Has WSPR technology REALLY found MH370?

[@bipolarbear9917]

So, if this WSPR doesn't work, how is it that Richard Godfrey and his Independent Group were able to track 4 QANTAS flights almost perfectly to their destinations during blind trials?

[@josephpercel8802]

I haven't found any information to support that claim.

[@brucewayne3602]

@@josephpercel8802 absolutely ,,, Richard Godfrey is a complete phony !!!

[@ajayray4408]

We should also look at any cases where the tracking failed, and there seems to have been at least one, as reported by the captain of that flight in "WSPR Tracking Validator Now Believes Testing Was Not Scientific". This was a flight from South Africa to Australia, and it is particularly significant because it diverted: it landed in Perth, yet the WSPR track apparently had it going to Melbourne, 1700 miles beyond that!

[@waptek2]

& failed to track the other 50?

[@ajayray4408]

@@waptek2 To their credit, the Independent Group publishes lengthy reports on what they regard to be successful tracking tests. Unfortunately, they do not go into much detail into the experimental method, and some of the things they do say seem to imply that their method has a fatal flaw. Specifically, the method appears to be to first estimate the track of the target aircraft, as a series of time-position pairs, using ADS-B data where possible and a combination of less accurate methods where it is not available. Then they look for WSPRnet transmission paths (the so-called "tripwires") that intersected _close to the locations (in space and time) calculated for the target aircraft._ The third stage is to check these WSPR paths for anomalies, and if so, consider the target aircraft to have been detected at that point. The sequence of these 'detections' is taken to be a successful tracking of the target aircraft. The independent experts go a good job, I believe, in filtering out weak anomalies, and in preferring anomalies in intersecting paths rather than on a single one (though that is only a preference and not a rule), but if the process is as given above, then the fatal flaw is that it does nothing to estimate the likelihood that each 'detection' is just by chance. If you only look for anomalies near where you assume the target airplane to have been, then, of course, all your anomalies will be near where you assume the target airplane to have been! This would be an undeniable case of confirmation bias, and the result would not be tracking, merely an ex post facto correlation. It is possible that the actual method avoided this problem, but then it would be very strange that the reports seem to avoid the issue. If the authors understood that they had to avoid confirmation bias, why would they not make it clear in their report that their method did, in fact, avoid it? At the very least, one would expect a statistical analysis showing how unlikely it was that these correlations occurred by chance, and also that the entire WSPRnet data for the region gave statistically-significant credence for one and only one path. In other words, there are good reasons for doubting that _any_ of the tracking tests were successful. There is a reasonable chance that the wreck is in the area picked out by the Independent Group, especially given that it is relatively close to the area picked out by other methods, but until doubts about the method are cleared up, I do not think anyone is going to put much effort into another search. It would be irresponsible to launch a multi-million dollar effort without independently verifying the method used to determine the search location.

[@flyinghedgehog3833]

This guy has tracked Qantas flight s with 100% accuracy... Just saying

[@metatechnologist]

At 6:00 he makes the statement that the stations using only a few watts of power. This would not necessarily true. It's not unreasonable to assume 100 watts. I find this video excessively dismissive also for other reasons.

[@bobdeverell]

@@metatechnologist Only true if you're assuming you need a positive SNR. Tx power is largely irrelevant if your receiver can correlate into noise. WSPR allows this.

[@nicoradv3923]

@@metatechnologist you are correct. I just imagine there are quite a few station running above QRP limit. Some of those have even posted on different forums that they do. It's more of 'look at me' type scenario. Really defeats the purpose of WSPR.

[@andrewkumbakor2589]

@Bronski Turboski me na you. Yes no off of it you.

[@geoff37s38]

Apparently Godfrey was given date and departure location os scheduled Qantas flights and was able to track to destination. Wow! Oddly, I can also do this on my smart phone. Just saying.

[@rhyoliteaquacade]

I am not totally convinced it is impossible. If in fact receiver data exists from that fateful day, it should be possible to test the theory on known aircraft flight plans from that very period and part of the world. That would be a convincing test. The Inmarsat data was a red herring and distraction from the search. Too much emphasis was placed on the doppler shift of the Inmarsat pings. The extreme doppler shift that was reported to be aircraft deviating direction, could have easily been oscillator frequency drift corresponding with depressurization of the fuselage or even fire on board.

[@hikkei]

finally someone has hit the bulleyes. I would suggest, do it on the live airplane , as the aircraft is moving and compare it with the radar of ATC

[@arjunyg4655]

This seems like a weak counter argument. If there were essentially too much noise in the data from confounding variables, as you suggest, how did he plot out such a coherent flight path over the Indian ocean? Presumably the data doesn’t actually look random when analyzed, or does it? Seems like this needs deeper analysis than “it should be impossible, so he couldn’t have done what he says to have done.” The data is out there, so we should be able to replicate it with his method, no?

[@gregbell3559]

No way was there alot of noise MH 370 was the only flight in that area . I think we have a biased opinion from the Australians. They are pissed and don't want it found because they shot it down

[@arthurdent6828]

​@@gregbell3559lmao. I've heard alot of zany theories but this one's new..

[@kbabioch]

Why should an Australian ham radio operator on KZbin be pissed about the plane being shot down?

[@arjunyg4655]

@@kbabiochI mean I would expect them to be mad…but mad in the sense that they would shame their government publicly…not bury the evidence lmao. Stupid theory regardless.

[@kbabioch]

@@arjunyg4655 Well these days there isn't any (significant) event without some lunatic coming up with one (or multiple) conspiracy theory about it. Most of the time they contradict each other and are total bullshit.

[@staceyward777]

This same type of tracking, albeit using cell networks rather than WSPR, has been put into place by certain countries to enable detection and tracking of "stealth" aircraft. As a radar and EW expert for the USAF for the past 40 years and a licensed ham for the past 30, this is completely plausible even with weak-signal HF. Mr. Godfrey's analysis isn't using just one signal on one path, but many. Small errors in individual signals, such as frequency drift, get "lost in the noise" (no pun intended) of the aggregate data.

