PRESS RELEASE No. 6 -- MH370
May 4, 2014
By: John E. Fiorentino
This is our sixth Press Release relating to the Malaysia Flight 370 investigation and CNN's role in reporting the incident.
It seems the longer we look at this story, the more bizarre it becomes.
A little over a week has passed since our last Press Release of April 25. During that time several new developments have come to the fore. The underwater search by the Australian Ship Ocean Shield has concluded its initial phase without finding so much as a thimbleful of wreckage. The Malaysians have released their preliminary report on MH370 along with some supporting appendices and a private exploration firm, GeoResonance has released the results of an investigation it undertook shortly after Flight 370 disappeared which indicates that wreckage from the plane may be in the Bay of Bengal rather than in the Southern Indian Ocean.
While all of these events were playing out many of the CNN experts continued to issue erroneous and contradictory statements.
In regards to the GeoResonance claim, former FAA Investigator and Author, David Soucie – who throughout this entire affair has seemed to have had an extremely hard time making up his mind – did what we can now take the liberty of referring to as his “patented flip-flop.” Soucie first went as far to say regarding the GeoResonance claim, that it shook “the very bedrock” of his thinking about the Inmarsat data, the “pings” and the radar data. Soucie further called the GeoResonance findings, “very credible.” Here's part of the exchange between Soucie and CNN's Chris Cuomo on “New Day” –
CUOMO: Well, here's the bigger question. They say we're only going public because we want to help the families and didn't want publicity, we don't know for sure it's the plane but they should have been looking. We gave it to them when the batteries were still alive from the beacons so they could have found it.
But, David Soucie, the final word on this, if they are right, that means all of this ping stuff is wrong. Doesn't it have to mean that?
SOUCIE: That's right. Yes, it would have to mean that. And remember, that the pings, the Inmarsat data, every piece of evidence we have is subject to a confidence factor. That confidence factor, because of this, and I do find this credible, GeoResonance, I've used it before in a mining company I'm involved with, and they do work, and what's very credible to me is the fact they have reports before the accident and they have reports after the accident, and the fact that titanium has shown up is very different and it is, as David Gallo said, could be natural occurrences of that, but that is a metal very specific to that engine, to both of those Rolls-Royce engines.
So, to me, it's very credible and shakes the very bedrock of the assumptions and confidence factors in both the Inmarsat data, the pings, and the radar data up in Malaysia.
CUOMO: So, something you believe should be investigated. When you say "shakes the bedrock", do you believe this could be more reliable than the analysis done on the pings, done over all of those days and by all those experts?
SOUCIE: You know, I really don't. I have some confidence in the pings. I'm torn between this, Chris, because remember, we're talking about probabilities and confidence factors in each of these events. So, my confidence factor in the pings was extremely high, because I've seen no contradictory evidence or any other proof what could create those pings. So, my confidence factor was high in that, until this data.
And now that I have this data, that confidence factor has been split by about 50 percent. So, like I said, the bedrock of even my assumptions from before, are very much different, now that we have this, in my opinion, credible data.
Let us put aside for the moment the reason that Soucie hasn't seen any ”contradictory evidence or other proof “ about the pings is because he and CNN have steadfastly ignored the information we initially sent them and all of our subsequent Press Releases. As a result, we shouldn't then be surprised that just a mere few hours later Soucie would perform his “patented flip-flop”
After another CNN analyst Rob McCallum stated in regards to the GeoResonance data:
“You know, there's no scientific validity to these claims whatsoever. That's why you're seeing the authorities sort of distance themselves from it. And you know, to introduce this kind of thing in this emotionally charged environment that relatives are going through is nothing short of despicable.” Soucie, then began his maneuver: “But as Rob said, I'm not sure that much about this particular company or what they've done in the past or not.” – Really David?
We should say here that not all of the CNN analysts or guests are as obtuse as Soucie. Some have wondered as we have about the pings for instance and whether or not the official investigation is proceeding correctly. One such guest, Deep Sea Explorer Fabian Cousteau, son of famed Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau stated simply: “The area they're searching may not be the right area.” Even Rob McCallum – who has pretty much defended the official line – mused apparently in one of his more insightful moments: “Well, you know, when we first heard that the pinger had been located or it had been heard and the controllers had a great deal of confidence in those signals, I mean, it was almost too good to be true.”
“Almost too good to be true” Indeed!
Copyright 2014 – J. E. Fiorentino – All Rights Reserved
For further information contact:
John E. Fiorentino
PO Box 324
Oakhurst, NJ 07755