I knew that he was living in Frankfort, Germany when his WSPR ideas were picked up by 60 Minutes Australia. I know not a lot about radio waves, but the strangeness of the idea and Godfrey's certitude caused me to write him off immediately.
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
Rebuttal to Jeff Wise: When Character Attacks Replace Competence
By Ed Skerritt
Jeff,
You’ve published another article—but this time, it’s not about solving the mystery of MH370. It’s about tearing someone else down.
You’ve shifted the focus away from the plane, the data, and the search—and made it about Richard Godfrey’s resume. But here’s the thing: background isn’t proof, and aerospace credentials aren’t the problem here. Bad models are.
⸻
❌ 1. This Isn’t an Investigation—It’s a Character Assassination
You spend thousands of words nitpicking Godfrey’s resume—suggesting he exaggerated or fudged credentials. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t. But here’s the problem:
Even if everything you said about his background were true, it still wouldn’t disprove a single line of his data model. You’ve offered no technical dismantling of WSPR’s claimed tracking results—just a personal takedown, filled with insinuation and analogies to sitcom characters. That’s not scientific criticism. That’s a smear campaign.
The moment you resort to comparing someone to “George Costanza,” you’ve left professional inquiry and entered personal mockery.
⸻
❌ 2. WSPR Has Problems—But You’re Not the One Who Disproves It
If WSPR is flawed (and many believe it is), show us the math, show us the false positives, show us why it fails under real conditions. But you don’t. You link to a YouTube video by someone else, mention experts in vague terms, and rely on Kevin Rupp’s snide remarks as your authority.
It’s ironic: you criticize Godfrey for being taken seriously by the ATSB and BBC while offering no certified model of your own that has passed peer or institutional review.
⸻
❌ 3. You Shift the Spotlight Away From Your Own Failures
Jeff, you’ve had eleven years to explain the radar data, the transponder loss, the sequence of navigation events, the human factors inside that cockpit—and still, you’ve offered nothing reproducible.
Meanwhile:
• You couldn’t replicate the IGARI turn in the simulator.
• You skipped over procedural training gaps and fatigue vulnerabilities.
• You still haven’t presented a working flight path model that accounts for the actual Doppler shifts without jumping to “cyber hijack” conclusions.
Yet instead of addressing these gaps, you go after a man’s LinkedIn resume?
That’s not investigation. That’s deflection.
⸻
❌ 4. If We’re Measuring Backgrounds—Put Mine Against Yours
I’ve spent 35 years working in high-stakes, rule-driven transportation environments. The last 11 years I’ve spent building and refining a procedural failure model of MH370. I’ve developed a Doppler-aligned flight path. I’ve recreated the IGARI turn on the first try—the same one your team failed six times to simulate.
I’ve shown others how to do it. I can do it live.
So if the game now is “whose background makes them credible?”—let’s line up the résumés, Jeff. Then let’s line up the results.
⸻
✅ Let’s Get Back to the Plane.
This case isn’t about who worked for ESA or Boeing or how many banks someone consulted for. It’s about a plane that went missing. It’s about families who still don’t have closure.
It’s about data, procedure, reproducibility—and the ability to explain what happened without relying on Hollywood-style fantasy.
I’ve done that. You haven’t.
⸻
🔥 The Challenge Still Stands
Jeff, enough character attacks. If your model is stronger than mine, then here’s the offer:
• Give me one 777 pilot.
• I’ll walk them through the procedural steps and recreate the actual IGARI turn—perfectly.
• You walk yours through your cyberhijack theory. Let’s see what produces a viable, radar-matching result.
Or better yet:
Let’s both submit our models to a neutral panel of investigators—complete with simulator data, timing, navigation logic, and BFO alignment.
Let’s stop talking about people—and start testing ideas.
I have also researched Richard Godfrey and can find no critical evidence of his resumé. He certainly could not have worked for NASA but may well have been a British Aerospace consultant of some degree or another. That would if true, make him some kind of a Walter Mitty type person.
Walter Mitty-- love it. Very much appreciate that you did some digging, too. If you found anything interesting (whether by inclusion or exclusion) I'm all ears.
Jeff. no fear I shall seek and find if indeed he is or he is not who he says he is. I think he was most credibly, a consultant in IT in banking and maybe engineering, but most certainly not a design engineer. We shall have to keep digging. As for MH370; its like a needle in a giant haystack!
Jeff, I've watched Mssrs. Godfrey and Thomas this week as they rebutted your facts concerning Godfrey's CV and work history. I imagine you've watched, too. In summary, they said nothing about banking IT. Nary a word. So from my old intercollegiate debate training, I would point out to the judge that since the matter was unaddressed, we must conclude that our point was conceded.
As an observation, we are living in a world where human beings are no longer amenable to persuasion. And in such a world, differing opinions too often devolve into pissing contests at best, gunfire at worst.
Thanks, Tom, really appreciate the intel. Yes, I'd experienced a bit of that gunfire when I did an episode on the alleged Emirates sighting and the comments are even angrier this time around. People are not amenable to persuasion indeed -- the very thought of changing their mind seems to enrage them.
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/
A strange duck IMO...
I knew that he was living in Frankfort, Germany when his WSPR ideas were picked up by 60 Minutes Australia. I know not a lot about radio waves, but the strangeness of the idea and Godfrey's certitude caused me to write him off immediately.