[@P1ayD0hpaul]

Well said. This argument ignores the issue of aggregate data. Yes one signal, in almost anywhere but over the Indian Ocean with only 2 aircraft in, it’s not possible. Factor in dozens to thousands of reference datasets, and it could be very evident. If I had only 8 years experience in something, I would be very humble and cautious with my refutation of a well seasoned engineer and expert. Just sayin

[@celestial-on-high251]

Now I'm not an expert in radio frequencies and WSPR but Mr. Godfrey was able to even trace a holding pattern that MH370 made "for 20 mins" over the Indian ocean, something that no other expert even knew about! While everyone else plotted a straight path into the southern Indian ocean, Godfrey showed this on his plotted trajectory using WSPR. This may explain why search teams have not found the wreckage yet and in my opinion is quite a bombshell revelation that could infact blow open possibilities to guide search teams as to the plane's final resting place.

[@Burrisjeffrey1]

None of the people commenting here have suggested that this guy solved the location of the Aircraft. Before refuting his findings you should bring him on and let the listeners hear the debate from both sides. I'm sure he would refute your assumptions with knowledgeable expertise of his own. So I think I shall ignore the nay sayers and believe the location of the aircraft has finally been found. The location corresponds with where some Universuty students claimed it to be after studying drift analysis.

[@Harry213451]

I think you need to specifically address why an aircraft is undetectable with WSPR. You kind of danced around this, but it's important to say something like "although any object in the path of a wspr signal will affect that signal, it would be impossible to detect this signal variation because it would be overridden by the signal-altering effects of atmospheric propagation", etc. It's something that would be lost in the noise, in other words. The theory could also be disproven if one were to construct a phantom flight path using the same signal criteria Godfrey used, over an area where we know no plane was in the vicinity.

[@BigDaddy-yp4mi]

Gets more arguements and comments from putting up a video that is absurd and us pulling our hair out and commenting only helps him win the algorithm. That HAS to be the reason this is up. On top of the thumbnail saying 'FOUND' with no question marks or such.

[@trailadopter606]

The point that is made towards the end of the video - that this method needs to be tested against "controlled" or known cases is entirely correct. The argument that its just doesn't seem possible is very weak. When enough very weak data is combined, the results can often be very good. But the proposed tracking method is simply unproven and undemonstrated - not necessarily unworkable.

[@loduke3905]

Very true. 2 weeks ago Richard Godfrey just proved those that disagree wrong. Australia did several blind studies with blind flights and he was able to track the entire path and end point. So… YES, it is possible and is PROBABLE. Godfrey and his group were the one’s that in fact came up with a search area that was the only to find real wreckage. To this date, his “theory” is the only reason we have some wreckage pieces.

[@jima1135]

Question at 13:49 -- "How else do you know what else was along that path?" Answer -- Flight logs and data from every other plane that DIDN'T turn off their transponder. There was only 1 other flight that went into that area and it was 1 hour later. Therefore, anything in that area that DID scatter waves, MUST be MH370 by process of elimination.

[@HamRadioDX]

The ionosphere is along that path.. that scatters waves... but you didn't consider that

[@nicoradv3923]

@@HamRadioDX That is what is missing from other posters' thoughts. The bounce from ionosphere is always changing from minute to minute, even seconds. I ran WSPR for a number of years. The flight data might be there, but even using an AI for this how would you train it without proven data for that. No, can't be done. Even now i find myself grasping at straws to say that it might could be done, but at what percentage of chance? 0.0000001%.... i dont know. Now i'm going back to doubt myself again. Going by how fast propagation range/direction changes, every signal sent/received would be an anomaly.

[@Mickt6]

it is very possible to track mh370 with WSPR . Signal disturbancy between two points cause by large metal objets at a certain altitude is very common and mostly in the amature band (VE2)and if it was recorded at a precise time and by process of elimination could possibly lead to the correct spot.I firmly beleive that. Hey everything else have failed so what do we have to lose trying another approach ?

[@BigDaddy-yp4mi]

You've not dispelled a single thing about how he actually tested it on aircraft at present, while excluding any data from stations that have gone online since the disappearance, showing up and the data matching gps verified plot lines.....ALL OVER THE WORLD. When you can explain how THAT is not possible, I'll believe ya.

[@stephenm103]

The burden of proof should be on the individual making the claim as well. Have you made the same assertion to the claimant? You should question both sides equally .. until proven and peer reviewed.

[@HamRadioDX]

When he finds MH370, then he might have some credibility. cheers

[@potustrumpsoathofficenever6377]

@@HamRadioDX Suppose he turns out correct. Yes, I DO think there is enough chance of that that I, if I were you, wouldn't put MY reputation so precariously perched as you have. The long enough list you give of daunting challenges he had to be willing to stare down and work through shows he has a success or two in his experience that took extreme patience and willingness to fail for days at a time while never giving up. Been in similar extreme challenges myself. I have respect for the guy's courage, perseverance and willingness to think outside the box.

[@stephenm103]

@@potustrumpsoathofficenever6377 Suppose hell freezes over tomorrow. Suppose a blind squirrel finds a nut . . . . suppose, suppose suppose. . . . . suppose known facts have merit to a degree greater than that of hypothesis and opinions - - - until they are PROVEN.

[@jimmyjamzvids5725]

@@HamRadioDX Really, how many papers have you had published also we know where nearly all airlines are at all times that’s how we know there was nothing else around to disturb the signals he’s given his qualifications as an aerospace engineer geez man your talking about this on KZbin while he’s on 60 mins WTF? 😂 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@wwesuperstar1100]

Why not test his theory with a random aircraft

[@nickj2508]

@9:32 , You know who the stations were that used for the reference. Have you considered asking the Hams what equipment they were using?

[@HamRadioDX]

Yep and yep

[@getshamim]

The only notable thing mr godfrey made is...that mh 370 was the only aircraft flying in that zone during that time,so it narrow downs the burden and tracking easy

[@bobdeverell]

There are several reasons to consider Godfrey's work. Firstly the novel approach of analysis of signal anomalies across large sets of Rx spots. We normally think of Rloc as using recognizable signal reflections, but this is obviously difficult to imagine given WSPR's low ERP. The second reason builds on WSPRs ability to receive signals far below the noise. (eg I am told up to -37dB) far lower than human perception. Lets keep an open mind and see what scientists make of his ideas.

[@simon199418]

I'm far from an expert in communications but the way I see it this "Noise immunity" relates to the ability of the protocol to figure out digital signals from a very noisy analogue recording by knowing the structure of the digital transmission. These guys are saying that they can figure out where the plane went by looking for variations in the analogue recording - drop in power freq shifts etc. This is supper dependent on the setup used to acquire the raw analogue signas, which will not be consistent world-wide. Especially when we are talking about amateurs.

