Has anyone analyzed the new MH370 report?
Thread Starter
Has anyone analyzed the new MH370 report?
I know that most people discredited earlier reports that WSPR Data could be used to find MH370. However, it appears that there is a new study and I would appreciate input from anybody that understands this technology.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/yearslong-search-for-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-may-be-drawing-to-an-end-following-groundbreaking-research-report/news-story/1f294a541aeae0534f3fe99e21037dbb
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nfyren1429mz80vvedo1r/MH370-Flight-Path-Analaysis-30th-August-2023.pdf?rlkey=hqpi76o194vel6k4gk86x04wg&dl=0
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/yearslong-search-for-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-may-be-drawing-to-an-end-following-groundbreaking-research-report/news-story/1f294a541aeae0534f3fe99e21037dbb
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nfyren1429mz80vvedo1r/MH370-Flight-Path-Analaysis-30th-August-2023.pdf?rlkey=hqpi76o194vel6k4gk86x04wg&dl=0
I've downloaded the paper and taken a brief look at it. I do not claim to be an expert on WSPR, however the science generally falls within (one of) my fields of interest/expertise.
Of the 232 pages most of the analysis is contained within the first 60, so it's not as daunting a read as it might first seem. The remaining pages contain references and appendices, which upon first glance appear to give sufficient information for a reader to replicate the study should they wish to.
At a high level the thesis seems initially credible, but not proven. However I have to stress that this merely a comment as a result of understanding the theory as presented and having spent a few minutes reading what was said, I've certainly not gone into it in any depth, especially with specific regard to MH370.
There are some things outside the science itself that are of some note perhaps. The first is that this paper doesn't appear to have been peer-reviewed, and the authors have not provided any bio or link to their place(s) of employment, nor contact information. This does raise a flag to me, although it doesn't necessarily condemn the results. I did briefly research the authors separately and found at least one of them (Prof Maskell) seems to have a reasonable pedigree in terms of past research and employment (along with current employment). In saying this I don't intend any negativity towards the other two, it's simply that I was unable to find much in the way of independent detail about them or their past work.
The second is that there were aspects of the paper that didn't seem on first blush to adjoin well. A second or third (and more thorough) reading could change this view, but it's another small flag to me at this point.
The third is that the references seemed somewhat insular, there wasn't a great deal of material from outside the three authors. This could simply be a factor of an emerging field of which not much has been written or researched however, with the other two flags in view, it doesn't assist the thesis or presentation when there's little external supporting data from respected persons or institutions.
The fourth is that the paper doesn't read to me as having a particularly (academically) rigorous or critical approach. This may be intended, but I'd have thought more of a discussion as opposed to 'conclusion' might have assisted a reader in furthering their understanding as well as maybe supporting the thesis. Such discussion might include rebuttal evidence or explanation, but there was none to be seen (and I feel I'm peripherally aware there was some criticism of past presentations on this subject?).
All that said it is commendable that the authors have presented their script examples which should allow anyone to replicate their work. Perhaps someone will, but mostly in my view the general science needs more than one critical study to be undertaken by reputable independent researchers and/or institutions before much credence can be given to this specific thesis. Without that this reader will necessarily remain healthily skeptical of the work, but is also going to see what foundation research is in the public domain in the hope that they are able to come to a more informed view.
FP.
Of the 232 pages most of the analysis is contained within the first 60, so it's not as daunting a read as it might first seem. The remaining pages contain references and appendices, which upon first glance appear to give sufficient information for a reader to replicate the study should they wish to.
At a high level the thesis seems initially credible, but not proven. However I have to stress that this merely a comment as a result of understanding the theory as presented and having spent a few minutes reading what was said, I've certainly not gone into it in any depth, especially with specific regard to MH370.
There are some things outside the science itself that are of some note perhaps. The first is that this paper doesn't appear to have been peer-reviewed, and the authors have not provided any bio or link to their place(s) of employment, nor contact information. This does raise a flag to me, although it doesn't necessarily condemn the results. I did briefly research the authors separately and found at least one of them (Prof Maskell) seems to have a reasonable pedigree in terms of past research and employment (along with current employment). In saying this I don't intend any negativity towards the other two, it's simply that I was unable to find much in the way of independent detail about them or their past work.
