Closing the canopy on your A/C seems like an automatic reponse for a pilot, who is trained to be responsible for said A/C.

The harness that I have is new old stock, (and very stiff) the section that goes rearward (to the fuselage) is detachable as it passes through the armour plate, to allow the seat to remove; there are brass ends on the webbing to stop fraying, but in turn make it nigh on impossible to get through the brass “buckles”, cutting the ends off would allow it slide off.

If you look at the seat pan in the photo, (post 105) it appears to be the metal end of the harness that bolts through the webbing.

Why cut the harness to release a body when the clip is the most obvious method ?

To help understand how the harness ended up in the sand it is perhaps helpful to know how it is fixed, many British fighters have the harness fixed to the seat,(frame) with the inertia reel section anchoring it to the fuselage; how is it fixed in the p40, was the seat still in the plane? I can’t remember as this was nearly a year ago.

It is not quite correct to say that none of the posters “were on site”. For the P-40 qattara was in the team that apparently discovered the wreck, and he certainly is not guilty of “absence of any further posting”. He was, and is, actively involved.

As to the Lancaster, Jackflash’s claims were hardly “accepted at face value”. He indeed disappeared, much to our regret, without answering our questions.

We would very much like to be able to answer your questions about the crews’ remains.

It is hard for me to be certain now (as the thread was pulled) but I believe that qattara was a newbie here, and that his first post was in connection with the P40 , which is what I said“a poster unknown to the forum “
I also thought it was the video posted by the Polish oil workers that started it all off.

Tangmere; (note correct spelling)
“Whilst they may have read about the Lancaster on this forum, the intial post was, I think, a link to newspaper stories on this case”.
is the act of posting a link to an inaccurate source of information, not dissemination of inaccurate information in itself? i.e the article implied the crew had been found.

I’ll let you guys carry on with the witch hunt, as Tangmere (note correct spelling) says, this is more the time to remember the sacrifice these guys made.

Probably in your eager anticipation of my answer you have misquoted me; someone new to this thread that see’s your “quote” would believe that is what I said, in fact my statement was “the dissemination of inaccurate information”.

I think the answer to you question would be”B”; In the public domain but which subsequently has been established as untrue……

Perhaps no one is prepare to subject themselves to a “forum grilling” ( based on pure speculation) in part by their peers, but also by others, with a heightened sense of self importance; unless I am mistaken no new information has come to light, and “no comment” isn’t an admission of guilt, nor should it be taken as such.

I have no connection with any person involved in this dig, and would voice the stongest condemnation, if I saw actual evidence of what is alledged to have occured, but with witch hunts in the air, I will reserve judgement.