It's kind of remarkable.
Indeed.
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
Rebuttal to Jeff Wise: When Character Attacks Replace Competence
By Ed Skerritt
Jeff,
You’ve published another article—but this time, it’s not about solving the mystery of MH370. It’s about tearing someone else down.
You’ve shifted the focus away from the plane, the data, and the search—and made it about Richard Godfrey’s resume. But here’s the thing: background isn’t proof, and aerospace credentials aren’t the problem here. Bad models are.
⸻
❌ 1. This Isn’t an Investigation—It’s a Character Assassination
You spend thousands of words nitpicking Godfrey’s resume—suggesting he exaggerated or fudged credentials. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t. But here’s the problem:
Even if everything you said about his background were true, it still wouldn’t disprove a single line of his data model. You’ve offered no technical dismantling of WSPR’s claimed tracking results—just a personal takedown, filled with insinuation and analogies to sitcom characters. That’s not scientific criticism. That’s a smear campaign.
The moment you resort to comparing someone to “George Costanza,” you’ve left professional inquiry and entered personal mockery.
⸻
❌ 2. WSPR Has Problems—But You’re Not the One Who Disproves It
If WSPR is flawed (and many believe it is), show us the math, show us the false positives, show us why it fails under real conditions. But you don’t. You link to a YouTube video by someone else, mention experts in vague terms, and rely on Kevin Rupp’s snide remarks as your authority.
It’s ironic: you criticize Godfrey for being taken seriously by the ATSB and BBC while offering no certified model of your own that has passed peer or institutional review.
⸻
❌ 3. You Shift the Spotlight Away From Your Own Failures
Jeff, you’ve had eleven years to explain the radar data, the transponder loss, the sequence of navigation events, the human factors inside that cockpit—and still, you’ve offered nothing reproducible.
Meanwhile:
• You couldn’t replicate the IGARI turn in the simulator.
• You skipped over procedural training gaps and fatigue vulnerabilities.
• You still haven’t presented a working flight path model that accounts for the actual Doppler shifts without jumping to “cyber hijack” conclusions.
Yet instead of addressing these gaps, you go after a man’s LinkedIn resume?
That’s not investigation. That’s deflection.
⸻
❌ 4. If We’re Measuring Backgrounds—Put Mine Against Yours
I’ve spent 35 years working in high-stakes, rule-driven transportation environments. The last 11 years I’ve spent building and refining a procedural failure model of MH370. I’ve developed a Doppler-aligned flight path. I’ve recreated the IGARI turn on the first try—the same one your team failed six times to simulate.
I’ve shown others how to do it. I can do it live.
So if the game now is “whose background makes them credible?”—let’s line up the résumés, Jeff. Then let’s line up the results.
⸻
✅ Let’s Get Back to the Plane.
This case isn’t about who worked for ESA or Boeing or how many banks someone consulted for. It’s about a plane that went missing. It’s about families who still don’t have closure.
It’s about data, procedure, reproducibility—and the ability to explain what happened without relying on Hollywood-style fantasy.
I’ve done that. You haven’t.
⸻
🔥 The Challenge Still Stands
Jeff, enough character attacks. If your model is stronger than mine, then here’s the offer:
• Give me one 777 pilot.
• I’ll walk them through the procedural steps and recreate the actual IGARI turn—perfectly.
• You walk yours through your cyberhijack theory. Let’s see what produces a viable, radar-matching result.
Or better yet:
Let’s both submit our models to a neutral panel of investigators—complete with simulator data, timing, navigation logic, and BFO alignment.
Let’s stop talking about people—and start testing ideas.
You’ve made a career out of casting doubt.
I’ve built a model that can stand up to scrutiny.
Your move.
—
Ed Skerritt
Vanished Skies | MH370 Researcher | Systems Analyst | 11-Year Investigator
I have also researched Richard Godfrey and can find no critical evidence of his resumé. He certainly could not have worked for NASA but may well have been a British Aerospace consultant of some degree or another. That would if true, make him some kind of a Walter Mitty type person.
Walter Mitty-- love it. Very much appreciate that you did some digging, too. If you found anything interesting (whether by inclusion or exclusion) I'm all ears.
Jeff. no fear I shall seek and find if indeed he is or he is not who he says he is. I think he was most credibly, a consultant in IT in banking and maybe engineering, but most certainly not a design engineer. We shall have to keep digging. As for MH370; its like a needle in a giant haystack!
Indeed. Really appreciate your help, Peter.
Jeff, I've watched Mssrs. Godfrey and Thomas this week as they rebutted your facts concerning Godfrey's CV and work history. I imagine you've watched, too. In summary, they said nothing about banking IT. Nary a word. So from my old intercollegiate debate training, I would point out to the judge that since the matter was unaddressed, we must conclude that our point was conceded.
As an observation, we are living in a world where human beings are no longer amenable to persuasion. And in such a world, differing opinions too often devolve into pissing contests at best, gunfire at worst.
Thanks, Tom, really appreciate the intel. Yes, I'd experienced a bit of that gunfire when I did an episode on the alleged Emirates sighting and the comments are even angrier this time around. People are not amenable to persuasion indeed -- the very thought of changing their mind seems to enrage them.