4 ms·

For those who don’t want to click - it’s a proposed new area to search. They haven’t even looked there, yet. The title is very misleading (to me) Quote: “ No o

For those who don’t want to click - it’s a proposed new area to search. They haven’t even looked there, yet. The title is very misleading (to me) Quote: “ No one had the idea before to combine Inmarsat satellite data, with Boeing performance data, with Oceanographic floating debris drift data, with WSPR net data” This seems sketchy. So many of these stories say things like this. But with all the money that went into the search, I kind of doubt “lets combine data from different sources” never crossed their mind. Seems like puff piece for now - search the area, and if it’s there, then declare him a genius.

beerandt 5y ago
It hasn't been done before because the "GDTAAA WSPR analysis software" he references is his own homebrew solution.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mannykannot 5y ago
  WSPR itself is not Godfrey's invention, and in fact depends on many radio amateurs, globally, sending, receiving and analyzing signals - for the purpose of measuring the atmosphere's radio transmission parameters, I believe. Godfrey may have originated the claim that it could be used to track aircraft at long ranges, and that claim seems to have been met with considerable skepticism on the grounds of poor signal/noise ratio. Godfrey claims that his WSPR track matches that from the Inmarsat data, where the latter is available. In evaluating that claim, I would first want to know if the WSPR track was developed without any input from Inmarsat or other sources. UPDATE: There is this article [1] on a blind test of the ability to track aircraft. It looks good here, but then I read this: 'There was one error of note, the initial turn of the aircraft after departure was to port and not starboard. Mike commented “I should have told you that aircraft departing NSFA on RWY 08 will always turn to port due to terrain clearance considerations. If you’d known that then no doubt the first part of the route would have been a bit more accurate.”' [my emphasis.] One should not, of course, be providing additional evidence in a blind test, and the suggestion that this should have been done raises doubts about how the test was conducted: for example, did the person performing the analysis know the general features of the flight, such as its destination? A more convincing blind test, IMHO, would go like this: "In the interval <begin> to <end>, one airplane passed through <some region>. Develop a plot of its flight before and after, as far as possible." - and there should be more than one test, of course, and perhaps they should say, truthfully, at most one airplane... [1] https://www.mh370search.com/2021/08/29/gdtaaa-blind-test/ https://www.mh370search.com/2021/08/29/gdtaaa-blind-test/
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Right, but he states it as if his method is a trivial (or at least non-novel) solution that others have overlooked. "Why hasn't anyone else attempted using my obscure and unavailable software?" Others have taken the same approach (ie intercepting-arcs/circles of the various satellite pings, plus 777 range estimates, plus subsequent oceanic current modeling), it's just that none have come up with the same exact solution. Unless I'm missing something and his software is incorporating an additional new element I'm unaware of. >Godfrey claims that his WSPR track matches that from the Inmarsat data Isn't this just semi-independent confirmation of the Inmarsat data?
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      Given that the Inmarsat analyses do not seem to be controversial, it would be a significant boost to the WSPR method if it independently put the airplane in the same place at the same time as the Inmarsat data - but if, as seems likely, Godfrey himself did the analysis, and given that his intense involvement with the issue suggests he might know the Inmarsat coordinates by memory, that independence is not a given. See also my update to my previous post regarding a test of the WSPR method. I cannot say whether Godfrey is claiming the insights of others as his own - ideas often arise independently, and if not, someone has to be first. As far as I know, only Godfrey has attempted to use the method, and while it is, like others, based on radio signals, it uses quite different signals.
      - beerandt 5y ago
        I agree, but the reason I said "semi-independent" is that I'm not sure the data/ calculation is independent confirmation, so much as an "independent" re-calculation of the same underlying Inmarsat-derived data. (Hopefully someone can chime in that's more familiar with the WSPR effort.) Ie., 1)Is WSPR using additional data sources other than the Inmarsat sourced observations (even if 3rd party observations of the Inmarsat signal), and 2) Can WSPR calculations based on those observations confirm the Inmarsat coords both with and without using the Inmarsat data as a constitute component? 3) And the same idea applies to Godfrey's calcs, relative to both the Inmarsat data and the WSPR community's contributions. RE: Your edit. Yes, the confirmation bias is sort of another way of stating the similar idea. Did he take the same data and play with it until "it looked right"? Vs taking different data, but possibly still having confirmation biases in reaching a similar conclusion? Versus a completely independent method, where various data components can be included/omitted without coming to contradictory solutions. The airport traffic pattern info you mention at least partially refutes the latter option. If presenting ambiguous results, you've got to at least state both/all possibilities where they exist before using extraneous information to exclude some of them. Including the blind (wrong) guess just looks bad.
redis_mlc 5y ago
You're incorrect: - The debris was found after most of the searches, by one man - it appears various militaries are hiding what their capabilites (or lack thereof) are
zowanet 5y ago
> The title is very misleading [...] Seems like puff piece for now This has become typical for the BBC: Phrase a headline as a question to which the implied answer may be "Yes", but in all likelihood is actually "No" or "Not yet".
- sokoloff 5y ago
  It’s not that new: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...
  - LilBytes 5y ago
    I was about to post the same.
mannykannot 5y ago
Godfrey presents his proposed location and a summary of his arguments for it here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kvu3kpu7kpjvjin/GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20MH370%20Analysis%20Preliminary%20Findings.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/kvu3kpu7kpjvjin/GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%2... One thing he makes clear here is that several search vessels have already passed through the area he has identified.
- colanderman 5y ago
  Interesting that the diagrams mention confidence values from the previous searches, but the text gives no indication that he applied corresponding Bayesian adjustments to his model's results?
squidproquo 5y ago
If anyone is interested in forecasting the location of where flight MH370 will be found: https://www.unitarity.com/app/challenges/mh370/events/2020 https://www.unitarity.com/app/challenges/mh370/events/2020

