Charles Drago

The uses of children -- in both the legal and common definitions of the word -- by military and civilian agencies of the USG for any number of unholy/illegal purposes remains one of the most underdeveloped of our research topics. Forgive my ignorance, but: Do you care to define "Illusionary Warfare"? Were minors regularly engaged in same?

I met Marry in Dallas when Oliver Stone's people were just starting to investigate for the JFK movie. She was introduceed to me by Alex Hoe and John Stockwell. I did not talk to her in any detail at all. At that time I was kept away from other researchers. John Stockwell I think told her I was a CIA pilot. However at that early date there were no declassified documentation FBI or otherwise, to even indicate I was connected. In short. I never talked to her direct about any thing on JFK. We just chatted and then I was pulled away and taken out of the building. At that time I did not know who she was or what she was working on.... some years later... I sent two boxes of FBI FOIA de classified info about Roselil and other information that Bud Fensterwald and Gary Shaw had on me. (1981) Her reply was " ... claimed to be a CIA..."... which offended me. She also obtained information from Jay Harrison about Dallas and those connections of mine and tried to reach me. I did not respond...... a few years later I heard she died. No. I am not in touch with any of the Forgotten Families. I know they and Sherry really worked hard for the truth, but got side tracked into BS stories from ego manics and their info and work went dead.... I think...... There are hundreds of stories like theirs, but will never see daylight.... The "clean-up artist" are at work.. alive and well Thank you. I can assure you that the questions I posed are related, and that I will be happy to explain sooner rather than later.

Ed, The "approximate position of JFK's eyes"??? Believe me, I respect your work and want to understand the evidence as you present it. So please feel free to point out just how dense I am, and offense will not be taken. Are we not looking at JFK in profile? Are not the dots (from right to left) at the approximate positions of JFK's right eye and top of right ear? Are you suggesting that we are seeing a full-face image of JFK in this frame? Charles

Mr. Plumlee, The followng three questions certainly may be read as attempts to pry into your personal life. Yet such inquiries seem to be precisely what you are inviting. A decision on your part to decline to answer will be accepted without prejudice. 1. How would you define, in detail, your relationship with Mary Ferrell? 2. Are you still in touch with/advising the founder(s) of Forgotten Families of the Cold War, and if so, what can you report on that group's progress to date? Thank you. Charles Drago

Are you sure that De Gaulle didn't say, "in the arms of a yacht dealer"?

I see dark clouds over the White House and trouble for Liz and Dick. Help us out, Ed.

It's worth a great deal. What can you tell us about a "Pegasus" group?

Who should be weeping?

And to think I used to need a tab to see this kind of thing.

What is this BULL about emotion being ill-advised??? Good for you, Kathleen! RAGE against the killers of the light! Acuna matata my pocked olive behind! This is war, damnit! And if you think it's swapping tales around a campfire, maybe you should go sell cookies and leave the adults to their business.

Interesting theory, Ron. Can you Becket up? I would cast Charlize Theron as Di ... but only after numerous private screen tests.

Thank you once again, Matthew, for your civil and informative response. I'm admittedly doing a bit of intellectual scurrying here: One of many theories regarding "chemtrails" postulates that the spraying is done at high altitudes by design, and that heavy metals and/or other particulate residues that make it to the ground are like greenhouse gases: unfortunate but unavoidable harmful after-effects of well-intended processes (weather modification? anti-missile defense? communications experiments? cooling efforts?). What is being collected may originate with prior "chemtrail" sprayings, and so would have the time to reach the ground. And until we know exactly what, if anything, is being sprayed, it is just as likely that currently unknown components can make it to the surface as it is that they would be diluted/dissipated at altitude.

Purvis and Rahn. Garbage in, garbage out. Charles

As Ian Fleming told us, it is indeed Her Majesty's Secret Service. "Pimping for England" indeed, Mr. Bond.

it was the same in the 1994 version of the code. I'll see if I can find the 1977 version. Someone may want to check me on this, because I am not familiar with searching through US laws. Evan, In this case it is not the letter of the law, but rather the spirit, that must be the focus of our attention. Charles