[@HannesEnslin]

The short answer to your question - No it was not WSPR but the WSPR data has sort of added to the Bigger picture where multiple factors were cross-referenced to come to a higher probability of the possible location than ever before. WSPR should not be looked upon as the only single source of the inquiry - However when combined with all the other information and the drift patterns it can definitely support an Idea. Maybe we just know too little about propagation and the effects of objects in a propagation path to completely discard this. But as I said at this moment in time I would not want to use it as the only source to do tracking! And it is not valid to compare HF anomalies with VHF/UHF aircraft scatter - AS with VHF/UHF we rely on Line of Sight whereas HF rely on Ionosphere and that is a total different Ball game...

[@witwisniewski2280]

Validation is the word giving truth to the deeming of a method as trustworthy. England did use its early HF radars to detect aircraft crossing the Channel so there is a phenomenon. HF over-the-horizon radars have located and aided large aircraft over oceans. I think the problem here is that almost all possible WSPR paths will miss a specific point in 3D space such as a particular aircraft and occasionally, a random one will cross paths with it. To capture an interaction, an array of thousands of WSPR receivers spread out over a large area, logging the same signal and analysis of patterns might reveal a plane. Modeling the 3D signal paths and the ionosphere may pinpoint the interaction location, and then Doppler may inform a motion component in 1D. The reception by one or few receivers will be plagued by dozens of confounding variables, therefore, not supporting any particular hypothesis. The geometry of a vicarious radio effect is in the size-order of a wavelength and the plane is moving fast on that scale, so a 2 minute measurement is way too long. Fortunately, there are shorter JT modes. I hope someone does have the resources to try a global scale experiment, but it'll be water under the bridge for MH370.

[@GrahamLaight]

Thanks for the good, clear explanation of WSPR, and how limited the data collected is. Thanks also for linking the paper. Having looked at the paper, I think you might be wrong, though: it seems to address many of the criticisms you made, and it acknowledges that the WSPR expertise came from Dr. Robert Westphal - he didn't come up with that himself. It also makes clear that he's not relying on the WSPR data alone - he's combining it with other data. I hope his approach of combining all the scraps of data available to get a "good enough" answer results in the missing plane being found.

[@jeremyfunk2423]

@HamRadioDX a few days ago a much more detailed paper was released with explained methodology.

[@HamRadioDX]

Excellent... but they still won't find it using WSPR

[@stucrossland3719]

What is the Boeing Honeywell uninterruptible autopilot?

[@jfernandez1942]

Is the russian s400 passive vhf radar usiing the same principle?

[@histacey]

What about the fact there were basically no other aircraft out there. Cant small anomalies added up create a path?

[@geoff37s38]

WSPR is a propagation and antenna testing system used by Amateur Radio operators. I have been a licensed Amateur Radio Operator for over 40 years with G and VK licenses (England and Australia). This is pure fantasy. It is impossible to track an aircraft hundreds or thousands of Kilometres away by analysing HF WSPR transmissionf. Godfrey is an attention seeking crackpot.

[@falconeaterf15]

Richard Godfrey is no fool. A lot of the many reasons put forth for a signal to be distorted are obviously true in a given single circumstance. But he is tracking multiple individual distortions over an airspace, with a limited time frame, with only two aircraft, separated by hundreds of miles. He has plotted these on a map, compared and matched with satélite data, and produced a trail of data points that could be a flight path. I wish him luck, and at least a proper hearing.

[@chrisg9627]

Mr Godfrey stated that there was only one other aircraft within one hours flight time of MH370 during the 'sample' period. The control should surely be to apply the same data to that second aircraft to assess whether that correlates with a known flight path within a similar timeframe. of MH370. If that can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, then the data for the flight in question could be re-examined. Science is a peer reviewed process after all.

[@falconeaterf15]

@@chrisg9627 Agreed There have been several comments referring to his technique being tested successfully on four separate flights. I have not followed up on that myself. Even if proven, who will step up to resource another search?

[@chrisg9627]

@@falconeaterf15 Personally, my view would be that if the technique is proven as effective during a blind trial, and the MH370 data re-examined in the light of those trials, then resourcing such and undertaking would not present an obstacle. HOWEVER, the veracity of the techniques being deployed here must be subjected to proper scientific scrutiny before that discussion could reasonably take place.

[@falconeaterf15]

@@chrisg9627 The people that came up with the technique ARE scientists. One of them a Nobel Prize winner. So it’s not a few radio heads goofing around. And resourcing any major undertaking is always a problem. Especially ones that offer no tangible benefits upon completion.

[@chrisg9627]

@@falconeaterf15 I didn't dispute their scientific credentials. If indeed this is a workable technique, the applications could be phenomenal, however the fact remains that this needs to be demonstrated in a controlled environment before despatching resources to one of the most isolated and dangerous parts of the southern ocean. That to me is just common sense.

[@rttakezo2000]

I don't see any references to peer reviews of this "research". I sincerely hope money wasn't provided for this paper.

[@VK7FB]

Well done Hayden! You explained that so well. Some people still believe the earth is flat too!! VK7FB

[@Retinalism]

So why not, now, simply parse the WSPR data for the actual search flights activity trails to establish whether Godfrey’s claims might be valid? Or would their lower altitude passes avoid the radio signals involved? (Not a HAM)

[@AADX]

Great analysis Hayden, can't agree more. Enjoyed this video a lot since I'm actually an Avionics Engineer. 73 de Kevin

[@HamRadioDX]

Thanks Kev 👍

[@MrObear]

Any updated opinions on this?

[@waynewayne9693]

In normal circumstances no but in mh370 literally only two planes in the I feel it’s certainly plausible to gain some insight into a location of a plane in flight in uncrowded sky’s. This to me is worth a look see with a search of the area.

[@taxpayer239]

I agree with you....using a ham radio signal differential to locate a plane is ridiculous , not mention the incredible technical calibrations.It used to be called atmospheric abberation..

