The Baron 52 case is a story of deceit, cover-up, and links to other parts of the POW/MIA story.
The Beginning
The EC-47 story began on February 4, 1973. Aboard were CPT. Arthur Bollinger, CPT, George Sptiz, LT. Robert Bernhardt, LT. Severo, Primm, SGT. Peter Cressman, SGT. Joseph Matejov, SGT. Dale Brandenburg, and SGT. Todd Melton. Their smoker mission was to conduct aerial and electronic surveillance and reconnaissance, one designed to go in after the tanks which project Igloo White, or sensors, indicated were moving. That night, there was a lot of tank movement to be covered.
The EC-47 was a converted "Gooney Bird" loaded with sophisticated electronic equipment, and was often referred to as a "Flying Pueblo." At 2:00 AM (Laos Time) on February 5, Baron 52 (their call sign) failed to call a scheduled "Operations Normal Report" and a communications and electronics search began. At dawn, a search and rescue mission began. After 4 days, the plane was found. The following is true, according to those who participated.
The Crash
"When you look at the film... it was very obvious that the aircraft had hit on top of the hill and came directly in and impacted upside down. The wings were knocked off, and part of the aircraft ... a tail section, was up on the hill..." (LTC Lionel Blau - former Operations Officer - Oral History EC-47 - Oct. 24, 1989 - part of a classified history of the crash) "... The aircraft hit straight ahead. It was not spinning..."
On the ground, four days later, three or four remains were found strapped to their seats coinciding with the SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) of the crew riding the plane in, if possible, and the enlisted personnel bailing out. The remains were found in the front, where the officers were.
It took time to find the wreckage, because photo interpreters had difficulty finding this "new" shootdown site as distinguished from "old" shootdown sites. CMSGT Ronald L. Schofield testified (at the oral history) that "we found the aircraft on it's back... all I was there for was to make sure there was no classified still available..." (then) one PJ "and myself were looking for bodies... We only found three bodies... the backend was burned ... the front end - nomex suits were good ... you could recognize the pilot, the co-pilot, and the third pilot, and there should have been some remains of the backenders in the fire, but there wasn't anything... there was absolutely nothing."
Mr. Willard Ellerson, the chronicler of the oral history said, "So there were five unaccounted for in the backend. One officer and four enlisted..."
Evidence of Survival
There is sufficient evidence of survival of at least four men. I was one of the first to point this out in my book, Missing in Action: Trail of Deceit, in 1979. Here, we'll expand upon my increased information and reinforce why no men were found in the back.
Radio Intercepts
On February 4 and 5, radio intercepts showed the movement of "air pirates" numbered at "four pilots" from an aircraft recently shot down. It was identified on February 17 as one from the "South Laotian campaign" where the Laotians "shot down one aircarft and captured the pilot/pilots." The EC-47 was the only plane shot down in the time frame. Additionally, in May, 1973, an analysis of "all available information concerning the four fliers" believed then "It is possible that the 4 fliers were part of the crew of the EC-47."
DIA responds
In 1992, Robert DeStatte, DPMO, "reinvestigated" the EC-47 case and decided the above intercepts did not pertain to the case and "there has never been any evidence that any members of the crew survived." DeStatte is used by others of former government employment to discredit evidence in this case. He continued, "Through long-standing misinterpretation of these sanitized documents, an erroneous impression of survivors was preserved."
As one of the first to "misinterpret" these reports, I take umbrage that government people would snipe at my work without directly confronting me. Let's look at DeStatte, the case, and the evidence to see if he in fact, might be correct.
The Evidence
In 1978, Dr. Roger Shields, the DOD point man on POWs, was questioned under oath if "there were intercepts, or other sources of intelligence, that showed that he had in fact been captured" - with the question specifically aimed at the EC-47 case. At that time, Dermot Foley asked in exasperation, "For your protection, over my protest... this information... is declined, because of the possibility that it is classified. Is that right?" Shields answered, "Right, I do not want to go to jail." In later years, as items became declassified, Shields would refer to this case as one in which it was not a mere "oversight" documents and materials had been withheld, but one where materials were deliberately "withheld."
In internal documents, withheld at the time, a July 24, 1978 draft (later further 'sanitized' prior to release) memorandum showed that DIA believed from "a sensitive intelligence source" (short for radio intercepts) that Laotian forces were transporting four captured pirates which the term 'pirates' was "usually used to describe Americans..."