Matthew's presentation of photographic and other anecdotal evidence documenting persistent contrails dating back at least to WWII is impressive. There can be little doubt that such formations are at first glance strikingly similar to the lingering, "cloud"-forming con/chemtrails noted the world over today. Matthew's derisive dismissal of Jack White's previous post, however, is troubling in substance as well as tone. I am not aware of any in-depth scientific comparisons of historical and contemporary persistent contrails that support the conclusion that what is being observed today are, in Matthew's words, "perfectly normal trail in the sky" or in any meaningful ways similar to the dogfight contrails captured in posted photos. All we have from would-be chemtrail debunkers is the decidedly non-scientific "persistent" bromide. I am also struck by what may be Matthew's innocent misreading of the report cited by Jack. Nowhere therein is it suggested that, as Matthew would have it, chemtrails are "falling out of the sky immediately." (emphasis added) Thus his "'[c]hemtrail' believers want to have it both ways" conclusion is is shown to be based on at least one false assumption (another is that all chemtrails would be expected to exhibit identical compositions and air-to-ground descent characteristics), and thus qualifies as sophistry. Could the barium and other dangerous substances alleged to be fallout from chemtrails originate elsewhere? Of course. That jury remains out. Serious investigations are called for. What's with the rush to judgment? Matthew's silence on established precedents for government testing, via aerosol spraying, of biological agents on an unsuspecting population dating to the late 1940s reflects what I would suggest -- and I mean this with no disrespect -- is an unsophisticated and uninformed appreciation of deep political structures, agendas, and methods. His mocking of Jack White -- the straw man of choice for disinformationalists who regularly prowl these cyber-pages -- is at best cheap and unsavory. I haven't the slightest idea what "chemtrails" are. Yet. But anyone who does not acknowledge the needs for an open-minded approach to this issue and impartial scientific analyses of its components by definition raises some very large red flags. Charles

Heavy construction work in/around Dealey Plaza that day, and the related presence there of a number of men wearing hardhats, would have been noted by anyone searching for a viable disguise.

It appears you've been spending entirely too much time playing with Mr. Floppy. A Friend

Let us apply the hard-earned lessons of our search for truth and justice for John F. Kennedy. The issue at hand is NOT how altitude, meteorological conditions, engine construction and characteristics, fuel composition, limitations of ground observation relative to judgements of altitude and platform specifics, relatively persistent contrails, the availability of digital cameras, and/or the practical necessity of a bumbershoot in Dealey Plaza at noon on November 22, 1963 demonstrate the chemtrail phenomenon to be of prosaic origins. Provide the science that explains the world-wide observation of con/chemtrails expanding into massive and persistent "cloud" formations. The photos reproduced below were shot in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in July, 1999 over a three-hour period. The photographer notes that "normal" clouds were not present in the sky during the time frame in question, and that the overcast conditions were solely the result of con/chemtrails. NOTE: THE POSITIONING OF THE PHOTOS IS OUT OF SEQUENCE. THE PROPER ORDER IS: TOP ROW RIGHT; BOTTOM ROW; TOP ROW LEFT. Absent evidence of a hoax and/or faulty observation of pre-existing cloud condtions, and given the consistency of this report with literally thousands of others worldwide, provide scientific evidence for the expansion of contrails into cloud cover as seen here and elsewhere. The concensus start date for what have come to be known as chemtrails is December, 1998. Either provide scientific evidence for observations prior to that date that confirm the presence of contrails that expand into faux cirrus formations that can persist for hours, or account for the factors post 12/98 that account for a sea change in con/chemtrail characteristics. My mind remains open. And, I might add, alert for other forms of human-generated ... cloud cover. Charles

Literature's loss is Langley's gain.

Precisely. This fact speaks not a syllable to the aspects of the con/chemtrail phenomenon that continue to baffle.

I too am relying on guess genes (sorry) throughout this thread. For the record, I am comparing relatively recent (within, say, the past 5-7 years) con/chemtrail observations to what was regularly observed immediately prior to that period. In other words, the chemtrail phenomenon as I think about it was first noticed in the 21st century. In so stating, I have indeed viewed still photos and motion pictures of WWII-vintage contrails emanating from high-altitude bomber formations. What these views do NOT reveal, however, are the durations and ultimate spread patterns of the relatively (compared to what is described below) thick white lines. Prior to the chemtrail business, the only contrails with which I was familiar were of the relatively short, thin, and quickly dissipating variety. Charles

Pat, Whatever the variation on the theme turns out to be, change will be blunted until the lessons of Dealey Plaza are learned. Can an Obama be expected to take the point, so to speak, and protect himself? Or in our times, would he be the ultimate target of opportunity? Would he be killed? Controlled? Rendered moot in some other fashion? All we can know for certain is that the system is self-correcting and that, short of systemic change, we don't have a chance. Thank you for responding. Charles

Evan, Which is precisely my point. Again I feel obliged to cite the severe limitations under which I opine on this issue: I'm no metereologist. But I continue to be struck by the relative rapidity of the spread of con/chemtrial into cirrus as well as its volume, and to the best of my ability to recall, I cannot think of a precedent for this phenomenon noted prior to (for lack of a more poetically just date) September 10, 2001. And no, I imply not the slightest linkage. I do ask: What has changed about the atmosphere, the fuel, and/or the engines that would prompt the formations as noted? Or to put it plainly: Why didn't this happen when I was a kid? Have atmospheric chemists (other than Ken "Heil Be Around" Rahn) addressed the science of con/chemtrails? Are you familiar with chemtrail theory related to HAARP applications? Anti-missile applications? Nonsense? Interesting? Charles

Thomas Merton would have recognized the above as reflecting "the punctilious exactitude of [Purvis's] obedience ... "