Scott Kaiser

It doesn't get any clearer than this. The President unequivocally stated, and those in charge of the operation understood, and the Brigade members themselves agreed: NO US INTERVENTION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

I'm going to spell it out for some of you who hang off the hinge of this cable so you fully understand, hopefully, I am, understood. When Col Jack Hawkins received this cable, it went nowhere passed his desk, as members of the CIA did not want to accept it. <period> he was [hired] by the CIA to assist in military planning, when Bissell began to expand the operation from amphibious to guerrilla that is when the CIA appointed Hawkins Chief of Paramilitary operations.

​This was a follow-up cable of reiterating a cable sent to Hawkins that never reached the CIA, and it's true, the only announcement ever made publicly was when Kennedy announced at the press conference about no American military to be used, how many members of the Bay of Pigs do you suppose watched the conference if they were training somewhere off in a remote island in the world?

​Hawkins, was reporting to Jacob Esterline who was branch chief and Esterline was reporting to Grayston Lynch.

See how this works?

Lynch has "admitted" to members of the brigade that no such cable has ever come across, are you getting this now? And, is the reason Lynch [believed] Kennedy would back the fighting Cubans to oust Castro, and later said himself, "I have never been more ashamed of my country".

So, when you post this cable, it doesn't mean a thing if Hawkins never delivered it.

Can't beat em, ignore em.

The importance of that article is that this later scholar could not find the notes at Princeton.

He had to find Lucien V. Luckily he did before he died, and Lucien had the notes and the library request forms. (All sixty pages.)

What clearly happened is that once Lucien V wrote the article, the CIA saw how devastating it was to Dulles and the Agency.

So they went in and fleeced the files.

If it was not for this guy finding Lucien, and Lucien keeping his request form and notes, people like Scott could say, "What notes?"

people like Scott

Translated, thinking people.

People like Jim, still hasn't rebut the original origin of the debate we had at Deep Politics as pointed out [in this thread], altas, just ignored, as my memory severs me well, and people like Jim's doesn't. The Bay of Pigs was "designed to fail" surely Jim, you must remembered that one, I dragged you through the mud, until I spanked your behind at the end, but God forbid we talk about that.

Greg, are you that stupid, or does it run in the family? That Memorandum is dated on April 26, 1961, The Bay of Pigs started April 17, 1961, the war was over when that memorandum came out, again, slaps my forehead! Ouch! That hurts!

And, the cover up of the Bay of Pigs began, just as the cover up of Kennedy's assassination a few years later, began.

I've already had a nervous breakdown, and gone though a bad depression, my doctor has had me on lamotrigine 50mg and this is all due to the information I've been uncovering and writing in my second book. I just couldn't stop writing. I've been going through a depression state.

Scott,

Sorry to hear of your health issues. I've been a volunteer at a Behavioral Hospital for many years. A typical therapeutic dosage for Lamotrigine is 100mg, so if your doctor is increasing the dosage incrementally you will almost certainly be feeling better as the dosage is increased. If you've been on this dosage for a while and your doctor is planning to keep you at 50 mg, although depression certainly sucks, at least yours is not as bad as it could be.

Good luck!

Tom

Thanks, I try to find the humor in everything, before pulling the trigger. I just take one day at a time. I really mean that Tom, thank you.

There is so much incorrect information here I don't even know where to begin. Greg, don't believe everything you read, if there are some living witnesses besides Hemming, follow up.

Oh pleeeeze!

Scott, I have read everything that has been declassified on the subject. You don't seem to be familiar with the Cuban Study Group's report or the Inspector General, Lyman Kirkpatrick's report, either. There are dozens of oral histories by eyewitnesses to the event.

As for living witnesses, Hemming has been dead for nearly a decade.

As for those eyewitnesses that I have interviewed and /or knew very well, the list is rather long, but include, Colonel L Fletcher Prouty USAF (Chief of Special Operations Office of the JCS) who was responsible for obtaining and outfitting all of the Brigade's modified B-26 bombers, among other things. HIs office was literally two doors down the hall from the office used by the Cuban Study Group investigation. Many of the witnesses stopped by to chat with him about it both before and after they gave their testimony. I also spoke extensively to my own father, who was a Special Aid to Eisenhower. It took me decades to confirm what he and Prouty reported because the documents were classified top secret or higher for so long. Upon release, the documents bore out what these witnesses reported quite well.