The second is that there were aspects of the paper that didn't seem on first blush to adjoin well. A second or third (and more thorough) reading could change this view, but it's another small flag to me at this point.
The third is that the references seemed somewhat insular, there wasn't a great deal of material from outside the three authors. This could simply be a factor of an emerging field of which not much has been written or researched however, with the other two flags in view, it doesn't assist the thesis or presentation when there's little external supporting data from respected persons or institutions.
The fourth is that the paper doesn't read to me as having a particularly (academically) rigorous or critical approach. This may be intended, but I'd have thought more of a discussion as opposed to 'conclusion' might have assisted a reader in furthering their understanding as well as maybe supporting the thesis. Such discussion might include rebuttal evidence or explanation, but there was none to be seen (and I feel I'm peripherally aware there was some criticism of past presentations on this subject?).
All that said it is commendable that the authors have presented their script examples which should allow anyone to replicate their work. Perhaps someone will, but mostly in my view the general science needs more than one critical study to be undertaken by reputable independent researchers and/or institutions before much credence can be given to this specific thesis. Without that this reader will necessarily remain healthily skeptical of the work, but is also going to see what foundation research is in the public domain in the hope that they are able to come to a more informed view.
FP.
Can't say anything about the technology (or not....) involved, but as far as I can tell, this study gives a ditching point pretty much where previous, other technology, studies have pointed. What may be "new" is that these WSPR authors think they know that the aircraft was actively flown into an attempted ditching:
Towards the end of flight the pilot circled twice over the end location, which will have again required further fuel. One possible explanation of the circling is that the pilot was checking for any shipping in the vicinity. There was no cloud cover at this location and time according to the GDAS cloud cover map. There was substantial cloud cover further south and west, which may also be a reason for selecting this end location around 29.0°S 99.5°E. The pilot may have been checking for any shipping that might observe the crash of MH370.
(p.59)
Towards the end of flight the pilot circled twice over the end location, which will have again required further fuel. One possible explanation of the circling is that the pilot was checking for any shipping in the vicinity. There was no cloud cover at this location and time according to the GDAS cloud cover map. There was substantial cloud cover further south and west, which may also be a reason for selecting this end location around 29.0°S 99.5°E. The pilot may have been checking for any shipping that might observe the crash of MH370.
(p.59)
Last edited by Gary Brown; 2nd Sep 2023 at 09:55. Reason: typos
There has been a community of perhaps a couple dozen people who have tried very hard and are still trying to find the track of MH370. The community is in frequent disagreement. Richard Godfrey has been prominent since the disappearance, but in the last 5 years or so his views have increasingly separated from most of the community. See this link and following posts for some discussion. Radiant Physics (VIctor Iannello)
So I found a little time today to see if there was any independent discussion on this thesis.
Initial searches didn't reveal anything from respectable institutions, however there were several sites that seemed to me to present a sensible response from individuals. Several individuals were identifiable with apparently good and relevant experience, one also appeared to quote a Nobel Prize recipient (JH Taylor) who has direct expertise with the underlying WSPR system.
With the proviso in mind that this pool of people was nearly as small as those proposing the thesis, it would seem that they almost all considered the proposal to be not proven. Some even went further than this.
While I've been around long enough to have learnt 'never say never' to what might initially seem to be crackpot ideas I have to say that I've found nothing at this time that persuades me to accept the proposal, and I remain skeptical. If anything more so than before (but still with an open mind).
I can only reiterate that, to me, this really needs a thorough and independent investigation by a reputable organisation. In the meantime the following links may be of interest for those looking for an alternative view:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211204...56-1C-28-35-64 (Dr. Robert Westphal) This paper offers further references of interest.
https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/202...nt-find-mh370/ (Victor Iannello) this article appears to offer a quote from Joseph Hooton Taylor.
https://ham.stackexchange.com/questi...s-proposed-tec (unidentified parties)
FP.
Initial searches didn't reveal anything from respectable institutions, however there were several sites that seemed to me to present a sensible response from individuals. Several individuals were identifiable with apparently good and relevant experience, one also appeared to quote a Nobel Prize recipient (JH Taylor) who has direct expertise with the underlying WSPR system.
With the proviso in mind that this pool of people was nearly as small as those proposing the thesis, it would seem that they almost all considered the proposal to be not proven. Some even went further than this.
