Charles Drago

Forgive my presumptuouness, but I thought the post-holiday, back to business atmosphere might prompt more reaction to the above pre-Christmas post. Charles

The "high cirrus clouds" were the result of the spreading of the chemtrails. Jack Jack, That is HIGHLY debatable in either of the images, so much so I would say you are very wrong. Although I have had meteorological training, and am a trained met observer, I would discount my own opinion and ask that you show the images to a meteorologist and seek their opinion. I am sure there are many around your area. If they agree with you and disagree with me, please post their reply here. You might want to read this, or Google "clouds cirrus". While I have no way whatsoever to determine the origin of the aformentioned "high cirrus clouds," I can report from repeated personal observations that con/chemtrails had indeed spread to resemble in all superficially visible aspects the formations under scrutiny. I'm talking about what I can describe in my limited meteorological vocabulary as massive "cloud" formations unambiguously originating as con/chemtrails. By "massive" I mean to indicate an estimated width one hundred times (100 X) greather than that of the source con/chemtrail. Further, I have observed the con/chemtrails produce a billowing (again, most certainly an imprecise, non-scientific term) effect as the wide clouds form. Charles

Agreed.

So, apparently, did Ben Rothlesberger. For whom Brother Kelin's title will have not the slightest relevance.

Myra, You're well advised to pay a hefty premium for a paperback edition (the hc is commonly offered for 2-3 times the cost of the pb). I know of no more succinct and encompassing description of the bad v. worse guys who haunt our lives than Oglesby's title. You've inspired me to reread TYCW, which I last reviewed more than 10 years ago. The Bush family as connective tissue between the factions? It's a concept that has been discussed -- at least privately -- for a while, and I think we should devote a new thread to it. Of course the Rockefeller family also connects the two worlds. Off to what in RI is referred to as the "lie-berry." Charles

Bravo.

Looks like another Huckabee ad to me.

Again, thank you. I hope I'm not belaboring the point, but the cloud-forming trails of the past few years seem to be a new phenomenon. Could advances in jet engine design and/or fuel refinement contribute to what we're seeing?

Thanks, Peter. I'm most curious about the spread of the so-called chemtrails. I have observed them occluding significant portions (in this layman's terms, at least 50%) of the visible sky. "Visible," that is, from the outskirts of a mid-size American city -- as opposed to, say, open prairie in Kansas. I seems that the trails propagate and thicken rather than spread themselves ever thinner. Can you account for this? Thanks in advance.

Thanks.

Then there's "W" -- top row, far right. "W" ?? [ The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In drag. Like his prep school days.

Then there's "W" -- top row, far right.

Let's learn our lessons from the JFK plot. To settle on a single motive is to defeat our efforts. Charles

JBK -- fifth from the left, top row?

Please help me out by being as specific as possible. What are the meteorological conditions and air traffic density that, independently or in tandem, would prompt the spread of contrail(s) into large cloud masses? Under what conditions could a single aircraft produce such an effect?

Correct, Dawn. As for "Colby" -- Don't bother, he isn't worth it. Charles

I have not reached any conclusions regarding the chemtrail issue. In terms of persistent contrails: Should they be expected either to adhere to their original configuration or to expand slightly? Could expansion of persistent contrials be expected to increase and thicken to the size and apparent depth of significant cloud cover? I have observed con/chemtrails do just that. Charles

Would this be a Crest view? Charles

Excellent, James. These photos are all clearly the same guy. Pat, Likely, but hardly"clearly" -- at least to these myopic peepers. ____________________________________ Isn't "likely" a rather intellectual word for "probably?" (Probably.) --Thomas ____________________________________ Could be.

Excellent, James. These photos are all clearly the same guy. Pat, Likely, but hardly"clearly" -- at least to these myopic peepers.

As always, James, your help is most highly valued.

Apologies in advance for my ham-handed attempt at a Morales photo comparison. Same guy? Do the forlorn rags of old age account for the differences? Charles

That was at her husband's insisitence, do you think he was involved? Criminal naïveté personified as "Colby." But for what purpose? To treat his posts with even a modicum of respect is to play the enemy's game. "Colby's" masters treat us with contempt. Does "he" represent their best efforts? Or do they know something about us we dare not confront? Charles

For the record: Until I read the responses to my original Morales doppelganger posts on this Forum, I hadn't the slightest notion that anyone else was thinking along similar lines. Side-by-side comparisons of conflicting images would be of great interest. Can you provide same? I feel your pain. Morales is, for my money, one of the rarest of commodities: a key to the kingdom. Your investigation is long overdue. But I submit that the Morales story cannot be told in full absent the most thorough investigation of this phenomenon. Best, Charles

Until the life of the terrorist is held to be as precious as the life of the terrorized, the terror will continue. Blessings to you, John. Charles Drago