[@antoineroquentin2297]

I have experience with aircraft scatter on the 12, 10 and 6m bands and agree with your analysis. Also noteworthy, WSPR does not report signal strength, only SNR, which brings additional factors into the dB value reported by the decoder. Single dB values can have a big uncertainty. 73

[@BigDaddy-yp4mi]

Yes, but every 2 minutes being logged FOR YEARS builds quite a qualitative AND quantitative database of reliability.

[@antoineroquentin2297]

@@BigDaddy-yp4mi ionospheric propagation has a big variance, no matter what sample size you use, the data is too noisy. I ran it on 8 years worth of WSPR data, there is no statistical significance. The mathematical propagation models match the measurements perfectly. It isn't possible to detect aircraft using WSPR beyond about 100 km. In the meantime the claim has been disproven by several individuals using different methods.

[@joeblow8593]

Lets say it was possible to track aircraft via WSPR. How would we know that the aircraft tracked on March 8th 2014 was actually MH370? And another thing, how come no one mentioned using WSPR 7 years ago? Why now? ...............Nice analysis, thanks

[@JasonP6339]

Go listen to the guy.... Because there was only 1 other plane down there within thousands of miles..... Nobody flies over the southern Indian ocean....

[@johnyoung1128]

Yes I agree with what you have said here. What is meant by “false trails” sound like more conspiracy theory nonsense. I agree that a hypothesis needs to be tested either by repeatable experiment or by solid verifiable historical data, in other words let him publish and submit to peer review.

[@sammylee1807]

Red herring is red herring, Testing will be a waste of time and human resources. We have had enough of that.

[@lecochonbleu]

@John Young There is no "solid verifiable historical data" at all here and indeed it's just a idea which Mr Richard Godfrey has dreamt up and no-one else before him. Indeed one of the points made in the Ham Radio video is when there are no real time trials, and no verified historical data for this idea at all why then use the idea suggestively with data around the very time of mh370? It's honestly not serious, by all indication.

[@lauras2046]

I believe there is a good possibility he is correct and I think it’s worth the time and money to go look there.

[@Obeythebeard]

I haven't heard any official stance on the WSPR-trails feasibility. Would be interesting to know what the ATSB, Ocean infinity and the Malaysian government have to say about it, to name a few.

[@MASAo7]

Totally agree that this method should be tested using as many other flights as possible before going anywhere near MH370. Very unscientific to not do so. It also seems highly unlikely that something as tiny as a 777 could be detected at the distances involved. My only radio experience is with CB as a kid but I remember how much the signal fluctuated when communicating over long distances using "skip". There's surely no way we could distinguish between the natural signal fluctuations and those caused by an ant in the signal path. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and knowledge. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels like it's not possible that it could work.

[@HamRadioDX]

There are many skeptical of these findings in many areas, not just the ham community. Thanks for commenting and hope to see you back here again soon. Cheers!

[@mauricio471]

Greetings from Jundiaí, Brazil. I really don't think neither the captain nor the co-pilot committed any kind of diabolical crime. I've watched many videos and documentaries about the disappearance of MH370. I could see that the pilot had many opportunities to do something sinister and he didn't need to fly six or seven hours to do so. If he wanted to commit a mass murder suicide as a politically motivation, why did he need to travel 6 or 7 hours ? It doesn't make any sense to me. A couple of years ago, journalists from 60 Minutes performed lots of reports in a highly tendentious way to lead viewers to believe that captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah plugged the airplane into the ocean. An allegation is just valid if there is real proof.

[@kenon6968]

It hurts to think about the families of those lost are getting hoodwinked by dubious claims, they've suffered enough.

[@victorcontreras9138]

Maybe so but at this point, I think anything that sounds sound is worth trying! I hope Geoffrey is right mainly because it would be great news (and closure) to many.

[@wenzel-o9y]

As a licensed radio amateur since 23 years of course I know WSPR very well (did about 15.000 contacts only between 2021 and now on all HF-bands between 80 and 10 meters ) and I also discussed this topic with several more experienced ham radio operators. We are all of the opinion that WSPR offers no possibility of providing even the remotest movement data that can be assigned to an object as small - in relation - as an airplane. The problem is not the transmission, but the reception, or rather the receiver, the receiver antenna and, above all, the data that is processed by the receiver and fed into the database. In principle, this is just the reception strength of the signal and a few others, just to clearly assign who the sender is. And the reception strength and the positions in relation to each other (transmitter and receiver) alone tell us very little about the signal path, and certainly not about any anomalies, which can be caused by almost anything. In addition, the measure of reception strength is not only a product of the transmitting power of the transmitter but above all a product of the already mentioned - rather unknown signal path and - on the very top of that - a product of the receiving antenna (in principle, it is not "a signal" that is measured, but how much of it the antenna can convert into electrical energy for the receiver. In very simplified terms: "bad" antenna, quiet signal, "good" antenna, loud signal). In other words: Yes, you can "calculate" something, but the chance that this is correct is virtually zero. - sorry to say.

[@JonSmiff-tunegame]

Just a thought. Would it be hard to fly a 777 roughly same time conditions destination but location not revealed until after analysis and put mr Godfrey's technique to the test. If his technique is within a reasonable tolerance and he gets the test case right then who cares about all this can or can't do it. It would be worth searching where he indicates?

[@HamRadioDX]

Plenty of planes out there now to confirm.. but you can test theories that have no basis

[@JonSmiff-tunegame]

That is disengenuous.... The mh370 was not in normally travelled airspace in the southern indian ocean. It's not the same to test Godfrey's claims in any other way, but simulated the alleged ping locations.

[@submarineradioman5535]

WA3MCK - well done Hayden... I think someone is looking for grant money...

