Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Who is Richard Godfrey and what are his MH370 claims?
Executive summary
Richard Godfrey is a retired British aerospace engineer who has published detailed, public-facing analyses claiming he has located MH370’s resting place in the southern Indian Ocean using a radio‑signal method called WSPR; he gives coordinates around 33°S and about 1,900–1,933 km west of Perth and a small search area claim of roughly 115 square miles [1] [2]. His work prompted at least a review or expressions of interest by Australian agencies and drew both media praise and skepticism; Godfrey also runs the MH370Search site and has published many papers and posts about the disappearance and WSPR methodology [2] [3] [4].
1. Who Richard Godfrey is — professional background and role in the MH370 community
Richard Godfrey is described in reporting as a retired British aerospace engineer who previously worked in the sector and has since become a prominent independent investigator of MH370, a founding member of the MH370 Independent Group, and the author of dozens of papers and posts on the subject hosted on the MH370Search website [3] [5]. Media profiles and Godfrey’s own site portray him as an active participant in the next‑of‑kin community and in public debate about the disappearance [5] [6].
2. The core claim — WSPR “radio‑shadow” technique and a precise crash site
Godfrey’s headline claim is that analyses of weak amateur radio signals (WSPR) reveal disturbances on the night MH370 vanished that trace a flight path ending near about 33°S, roughly 1,201 miles (1,933 km) west of Perth at a seabed depth he reports as about 4,000 m; he says the data narrow the likely wreck location to a much smaller area than prior searches — sometimes quoted as about 115 square miles [1] [2] [6]. He and collaborators assert WSPR can act like a global passive radar, detecting aircraft via perturbations in propagation of radio test signals [4] [3].
3. Official reaction and institutional engagement
Godfrey’s work attracted attention from Australian authorities: reporting says the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) acknowledged being “aware of the work of Mr Richard Godfrey” and that Geoscience Australia and the ATSB reviewed or rechecked search data following his report; ATSB leadership reportedly noted his recommended search zone overlaps areas previously searched [2]. Coverage frames that review as “quiet” and does not state ATSB endorsed his conclusions wholesale [2].
4. Support, publicity and the spectrum of journalistic response
Several outlets have treated Godfrey’s work as a serious lead: major outlets and commentators called his report among the closest attempts to solve MH370, and he has been featured in documentaries and broad media profiles [7] [6]. His claims have been amplified by his own site and social channels, and collaborators such as an academic at Liverpool have been reported as working with him on WSPR analyses [8] [3].
5. Points of contention, reported errors and journalistic skepticism
Independent reporting and commentators have flagged questionable or erroneous public statements by Godfrey — for example, claims that particular vessels (Armada 78 08) were designated for a new expedition or that Armada 78 06 had been conducting ROV and bathymetry work were characterized as erroneous in a journalistic review of his record [9]. Media coverage also records that some of his stronger assertions (including an alleged Emirates pilot sighting referenced in one critique) raised verification concerns [9]. The sources provided do not contain a technical independent peer review fully validating the WSPR attribution to the aircraft’s track; available sources do not mention a definitive, independent scientific validation overturning prior search conclusions (not found in current reporting).
6. What Godfrey proposes next and implications for a renewed search
Godfrey has urged “one more search” based on his narrowed box and has tried to mobilize interest from governments and private search firms; he reported contact with Australian agencies and publicized proposals for follow‑up searches [8] [2]. If his coordinates were confirmed, a focused underwater search could be feasible, but the sources show agencies treated his work as a lead worth review rather than a definitive resolution [2].
7. How to read competing claims and where reporting lacks detail
Reporting shows both endorsement tones (calling it among the closest efforts) and clear skepticism about specific factual assertions and the need for independent verification [7] [9]. The records provided do not include a complete, peer‑reviewed technical assessment accepted by the broader scientific or search community, and they do not show that debris or wreckage has been recovered to confirm Godfrey’s coordinates (not found in current reporting). Readers should weigh his engineering credentials and publication history [5] against documented factual errors flagged by journalists [9] and the absence of recovered wreckage in the cited sources (not found in current reporting).
Summary takeaway: Godfrey is a technically experienced, high‑profile independent investigator whose WSPR‑based claim for MH370’s location narrowed a search box and prompted agency review; his work has supporters and skeptics, and key elements require independent validation and physical wreckage discovery to be proved [2] [1] [9].