While I've been around long enough to have learnt 'never say never' to what might initially seem to be crackpot ideas I have to say that I've found nothing at this time that persuades me to accept the proposal, and I remain skeptical. If anything more so than before (but still with an open mind).
I can only reiterate that, to me, this really needs a thorough and independent investigation by a reputable organisation. In the meantime the following links may be of interest for those looking for an alternative view:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211204...56-1C-28-35-64 (Dr. Robert Westphal) This paper offers further references of interest.
https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/202...nt-find-mh370/ (Victor Iannello) this article appears to offer a quote from Joseph Hooton Taylor.
https://ham.stackexchange.com/questi...s-proposed-tec (unidentified parties)
FP.
Join Date: Sep 2023
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MH370/WSPR
I have downloaded the report and on first inspection it appears to be based largely on the data that was used in previous reports.
As a scientist who has been involved in the development and operation of operational long range HF radars I can advise that the methodology used in this analysis is fundamentally flawed. Although there is much complexity under the hood operational radars use the following methodology - detect, track, geolocate, identify. Richard turns this methodology on its head - predict aircraft track using a model, look for any ‘anomalous’ WSPR data that coincides with the predicted position (using ludicrous criteria) then assume that these are caused by MH370.
The science behind long range aircraft detection is well understood. RG claims that this science does not apply to WSPR signals. The few attempts to provide an explanation are invariably hand waving exercises that lack any scientific rigor.
In short, the latest predictions are no more credible than the previous reports.
As a scientist who has been involved in the development and operation of operational long range HF radars I can advise that the methodology used in this analysis is fundamentally flawed. Although there is much complexity under the hood operational radars use the following methodology - detect, track, geolocate, identify. Richard turns this methodology on its head - predict aircraft track using a model, look for any ‘anomalous’ WSPR data that coincides with the predicted position (using ludicrous criteria) then assume that these are caused by MH370.
The science behind long range aircraft detection is well understood. RG claims that this science does not apply to WSPR signals. The few attempts to provide an explanation are invariably hand waving exercises that lack any scientific rigor.
In short, the latest predictions are no more credible than the previous reports.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
4 Posts
I'm trying to be kind to RG here, but he is his own worst enemy.
Initially, he made extremely basic mistakes because of his lack of knowledge of how to create a valid track plot.
*He used the centre of the WSPR transmitting grids, both TX and RX, instead of finding out where the two relevant stations were actually located. This meant that with "links" that stretch over tens of thousands of kilometres, the azimuth errors became huge and contributed to cascading errors to downstream links.
*He created fixes from links at wildly acute angles to each other, introducing further errors. Some of these links in the first report contradicted solid Radar data by over 50 NM
*He uses an interval between "fixes" of one every two minutes, resulting in a supposed track that changes direction virtually every two minutes. He claims this is probably due to whoever was flying MH370 being hypoxic, instead of his fault ridden analysis.
* He is constrained by the seven pings rings. A casual analysis of each track he produces reveals that MH370 changed direction, sometimes very large changes, each time it was nearing the time that a ping ring was created. Sometimes the following fixes follow the curving ring. It's almost like he knows where the ping rings are!
*He regarded HF waves as laser beams; always dead straight with no possibility of deviation; in direct contravention of established science.
*He has acknowledged by default that his first two analyses are wildly incorrect; there is no reason to suspect the third is any different as iterations 2 and 3 have moved the crash site by hundreds of miles each time.
However, the resulting claims have meant lots of clicks for GT.... So that is good...
Initially, he made extremely basic mistakes because of his lack of knowledge of how to create a valid track plot.
*He used the centre of the WSPR transmitting grids, both TX and RX, instead of finding out where the two relevant stations were actually located. This meant that with "links" that stretch over tens of thousands of kilometres, the azimuth errors became huge and contributed to cascading errors to downstream links.
*He created fixes from links at wildly acute angles to each other, introducing further errors. Some of these links in the first report contradicted solid Radar data by over 50 NM
*He uses an interval between "fixes" of one every two minutes, resulting in a supposed track that changes direction virtually every two minutes. He claims this is probably due to whoever was flying MH370 being hypoxic, instead of his fault ridden analysis.