[@MyThoughtsDontBelong2U]

Does legal representation exist in America above payment or based within principle? I mean when your rights are legitimately violated by individuals that work for the state or bigger? Or when the company you pay monthly for a cell phone bill releases data (messages, shit that was never recorded). T mobile

[@johnmoore2525]

Nice presentation Hayden. I think it's fair to say that 99% of the ham radio fraternity would see view this theory as BS on steroids and when you read their aggressive responses on their blog to anyone that questions their claims you start to wonder about their motivations.The other thing that catches your attention is the repeated reference to a series of links to scientific studies that supposedly support their theory, which they use to hide behind to avoid answering valid questions of doubt. In one of the posts they were claiming they could track a helicopter near Antarctica which I thought was amusing, considering it is a wingless aircraft that would create very little scatter signal, even on VHF over a short distance. Of course one issue you raised that was important was the issue of quality control. If you truly wished to validate this theory you would set up properly frequency locked TX and RX stations and perform tests on a clear frequency to avoid SNR impacts from other signals in the WSPR pass band, and where you had satellite tracking visibility of the aircraft at all times along the path as reference source. You would also use highly directional antennas to minimise long path signals that would create erroneous results. Instead, these guys have taken readings from stations that probably had more drift than the wreckage already recovered on the beaches of Madagascar, with signals that quite possibly never passed over the inspection area and then tried to use those results as proof of a completely unproven theory. They even make reference to the crash site and use signals passing over that point as proof of it being the crash site, simply because signals converged at that point. The more you read their supportive evidence, the more you laugh. I even checked the date to see if it was April 1 when I first saw the media release. Keep up the good work, 73 de VK2IJM

[@AndyTeo-ng1je]

Did The Russian's individuals or the Chinese's individuals Was still Switched to WSPR for more radio communication connected through laptops during the Missing Malaysia airlines flight MH 370 vanished because of the weak radio messages and transmission receivers✈️😎😎😢?Or Captain Zuharie uses the Radios frequency from the Pilots switches Panel for switching off the both transponders from Missing Malaysia airlines flight MH 370💰?

[@bobdeverell]

Physicists do the math and are not constrained by experience. Problematic to say something is impossible simply because your experience suggests otherwise. Civilian HF RLoc using WSPR has now been demonstrated many times for helicopters and aircraft. While this does not mean MH370 will be found, it has opened up a RL field and technology that was previously only available to the military.

[@nigelwolfe3240]

My background is from actively receiving data from Inmarsat 4-F1 using 2 satellite dishes, a 2.4m mesh and a 2.6m solid, processing via SDR# and Jaero then to VRS using two separate computer systems and passing data onto a flight tracking company that required access to this satellite due to my good location in Brisbane. Although not an Amateur Radio Operator (yet) as such, I have been and have shown great interest in radio communication for over 35 years. I found your video exceptionally interesting and with reasoning validation. The area that Inmarsat 4-F1 covers incorporates the Kuala Lumpur (point of flight origin) and expected stop off point in Beijing, China. Yes, transponders can and most likely were disabled, and would certainly have been a calculated process to orchestrate, and I understand that Inmarsat would have provided what ever data available, but in the end, I just wish that I personally could have assisted in some small way to the tracking and eventual discovery of the final resting place of the 239 people aboard 9M-MRO on 8th March 2014 had I had the system operational back then, just a week earlier than when my son was born.

[@Zombieboss2002]

I think you have to take all other data into consideration as well. Even if this technique may not be reliable for tracking mh370, the radio interference it may have caused plus imarsat data add some credibility in my opinion.

[@gofoxgo]

Richard Godfrey released his WSPRnet findings on the flight path and crash location of MH370 on November 30, 2021. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on Mr. Godfrey's scientific methodology, or lack thereof, and his use or misuse of the WSPRnet data. Has Mr. Godfrey made a believer out of you? Has he changed your mind about the laws of physics per chance? You rock!

[@jamesacland1041]

Can't believe the media are running with this again. Did they not fact check the first time?? Is it being pushed again by Mr. Godfrey and his publicists?

[@gofoxgo]

@@jamesacland1041 Yes, I think that it is being pushed by Mr. Godfrey and his associates. Richard Godfrey was even interviewed on an Australian morning show (on December 1st or 2nd, not sure which) during which he gushed about how his "findings" are supported by the research of others. On the one hand I believe that Mr. Godfrey's theory and deductions are fatally flawed, and provide us with no useful information. On the other hand, I am glad that smart people are still trying to figure out where MH370 came down. So I give Mr. Godfrey an "A" for effort. And I give him an "A" for putting his name and reputation up for public scrutiny; that took some guts. And even though the attempt to use WSPRnet data to track the airplane failed, maybe, just maybe, this public failure will give some smart person an idea, a better idea, about how to narrow down the plane's final location? The failures of the search efforts may actually come down to something like one dude at INMERSAT who failed to check his math, which caused the location of the rings/ satellite ping rings to be off by an average of 50% of 900 kl. Meaning, if the BTO/BFO time and distance assumptions from the plane's prior flights matched up in a calculation when the plane was located in Kuala Lumpur, but were off by 900 kl when the plane was on the ground in Beijing, then INMERSAT's basic mathematical assumptions - the foundation on which their later calculations were built - would seriously undermine the estimated locations of the ping Arcs. So maybe Mr. Godfrey's analysis has given someone the bright idea to take a second look at some of the original mathematical calculations (such as confirming that the presumed BTO/BFO estimates when run through the calculation actually worked out to put the plane near-ish to Beijing at noon (or whenever it was there, I forget just now) on March 7, 2014, after factoring in the distance of the satellite to the plane on the earth). A 100 kl error, probably not a big deal, but a 900 kl error? Well, then something is probably wrong with your mathematical assumptions. Sheesh, I do apologize for blathering on and boring you with a total non sequitur!

[@JasonP6339]

If you were going to fake it then why wouldn't you make it go just a slightly different route and end up in a spot that they didn't search at all, but that's still within the satellite data? but instead his data actually leads to areas that were almost all pretty thoroughly searched/scanned, all besides from a very small portion that wasn't.... Seems like a dumb way to fake it when the search areas were all public knowledge

[@jamesacland1041]

@@JasonP6339 probably because he wants his research to line up. He's obviously fishing for some "funding". The government's throw him a bone and he runs off with it. It's been done countless times by so called "expert researchers".

[@vk2sky]

Good analysis Hayden, thanks & 73 VK2SKY

[@HamRadioDX]

Thanks Richard 👍

[@gardnep]

Could not have agreed with you more. Without a ham radio on the aircraft transmitting the data all we have is a theory looking for the data rather than data looking for a theory.

[@sirimevanwidyasekera4485]

Theoretically possible. However, with the data available on other selected routes, if he can come with good results, yes it is proven practically. Nevertheless, if MH370 found on the place suggested by him, It proves the possibility without foprmer case. Here, INMARSAT data is available to make the path to be adjusted if needed.

