Discussion about this post

User's avatar
RetiredF4's avatar

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it most probably is a duck.

Didn't know though that he lives in Germany.

https://www.digitaldesignoffice.de/webdesign/

Expand full comment
Edmund's avatar

Here is my Review of WSPR (Richard Godfrey) model

A Professional Review of Richard Godfrey’s MH370 Model: Where the Flaws Lie

By Ed Skerritt

Richard Godfrey has been a persistent contributor to the MH370 investigation. His efforts to bring new tools and data into the conversation are commendable, and his intentions are likely sincere. But when it comes to solving a case as complex and tragic as MH370, sincerity is not enough. We must evaluate ideas by their scientific rigor, technical credibility, and reproducibility.

This review is not about Richard Godfrey the person—it is about the technical and procedural flaws in his model, specifically the use of WSPR (Weak Signal Propagation Reporting) as an aircraft tracking tool.

❌ 1. WSPR Is a Mismatched Tool for Aircraft Tracking

WSPR is a ham radio network designed to test radio propagation conditions, not detect airborne objects. It was never meant to track planes, and its data is inherently vulnerable to:

• Signal reflections and interference

• Ionospheric variability

• Ambiguity in transmission paths

• Lack of time-synchronized positional certainty

Godfrey’s WSPR-based claim that MH370’s flight path can be tracked in real-time across oceans simply does not hold up under expert scrutiny. Signal analysts and radio engineers have repeatedly shown that the WSPR protocol cannot reliably identify a moving aircraft’s path, let alone down to the degree of confidence Godfrey asserts.

❌ 2. History of Inconsistency: Four Major Changes to the WSPR Path

Since introducing the WSPR theory, Godfrey has made multiple significant revisions to the projected MH370 path. These include:

1. Original Endpoint (2021) – Initial path tracking toward 33°S using early WSPR overlays.

2. Adjusted Endpoint (2022) – Shifted further north to near 29°S, reinterpreting multiple signal contacts.

3. Refined “Hybrid” WSPR Path – Combined with BTO/BFO, attempting to validate via satellite data overlays.

4. Search-Driven Tweaks (2023-2024) – Adjustments made to align with new Ocean Infinity search boundaries, retrofitted to justify missed detections.

Each revision was reactive—not predictive. These shifts raise a key concern: Is the model being changed to match the outcome? Or is it predicting the outcome from a fixed system logic?

In contrast, our model has not changed. The core path—based on FMS behavior, autopilot logic, and procedural error—has remained stable for over a decade.

❌ 3. No System Behavior, No Procedural Context

Godfrey’s WSPR model makes no attempt to explain:

• Why the plane turned at IGARI

• How the autopilot remained engaged

• What error might have occurred in the FMS programming

• Or how cockpit fatigue, training status, or operational confusion contributed

By focusing exclusively on speculative radio signals, the model leaves out the very human factors and aircraft systems behavior that must be central to any serious investigation.

❌ 4. Lack of Reproducibility and Operational Transparency

To date, no independent researcher has been able to fully replicate Godfrey’s WSPR path from scratch. His process depends on:

• Proprietary datasets

• Subjective weighting of signal strength

• Assumptions about how WSPR signals correlate with aircraft presence

Without open access, peer review, or operational walkthroughs, the model fails one of the core standards of investigation: transparency and reproducibility.

✅ By Contrast: The Procedural Model That Has Never Changed

Unlike speculative models, our approach starts with what’s known:

• Autopilot was engaged at 12:52 AM as per the Rolls-Royce monitoring report.

• The plane turned at IGARI—on a heading that has been reproduced consistently in simulator conditions.

• A likely FMS waypoint input error (DOGAR CN instead of DOGAR AU) sent the plane southwest, under autopilot control.

• Every step of the model—course, timing, autopilot engagement, Doppler trend—is backed by data and replicable behavior.

We don’t need to reinterpret satellite physics or overlay radio signals with massive uncertainty. Our model functions using default system behavior—no settings changed, no spoofing assumed.

It is consistent with:

• The radar trail

• The BFO/BTO data

• The aircraft’s autopilot systems

• The known cockpit environment at the time

And perhaps most importantly: it is testable by any qualified pilot, simulator technician, or investigator. It does not require faith. It requires procedure.

⚠️ Why It Matters

This is not an attack on Richard Godfrey. It’s a call to re-focus the investigation on grounded, data-driven, testable frameworks. Models that keep shifting, rely on unverifiable data, or ignore procedural behavior only confuse the public and delay closure for the families.

This case doesn’t need another theory. It needs the correct theory—one that aligns with how planes actually behave when systems are engaged, and humans make mistakes.

🔥 Closing Statement

The MH370 investigation should no longer be driven by whose narrative dominates the headlines. It should be driven by what can be recreated, verified, and explained without exception.

That’s the standard we hold ourselves to.

And it’s the standard we now challenge all other models to meet—WSPR included.

If you cannot recreate the IGARI turn, match the autopilot behavior, and show the final path using only the aircraft’s logic, then it’s time to step aside.

We don’t need another theory.

We need to find the plane.

Ed Skerritt

Vanished Skies | MH370 Systems Investigator | Founder, Skerritt Procedural Model

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts