
Dr. Tom Kunkle of Los Alamos National Laboratory in the USA.
Dr. Richard Stead of Los Alamos National Laboratory in the USA.
Dr. Ed Fenimore of Los Alamos National Laboratory in the USA.
Hello Richard
Thankyou for that very comprehensive reply. I feel much more reassured now.
Fingers crossed the late 24 search comes up trumps!
KR
Mark
Hello Richard, have you seen/heard this news?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/17/mh370-mystery-could-be-solved-by-underwater-microphones/
Hi Richard,
Is there any update from the Malaysian’s regarding the approval of the new search? Over three months has passed since the presentation and I haven’t come across anything regarding a decision.
Kind regards,
@Gary Moore,
Welcome to the blog!
The Malaysian government has not yet authorised a new search by Ocean Infinity.
The proposal was to start the new search in November 2024. The Malaysian government will have to decide in the next few days, to allow Ocean Infinity time to prepare the logistics for the new search.
@Richard,
We have been through this ‘stand off’ game before.
Most will remember that when OI proposed the first ‘no find no fee search’ back in 2016, Malaysia sat on it’s hands. As it transpired, OI had a job planned southeast of Durban.
Seabed Constructor sailed from Durban to the work area.
Most people were expecting OI to return to Durban when the job was done.
But to the surprise of many, Seabed Constructor then headed east towards the 7th Arc without returning to Durban.
Malaysia then knew that OI would search without them, and had to scramble to get two of their Naval Officers flown out to Perth and onto a hastily chartered ocean work boat to rendezvous with Seabed Constructor at the 7th Arc.
It seems to me (my opinion only) that Malaysia does not want another search, so I think that if OI does not proactively deploy to the search area, Malaysia will almost certainly engage in a rerun of the same ‘stonewalling tactics’ yet again.
So, what do you think OI will do if Malaysia remains silent ?
Do you think OI will deploy anyway, and put the ball back into Malaysia’s court ?
Malaysia would then have two options.
(1) do nothing, and await developments, or
(2) scramble to get their people on board (like last time).
‘A penny for your thoughts’ on how you think this round will play out ?
@Andrew S,
Welcome to the blog!
I have seen the article and read the paper from Dr. Usama Kadri of Cardiff University in Wales on using underwater acoustic analysis to try and detect and locate the crash of MH370 in the Indian Ocean.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7p14jhd7vv54fhn1x8xk5/Underwater-acoustic-analysis-Revisiting-MH370.pdf?rlkey=lc0bt0jg003h6qnn251xuyyp6&dl=0
Results are inconclusive.
Dr. Usama Kadri states in his excellent paper, that the results are not conclusive.
The idea was first put forward in 2014 by Dr. Alec Duncan of Curtin University, Australia who is cited in the new research. Nature published an article on 12th June 2014 titled “Sound clue in hunt for MH370”, but the results were inconclusive.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) has hydrophone stations around the Indian Ocean. Dr. Tom Kunkle, Dr. Richard Stead and Dr. Ed Fenimore of Los Alamos National Laboratory in the USA have also analysed the data and also say the results are inconclusive.
My co-author Prof. Simon Maskell is the Scientific Advisor to Ocean Infinity for the recently proposed underwater search for MH370 planned for November 2024. He has a member of his team looking at the CTBTO data. It doesn’t look like there’s any positive evidence of the sensors having a confirmed detection of having “heard” the aircraft hit the sea. However, he thinks we can use that “negative information” to help localise the search area. He has someone using models for acoustic propagation through the oceans assessing whether there is anything useful we can extract from the data and the lack of data.
Not all Data Sources have been studied.
You have to analyse the full CTBTO data set without gaps in it from HA01 Cape Leeuwin, HA04 La Crozet Islands and HA08 Diego Garcia.
There is scientific data from the Australian IMOS system and secret military data from the US SOSUS system.
There are infrasound stations at IS04 Shannon Australia, IS06 Cocos Islands and IS23 Kerguelen Islands that may add useful information to the hydroacoustic stations.
Data Sources have Contamination.
Underwater seismic events (Earthquakes, Volcanoes) are picked up by the hydrophones.
Exploration companies set of explosives when conducting seismic surveys and are picked up by the hydrophones.
Ice breaking off from the Antarctic can be picked up by the hydrophones.
Speed of Sound in the Ocean varies.
The speed of sound in the ocean varies with depth. In the deep ocean at mid-latitudes, the slowest sound speed occurs at a depth of about 800 to 1000 meters and creates the SOund Fixing And Ranging (SOFAR) channel.