beerandt 5y ago

It hasn't been done before because the "GDTAAA WSPR analysis software" he references is his own homebrew solution.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mannykannot 5y ago
WSPR itself is not Godfrey's invention, and in fact depends on many radio amateurs, globally, sending, receiving and analyzing signals - for the purpose of measuring the atmosphere's radio transmission parameters, I believe. Godfrey may have originated the claim that it could be used to track aircraft at long ranges, and that claim seems to have been met with considerable skepticism on the grounds of poor signal/noise ratio. Godfrey claims that his WSPR track matches that from the Inmarsat data, where the latter is available. In evaluating that claim, I would first want to know if the WSPR track was developed without any input from Inmarsat or other sources. UPDATE: There is this article [1] on a blind test of the ability to track aircraft. It looks good here, but then I read this: 'There was one error of note, the initial turn of the aircraft after departure was to port and not starboard. Mike commented “I should have told you that aircraft departing NSFA on RWY 08 will always turn to port due to terrain clearance considerations. If you’d known that then no doubt the first part of the route would have been a bit more accurate.”' [my emphasis.] One should not, of course, be providing additional evidence in a blind test, and the suggestion that this should have been done raises doubts about how the test was conducted: for example, did the person performing the analysis know the general features of the flight, such as its destination? A more convincing blind test, IMHO, would go like this: "In the interval <begin> to <end>, one airplane passed through <some region>. Develop a plot of its flight before and after, as far as possible." - and there should be more than one test, of course, and perhaps they should say, truthfully, at most one airplane... [1] https://www.mh370search.com/2021/08/29/gdtaaa-blind-test/ https://www.mh370search.com/2021/08/29/gdtaaa-blind-test/
- beerandt 5y ago
  Right, but he states it as if his method is a trivial (or at least non-novel) solution that others have overlooked. "Why hasn't anyone else attempted using my obscure and unavailable software?" Others have taken the same approach (ie intercepting-arcs/circles of the various satellite pings, plus 777 range estimates, plus subsequent oceanic current modeling), it's just that none have come up with the same exact solution. Unless I'm missing something and his software is incorporating an additional new element I'm unaware of. >Godfrey claims that his WSPR track matches that from the Inmarsat data Isn't this just semi-independent confirmation of the Inmarsat data?
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    Given that the Inmarsat analyses do not seem to be controversial, it would be a significant boost to the WSPR method if it independently put the airplane in the same place at the same time as the Inmarsat data - but if, as seems likely, Godfrey himself did the analysis, and given that his intense involvement with the issue suggests he might know the Inmarsat coordinates by memory, that independence is not a given. See also my update to my previous post regarding a test of the WSPR method. I cannot say whether Godfrey is claiming the insights of others as his own - ideas often arise independently, and if not, someone has to be first. As far as I know, only Godfrey has attempted to use the method, and while it is, like others, based on radio signals, it uses quite different signals.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      I agree, but the reason I said "semi-independent" is that I'm not sure the data/ calculation is independent confirmation, so much as an "independent" re-calculation of the same underlying Inmarsat-derived data. (Hopefully someone can chime in that's more familiar with the WSPR effort.) Ie., 1)Is WSPR using additional data sources other than the Inmarsat sourced observations (even if 3rd party observations of the Inmarsat signal), and 2) Can WSPR calculations based on those observations confirm the Inmarsat coords both with and without using the Inmarsat data as a constitute component? 3) And the same idea applies to Godfrey's calcs, relative to both the Inmarsat data and the WSPR community's contributions. RE: Your edit. Yes, the confirmation bias is sort of another way of stating the similar idea. Did he take the same data and play with it until "it looked right"? Vs taking different data, but possibly still having confirmation biases in reaching a similar conclusion? Versus a completely independent method, where various data components can be included/omitted without coming to contradictory solutions. The airport traffic pattern info you mention at least partially refutes the latter option. If presenting ambiguous results, you've got to at least state both/all possibilities where they exist before using extraneous information to exclude some of them. Including the blind (wrong) guess just looks bad.

redis_mlc 5y ago

You're incorrect: - The debris was found after most of the searches, by one man - it appears various militaries are hiding what their capabilites (or lack thereof) are

zowanet 5y ago

> The title is very misleading [...] Seems like puff piece for now This has become typical for the BBC: Phrase a headline as a question to which the implied answer may be "Yes", but in all likelihood is actually "No" or "Not yet".

sokoloff 5y ago
It’s not that new: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...
- LilBytes 5y ago
  I was about to post the same.

mannykannot 5y ago

Godfrey presents his proposed location and a summary of his arguments for it here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kvu3kpu7kpjvjin/GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20MH370%20Analysis%20Preliminary%20Findings.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/kvu3kpu7kpjvjin/GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%2... One thing he makes clear here is that several search vessels have already passed through the area he has identified.

colanderman 5y ago
Interesting that the diagrams mention confidence values from the previous searches, but the text gives no indication that he applied corresponding Bayesian adjustments to his model's results?

squidproquo 5y ago

If anyone is interested in forecasting the location of where flight MH370 will be found: https://www.unitarity.com/app/challenges/mh370/events/2020 https://www.unitarity.com/app/challenges/mh370/events/2020