iamlucky13 wrote:It's the same research, by the same engineer. The weak signal propagation analysis mentioned in the news video you linked is the method he used to reach the opinion the aircraft circled for 22 minutes. He has been continuing his analysis over the last several weeks.
When that the other thread was posted in early November, the source article stated he hoped to draw a conclusion about approximately where the plane would have crashed by the end of the month. We're now a little bit past the end of the month, and apparently he now has a conclusion.
I think the way I'd state it is it is the same research technique by the same engineer and as you say he's been continuing the analysis to the point of reaching a conclusion.
He also promises two papers:
This report will be followed up by two papers. The first paper will give all the findings every two minutes during the entire flight of MH370 from 7th March 2014 16:42 UTC to 8th March 2014 00:20 UTC. The second paper will give the technical details of each detection of MH370 using the WSPRnet data and the technical details of the tracking of the MH370 flight path.
To me that's the crucial part: he's saying he will be showing his work so others can evaluate his result.
I've read some other MH370 "enthusiasts" claim the guy behind the WSPRnet technology, Joe Taylor, has criticized Godfrey's work, but I am unable to find a direct quote of Taylor doing this so I'm dubious. It seems to me that these enthusiasts like pointing fingers at each other.
I have read the earlier Godfrey publication (comments above) and at the surface level it seems plausible to me that radio propagation reports can be used to determine position, even if they never were intended to do so. I have NOT done rigorous analysis to figure out what accuracy can be achieved, that kind of work is not my thing.