WHY OCEAN INFINITY HAS NO REAL INTENTION OF SEARCHING WSPR.

 

Why Ocean Infinity is unlikely to ever search the WSPR area and the so-called 'plan B' will have to engage in an independent survery (Richard Godfrey)

GROK:

The extract you provided appears to be a promotional or summary post (likely from a YouTube video or social media) highlighting work by Jean-Luc Marchand on the CAPTION dataset in relation to MH370. This dataset refers to a recently processed and published collection of Malaysian civilian air traffic control (ATC) radar data (specifically labeled "ATC-Caption-2025"), derived from raw ASTERIX messages and other formats. It includes primary/secondary radar, ADS-B, and ADS-C records from the night of the disappearance (March 7/8, 2014 UTC).

Marchand, along with collaborators like Captain Patrick Blelly, has analyzed this data (and earlier related work) to reconstruct the flight path, emphasizing manual piloting after the transponder was turned off, no cockpit struggle evident in radar, controlled flight until fuel exhaustion (ruling out a pure "ghost flight"), and a likely controlled ditching.
Their trajectory model aligns with Inmarsat satellite data (BTO/BFO arcs) but refines the endpoint to a specific area in the southern Indian Ocean (around ~35°S, 93°E), which they've proposed for search and which Ocean Infinity has reportedly targeted or approached in recent efforts.
This work does not come into conflict with WSPR (Weak Signal Propagation Reporter) analysis, nor does it directly incorporate it. Here's a clear breakdown:

• WSPR is a separate, controversial method proposed primarily by researcher Richard Godfrey. It uses archived amateur radio propagation data to detect potential disturbances or "anomalies" in HF radio signals, claiming to track MH370's path in the southern Indian Ocean (including a purported 22-minute holding pattern near land). WSPR has been promoted as novel evidence for flight path deviations but is heavily debated in the MH370 community—many experts view it as unreliable or pseudoscientific due to the indirect nature of the signals and lack of peer-reviewed validation for aircraft tracking.
• Marchand's CAPTION work focuses on conventional, verifiable sources: civilian ATC radar (newly decoded raw data), Inmarsat satellite handshakes, fuel/performance modeling, simulator validations, drift analysis, and debris considerations. It supports a southern arc endpoint with manual control and a controlled ditching scenario (large pieces expected, though limited debris found so far). No references in Marchand's published materials, website (mh370-caption.net), interviews, or related reports mention using or endorsing WSPR data. In some discussions around his interviews, WSPR is noted as absent or separate.
• Ocean Infinity's resumed search (as referenced in the extract) aligns more closely with refined Inmarsat-based models like Marchand/Blelly's (and others), targeting gaps or extensions in prior search areas in the southern Indian Ocean—not WSPR-derived hotspots specifically.

In short, the CAPTION dataset and Marchand's analysis represent an independent, radar/satellite-focused refinement of the established evidence base. It neither contradicts WSPR (as the two use entirely different data types and methods) nor integrates it. They are parallel (and sometimes competing) lines of inquiry in the ongoing MH370 puzzle.
Regarding the broader question in the extract:
After over a decade, many investigators (including official reports) lean toward the southern Indian Ocean as the crash site based on satellite data, but no wreckage has been definitively located despite multiple searches. The current Ocean Infinity effort (tied to refined analyses like this) offers renewed hope, though critical pieces—like the exact final maneuvers or motive—remain debated. What are your thoughts on the pilot involvement angle?

Yes, the CAPTION dataset analysis by Jean-Luc Marchand (with Patrick Blelly) does come into direct conflict with the WSPR theory proposed by Richard Godfrey — primarily on the crash location, flight path details, and fuel/end-of-flight timing. It does not incorporate WSPR data at all.

Explaining Ocean Infinity's lack of intention to search the WSPR area and Richard Godfrey's use of the word 'might' in the future.