Your witnesses are telling you what they believe to be true from their perspective. But, they were not on the inside of the US military intelligence apparatus like Colonel Prouty and my father were.

Your witnesses are telling you what they believe to be true from their perspective. But, they were not on the inside of the US military intelligence apparatus like Colonel Prouty and my father were.

You're right, what was I thinking? I am wrong, after all, wasn't the intelligence apparatus as you put it pencil pushing desk jockeys? While my witnesses as you put it "were" on the frontlines?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XVxUkxcwEE

Did your daddy also tell you that it was a total of (19) planes that were shot down and not the 16 the United States government contends? But, alas, I'm not familiar with the Cuban Study group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-zuWqR6vQ0

There is so much incorrect information here I don't even know where to begin. Greg, don't believe everything you read, if there are some living witnesses besides Hemming, follow up.

Oh pleeeeze!

Scott, I have read everything that has been declassified on the subject. You don't seem to be familiar with the Cuban Study Group's report or the Inspector General, Lyman Kirkpatrick's report, either. There are dozens of oral histories by eyewitnesses to the event.

As for living witnesses, Hemming has been dead for nearly a decade.

As for those eyewitnesses that I have interviewed and /or knew very well, the list is rather long, but include, Colonel L Fletcher Prouty USAF (Chief of Special Operations Office of the JCS) who was responsible for obtaining and outfitting all of the Brigade's modified B-26 bombers, among other things. HIs office was literally two doors down the hall from the office used by the Cuban Study Group investigation. Many of the witnesses stopped by to chat with him about it both before and after they gave their testimony. I also spoke extensively to my own father, who was a Special Aid to Eisenhower. It took me decades to confirm what he and Prouty reported because the documents were classified top secret or higher for so long. Upon release, the documents bore out what these witnesses reported quite well.

Your witnesses are telling you what they believe to be true from their perspective. But, they were not on the inside of the US military intelligence apparatus like Colonel Prouty and my father were.

Very impressive resume Greg, I'm especially impressed that you were able to speak to your father. I was told my first words were da-da, what was yours?

Scott, put some ice in that, at least.

David, I like you, you don't seem like some others who would come out swing with their college degree vocabulary worded, intellectually printed, more nonsense crap. You don't strike me as such. Is there a difference of saying questioning what was written which we all already know cannot be proven, to say what JVB also mentions that cannot be proven? What's the difference?

I have no doubt that some folks may want to have a field day with my first book, I would say to them wait till my second comes out, it's just an update of my first, but with more than 70 pages added. I offer this challenge up to anyone, and everyone who discredits my book. I will provide proof of my father's workings and dealings in this covert establishment everyone seems to talk about, and go a step further. I will provide how my father turned on this establishment, discovered information that did link to Kennedy's assassination, [that part is specifically for you Stephen Roy.]

I know I'm not one to make friends easily when we're speaking JFK or Watergate, and I'm just going to be honest with you, when Roger Stone, St. John Hunt and I are sitting back sipping on a Martini and were shooting the crap, we can be best of friends, that is, until we start talking JFK. It's no offense to them, or me, however, I have always told St John I was sorry for my father having his father's photo, and according to many folks whom are still alive today say it was a photo of Hunt in Dealey Plaza. This, is one thing we all three agree on.

My father of course didn't just have Hunt's photos. And, there are a "chain of events" that I exploit in my update. It all starts at my father's childhood, after all, the story is fashioned around him. This is a true story, the challenge is, I will pay to the first person $10,000.00 that proves I'm lying.

We've gone through so many authors, JVB what I'm pointing out here, that I'm now icing, and so many more that you, yourselves have pointed out, what's one more?

Scott, I have no doubt, based on your past Forum posts, that you have valuable information and have done great research among people who remember your father. I don't doubt that this would appeal to a quality publisher. I've tried to give you the best free help I can to get there, without seeing the material, and not having read your Trine Day book. I just didn't what you were aggravated about, or why. I see better now from the posts above.

Thanks David, please forgive me for how I've reacted or my actions if I came off the wrong way, there are still somethings I get very upset about, very emotional, I can't explain it in a public forum or openly confess the reasons for the simple fact I want to remain sane. I've already had a nervous breakdown, and gone though a bad depression, my doctor has had me on lamotrigine 50mg and this is all due to the information I've been uncovering and writing in my second book. I just couldn't stop writing. I've been going through a depression state.

