How have aviation experts and official investigations responded to Richard Godfrey's MH370 theories?
Executive summary
Independent researcher Richard Godfrey has advanced a WSPR ("ghost radio signals") theory that he says pinpoints MH370 to about 1,200–2,000 km west of Perth and has proposed a narrow search area; Australian authorities have acknowledged his work but official agencies and many aviation experts remain cautious, questioning WSPR’s reliability and the evidentiary weight of his claims [1] [2] [3]. Media accounts record both praise — headlines calling his work “closest anyone has come” — and pushback that his method is controversial and unproven for aircraft tracking [4] [5].
1. Godfrey’s claim: a novel radio‑signal footprint and a focused search box
Richard Godfrey argues that Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) data contain transient disturbances caused by MH370’s passage and that mapping hundreds of those anomalies produces a concentrated impact zone some 1,200–2,000 km west of Perth; he has published many technical papers and maintains a project website laying out the method and proposed search area [6] [7] [1].
2. Official response: acknowledgement but not endorsement
Australian authorities have publicly acknowledged Godfrey’s work and named him in official materials, and the ATSB said it was aware of his analysis; that acknowledgement falls short of an official validation or of a decision to reallocate search resources solely on WSPR results [2] [8]. The ATSB noted that much of Godfrey’s recommended zone overlaps areas previously searched, prompting reviews rather than immediate action [8].
3. Coverage in the press: rapid amplification, mixed framing
UK and international outlets have amplified Godfrey’s findings with headlines that range from complimentary — calling his work “closest anyone has come” — to dramatic portrayals that a single new search could “solve” the mystery; other outlets frame the claim as part of a long history of competing MH370 theories and renewed search proposals [4] [9] [3].
4. Expert reaction: interest plus technical skepticism
Aerospace and signals experts have expressed guarded interest in novel data avenues but question whether WSPR can function as a reliable over‑the‑horizon radar surrogate for a fast-moving, high‑altitude airliner; reporting notes that many experts view the approach as controversial and that methodological issues remain unresolved [5] [3]. Independent MH370 analysts and technical blogs place Godfrey alongside other analytical efforts while noting disagreements about assumptions and signal interpretation [10].
5. Credibility and influence: a complicated track record
Godfrey is described as meticulous and prolific, with dozens of papers and longstanding engagement in the MH370 research community; some sources highlight official thanks and recognition by Australian investigators, while others caution he has also promoted claims that critics label misleading or unproven [5] [2]. Media profiles underline that his visibility has grown even as controversy about method and conclusions persists [4] [9].
6. What officials actually did: review, not a new funded search
Reporting shows Australian agencies undertook reviews of search data after Godfrey’s publications and media coverage; these actions amounted to re‑examination of past searches and datasets rather than an immediate restart of a full‑scale seabed search based solely on his WSPR mapping [8] [10]. Families and governments continue to discuss possible contracted searches, but sources do not show an official search driven only by Godfrey’s work [10] [8].
7. Limitations and open questions in the record
Available sources document the claims, the official acknowledgements, and the range of media and expert reactions, but they do not provide independent, peer‑reviewed validation that WSPR reliably tracks aircraft or that the proposed coordinates contain wreckage; in short, confirmation by new seabed discovery is not in the reporting cited here [6] [5] [2]. Sources do not report a definitive, independently verified discovery of MH370 linked to Godfrey’s method (not found in current reporting).
8. Takeaway: plausible lead, unproven tool — caution warranted
Godfrey’s WSPR analysis has produced a concrete hypothesis that authorities have examined and that has generated media momentum; aviation experts offer both engagement and technical reservations, and official reviews have been cautious and limited to re‑analysis rather than endorsement of an immediate search based solely on WSPR claims [8] [5] [3]. The story remains unresolved: the hypothesis merits further technical scrutiny and, ultimately, physical search evidence before it can be judged a solution to the MH370 mystery [2] [1].