If you are perusing these pages in the order of the menubar, then you have already been to the Home, Mission and Proof areas of the POW/MIA Forum ® which brings us to documentation.

There is a tremendous amount of documentation that is stored in the National Archives of the Library of Congress. Many of those involved in the issue have spent years researching documents to see what can be uncovered. Some of it has been listed in the proof area of these pages, some of it is listed on other websties that we link to and much of it is still hidden in plain sight at the Archives, misidentified --willfully or otherwise-- and it takes tedious, meticulous work, a monumental effort, to unearth the documentation. We have a lot of documentation, some transcribed, some actual documents, for you to see for yourself in order for you to determine whether or not our argument holds water.





If there is any doubt that the US government has the propensity to leave men behind, this 44 page document, declassified in June 1997, should remove that doubt altogether. At the end of the Korean War, during Operations Big & Little Switch we exchanged Prisoners of War with North Korea. Or so we thought. . . US returnees immediately told US authorities that men were pulled off the line and not repatriated.

View the Air Intelligence Information Report.

In 1996, a DPMO analyst claimed that North Korea was holding 15 Americans as Prisoner of War. Once word leaked out about the "working paper," DPMO flip-flopped on the claim. Since the early 90's no less than six South Korean's that had been held POW in North Korea escaped. Are American POWs less resilient than South Korean POWs?

See the Actual Working Paper Here

While we covered this document in another section, it is one of the most important comprehensive reports ever issued on the US Government policy toward Prisoners of War and Missing in Action. Much, if not all, of what was written back in 1991 still holds very much true today. This not only proves that we had/have the propensity to leave men behind, by the preponderance of evidence, I'd say that it proves that we did leave men behind, that they were in captivity and that there were [are] those in government service whose only job it is to obfuscate the truth.

View Examination of US Policy Toward POW/MIA Affairs Here

PROJECT CHECO was a report written about a TACAN site in Laos that was overrun. The men of Lima Site 85 were "sheep dipped," which means they were taken out of the military and became employed by a Defense Department Contractor.

You get more than sheep when dipped. . .

Commodore Brooks took over the Defense Intelligence Agency Special Office for POW/MIA Affairs after the resignation of Col. Millard Peck. Among the things (and there were many!) that Brooks found was that there was a "mindset to debunk" live sighting reports. He also found an office in shambles and saw a need to conduct damage control on the Hill. If accounting for our missing service personnel was truly such a priority, why would Brooks have had to detail the incompetence?

See the Actual Brooks Memo Here

In 1997, Dr. Timothy Castle, a DPMO analyst, wrote a blistering memorandum detailing negligence, incompetence, interference with honest analysis from those with no analytical experience and, what's worse, he detailed the fact that senior DPMO personnel were actually faxing Hanoi from DPMO advising Hanoi the activities of US search teams in SE Asia. Yes, he detailed a criminal act. Treason. Yet, it was Dr. Castle and his family that had to be spirited out of Washington.

View the Castle Memorandum Here

Ann Holland is the wife of SSgt. Mel Holland, a casualty of the Fall of Lima Site 85. Ann has spent the better portion of her life pursuing the truth, demanding it of our government and making sure that she passes it on to all who are interested. I am honored to call her friend. After reading the Castle Memorandum, Ann wrote a statement of her own.

View Ann Holland's Statement Here

On 3 November 1999, the Washington Times printed a story detailing the fact that the Kremlin was refusing to turn over a secret document that suggested captured Americans were taken from SE Asia to the [former] Soviet Union in the late 1960's for intelligence gathering purposes. We asked several officials and former officials of DPMO about this and their response would have been comical, had it not been so sad.

  • Deputy Assistant Under Secretary of Defense Bob Jones stated that the knowledgable Americans that the document references could mean any American and therefore does not prove they are discussing captured American military personnel.
    Like there were thousands of American tourists in Da Nang in the late 1960's for the KGB to kidnap, right?
  • Col. Joseph Schlatter, former Chief of DIAs Special Office for POW/MIA Affairs stated that unless the document specifically references military personnel, it would not be a document that would be in his area of interest.
    Of course not, Joe, because you have proven time and again that any evidence whatsoever that we left American's behind after the war would be beyond your area of interest.
View the Actual Russian Document & English Translations Here





We have either provided the actual documents or an exact transcript of the documents in this section. These are documents prepared by the US Government which are in the National Archives and which the US Government would rather you not see. The next time you write your representative, the next time you speak to a politician about the POW/MIA issue, the next time you hear that we do not leave men on the battlefield, arm yourself with these documents and ask them to explain this. When going to a meeting of a Veteran's Organization, ask if they have a POW/MIA Chair and if so, talk to that person about the issue. See how knowledgable they are and what they are doing to (A) educate themselves and (B) bring an honest resolution to this issue.



They belong walking on or planted in American Soil, nothing less!



Copyright © 1996-2003, The PoW/MIA Forum ®
Steve Golding