JFK was the boss. He could have said, stop it. Instead he played wait and see. Nixon, IMO, would have insisted on a sure bet. JFK did not insist on a sure bet.

Even Jake Esterline disagrees with this assessment and he wasn't particularly fond of JFK. Read his oral history of the event here.

In that oral interview, among other things, he tells CIA Historian, Jack B. Pfeiffer, the following regarding the Bay of Pigs:

“I am one of those who feel it is very wrong to pick too much on Jack Kennedy because it was Nixon who, if we had kicked off as we had hoped for, between November and January of 60-61, it might not have worked, but it would not have been a major disaster.” — Jake Esterline

​Remember that Nixon was in charge of this operation from the start. It was supposed to have taken place long before April of 1961. However, JFK embarrassed Nixon in the debate by having accused Eisenhower of "inaction" against Castro. Today we know that the action that was being planned--Trinidad and others--were so top secret that Nixon could not respond. Once the election was lost Nixon sought revenge against Kennedy and, apparently, in an act of pure spite, postponed action against Castro until after Ike left office. But, during the lame duck period, he ordered the CIA to build the operation up from about a 350 man affair to a more than 3,000 man amphibious assault invasion force!

That had never been Ike's plan. But it was Nixon's revenge. The CIA convinced Kennedy that the (Nixon) plan was actually Ike's plan, which it was not. Who was JFK to question the amphibious assault plan of the former president who had been a 4 Star Army General and the Supreme Commander during the largest successful amphibious assault in the history of the world at Normandy? Well, he was the new president and so he did question it. The Agency lied. The rest is distorted history.

The biggest problem with the overall Bay of Pigs is the "what if" game, he said, she said, had this not happened, this could've happened, should've, could've, would've, but didn't. Greg, you're not entirely wrong about Stevenson going to Rusk, but did you know he also went directly to Kennedy as well as McBundy, please folks, let's get our history straight it's no wonder it's all screwed up.

Jon, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you, there were compartmentalized groups formed from the CIA who were CIA that infiltrated Oswald, assisted the FBI in the story on Oswald in Mexico, fabricated photos, lied about a tape of Oswald, their objective was to invade Cuba, Jon, didn't you know that Nixon was taken out because of Cuba?

There is so much incorrect information here I don't even know where to begin. Greg, don't believe everything you read, if there are some living witnesses besides Hemming, follow up.

Acting on the best interest of the president of course as his advisor.

With only one or two relatively minor clarifications, I concur, Jim.

You said:

"1.) The D Day air strikes were not part of the plan, they were only a contingency..."

To which airstrikes are you referring? The pre-dawn airstrikes were not a mere contingency, as they were central to the plan and, according to the Taylor Report, their having been delayed was the "proximate cause of the failure." That they were cancelled is public record. Who canceled them is generally not public knowledge, but by now it should be as it is documented well. Unbeknownst to JFK, McGeorge Bundy made the call to General Cabell on orders from Dean Rusk who had ostensibly deferred to Adlai Stevenson's objections. I wrote about this extensively in an article simply titled: Fiasco

The "other" D-Day airstrikes that are regularly conflated with the pre-dawn airstrikes, were not canceled by Kennedy because they were never ordered by him in the first place! Indeed, he specifically excluded any and all direct US intervention (in an emergency cable from J.C. King to Colonel Jack Hawkins in Nicaragua less than one week prior to D-Day) as they were outside the Rules of Engagement under the circumstances. The ONLY scenario legally allowing JFK to order direct US intervention would have necessarily hinged on the successful establishment of a new "Cuban Government in Exile." This would have been realized only if Brigade 2506 could have secured a beachhead and airstrip, at the very least, before declaring themselves as the new Government. But this never happened because of the cancelation, by McGeorge Bundy, of the pre-dawn airstrikes, which allowed Castro's remaining air force to become airborne, sinking supply vessels, and pinning the Brigade.

Under those circumstances, any direct intervention by the US would have been a violation of international law. So Kennedy did not cancel any promised airstrikes. However, JFK did refuse to launch direct US intervention the next morning, as it was already too late for the anti-Castro Cubans to declare a government in exile status.

What Greg says is true, with one small exception, the reason McBundy made that call was because of Ail Stevenson, I also get very detailed about all this and how George took matters into his own hands.

Ray McGovern is a valuable asset for our side since he worked at CIA for 27 years. He is very honest and fearless. He actually stood up to Rumsfeld on TV and exposed the Iraq war for the sham it was.