* He is constrained by the seven pings rings. A casual analysis of each track he produces reveals that MH370 changed direction, sometimes very large changes, each time it was nearing the time that a ping ring was created. Sometimes the following fixes follow the curving ring. It's almost like he knows where the ping rings are!
*He regarded HF waves as laser beams; always dead straight with no possibility of deviation; in direct contravention of established science.
*He has acknowledged by default that his first two analyses are wildly incorrect; there is no reason to suspect the third is any different as iterations 2 and 3 have moved the crash site by hundreds of miles each time.
However, the resulting claims have meant lots of clicks for GT.... So that is good...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Stag Lane
Age: 52
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, in the previously mentioned video. The hypothesis is that the aircraft was under control during the ditching. It explains that a lot if research has gone into the damage sustained on the recovered parts and how the windage as well as the currents would have affected where parts ended up.
Yes, in the previously mentioned video. The hypothesis is that the aircraft was under control during the ditching. It explains that a lot if research has gone into the damage sustained on the recovered parts and how the windage as well as the currents would have affected where parts ended up.
The components that washed up later in Mauritius are of a size that is not consistent with a high speed impact. I would be surprised if the aircraft hot with a speed above 160Kts.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Grand Turk
Age: 60
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Empirical analysis may be useful
It seems to me that it would be relatively inexpensive to recreate some flights that bounce off the relevant satellites. Comparison with the original calculations would prove useful and may expose weaknesses in the theory or suggest corrections that could be applied to improve the accuracy. Honestly, I am very surprised this was not done at the time (if it was not). Does anyone know if the calculations have been verified against empirical data (in general terms)? Donald Rumsfeld...
. There are also the things we know, but have not yet connected the relevance.
The engines presumably will still be close to the site of impact. It may still be possible to shed more light on this mystery. Certainly, if the satellite information can be used it is going to be far more valuable than trying to guess the likely path of light debris has taken over vast ocean distances.
The engines presumably will still be close to the site of impact. It may still be possible to shed more light on this mystery. Certainly, if the satellite information can be used it is going to be far more valuable than trying to guess the likely path of light debris has taken over vast ocean distances.
It seems to me that it would be relatively inexpensive to recreate some flights that bounce off the relevant satellites.... if the satellite information can be used it is going to be far more valuable than trying to guess the likely path of light debris has taken over vast ocean distances.
Were it the latter then, for various technical reasons, it may be more generally acceptable. However, to the best of my knowledge, usable data in this range is not available to collate.
FP.
Join Date: Sep 2023
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MH370/WSPR analysis is unscientific
As a physicist who has been involved in the development and operation of skywave HF radars for 40+ years I consider the GDTAA analysis on which the MH370/WSPRv theory is based to be totally unscientific and ill informed.
HF skywave radars have been routinely used to track aircraft since the early 1960’s. The theory and practice are well understood. The proponents of GDTAA and the MH370 theory simply argue, with no attempt at justification, that the theory does not apply to WSPR signals. Over the past few years they have provided all sorts of possible scientific explanations for these results but their explanations are invariably hand-waving and more often than not ignore the considerable understanding of the phenomena in question.
1. Flawed methodology. Conventional systems detect peaks in what is a noisy environment. Peaks that are consistent in range, azimuth and Doppler are converted into tracks. The tracks are then converted from radar coordinates to ground coordinates before correlation with specific aircraft are attempted. The GDTAA approach reverses this - a model is used to predict the location of the target and any ‘anomalous’ signals are assumed to be a detection of the aircraft being modelled. The criteria applied to declare a signal as anomalous are ridiculously tight given the inherent characteristics of long range HF propagation. GDTAA is the engineering equivalent of a self-licking ice-cream. It’s authors use science in the way that a drunk uses a lamp post - more for support than illumination.
2. Signal strength. Operational systems use Tx powers of the order of several hundred kilowatts using highly directional antennas. WSPR systems typically radiate less than 5W on antennas with limited directionality. It is a simple matter to use the radar equation to calculate the signal strength and to show that the backscattered signal in the examples included in the WSPR/MH370 report will be ~120 db below the noise level. The GDTAA proponents argue, without the slightest attempt at justification, that the radar equation does not apply to WSPR signals. It does.
