The man who has found over half of all the known debris from MH370 is concerned that conspiracy theories still abound over the tragic loss that claimed 239 lives almost seven years ago.
Speaking exclusively with AirlineRatings.com ahead of the imminent release on yet another conspiracy theory book, “The Disappearing Act: The Impossible Case of MH370” by journalist Florence de Changy, Mr. Gibson says that her claim the Boeing 777 was shot down off southern Vietnam by a fighter aircraft or by a laser beam “is not supported by a shred of debris evidence.”
Incredibly, Ms. Changy’s book is the 130th written about the disappearance of MH370.
In an interview with Express.co.uk in London, Ms. de Changy says; “It’s an insult to pretend a Boeing-777 could vanish without a trace. It is not credible.”
Yet hundreds of aircraft have disappeared without a trace over the past 100 years but for MH370 a total of 33 pieces of debris have been recovered by 16 different people unrelated to each other in six different countries.
According to Mr. Gibson, at least half of the pieces of debris have been firmly identified as coming from MH370 or a 777.
Critically the two largest pieces – the flaperon and flap – were positively identified as from MH370.
READ: Qatar Airways is the world’s favourite airline.
Mr. Gibson said when MH370 first disappeared he went to Cambodia, Thailand, and Myanmar to look for debris and it was not till after the flaperon was found on Reunion Island in July 2015 that he turned his attention to the southern Indian ocean.
“I started objectively and ignored all the satellite data as I didn’t really understand it at the time but once the flaperon was found I focused on the southern Indian Ocean.”
“Initially on Mauritius, I found nothing as I was about six months too early but then the debris started washing up,” Mr. Gibson said.
“Not one piece of debris has turned up in the South China Sea – not one,” Mr. Gibson said.
“There is no evidence for this theory and in fact, all the physical and scientific evidence points to the contrary.”
