How do Richard Godfrey's MH370 assertions compare to other prominent theories about the flight's disappearance?
Executive summary
Richard Godfrey’s WSPR-based claim narrows MH370’s final resting place to a focused area roughly 1,900–2,000 km west of Perth and proposes that weak radio‑signal anomalies can pinpoint the track and crash site [1] [2]. That idea has supporters and has led to reviews and proposed searches [2] [3], but multiple signal analysts and independent commentators say WSPR cannot reliably trace a moving aircraft and Godfrey’s model has been revised repeatedly, leaving his conclusions contested [4] [5].
1. Godfrey’s claim: a new “passive radar” using WSPR
Richard Godfrey’s central thesis is that the Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) network — an amateur radio system of transmitters and receivers — yields measurable anomalies when an airliner crosses propagation paths, and that those anomalies allow reconstruction of MH370’s path into the southern Indian Ocean; Godfrey’s published work and website promote this global passive‑radar idea and specific search coordinates [6] [7]. He and collaborators produced a focused search zone roughly 1,900–2,000 km west of Perth and have argued the wreck lies at about 4,000 m depth in that area [2] [1].
2. Official and media attention: cautious engagement, not consensus
Godfrey’s reports prompted a review of past Australian search data by agencies and media coverage that described his work as the “closest anyone has come” to a solution, but reporting and official statements framed that response as investigative interest, not formal validation — the ATSB noted portions of Godfrey’s proposed zone overlap areas previously searched and called for Malaysian agreement for any renewed underwater search [8] [2]. Major outlets — BBC and others — presented his calculations as a plausible lead while also noting calls for independent testing [1].
3. Supporters: technical allies and continuing research
Some researchers and commentators have tied Godfrey’s WSPR approach into broader analytical efforts — for example, teams using multi‑discipline modelling (UGIB authorship appears in related reconstructions) and academic collaborations testing whether WSPR anomalies carry signal for aircraft detection [9] [5]. Proponents argue WSPR offers a way to “filter out the needle in the haystack” and that a single focused search could finally find MH370 [1] [5].
4. Criticisms: signal physics, repeatability and shifting models
Independent signal analysts and radio engineers have repeatedly argued the WSPR protocol cannot reliably reveal a moving aircraft’s precise path; critics say the method is not robust enough to deliver the positional certainty Godfrey claims and that his projections have undergone significant revisions over time, undermining confidence [4]. Investigative commentary accuses Godfrey of spreading misinformation in places and of producing models that shift as new assertions are made [4].
5. How Godfrey compares with other leading MH370 theories
Mainstream investigative approaches to MH370 have relied on satellite handshakes (Inmarsat Doppler analyses), radar returns, debris drift modelling and underwater acoustic and bathymetric searches; these methods produced larger search arcs and the official 2014–2017 searches (not all details in the provided sources) but did not converge on Godfrey’s tight zone (available sources do not mention a comprehensive comparison with every other theory). Godfrey’s claim differs because it relies on an opportunistic, crowdsourced radio‑network signal set rather than on the established Inmarsat arc and official telemetry that dominated earlier analyses [5].
6. Stakes and agendas: closure, publicity and scientific validation
Godfrey frames his work as delivering closure for victims’ families and a narrowly actionable search area [1]. Critics frame the same activity as a high‑profile independent research campaign that can distract resources if it rests on unproven signal interpretation [4]. Media praise in some outlets has amplified Godfrey’s visibility while scientific skeptics call for transparent, peer‑reviewed tests of WSPR’s capabilities before committing resources to an underwater search [8] [4] [5].
7. What remains to be tested and verified
Independent teams are explicitly testing whether WSPR anomalies contain useful aircraft information at larger scales than Godfrey attempted; researchers (Maskell and collaborators) are applying statistical tools to validate or falsify the core WSPR hypothesis [5]. The available sources show reviewers and the ATSB have taken notice, but they do not report a final consensus: some technical work supports further investigation, others say the physics preclude the claimed precision [2] [4] [5].
Conclusion: Richard Godfrey’s WSPR theory is the most technically novel and most tightly localized claim among public MH370 hypotheses in recent years, and it has attracted both investigative interest and sharp technical criticism. Whether it ultimately leads to discovery depends on ongoing independent validation of WSPR’s signal‑tracking assumptions and on whether authorities will fund and coordinate a targeted search in the proposed area [5] [2] [4].