[@zyltch1]

Thanks for the video - very enlightening. I'm not an expert on this technique but it seems to me highly unlikely that with the confusion of all the spurious very weak signals MH 370 could be found in this way. As you say, WSPR is not radar. The flight path inferred from WSPR seems very eccentric when compared with the flight path of MH 370 up to 02:22 MYT - especially that part of the path which forms a large closed loop.

[@christopherdenize2450]

I think you can detect aircraft by HF but you won’t be detecting the aircraft itself but rather the hot air coming off the jets which creates disturbances in the ionosphere. This is the same way the Duga radar in Russia works. Mind you the aircraft has to be operating at that height and the transmitter must be several kilowatts.

[@victorcontreras9138]

Why as a matter of fact I DO have a comment! You talk of WSPR signals and I'm talking about this recent Cambodia crash site of MH 370. Would someone tell me what's going on here?

[@megatrendy1]

How about an airplane letting pursuit the course and compare data?

[@michaelclueless]

Seems to me the biggest argument against WSPR finding the plane is the brief duty cycle of transmissions. Much of the propagation variables and aircraft traffic distractions that you refer to, could be analyzed out of the WSPR data, with enough experience and intelligently-developed algorithms. That wouldn’t make up for the absence of data when the target aircraft was between transmissions or paths of the RF signals WSPR uses.

[@tristan4777]

Great video on the subject and some excellent points. I agree completely, over such a long path, with so many variables how could you ever know if you were tracking an aircraft let alone identify which one. Thanks for the video.

[@HamRadioDX]

Well said! Thanks for watching

[@pppooppoo7763]

It is said that there weren’t many planes flying over the indian ocean at the time. Plus, other flights can be distinguished via flight tracking programs.

[@nicoradv3923]

@@pppooppoo7763 But that's the point, "other flights can be distinguished via flight tracking programs." they were designed for that purpose.

[@pppooppoo7763]

@@nicoradv3923 what are you trying to say?

[@azitters1]

hi , have you heard about 60 minutes this sunday which will have a story that someone has been be able to track the flightpath and location were it ended up

[@mballer]

I just watched the KZbin video of that, that's why I wound up here. That report was nothing but a bunch of reliving emotion. Such crap "reporting". This video is a little better but I am still searching for a detailed video of what the guy did.

[@favoritemustard3542]

It seems around the 13:00 mark, you were getting a bit bored with the disprovements... I still finished out the video - very interesting, ty.

[@HamRadioDX]

Thanks Mustard

[@mdonoCFC]

Someone doesn't want to find it possibly?

[@boristabacsplatt6609]

You can't find what isn't there. This was a ghost flight from day one.

[@mdonoCFC]

nutter @@boristabacsplatt6609

[@oahmed97]

Hi mate- Thankyou for this informative video. Could we potentially tie up via Online conference tool and I could Learn further about your findings/perspectives? From the UK, Omar

[@spenceabroad7960]

Pretty sure Richard Godfrey has managed to pinpoint a location only in the last week or so.

[@krishnatharanjan837]

He is making story. He doesn't know what happened to this plane. This theory started by former ATSB director Peter Foley last year and this people following him without any knowledge. R. Godfrey also following them. They are copying each other's talks. This plane is shattered. Nothing to find. They don't know this truth yet.

[@Superjet701]

Yes, the article was complete BS. Same conclusion as you mate. hs0zjx

[@HamRadioDX]

Thanks mate!

[@godblessCL]

It is difficult to believe, i can only think that they trained an AI model to spot the differences, but yes it need more explanation.

[@WENGTETA]

Hasn't the search been approved because of Godfrey's theory using wspr tech?

[@HamRadioDX]

Nope

[@WENGTETA]

@@HamRadioDX I'm pretty sure it's subject to the Malaysian governments approval but ocean inifinity stated they are hoping to go at the beginning of 2023. So is that for another reason and not this theory? Also has Godfrey and his team not already tracked other flights using this tech?

[@ronjohnson3177]

You are wrong WSPR can be used to locate an aerial propelled object.

[@histacey]

60 min Australia interviewed the guy who came out w the radio data.

[@HamRadioDX]

So that makes it credible? 😂😂

[@SherLizz]

@@HamRadioDX - So only your explanation counts?

[@linuxbrad]

Not a fan of such strong convictions about proving a negative. You cannot credobly say with certainty it is not possible to locate or track an object using passive radar data.

[@HamRadioDX]

Prove me wrong 🤷‍♂️

[@mballer]

@@HamRadioDX Do you know of any video that sets forth in excruciating detail of what he did? Sounds like total crap to me but I no knowledge of how extensive the system is. If he had some data from Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia and India perhaps? I just watched the 60 minutes video and all it was is a play for emotion.

[@ivandubinsky1857]

I agree. Anyone who knows how WSPR works will realize that this claim is simply not plausible.

[@bhyydy6353]

Has aircraft tracking been independently verified? If yes, it’s pretty convincing.

[@chuckhanna-myrick3132]

My recollection of the radiation pattern off a dipole is a doughnut, which means off the axis of the antenna there is reduced signal.

[@roof_ratcv6638]

You're quick to dismiss the possibility that an aircraft might be tracked using WSPR, especially considering that signal scatter is used to track targets over the horizon by the military. If the military is capable of tracking objects well beyond the radio horizon using radio signal scatter, it only makes it possible to track a target by its disturbance of a radio signal. Basically, it's the detection of a target due to the absence of a signal rather than detection due the reflection of a radio signal (radar). It's similar in a way to how the ancient Polynesians were able to detect an island land mass over the horizon in open ocean, due the disturbances to the ocean wave patterns. 73 de NX9P

[@HamRadioDX]

WSPR and military tracking are two different things all together buddy. Consider the power levels involved, and the frequencies/antennas and equipment. And detecting an island vs a plane… yeah consider the size differences. An overwhelming majority of hams agree with me. It’s bollocks.

[@mktwatcher]

I agree with you. The author implying that WSPR has made it possible to locate MH470 is creating false hope. You are exactly correct they need to prove their hypothesis using real data from a large batch of data, particularly using the large amount of transatlantic flights correlated with lots of WSPR traffic between the U.S. and Europe.

[@bigfoottoo2841]

Don't worry about it, anyone who would consider searching based on this data is going to study the hell out of it before they spend a dime on a new search.

