What specific claims has Richard Godfrey made about the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370?
Executive summary
Richard Godfrey, a retired aerospace engineer, has repeatedly claimed he located MH370’s crash site in the southern Indian Ocean using amateur radio “WSPR” signal disturbances and other analyses, pinning coordinates near 33.177°S, 95.300°E (about 1,933 km west of Perth) and a seafloor depth near 4,000 m; he says this reduces the search to a comparatively small area and that “one more search” could find the wreckage [1] [2]. His work prompted at least a review or interest from Australian authorities (ATSB/Geoscience Australia), but some of his ancillary operational assertions (about particular vessels and claimed visual sightings) have been reported as erroneous or contested in follow-up coverage [3] [2].
1. Godfrey’s core technical claim: WSPR radio disturbances mark the aircraft’s path
Godfrey’s principal, repeated claim is that weak-signal propagation reporter (WSPR) amateur radio data recorded on the night MH370 disappeared show roughly 130 “disturbances” that, when analysed, reveal the plane’s final flight path and endpoint; he and collaborators argue this passive radar method narrows the probable wreck site to a small search area in the southern Indian Ocean [4] [5].
2. Specific location and search zone he proposes
Godfrey has given precise coordinates for the alleged wreck site—commonly reported as around 33.177°S, 95.300°E—which corresponds to roughly 1,933 km (1,201 miles) west of Perth and a seabed depth of about 4,000 m; publications have repeated his numeric estimates and the claim that his zone is far smaller than earlier search footprints [1] [2].
3. The claim of “one more search” and practical implications
Godfrey has asserted that “one more search” targeted at his recommended zone would locate MH370 and provide closure; media accounts highlight his confidence that a renewed underwater expedition, focused on his coordinates, could find the aircraft [4] [2].
4. Official reaction: ATSB interest and caveats
Australian authorities acknowledged awareness of Godfrey’s work and the ATSB said a significant portion of his recommended zone overlaps areas covered in the prior ATSB-led underwater search; reporting indicates the ATSB and Geoscience Australia reviewed or re-examined data in light of his claims, but the ATSB also maintained it had no formal new search involvement since 2017 [2].
5. Wider expert reception and endorsements claimed
Some outlets and commentators—cited in coverage of Godfrey’s work—described his theory as “the closest anyone has come” or reported that parts of the academic community and commentators gave cautious support; Godfrey’s longtime involvement with citizen investigator groups and published papers have been noted as part of his credibility-building [6] [7].
6. Reported errors and contested ancillary assertions
Independent coverage and investigative follow-ups have flagged errors in some of Godfrey’s ancillary statements: one report says he mistakenly claimed specific Armada vessels had been assigned to a new expedition and that one vessel had deployed ROVs and done bathymetry, and it recounts an infamous assertion that an Emirates pilot had sighted MH370—claims presented as erroneous or unverified in that reporting [3]. These disputed operational claims have become part of the media conversation around his credibility [3].
7. Claims about motive and Malaysian response
Some articles report Godfrey suggesting Malaysian authorities may lack incentive to find the wreck (for example, to avoid compensation or political fallout), and he has said official interest has been limited; those are his interpretations offered alongside his technical assertions [8].
8. What reporting does not settle / limitations in available sources
Available sources do not provide independent, peer-reviewed validation of the WSPR method as a reliable tool to fix MH370’s position nor do they show that a renewed search based solely on Godfrey’s coordinates has been funded and carried out to completion; detailed technical rebuttals or full replication studies are not presented in the cited material (not found in current reporting). The sources also do not provide ATSB endorsement that his method proves the crash site—only acknowledgement of interest or review [2].
9. How to interpret competing claims and next steps
Readers should weigh Godfrey’s precise numeric claims and the fact that they triggered review by Australian agencies [2] against reporting of specific operational inaccuracies and the absence of independent scientific consensus in the cited material [3]. The most direct next steps—independent technical peer review of the WSPR analysis and a funded, documented seabed search targeted to his coordinates—are what reporters and experts in the sources indicate would most decisively confirm or refute his claims [5] [2].