3. Doppler shifts. It has been known since the early 1960’s that variations in the phase path of the radio wave result in Doppler shifts which can easily exceed 1-2 Hz. These can originate from variation in the structure of an otherwise quiet ionosphere or from significant perturbations in the ionosphere. The nighttime ionosphere is inherently less stable than the daytime ionosphere. The long nighttime paths involved in the claimed detection of MH370 can be expected to show significant Doppler variations.
4. Determination of range. Operational systems use precision waveforms that are synchronised between Tx and Rx sites to very tight tolerances. Hence knowledge of the radar range is known very accurately. Conversion to ground range is dependent on knowledge of the state of the ionosphere and its impact on the radio wave over the path in question and is much more uncertain. WSPR signals do not have any characteristics which allow range to be determined. The various attempts at determining ground range from WSPR signals are lacking the slightest technical credibility,
5 Determination of azimuth. Operational systems use large receive apertures to provide accurate estimates of apparent azimuth. Conversion of these measurements to real azimuth involves accurate knowledge of the ionospheric structure along the ray path. WSPR systems have little f any directionality and are inherently unable to determine azimuth to the accuracy being claimed by GDTAA.
There are so many holes in the GDTAA approach that it is difficult to know where to start. Attempts to explain away these issues invariably involves hand-waving and displays a total lack of understanding of the geophysical processes at play. It is sad that sections of the press continue to present this theory as though it is some sort of scientific breakthrough. It is not - it is a modern day example of alchemy.
HF skywave radars have been routinely used to track aircraft since the early 1960’s. The theory and practice are well understood. The proponents of GDTAA and the MH370 theory simply argue, with no attempt at justification, that the theory does not apply to WSPR signals. Over the past few years they have provided all sorts of possible scientific explanations for these results but their explanations are invariably hand-waving and more often than not ignore the considerable understanding of the phenomena in question.
1. Flawed methodology. Conventional systems detect peaks in what is a noisy environment. Peaks that are consistent in range, azimuth and Doppler are converted into tracks. The tracks are then converted from radar coordinates to ground coordinates before correlation with specific aircraft are attempted. The GDTAA approach reverses this - a model is used to predict the location of the target and any ‘anomalous’ signals are assumed to be a detection of the aircraft being modelled. The criteria applied to declare a signal as anomalous are ridiculously tight given the inherent characteristics of long range HF propagation. GDTAA is the engineering equivalent of a self-licking ice-cream. It’s authors use science in the way that a drunk uses a lamp post - more for support than illumination.
2. Signal strength. Operational systems use Tx powers of the order of several hundred kilowatts using highly directional antennas. WSPR systems typically radiate less than 5W on antennas with limited directionality. It is a simple matter to use the radar equation to calculate the signal strength and to show that the backscattered signal in the examples included in the WSPR/MH370 report will be ~120 db below the noise level. The GDTAA proponents argue, without the slightest attempt at justification, that the radar equation does not apply to WSPR signals. It does.
3. Doppler shifts. It has been known since the early 1960’s that variations in the phase path of the radio wave result in Doppler shifts which can easily exceed 1-2 Hz. These can originate from variation in the structure of an otherwise quiet ionosphere or from significant perturbations in the ionosphere. The nighttime ionosphere is inherently less stable than the daytime ionosphere. The long nighttime paths involved in the claimed detection of MH370 can be expected to show significant Doppler variations.
4. Determination of range. Operational systems use precision waveforms that are synchronised between Tx and Rx sites to very tight tolerances. Hence knowledge of the radar range is known very accurately. Conversion to ground range is dependent on knowledge of the state of the ionosphere and its impact on the radio wave over the path in question and is much more uncertain. WSPR signals do not have any characteristics which allow range to be determined. The various attempts at determining ground range from WSPR signals are lacking the slightest technical credibility,
5 Determination of azimuth. Operational systems use large receive apertures to provide accurate estimates of apparent azimuth. Conversion of these measurements to real azimuth involves accurate knowledge of the ionospheric structure along the ray path. WSPR systems have little f any directionality and are inherently unable to determine azimuth to the accuracy being claimed by GDTAA.
There are so many holes in the GDTAA approach that it is difficult to know where to start. Attempts to explain away these issues invariably involves hand-waving and displays a total lack of understanding of the geophysical processes at play. It is sad that sections of the press continue to present this theory as though it is some sort of scientific breakthrough. It is not - it is a modern day example of alchemy.