[@lonewolfhamradio]

Great video presenting a balanced opinion and taking into account that the claims in the article are possible but not probable. I spent 9 years working in air defence radar and I’ve been a ham for 6 months, the original news article caught my interest but seemed like a heck of a reach. This “engineer” obviously needs funding, if he believed his pub theory then he would have chosen a regular flight and looked at the data over more than one point in time.

[@lecochonbleu]

"Great video... taking into account that the claims in the article are possible but not probable". You've been watching a different video altogether, jed Beer. The conclusion of the host is exactly the opposite to what you've claimed. His opinion is clearly, "It's just not possible", "it just makes no sense", and earlier the idea proposed by Mr Godfrey he says is "just absurd". His opinion, and clearly he is something of an expert, is fairly strongly that Mr Godfrey's proposal is neither probable nor possible. He talks about a context of Mr Godfrey's pursuit seeming to "cherry pick data" to try to make information (which it seems is entirely meaningless information as concerns mh370) "correlate with a potential theory". That kind of approach clearly cannot be good scientific method in any case, if even scientific method at all. We ought to remember that Mr Godfrey is nothing of an experienced or learned expert on WSPR. I believe he hadn't heard of the radio context around a year ago. It's similar with Mr Godfrey's last paper he produced in a suggested ocean drift analysis. Mr Godfrey is no trained or experienced oceanographer and I understand nor has he a qualification or professional experience in oceanography. I understand he has a professional background in various scientific applications, but with MH370 is turning his hand to all kinds of areas which he is not an expert in or not even previously experienced in (and indeed including areas in which there are no existing scientific experts at all). Actually, even Mr Godfrey's Independent Group stable mate, Mike Exner, has labelled publicly Mr Godfrey's WSPR project as "Garbage science".

[@reasonablerage4370]

Dozens of unconfirmed debris was spotted at 44°57" 30" S, some pieces as large as 25 m. I don't recall hearing the area ever being searched, which is a massive failure by the investigators. I think MH370 broke apart mid air in a high speed dive, leaving large debris across hundreds of KM (drifting). Drifting analysis has shown the debris to originate from the 7 arc, though failure to find anything would indicate that the only part of the aircraft partially in tact would be the engines, wings, and tail section. Australia claiming that the aircract plummeted into the ocean at high speeds is garbage. How do you explain to the public of the piece part of the flapperon that was found in tact? There would be millons of pieces of debris that would have washed up. In my view, the aircraft broke apart mid air after fuel ran out in a high speed dive, leaving a large range of debris, not directly in the 7th arc.

[@erikgeerts5472]

Thanks for your balanced opinion. Great analysis Hayden, can't agree more. 73' PD0RDG Amsterdam The Netherlands

[@HamRadioDX]

Thank you Erik for stopping by and leaving a comment. 73!

[@themapoe]

I'm going to be honest: I looked at the paper and I don't think Godfrey fully understands the science either. The theoretical explanations in the paper are so bad compared to what you would expect from a legit research paper. There might be a way to identify a unique scattering pattern from airplanes that might make this work... You'd need actual DSP engineers working on it. Like in the paper, he never so much as mentions "Fourier transform" and then he randomly throws around MMO in such a way that leads me to believe he has no idea what this is.

[@mattghoward]

Tripwires??????? NFI - just wrong - this whole MH370 thing is getting to be a joke - too many people grasping for straws. I feel for the familes - its a tragedy - but until the wreckage is found then nobody has any idea of what happened.

[@stucrossland3719]

See Dan Hanley and Doug Greene.

[@MissPepsi-pc5ox]

Yes! No one have ever find the truth of what happened to the flight MH370 plane to this present day! It got up in the air and after that no one knows! No one knows about over two hundred people on board! What do they do with them? Anyone, can at least called home 🏡 to their parents and friends! Wondering! Why didn't they looked at the satellite might have at least pictures of the flight MH370 plane heading in what directions! Well! If whoever is behind this well never reveal what they did to the flight ✈️ MH370 plane! If it's the pilot that fly this flight MH370 ✈️ plane! He might have something to do with it! If he was negotiating with other authorities on another phone to end the flight MH370 ✈️ plane! So that's what he did! But would've been recorded! But people with disrespect are more likely to worked so carefully and secretly worked behind what they want to do away because they see big award! 🤑 We have no idea whatever happened only the pilot knows! 🤔

[@krishnakishore9936]

But, where is MH370? How do we know where it is? It is so tragic.

[@lorenwilson8128]

The likely path of MH370 is not on a normal flight path. If the researcher found a signal there, it was not a commercial flight.

[@TheNoCodeTech]

Very interesting. #TeamReplay for the win. #ThNHR

[@HamRadioDX]

Cheers No Code

[@FEPLabsRadio]

Good video! You very nicely did not say that guy is crazy as a loon.

[@BigDaddy-yp4mi]

"The idea that an aircraft could cause any change over such a long distance is just absurd." What about tracking iddy-bitty meteorites on a friggin RTL_SDR with a .99 cent Chinese antenna? His "work", that you bet the farm on deriding, has now been sent to government funding study groups and peer reviews. I believe you will eat crow on this one because excluding newer stations' data that have gone online since MH370, he is able to track aircraft with PERFECT accuracy. Not close, not near, not in the vicinity, but PERFECT accuracy. Perfect being described as 20 nautical miles if altitude is above 28,000 (airliners typically fly @ 33,000-45,000 feet) due to curvature of the earth. There's a LOT of geometry involved, but a 300 square mile area is MORE than enough area to predict where it went down. You will be proven wrong, watch and see.

[@HamRadioDX]

I look forward to be proven wrong, but I won't be. Once you understand the "technology" he is referring to and a basic understanding of over the horizon radar and RF, you know it's all bollocks. Just because he appears on 60 minutes and claims to be a aerospace engineer does not make him credible.

[@perpetuallymediocre]

I’m sure that I am the least qualified here to comment on this but one takeaway from your video, which I enjoyed and found very informative, was when you said something to the effect of “what about other planes in the flight path? How would he know if there were any other planes around?”….now again, I’m ignorant to this subject so forgive me but as I understood the guy’s explanation, he followed it before it left vicinity of other flights and *after* it was anywhere remotely close to anything, let alone another airplane.