What he is talking about here, and what Scott does not want to tolerate, are the notes for a Harper's Magazine article that Dulles was going to write about the Bay of Pigs. This was going to be ghosted by author WIllie Morris. (Douglass, p. 16) Dulles was angry about two books that had just been published and become best-sellers: Sorenson's and Schlesinger's. Both of those books countered the cover story Dulles had put out previously through Howard Hunt and Charles Murphy in Fortune in 1961. That piece was a hatchet job on Kennedy and his foreign policy and it also lied about the Bay of Pigs. It said that Kennedy had cancelled the D Day air strikes and that blew the operation.

With all the declassified docs we have today, we now know this is pure horse manure. Because:

1.) The D Day air strikes were not part of the plan, they were only a contingency, and

2.) As the IG Report by Lyman Kirkpatrick states, even if they had been executed, the Cubans had far too much artillery, tanks armor and men to repel the thousand or so Cubans who were now out a lot of ammo since one of their supply ships sunk on the reef.

This is what Hunt, Murphy and Dulles tried to cover up in their 1961article. Why? Because Hunt and Dulles knew that the Taylor Commission inquiry was going to show that Dulles was actually the culpable party--which it did. He had deliberately mislead Kennedy about three key matters: the number of defections that would take place, the ability of the Cuban exiles to go guerrilla, and the overall possibility of success without American direct intervention. These all came out due to Bobby Kennedy's acute questioning, supplemented by other witnesses e.g. Manuelo Ray and Commander Shoup. This is what caused Kennedy to fire Dulles, Bissell and Cabell.

So when Sorenson and Schlesinger began to present Kennedy's side of the Bay of Pigs in 1965, thereby countering the propaganda by Murphy and Hunt, Dulles went to work again. Except, now, with his cover story already used up, and the two authors actually presenting some facts, he had nowhere to go except to spill the beans on his secret agenda. Which was to mislead Kennedy about the chances of success to the point he would have to commit American forces to save himself from a humiliating defeat. That is what was in those notes he made with Morris. And that is why he abandoned the Harper's article. But Dulles made a mistake and left the notes in his files. Therefore, when he died, his wife put them in the Princeton Archives (Dulles' alma mater).

They were found almost two decades later, not by Douglass, or Talbot. They were discovered by scholar and historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke at the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library at Princeton.. And he wrote an essay in 1984 for the peer reviewed historical journal Diplomatic History. It was titled "The Confessions of Allen Dulles". (ibid, p. 394) That journal gave Bissell an opportunity to reply and he wrote that he and Dulles "Had allowed Kennedy to persist in misunderstandings about the nature of the Cuban operation."

So, unlike what Scott is insinuating, that is the origin of these notes for the original article. But he knows all this since I had this go round before with him at DPF. He doesn't want to admit that the CIA manipulated and lied to Kennedy. He wants to maintain the Hunt/Murphy mythology. But that is all it was a myth. in other words, as Daniel Schorr once wrote, the real target of the Bay of Pigs was President Kennedy. (ibid, p. 15)

While others are also pondering your information, "The Confessions of Allen Dulles." (ibid, p. 394), "as if they truly exist." (ibid, p.1 Scott Kaiser), but of course, these notes were suppose exist because they were going to be ghostwritten, and I thought the assassination of JFK was non-fiction. Slaps my forehead!

I would love to see Bissell's reply, wouldn't you? "And the two author's presenting some facts." God Forbid they get all presented.

So, unlike what Jim remembers, that is the origin of our original debate, "The Bay of Pigs was designed to fail." I don't know how many times I have already gone over this with you, but it really wasn't, again, slaps my forehead! Look at that, and I didn't need to spit out any names. Tom, can I get some cheering too?

Ray McGovern is a valuable asset for our side since he worked at CIA for 27 years. He is very honest and fearless. He actually stood up to Rumsfeld on TV and exposed the Iraq war for the sham it was.

What he is talking about here, and what Scott does not want to tolerate, are the notes for a Harper's Magazine article that Dulles was going to write about the Bay of Pigs. This was going to be ghosted by author WIllie Morris. (Douglass, p. 16) Dulles was angry about two books that had just been published and become best-sellers: Sorenson's and Schlesinger's. Both of those books countered the cover story Dulles had put out previously through Howard Hunt and Charles Murphy in Fortune in 1961. That piece was a hatchet job on Kennedy and his foreign policy and it also lied about the Bay of Pigs. It said that Kennedy had cancelled the D Day air strikes and that blew the operation.