Sound is focused in the sound channel because the sound waves are continually bent, or refracted, towards the region of lower sound speed. The SOFAR channel acts like a wave guide for the sound.
The way in which sound speed changes with depth is not the same everywhere in the ocean because the ocean temperature and salinity profiles that determine sound speed can differ greatly from one location in the ocean to another.
Sounds can be weakened by reflection and absorption in the Ocean.
Whenever sound reflects from the rough ocean surface or seafloor, some sound energy is scattered and lost. A sound wave that hits the ocean surface or seafloor many times will be too weak to be detected.
Sound that does not hit the ocean surface or seafloor will still lose energy to absorption. Low-frequency sounds lose very little energy to absorption, however. The result is that low-frequency sounds that do not interact with the ocean surface or seafloor can be detected after traveling long distances through the ocean.
The amount of absorption increases as the frequency of the sound increases, and higher frequency sounds are therefore only detectable at shorter distances. The distances at which sounds can be detected depend on the frequency, how loud the source is, and how loud the background (ambient) noise is.
Sounds do not follow a straight line path in the Ocean.
Sound waves traveling in the sound channel follow many different paths. When the sound source and receiver are located at the depth of the sound speed minimum, called the SOFAR or sound channel axis, sound waves travel nearly straight down the axis and cycle above and below the axis, almost reaching both the surface and bottom.
Although sound travels away from a sound source in all directions, only sound traveling away from a source on paths that leave the source at specific angles will reach a receiver at a specific location. The sound waves traveling on these different paths have slightly different travel times. A single explosive source will therefore be heard as a number of separate arrivals, leading to the characteristic signature of a SOFAR transmission building up to a climax.
Sound paths from a source near the surface come together, or converge, creating regions of higher sound pressure at about the same depth as the source every 50-60 km away from it. These regions of higher sound pressure are called convergence zones. In between the convergence zones, there are regions of lower sound pressure called shadow zones.
Richard- I would add for MH370 the location, time, type of crash, and distance from Arc7 are all unknowns which complicate matters, and furthermore some feel the acoustic sounds from MH370 could be delayed related to parts sinking and not the crash itself. I realize there are strong opinions and assumptions for some of what I call the unknowns.
Richard,
Has anyone compared potential crash locations with the ocean floor depth and terrain?
With all the measures taken to remain undetected in the air, it seems logical that ditching above a relatively deep or difficult to explore part of the ocean would have been considered as well.
@MattP,
Welcome to the blog!
Several analysts have considered the ocean floor depths and terrain and have hypothesised different locations due to the extreme depth or difficult terrain or alignment with certain locations.
However, there are a number of alternative theories, which are not compatible with each other.
Neither are the theories compatible with the Boeing fuel range and endurance data and/or with the Inmarsat satellite data and/or the oceanographic drift analysis and/or the WSPR analysis.
Has there been any recent analysis of the sea floor in the suspected crash site area? Would a terrain filled with silt/mud make it significantly more difficult to find debris after 10 years?
@Pierson R,
There has not been any recent analysis of the sea floor in the suspected crash area. The Hugin AUVs used by Ocean Infinity are fitted with a number of sensors including a self-compensating magnetometer, which can be used as a metal detector. A magnetometer can detect small changes in the Earth’s magnetic field caused by the presence of magnetic ferrous metals. Large objects like engine cores or landing gear can be detected even if buried under silt or mud.
The self compensating magnetometer used by Ocean Infinity on the Hugin AUVs require no expertise with magnetic data processing to calculate the magnetic signature and compensation coefficients in order to remove the varying field of the AUV. No knowledge of local magnetic reference field (IGRF) is required by the sensor or the user to calculate and apply the compensation coefficients.
@ventus45,
The Malaysian Minister of Transport stated he would be presenting the new proposal to the Malaysian Cabinet in August 2024. To my knowledge that has not yet happened, but we still have August, so there is still time. It would fit the historical pattern you outline, to wait until the last minute.
The Malaysian authorities are well aware that there are other organisations interested in searching for MH370, such as Deep Sea Vision and Aqua Satellite. If no agreement is reached with Ocean Infinity, then the Malaysians might find an alternative, which also might be less expensive. There are also organisations, who do not require compensation and therefore do not require an agreement to search, only an agreement to salvage.
In my view, the Malaysian authorities would like to be in control of any future underwater search for MH370. It is therefore in their interest to reach an agreement with Ocean Infinity, rather than let some other organisation find MH370, where they do not control the process.