[@HamRadioDX]

The problem is that the author only considers the planes close to where he believes MH370 was… not across the whole globe. For instance a station in Europe and one in Australia - there would potentially be dozens of flights across that path… but then again I don’t believe it’s possible with WSPR

[@ZandarKoad]

Did Godfrey open source his code? Then we can individually go from WSPR database to flight path ourselves with raw code on any one of millions of known flights occurring every year. Easy.

[@wild-radio7373]

#TeamReplay for the win!♡♡♡ 🤜🏻👍🤛🏻

[@HamRadioDX]

Thanks Aname!

[@Casual-Troublemaker]

Hey dude, I will tell you this much; A person who is only expert about Radio signals/WSPR and have no Programming skills will tell you it's impossible to track something with WSPR as its inventor will say so. But, a person with Programming Skills and tremendous amount of data already recorded at hand will tell you how easy it is to "Write an algorithm to identify the pattern of the recorded data to pin point an Airplane at its take off, then confirm that pattern is valid until where the airplane is disappeared from the Civil Aviation Radars (which you can cross check with the actual radar data and confirm for 100% that it's the exact airplane you are tracking in this huge mountain of data even they are recorded in 2 minutes intervals), and then continue to track the same exact pattern will for sure let you to track ANYTHING". These guys wrote an algorithm to track a pattern of recorded weak radio signals crossing at every 2 minutes with the exact flight path of this aircraft from its take off to the moment it disappeared from civil aviation radars, and continue to track the same crossing signal pattern until it disappeared. The outcome of the pattern tracking proved the same exact flight path with one of the previously confirmed flight path of the airplane (which was tracked by the signals sent from the engines of the airplane to the satellite in every 1 hour for 7+ hours). The so called 7th arc was drawn based on the engine signals send on an hourly interval, and the search zone with the possible crash site was drawn upon this confirmed data. Now that with this new data, it's more precise. As precise as drawing a line on form of dots separated by 2 minutes rather than 1 hour. Nothing escapes since! and I have high hopes that they will find it if they initiate a one last search party based on this new information.

[@abdulmajied4941]

You know what funny? USA cannot find the plane.

[@robertwalker7010]

It was never lost.

[@mrdim362]

2 years have gone by. So you have found it right. ?

[@HamRadioDX]

Old mate has gone onto another theory.. so I guess this video proves he didn’t know what he was talking about

[@stringbender247]

So basically because you can't do what's being proposed and you didn't figure it out then it can't be done and isnt true? Well that settles it then.

[@la7dfa]

The more unlikely a certain claim is, given existing evidence on the subject, the greater the standard of proof that is expected of it. Here we have a guy claiming he can track a plane in the middle of a large ocean, using weak shortwave signals. The math does not add up. I have worked a lot of contacts in amateur radio, and you can get some echo from aircrafts. But that is typically on VHF and above, and distances up to ~400km. I have not noticed those effects on the HF bands. I know it can be done with over the horizon radars, but then you are at the next level of power and extremely huge arrays. I think we should start with him showing how he did it, and then he can do a blind test. Most likely he will have the same problems as Uri Geller when he met James Randy.

[@xs6819]

Don't be so quick to judge

[@ebaystars]

No WSPR,agreed it's not designed to do such detection, sadly, however Jindalolo High Power OTHR et al - already know it all and knew it on the night. but because any disclosure of the "accuracy" of OTHR (Over the Horizon Radio using shorwaves) would not be allowable by any defence organisation, CSIRO --- OTHR has been developed with billions and is now super-accurate for detecting anything from subs on the surface to missiles.. Jindaloo just dont want you to know about its capabilities. Remember the Woodpecker at Chernobyl.OTHR capabilities are very secret.

[@nightwaves3203]

Wave height radar is spread wide across the HF band. If recorded that region would of been where to look for returns or reflections received by other receivers. Receivers are specifically designed to enable logging as what's reflecting. Last know the transmitting antennas aren't too caring about spurious signals either. Not that the government contracts lids :) purposely :)

[@kb9mtd-aaronwebb]

They'd likely have a better chance finding it with the ocean listening network or seismic networks throughout the area. I would suppose they could direction find it using online SDRs if the data were recorded but no-one keeps that data as it is used now then thrown out.

[@catastrophic82]

There was some talk about a year ago of using Ocean listening type analysis, but needless to say nothing came from it. Just my 2cent hypothesis is the aircraft is further south than currently predicted. I base this off the fact the search area was defined by the aircraft going in to a stall condition (essentially vertical fall). However my -thoughts- are it would have gone in to a glide. Take that as speculative and nothing more.

[@metatechnologist]

@@catastrophic82 My "speculation" is that the plane would have hit the water at a nearly perfect angle that resulted in its breaking into the smallest pieces possible and why searchers could have overlooked it. I feel like that it is still rich for exploration using supercomputer analysis to see how it may have fallen to the floor under such circumstances. And none of that involves using WSPR either. I do think it will be found by some persistence person or group. After all look at how long the Titanic remained hidden but yet it was found. There was another plane that lost in he Atlantic and it was found. So I do think that the sea can be made to yield its secrets once in a while!

[@jimmyjamzvids5725]

@@metatechnologist well they found large pieces of this aircraft already so that theory is gone sorry my guy.

[@metatechnologist]

@@jimmyjamzvids5725 Actually not. They only found small pieces of the wing not large wing segments.

[@jimmyjamzvids5725]

@@metatechnologist they found pieces that 6 ft long by 4 ft wide, plus another that was 8 ft in length by 2 ft wide pieces of aileron I think I don’t ever really comment but there are news videos from ABC News from 6 years ago showing the pieces not sure how to post a link but I literally looked mh370 pieces on KZbin and it was first result.

[@toastrecon]

Yeah. It’d be way more compelling if you could make something that was essentially an overlay of FlightAware and ADSB. If they did it with one plane, they should be able to track closer and known planes.

[@krishnatharanjan837]

Plane is completely disintegrated. It is divided to thousands of pieces. There is no plane to find. This people still don't know this truth but fabricating new idiotic theories. Still they don't know what happened to this plane.

[@ronmorrison1964]

Thanks. for your. Explanation!!

[@JNET_Reloaded]

Its dayta not darta! its killometers not killer meters!

[@HamRadioDX]

It's Australian mate. Get over it.

[@riegerBeatz]

Wenn er es wirklich gefunden hat, wieso wird dann noch ein Jahr gewartet bis die Suche stattfindet? Da stimmt doch was nicht.