Jerry Mooney, a former Air Force crypanalyst, said in an affidavit, "I personally wrote the message that these men had been captured alive, that they were Americans, and had been transported to North Vietnam. In secure phone conversations with the DIA, we were in total agreement that these were the crew members of the EC-47Q."
The 6994th Air Force Security Squadron and the National Security Agency (NSA) agreed with what Mooney testified to later that all the data base information showed these four men were recent captures; probably from the EC-47Q; and they definitely were captured in Laos - not North Vietnam - as had been testified to by DeStatte. Data base information is what your current intelligence gatherings show to be the truth as well as can be predicted. Any analysis contrary to those holdings, as was the case of DeStatte, are very dubious in credibility unless that person shows a more reasonable way of interpreting the database. For example, the Air Force rejected the DeStatte reanalysis.
LTC Blau said (probably DeStatte) "told me that the (censored) that he had been able to find, indicated that the (censored) actually was about fliers over in Vietnam along the coast, that were going North, but that didn't hold water as far as I'm concerned..." Years earlier, both the 6994th and NSA discussed those points and similarly rejected them, in part because one point of the intercepted radio messages showed that the pilots "were in shock or being treated for shock..." by the capturing Laotian forces. (Schofield).
Other Intelligence evidence of survival
DeStatte was emphatic that no evidence showed the survival of the EC-47 crew. In 1979, Foley and I became aware of eyewitness reports of crew members being seen in Laos. Were we right or was DeStatte? Blau told Ellerson in 1989 that COL Francis Humphries, the Wing Commander totally disregarded "other (censored) messages" in determining the status of the men. Schofield said, "and there was an intel report..." LTC Stephen Matejov, father of an EC-47 crew member, and his wife had been "made privy" to both "visual sighting" reports and "radio intercept" reports. On June 15, 1989, Robert Wilhelm, an analyst who used to debrief Baron 52 crews, saw "a short message" concerning "3-4 Americans" who were "clean shaven and in flight suits" in the vicinity of the loss. On January 10, 1993, Jack Melton, assigned to Ubon, wrote, "I read a shoot-down report... which reported... 'an indigenous person'... saw a number of 'fliers' being loaded onto a truck in the vicinity of the crash."
Mindset to Debunk
So why were these reports ignored - why were the men declared dead despite contrary evidence? Charles Trowbridge of DIA testified "we can find no live-sighting report or hearsay reports acquired in 1973 which were ever correlated to the unaccounted for crewmembers of the EC-47Q." In 1973, it was decided at "DOD... that after the repatriation of POWs, the communists no longer held any of our men alive." (Internal DOD memos on the EC-47 case) The key is that no one correlated the above live sighting reports to the EC-47 crew because previously DOD decided that no one was being held back. Therefore, anything to the contrary had to be debunked, using any logic that on the surface would look reasonable - not necessarily plausible - only reasonable. So despite the findings of the men on the ground that the escape door of the EC-47 had been kicked off; no one was found in the back end burned; radio intercepts were made of the capture; live sighting reports were accumulated; alternative suggestions did not fit known radio codes - atmospheric conditions to be plausible - and our radios could not collect up to the area DeStatte testified to - the men were declared dead.
What evidence showed them they were right? In early 1993, excavators found a partial molar, parachute rings, a piece of a hair comb, several pieces of at least two flight suits, a dog tag with the name Joseph Matejov (despite the fact we may have been flying our men sanitized) three identification tags (two Cressman and one Melton) and 21 parachute "v" rings suggesting that at least 7 parachutes were on board at the time of the crash. (That would still be short of the crew count that night) - But consider this - No bodies survived immediately - but 20 years later, fragile id tags, a dog tag (presumably worn around the neck) and the other things survived? At other sites, the official explanation goes like this - "I don't know how it happened - but by golly, we're right and no one will persuade us otherwise."
There are various indications that Baron 52 personnel were transferred to the then USSR, after being held in a "second tier" of prisons, and probably interrogated to find out their knowledge of the classified material on the EC-47. These men have been written off as dead! DIA internal memos, the DOD Chief on POW returns, Dr. Roger Shields, and radio intercepts all say they survived. There has been speculation that one of the men from Baron 52 was imprisoned at a Laotian prison camp where a rescue attempt was tried in early 1981. This is a classic case of deceit. In 1997, DPMO told me they were unaware of this AFSS classified debriefing. Even if they were, nothing will ever be made public contradicting the official line - all men are dead. This is why I call this case "A study in deceit."
This page is owned by Golden Coast Publishing all rights reserved copyright 2000 - updated October 19, 2000 -
To preview Trails of Deceit, press here