There are three of us, David Hendrix, BG Edwin Lacy, and myself who believe yes. All three of us have evidence of that happening. All of us worked independently of each other, yet, remarkably have come to the same conclusion. Each of us have our own trusted sources. How many have returned? That is a tough question. Some of the returnees may not be bonafide POWs. Some are. The security surrounding the program has been high. Our sources have been watched and scrutinized for visitors. However, each of us are professionals and took the necessary precautions and each have filed affidavits to what we know. The "official version" says NO, no men were returned because no men were left behind. In the beltway, negotiations for the sake of negotiatons means that 4400 men will never return until a dedicated effort starts from the premise that men were left behind and need to be seriously negotiated for. (After Clinton came into office, the program probably did stop. He couldn't interrupt his campaign contributions and he never liked the war, warriors, or the families anyway.)
In fairness, it appears that a couple hundred or so people have returned under various programs. I have seen documentation that says those returned were not "legitimate POWs." My main source on this says that legitimate POWs were returned and in the probable tens - that he knew of. Once again, we get into compartmented POW intelligence programs - and unless there is serious oversight, the very rules of compartmentalization will go against finding out the wheres and whys of how many returned and how. As I stated, some may not have been and that would reason why the program has remained "quiet." People I trust tell me that there were thousands of "long shadows" in Saigon - ie those not POWs of various sizes, shapes, and conditions. They are the probable genesis of the "druggies and defectors" that DIA trots out as the only ones who may have survived - and they are not interested in them (as they loudly proclaim). Given the high number that MAJ Mark Smith says are still in Laos in 1994 and given the number of POWs alive and held back to begin with, the low number of POWs returned (in the 10's) would seem to be the most logical. (When pressed in 1980 when my first book came out on how many were alive I said about 200 - and that was high I thought then - until more information was found to build the confidence of higher numbers later - keep that in mind as we speculate on numbers returned)
Why do I believe men were returned. David Hendrix, a respected journalist with the Riverside Press Enterprise, one of the nation's largest and most respected papers, gave a sworn affidavit in 1992 about his belief in the return of some men. That affidavit told of what his sources, valuable to him, told about the return program. He waited years to check and double check his information before he gave his sworn affivdavit, putting his reputation on the line, to a hostile Senate investigator. What Hendrix testified to dovetailed with much of what I found out from an entirely different source in 1996. It also dovetailed with information I was given, but could not until 1996 document, about a return program. Just putting this type of material out will cause some of the professional debunkers to go apoplectic, but then, they couldn't realize the truth if it was put on a golden platter right in front of their noses - and haven't been able to for years. There are many other indicators of men being returned, but this will suffice. It is those who have not returned that need the attention now.
To return to the forum, press here
