• MH370 speculation has become excessive recently. Metabunk is not a forum for creating theories by speculation. It's a forum for examining claims, and seeing if they hold up. Please respect this and keep threads on-topic. There are many other forums where speculation is welcome.

Possible location of missing flight MH370 found

The location is estimated to be 1500 kilometers WNW of Perth based on analysis of amateur radio waves.
 
The location is estimated to be 1500 kilometers WNW of Perth based on analysis of amateur radio waves.
this thread title as is is really ungooglable. and a quick google search i'm not seeing anything about it regarding actual data related to that specific video. i'm seeing barnacles may hold the key, pieces in cambodian jungle...

perhaps op @Apogej can link to an actual mainstream article that includes a link to the study?
 
oh its the same location they already know about, but only half the area was searched.

Article:
Combined with data from Boeing and Inmarsat satellites, and using drift analysis data, the same crash site was located.
...
“They've been able to go back in time to 2014, March 8, from the last known position of MH370, and through some very, very complex mathematics and science they are able to recreate the flight path of the aircraft and come to a position which is 1500 kilometres west of Perth in an area which has been partially searched before but about half of it has not.”


Article:
“The results of this case study align with the previous analyses by Boeing, Inmarsat and the drift analysis by the University of Western Australia of the MH370 floating debris that has been recovered from around the Indian Ocean,” the research team said.
 
Last edited:
The location is estimated to be 1500 kilometers WNW of Perth based on analysis of amateur radio waves.
I did a google search of the words "MH370 location". Here's an explanation of the methodology employed, as mentioned in this thread's news video.

In the new case study, the team have used groundbreaking amateur radio technology called Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) to detect and track flight MH370.

The aircraft tracking technology has been developed over the last three years and the scientists say the “results represent credible new evidence in the search”.

When an aircraft travels through a WSPR link, it disturbs the signal, and a record is captured on a global database.

Based on 125 disturbances found the research team were able to present 67 positions for MH370 over the six hours 27 minutes of flight from the plane’s last known radar position.
Content from External Source
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/malaysian-airlines-missing-plane
The article includes a link to the full report, all 232 pages of it.

Interestingly, there are three topics I find posted in the last few days, this radio interference one, an analysis of the location as indicated by mollusk incrustation on the recovered parts, and a claim that it has been seen crashed in the Cambodian jungle!
 
Last edited:
Ugh, the WSPR analysis result has changed a few times, it's very sketchy, and it's not that new.

Article:
MH370 Detection and Tracking
by Richard Godfrey | Sep 8, 2022 | WSPR | 98 comments
GDTAAA-MH370-Flight-Path-08MAR2014-0026-UTC-Regional-Markers-980x858.png
We have presented evidence that there was an active pilot until the end of the MH370 flight. We have also presented evidence that the pilot may have been disoriented, which can be caused by hypoxia.

To solve the mystery of the disappearance of MH370 we need to find the aircraft and recover the Flight Data Recorder and other evidence from the wreckage.

The new paper can be downloaded here

Download link (PDF is attached): https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2u9kfuriwlscrd/MH370 Detection and Tracking 08SEP2022.pdf?dl=0
 

Attachments

  • MH370 Detection and Tracking 08SEP2022.pdf
    9.8 MB · Views: 65
Article:

WSPR Can’t Find MH370

by Victor Iannello, POSTED: SUNDAY, 12/19/2021

Despite many stories in the media repeating claims that historical WSPR data can be used to track MH370, there are many reasons why these claims are patently false. There is broad agreement among acknowledgeable researchers that have investigated these claims, and a handful of these researchers have documented their concerns. For instance, amateur radio enthusiast Hayden Haywood (VK7HH) has created a video explaining why, in simple terms, WSPR can’t track airplanes. MH370 investigator Steve Kent published a paper that formally treats skywave propagation and scatter off airplanes, and concludes there is insufficient signal strength (by many orders of magnitude) for WSPR to detect aircraft over long distances. In fact, even WSPR creator Joe Taylor (K1JT), who won a Nobel prize in physics for his research on pulsars and gravity, told fellow MH370 Independent Group (IG) member Mike Exner, “I do not believe that historical data from the WSPR network can provide any information useful for aircraft tracking.”

[...]

Assuming the skywave propagation loss was equal to the free-space propagation loss, the WSPR signals originating in Switzerland and forward scattered by MH370 over the Gulf of Thailand would be received in Australia with a strength of around -210 dBm. However, the direct radio waves that did not interact with the aircraft would be received with a strength of around -110 dBm. That means that the direct signal strength would be about (-110 – -210) = 100 db (10 orders of magnitude!) stronger than the scattered signal. Under these circumstances, the combined signal (direct plus forward scattered) would be absolutely indistinguishable from the direct signal, even if above the noise level (which it was not).

[...]

WSPR Signal Deviations are Not Related to Aircraft



Yet it’s claimed that there was a detectable deviation in the recorded (S/N) values between the Swiss and Australian stations that is indicative of forward scatter from MH370. To evaluate this claim, Mike Exner and Bobby Ulich produced the following graph which shows the (S/N) for all WSPR contacts between the Swiss (HB9CZF) and Australian (VK1CH) stations over an time interval of around 16 hours. The particular (red) spot deemed as “anomalous” clearly shows no greater deviation from the trend than any other spot. What is claimed to be “anomalous” is within the scatter range of the other points. The dynamic characteristic of the ionosphere is all that is needed to explain these deviations.
image-12.png
To further demonstrate that there is nothing anomalous about the spot at 17:16 UTC, Mike and Bobby produced the following graphs which show that the reported values of frequency and frequency drift at 17:16 UTC are in no way anomalous to the other values recorded on that day for HB9CZF-VK1CH WSPR contacts.
image-17.pngimage-16.png

Conclusions



This article attempts to lay out in simple technical terms why WSPR data cannot be used to track aircraft over long distances, and certainly cannot be used to reconstruct the flight path of MH370. At long distances and at low transmission powers, the received signals from hypothetical aircraft scatter are simply too weak by many orders of magnitude. What is claimed to be discernable “anomalies” in signal strength attributable to forward scatter by aircraft are within the expected deviations in signal strength for long distance skywave propagation involving refraction off the ionosphere. Although aircraft scatter could be detected if the aircraft were close to either the transmitter or receiver and if the transmitted power were sufficiently strong, the detection of the aircraft requires signal processing to separate the Doppler-shifted scattered signal from the much stronger direct signal, and this data is not available in the WSPR database.

More technical details on the page.
 
On Godfrey's paper (attached to my post above):

SmartSelect_20230906-062636_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20230906-062716_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20230906-062758_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20230906-062815_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20230906-062836_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20230906-062849_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20230906-062448_Samsung Notes.jpg
Content from External Source
Their process is basically this:
• we have this huge database of links
• the links sometimes have anomalies, but these don't give any location
• so, using established data, we're picking anomalous links that would've crossed the possible flight path of MH370, and claim the anomaly was caused by that aircraft specifically
• the result is a highly erratic flight path
• we imagine the pilot was disoriented, but somehow kept the aircraft at altitude, and even recovered from a dive, yet never once used the radio
• we don't explain why or how the pilot turned off the transponder and flew to IGARI, avoiding civilian radar as best he could, and only began flying erratically after he turned off that route
• we never consider other sources of WSPR anomalies, including hundreds of other aircraft in flight at the time.

This analysis is based on wishful thinking, and disregards the fact that aircraft scatter is too weak to be detected by WSPR over long distances (see my previous post).
 
Back
Top