With all the declassified docs we have today, we now know this is pure horse manure. Because:

1.) The D Day air strikes were not part of the plan, they were only a contingency, and

2.) As the IG Report by Lyman Kirkpatrick states, even if they had been executed, the Cubans had far too much artillery, tanks armor and men to repel the thousand or so Cubans who were now out a lot of ammo since one of their supply ships sunk on the reef.

This is what Hunt, Murphy and Dulles tried to cover up in their 1961article. Why? Because Hunt and Dulles knew that the Taylor Commission inquiry was going to show that Dulles was actually the culpable party--which it did. He had deliberately mislead Kennedy about three key matters: the number of defections that would take place, the ability of the Cuban exiles to go guerrilla, and the overall possibility of success without American direct intervention. These all came out due to Bobby Kennedy's acute questioning, supplemented by other witnesses e.g. Manuelo Ray and Commander Shoup. This is what caused Kennedy to fire Dulles, Bissell and Cabell.

So when Sorenson and Schlesinger began to present Kennedy's side of the Bay of Pigs in 1965, thereby countering the propaganda by Murphy and Hunt, Dulles went to work again. Except, now, with his cover story already used up, and the two authors actually presenting some facts, he had nowhere to go except to spill the beans on his secret agenda. Which was to mislead Kennedy about he chances of success to the point he would have to commit American forces to save himself from a humiliating defeat. That is what was in those notes he made with Morris. And that is why he abandoned the Harper's article. But Dulles made a mistake and left the notes in his files. Therefore, when he died his wife put them in the Princeton Archives.

They were found almost two decades later, not by Douglass, or Talbot. They were discovered by scholar and historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke at the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library at Princeton.. And he wrote an essay in 1984 for the peer reviewed historical journal Diplomatic History. It was titled "The Confessions of Allen Dulles". (ibid, p. 394) That journal gave Bissell an opportunity to reply and he wrote that he and Dulles "Had allowed Kennedy to persist in misunderstandings about the nature of the Cuban operation."

So, unlike what Scott is insinuating, that is the origin of these notes for the original article. But he knows all this since I had this go round before with him at DPF. He doesn't want to admit that the CIA manipulated and lied to Kennedy. He wants to maintain the Hunt/Murphy mythology. But that is all it was a myth. in other words as Daniel Schorr once wrote, the real target of the Bay of Pigs was President Kennedy. (ibid, p. 15)

Thanks for the clarification Jim, this may now explain why my father had Hunt's photo along with "others".

Nino Diaz - says, Hunt was a [pendejo] for allowing his photo to be taken, he said, he saw the photo of Hunt my father carried around, and it was a picture of Hunt in Dallas.

Rudy Junco - says, he drove my father to the CIA where my father impersonated a CIA agent entered the building and stole the photos, he says they were black and white, and these men were standing outside a hotel room in Dallas.

Eugenio Martinez - says, those were the photos we were all looking for, and your father stole them, how else do you think your father got ahold of them.

Frank Sturgis - said, May 7, 1977 – In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Frank Sturgis claims “that the objective of the Watergate break-ins was to locate and destroy the photographs of our role in the assassination of the President.

There are others.

Oh, and by the way, for anyone who hadn't caught it, in my update, I do expose Frank's motives for saying what he said about locating the photos at the Watergate hotel when Frank already knew my father had them, listen carefully, Frank, already knew my father had them, yet, Frank mentions the Watergate hotel and doesn't says well, we had to kill Kaiser because he had them.

Look at the date of when Frank made the announcement, three months [after] my father was killed, exactly to the date, you see, I will expose it all. I hold nothing back.

Nino Diaz - says, Hunt was a [pendejo] for allowing his photo to be taken, he said, he saw the photo of Hunt my father carried around, and it was a picture of Hunt in Dallas.

Rudy Junco - says, he drove my father to the CIA where my father impersonated a CIA agent entered the building and stole the photos, he says they were black and white, and these men were standing outside a hotel room in Dallas.

Eugenio Martinez - says, those were the photos we were all looking for, and your father stole them, how else do you think your father got ahold of them.

Frank Sturgis - said, May 7, 1977 – In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Frank Sturgis claims “that the objective of the Watergate break-ins was to locate and destroy the photographs of our role in the assassination of the President.

There are others.

Scott, put some ice in that, at least.

