What evidence does Richard Godfrey cite to support his MH370 claims and has any of it been independently verified?
Executive summary
Richard Godfrey’s central evidence is an analysis using WSPRnet — a network of amateur radio “weak signal” beacons — which he says produced 130+ signal disturbances and allowed him to triangulate a crash site about 1,900–2,000 km west of Perth; he also cites physical debris recoveries and flight‑simulator similarities as supporting detail [1] [2] [3]. Official agencies have acknowledged his work and reviewed data (ATSB/Geoscience Australia), but independent, full verification of his WSPR-based location on the seabed has not been reported in the sources provided [4] [5].
1. What Godfrey claims and the technology he cites
Godfrey’s headline claim is that passive reception of amateur radio WSPR signals (Weak Signal Propagation Reporter network) can act like a global passive radar: he reports detecting “a total of 48 Boeing 777 aircraft flights” in tests and says he identified “over 130 disturbances” on the night MH370 vanished, which he interprets as the aircraft’s track and final resting place roughly 1,900–2,000 km west of Perth [3] [1] [2].
2. How he ties radio anomalies to a crash location
According to his writings and interviews, Godfrey combined WSPR signal anomalies with other datasets—drift models for recovered debris and historic search footprints—to tighten the search area from the vast 120,000 km² previously considered down to a much smaller 40 nautical mile radius where he believes the wreck lies [2] [6]. He argues the WSPR traces act as “over‑the‑horizon” detections of the aircraft’s radio‑shadow on propagation paths [3].
3. Physical evidence Godfrey points to
Godfrey references the corpus of recovered floating debris (43 items, 41 delivered to Malaysian authorities in his account) and argues damage patterns are consistent with a high‑energy impact; he cites cooperation with debris investigator Blaine Gibson and other drift‑analysis work to support the southern Indian Ocean conclusion [3] [7] [8].
4. Reception by official bodies and independent reviewers
Australian bodies have not dismissed his work outright: the ATSB publicly noted awareness of Godfrey’s analysis and Geoscience Australia carried out a review of search data after his report was published [4] [5]. The BBC and other outlets have reported his hypothesis prominently, and some aviation outlets treat his WSPR approach as an innovative cross‑disciplinary idea [2] [8].
5. What has — and hasn’t — been independently verified
Available sources show official agencies reviewed the data and acknowledged the work, but there is no reporting in the provided material that any independent at‑sea search has recovered the wreck at Godfrey’s coordinates or that another team has replicated WSPRnet’s MH370 tracking to confirm the seabed location [4] [5]. The claim of detecting 48 Boeing 777 flights in tests and identifying 130+ disturbances is presented on his site and in interviews, but independent replication by other researchers or peer‑reviewed publication confirming WSPR as a reliable aircraft‑positioning tool for MH370 is not documented in these sources [3] [9].
6. Competing viewpoints and criticisms
Some established investigators and journalists have cautioned that the method is novel and controversial: while outlets have called Godfrey’s work “closest anyone has come” and the ATSB called him a “credible expert,” reporting also notes Godfrey himself has acknowledged a lack of absolute evidence for motive and some conclusions remain speculative [6] [5]. Other commentators have accused him of spreading misinformation even as they recognize his influence; the provided material shows debate over whether the WSPR technique is robust enough to locate a deep‑water wreck without independent seabed confirmation [5].
7. Limits of the public record and what to watch next
Current reporting documents Godfrey’s methodology, site claims, and that agencies reviewed related data, but it does not show a recovered wreck, a peer‑reviewed validation of WSPR as a tracking tool for MH370, nor a publicly released independent replication of his signal‑analysis results [4] [3] [5]. The clearest path to decisive verification in the sources would be a renewed underwater search that locates wreckage at his coordinates or publication of reproducible, peer‑reviewed analyses that other researchers can test [4] [9].
Limitations: this report uses only the supplied sources; available sources do not mention a recovered wreck at Godfrey’s coordinates nor peer‑reviewed replication of his WSPR method.