When the search is under Malaysian control, then the public communication is under their control. The timing and process of any salvage would also be under their control. The analysis of the FDR, CVR and other aircraft wreckage would be under their control, as would be the communication of the results of any such analysis.
Hi Richard do you know if and when the Malaysian government (transportminister Loke) will launch a new search for MH370? I hear nothing from KL
@Paul,
Welcome to the blog!
We have not heard back from the Malaysian government, but I expect their decision will be made soon.
Hi Richard,
hopefully we will hear back from the Malaysian Authorities soon. I was wondering what your view on the research from Vincent Lyne is, since it gets a lot of hype in the media recently.
@Dominik,
Welcome to the blog!
I was disappointed in the nonsense from Vincent Lyne, that is circulating in the media.
I do not wish to be associated with the unconscious processes, baseless thoughts and mystical dreams of Vincent Lyne, which the author admits he cannot even explain himself.
I am familiar with the papers Vincent Lyne has written, some together with his wife Melissa Lyne. Vincent Lyne is a retired research scientist in the areas of livelihoods, climate change, marine spatial planning and ecosystem characterisation. Melissa Lyne is a freelance communications specialist in science, medical and environmental media. Neither of them are aerospace engineers, satellite communications experts, hydroacoustic experts, nor oceanographers.
Vincent Lyne’s hypothesis is: “The final hydroacoustic message from MH370 provides a vital 8th arc from the Perth Canyon that signals a narrow landing range along the Broken Ridge near where the 33°S latitude is intersected by the longitude of Penang at an ultra-deep hole approximately 6000 m deep.”
There are only 7 Arcs, defined by Inmarsat satellite data. There is no mysterious 8th Arc.
In his various papers, Vincent Lyne states: ”I am unable to explain how the thoughts of Penang, leading to a reanalysis of the sound, entered my head; I can hear it now but can’t explain how.”
and
”Those thoughts incubated in my mind, and on the day of Capitol Hill riots (6th January 2021) I woke with a mental image of a longitude line drawn from Penang to the region I marked out in March 2019—which led to this report.”
In my view, Vincent Lyne does not give any scientific explanation as to why the longitude of Penang should determine the crash location of MH370.
Furthermore, Vincent Lyne’s crash location disagrees with a number of major scientific analyses:
1. Hydroacoustic analysis of Dr. Alec Duncan of Curtin University, Australia.
2. Inmarsat satellite data analysis by Chris Ashton et al. published in The Journal of Navigation.
3. MH370 Burst Frequency Offset Analysis and Implications on Descent Rate at End-of-Flight by Dr. Ian Holland of the Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG) in Australia.
Vincent Lyne’s nonsense appears to be a marketing ploy in promoting another set of nonsense, namely Larry Vance’s book on MH370.
Vincent Lyne’s obsession with the PL (Penang Longitude) and the PL Hole also results from profoundly disturbing imagery he provides of a heart with wings, tears and multiple mentions of a reborn foetus being carried away from the MH370 crash location.
Here are some quotes from a more recent paper by Vincent Lyne:
“Let your imagination free, and you will see wings on the north western part of the Hasetiho, mirroring the relative same location of the flaperon on the island, and a foetus in the southern half formed from the sediment-laden river of tears. A reborn foetus being carried away in a heart with wings. Yes, it’s not a scientific interpretation (how could it possibly be!), but have a heart and let those who have lost ones take some comfort from this interpretation.”
“Permit yourself some wild imagination and you will see the wings north-west of the heart, and the embryo cradled in the south. Top insert shows the bathymetry of the island, which suggests that the “embryo” may be from sediment-laden outflow—the river of tears that painted the foetus. The wings and flaperon are both in the north-west portion of their homes. Figure and interpretations dedicated to the innocent lost ones of MH370 and to my daughter Baba (the “reborn” artist who wanted to fly “free”.”
“Days before the flaperon is discovered, rain washes over the island, carrying its volcanic soils to the southern recirculation, to paint a picture resembling a foetus. The opposite circulation in the north creates a set of wings, carrying away the foetus cradled in the south.”
Vincent Lyne proves his nonsense by quoting papers authored by V. or M. Lyne, as the key authorities on MH370, in total 15 times. It is abnormal for a scientific work to rely on other work by the same author(s) to prove a point.
There are the other papers by Vincent Lyne, each paper more crazy than the one before.
Vincent Lyne summarises that this has been a “lonely journey” of analysis to understand the “cryptic pathways” of MH370 and he has “accomplished the job assigned to him” and he has “carried out the task as far as he needs to go.”