David, I like you, you don't seem like some others who would come out swing with their college degree vocabulary worded, intellectually printed, more nonsense crap. You don't strike me as such. Is there a difference of saying questioning what was written which we all already know cannot be proven, to say what JVB also mentions that cannot be proven? What's the difference?

I have no doubt that some folks may want to have a field day with my first book, I would say to them wait till my second comes out, it's just an update of my first, but with more than 70 pages added. I offer this challenge up to anyone, and everyone who discredits my book. I will provide proof of my father's workings and dealings in this covert establishment everyone seems to talk about, and go a step further. I will provide how my father turned on this establishment, discovered information that did link to Kennedy's assassination, [that part is specifically for you Stephen Roy.]

I know I'm not one to make friends easily when we're speaking JFK or Watergate, and I'm just going to be honest with you, when Roger Stone, St. John Hunt and I are sitting back sipping on a Martini and were shooting the crap, we can be best of friends, that is, until we start talking JFK. It's no offense to them, or me, however, I have always told St John I was sorry for my father having his father's photo, and according to many folks whom are still alive today say it was a photo of Hunt in Dealey Plaza. This, is one thing we all three agree on.

My father of course didn't just have Hunt's photos. And, there are a "chain of events" that I exploit in my update. It all starts at my father's childhood, after all, the story is fashioned around him. This is a true story, the challenge is, I will pay to the first person $10,000.00 that proves I'm lying.

We've gone through so many authors, JVB what I'm pointing out here, that I'm now icing, and so many more that you, yourselves have pointed out, what's one more?

"I think it is. Think about when Eisenhower was told that Castro had to go. And the way they would do it is arming and otherwise equipping a rag-tag group of Cubans who would land at the Bay of Pigs. Eisenhower was a military man. He should’ve known better—“That’s not going to work”—and young John Kennedy comes in and he says, “Well, I don’t want to be soft on Communism, so if you think this will work, O.K. But for God’s sake, don’t you expect that I’m going to commit U.S military forces to this enterprise. You got that? Repeat. Can you repeat that, Allen Dulles? OK, you got it. All right, good.”

Now, they knew damn well that they wouldn’t be able to unseat Castro. And when Allen Dulles died, there were coffee-stained notes on his desk, which said. “Once we get on the beach, there is no way the president of the United States can refuse to support us with his military.”

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever read in my life, seriously! Let's wait till the guy is dead, then we can manipulate all the crap we want, in-fact, we'll even come up with a story of coffe stained notes on his desk, which desk would this be, his DCI at the CIA desk when he mustered out with his pension in 1963 and died in 1969? So, he still left his notes on a desk that he was suppose to clear out six years ago? Do I have stupid tattooed across my forehead? Ugh!

I'm thinking the coffee-stained notes story has its origins in either the Talbot or the Douglass book. If so - shows the importance of citing sources for one's written assertions. Because people bitch, and writers lose credibility.

Forgive me, for bitching out the obvious. It's more important to keep their credibility.

Do you understand that statement Paul and Tom?

Who you are, I understand perfectly. You make THAT MUCH clear by your *attitude* in every post.

However, whatever point you THINK you are making is not understood due to your inability to express it, not because as you so condescendingly state, you are just so must smarter than everyone else.

Who you are? Forgive me for not introducing myself, my name is Scott Kaiser

I understand / is not understood = I call this an Oxymoron.

Not smarter than everyone else, do I make you feel nervous?

First off, for the record, there was nothing "rag-tag" about this group of Cubans that formed the Bay of Pigs who all had the same willingness as Fidel Castro, to recapture Cuba, but this time it was to free Cuba from communism. I don't know how many [men] here, in this forum would take up arms to fight for freedom of their homeland, or if they did or were called upon to do so, and if you ever have, does that make you "rag-tag?" If you ask me, that's a real bullxxxx statement made by a researcher, it's no wonder I call them as I see them. Do you understand that statement Paul and Tom?

I feel like I'm stuck in a rabbit hole with twiddle D and tweedle dumb, which one's which?

Until you two professionals can focus less on what I [just] write, and more of what I say maybe, just maybe, you two pros will learn something. You're hearing me, but you're not listening. Do you understand that concept, allow me to say that again, but this time a bit s l o w e r for you to understand. You're hearing me, but.... you're not listening...

Questions?

Yeah Scott - too bad you are so inscrutable. Seriously - I don't understand anything you write.

I'm sorry, it takes a thinking person.