The two approaches are independent and incompatible on the most critical question:
where the aircraft ended up.
They broadly agree on the early phase (manual transponder shutdown, no cockpit struggle, piloted flight rather than a pure “ghost flight”), but diverge sharply once the plane left radar coverage after ~18:22 UTC on 7 March 2014.
Here is a clear outline of the specific conflicts:
1. Crash Location / Point of Impact (Fundamental & Geographical Incompatibility)

• CAPTION/Marchand-Blelly: Northernmost probable point of impact (POI) at approximately 35°39’S, 93°01’E. Recommended search zone is a compact area around 35.5°S–35.9°S, 93.0°E (specifically 35.518°S–35.875°S, 93.025°E–93.039°E). This is an extension south of previously searched zones, tightly constrained by Inmarsat arcs and performance modeling.
• WSPR/Godfrey: Definitive crash location centered on 29.128°S, 99.934°E (within a ~30 km radius circle). This is ~720–750 km further north and east.
• Why they conflict: These positions are hundreds of miles apart and cannot both be correct. Ocean Infinity’s recent search efforts (2025–2026, Phase 2) specifically targeted and covered the CAPTION-recommended zone near 35.7°S 93°E but did not focus on the main WSPR hotspot.

2. Reconstructed Flight Path After Last Radar Contact

• CAPTION: The new Malaysian ATC radar dataset (ATC-Caption-2025) enables a highly detailed reconstruction: overflight of VAMPI, loss of radar near MEKAR, Final Major Turn (FMT) to the south, then a quasi-straight southbound leg (initial magnetic heading ~188°, then true ~178°) with autopilot engaged. Speeds, altitudes, and wind corrections are precisely modeled to match Inmarsat BTO/BFO data within official margins.
• WSPR: The claimed radio-signal anomalies require a different path south of the Malacca Strait, including (in earlier versions) a 20–22-minute “race-track” holding pattern or additional turns/altitude changes around 19:12–19:34 UTC. These maneuvers are not present in the CAPTION radar-validated trajectory.
• Why they conflict: The CAPTION path is a relatively clean, continuous southbound track validated by primary/secondary radar + satellite data. WSPR-derived deviations do not fit the timing or Doppler (BFO) constraints used in Marchand’s model.

3. Fuel Exhaustion Timing and Crossing of the 7th Arc

• CAPTION: Right engine flame-out ~00:17–00:19 UTC, left engine manually shut down shortly after, 7th arc crossing near ~34.75°S–35.5°S, followed by a controlled glide and ditching (producing limited debris).
• WSPR: The endpoint at ~29°S requires the aircraft to have remained airborne longer or followed a more northerly/easterly route, which conflicts with the fuel quantity, engine performance tables, and exact Inmarsat handshake timing validated in the CAPTION analysis.
• Why they conflict: Marchand’s model explicitly matches Boeing’s fuel figures and Inmarsat ping schedule. Reaching Godfrey’s location would exceed the validated fuel endurance or require unrealistic flight dynamics.

4. Methodology and Data Sources (No Overlap)

• CAPTION: Relies exclusively on conventional, verifiable sources — the newly decoded Malaysian civil radar dataset (primary/secondary radar, ADS-B/ADS-C), Inmarsat satellite arcs (BTO/BFO), B777-200ER performance tables, meteorological data, and drift analysis. Marchand’s website, papers, and public statements contain zero references to WSPR, Godfrey, or radio-propagation anomalies.
• WSPR: Entirely based on archived amateur radio signal “anomalies” interpreted as forward-scatter from the aircraft (313 claimed detections). This method is controversial and has been heavily criticised on physical grounds (signal strength too weak for detection at claimed distances).

In summary, the CAPTION work represents a refinement of the established radar + satellite consensus and directly contradicts the WSPR-derived endpoint and certain path details.
Some popular documentaries (e.g., Mentour Pilot) present both areas as possible new search candidates, but the two theories are mutually exclusive on the location of the wreckage.
Marchand’s analysis does not incorporate or endorse WSPR — it offers an alternative that places the impact significantly further south along the 7th arc.