3 ms·

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

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.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    WSPR is completely independent of Inmarsat, and also of any other satellite or any navigation system. It uses signals exchanged between radio amateurs, and its intended purpose is to probe the changing radio propagation parameters of the atmosphere, globally. If Godfrey's method is effective, it provides an independent estimate of an airplane's position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSPR_(amateur_radio_software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSPR_(amateur_radio_software)
    - beerandt 5y ago
      Right- but you've still got to feed signal data (from the plane) into it. I guess my question is: In the case of flight 370, what radio transmissions (and recievers) are they (WSPR) using using? And then which transmissions (and recievers) are Godfrey using, if different? And do either incorporate the raw data as collected by the Inmarsat receiver(s)?
      - detaro 5y ago
        WSPR has nothing to do with any transmissions from the plane. He's effectively trying to use data from WSPR as a crude radar system.
      - mannykannot 5y ago
        Godfrey's claim is that he can detect the plane from reflections of these radio waves and the effect they have on signal strength, and to determine its position in three dimensions. Skeptics suspect he is seeing patterns in noise.

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.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  WSPR is completely independent of Inmarsat, and also of any other satellite or any navigation system. It uses signals exchanged between radio amateurs, and its intended purpose is to probe the changing radio propagation parameters of the atmosphere, globally. If Godfrey's method is effective, it provides an independent estimate of an airplane's position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSPR_(amateur_radio_software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSPR_(amateur_radio_software)
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Right- but you've still got to feed signal data (from the plane) into it. I guess my question is: In the case of flight 370, what radio transmissions (and recievers) are they (WSPR) using using? And then which transmissions (and recievers) are Godfrey using, if different? And do either incorporate the raw data as collected by the Inmarsat receiver(s)?
    - detaro 5y ago
      WSPR has nothing to do with any transmissions from the plane. He's effectively trying to use data from WSPR as a crude radar system.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      Godfrey's claim is that he can detect the plane from reflections of these radio waves and the effect they have on signal strength, and to determine its position in three dimensions. Skeptics suspect he is seeing patterns in noise.