There is a third option which is to use it as a test for known aircraft tracks and see how well it's works.
I suspect this has already been done 😉
@simonzerafa yes I believe this is what the newer paper has done. I really should read it.
My preconception is it will be drawing targets around bullet holes. But maybe that preconception will prove wrong.
@bloor @simonzerafa
The ‘author’ tried that a number of times.
He had previously built a flight path prediction tool. Using regularly operated routes, which generally follow airways (perhaps with offsets), and knowing weather (head/xwinds), paths could be predicted but a number of times his predictions/alleged WSPR derived tracks were contradicted by ADS-C data logged at adsbexchange.
How accurate is ASD-C and what was the margin of error when compared with WSPR? 🤔
@simonzerafa @bloor
I’d need to review my notes. I likely commented about it at mh370.radiantphysics.com.
A number of individuals have experimented with techniques to detect reflections of HF by aircraft. It was only possible with very high powered transmitters, and within very limited range of the transmitter and aircraft. A secondary problem was the reflection was subject to doppler, to an extent that a WSPR receiver could not possibly demod/decode a reflection.
It’s an exercise in maintaining relevance, abetted by a small number of similarly minded individuals.
@bloor @simonzerafa
Everything gets repeated from the prime proponent’s website, via an aviation blogger/commentator in WA. He appears an expert in placing copy on desks of gullible editors. Mostly effective to trace the press release placement/distribution.
Perfect example of hype over fact.
@guardeddon @simonzerafa things absolutely fucking gold.