Bill
Senior Member
In her case providing evidence would not cause a problem with the government. She uses the implication of problems as an excuse for not providing evidence. She is using a fake argument she knows her supporters will accept.
Kristen Meghan, former US Air Force whistle-blower?
- Thread starter jvnk08
- Start date
- Status
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
LOL. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, but like I've said, I'm not interested in her finances or personal life.
Her latest spate of Facebook posts adds to the mystery even more. It's like a spy novel. She now seems to be insinuating that evidence was given to her confidentially, and she's not willing to disclose it.
View attachment 6082
View attachment 6083
There's not much chance any questions to her will be answered here, as she claims not to read Metabunk. Although, her account seems to have been edited within the last couple of days; Her avatar was deleted... Odd.
The things she says are making less and less sense. She can debunk the debunkers because shes not an activist? What does that even mean? Everything she says about debuking efforts is deflection and strawman arguments.
deirdre
Senior Member
she means she didn't BECOME an activist to debate with debunkers. I think
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
I suppose... It's just more of the "I don't have to prove anything to YOU" dodge.
Balance
Senior Member
Kristen has often stated she speaks publicly for a living. How does that work if she's prone to mistakes? Her speciality is industrial hazardous materials, including radiation hazards.
There are many photos of either sides of her face. Some could have been flipped, I guess.
deirdre
Senior Member
well in all fairness, YOU are the only ones asking her for proof
I see what everyone is going on about, on both sides, but considering what she has provided thus far, the thing she is missing is a selfie photo of her standing next to the on-off switch with her 2 thumbs up and a big grin. I'm not clear what type of evidence you are expecting.
She has listed what she has found/observed and made
her own valid conclusions bad on the research she found with the accounted for chemicals etc.
Trying to imagine if she would be classed as a credible witness in court, I think she would be.
Admittedly standing alongside a pilot with the spraying device would be better but until they creep out of the hole to expose it, im guessing that isn't gonna happen.
The only way everyone will be happy is to have others stands alongside her with physical proof.
That's if it happens before the military trickle out their own admissions...
All she has said is there were some chemicals (which she does not name, or give quantities, or locations) she could not immediately account for, and that she did some tests, the results of which she has not revealed.
What conclusions could you validly draw from that?
Fair point. Reading half of this I've realised it's way over my head. All I want is the truth to come out.
As someone said earlier, a Whistle blower shouldn't come it till they have the evidence, but if she was forced out because they were suspicious of the questions she was asking then I guess there isn't much she could do.
A scenario such as Edward Snowden would have been perfect.... In Black and white.
I'm gonna take a back seat again and see what comes of it all. Lol
As someone said earlier, a Whistle blower shouldn't come it till they have the evidence, but if she was forced out because they were suspicious of the questions she was asking then I guess there isn't much she could do.
A scenario such as Edward Snowden would have been perfect.... In Black and white.
I'm gonna take a back seat again and see what comes of it all. Lol
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
What if that is just part of her story and isn't backed up by anything more solid than any other part of her story?
Ross Marsden
Senior Member.
Yes, it does make her other claims seem dubious. But your argument is false... "poison the well".
All her claims are dubious, because there is nothing to back them up. End of story.
Another good point but this could go on forever if we act that suspicious/paranoid about every point.
With my distrust for governments nothing would surprise me so I don't have a problem believing something like this could be hidden from the public. I'm not saying I believe it's true without the evidence.
But things like this can't go ignored, but could probably be debunked as with most things.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
Ross Marsden
Senior Member.
Nothing to debunk. The article's title is a tad misleading.
I've come to realise that conspiracy theorists and debunkers aren't all that different from each other, right up until the evidence comes out clear. One says this is what I believe, the other days prove it and it goes round in circles, like tit for tat. The only difference is that the debunkers only focus on the physical proof and ignore any speculation no matter how damming, whereas the conspiracy theorist believes too little evidence and is willing to come to a conclusion before anything solid comes up.... I'm not sure what is more dangerous.
I do know that every outcome first needs a theory! so I guess they are like yin and yang.
I do know that every outcome first needs a theory! so I guess they are like yin and yang.
But it does highlight that tests were done without public knowledge. If then, why not any other time?
Off Topic. No need to start a ramble through the chemtrail pantheon.
Because speculation without evidence is just someone talking.
MikeC
Closed Account
you are mistaken in your understanding of debunking - it has nothing to do with going around in circles - it is about examining the evidence, nothing more or less.
So saying "you are wrong" is not debunking - it is just arguing.
Saying "this particular piece of evidenced doesn't support your conclusion and here is why...." is debunking, and doesn't actually stop you from thinking anything you like - it just stops you (or it should stop you!!) from claiming that evidence supports the conclusion you are making about it.
Slightly off topic in terms of achieving evidence but still related to the overall theory of her claims. If they lied and covered up once why can't they still be actively covering now?
Fair point, I guess both sides ultimately want the same end game, just some are premature to believe before the evidence is there.
JRBids
Senior Member
I understand people not trust the government, or the media, or whatever....but why do you believe Kristen?
JRBids
Senior Member
Funny you mention the difference between conspiracy theorists and debunkers. How many debunkers make threats, harassing phone calls, harass CTers children?
JRBids
Senior Member
Have they ever told the truth? Why wouldn't they be telling the truth now?
Pete Tar
Senior Member
Bruno D.
Senior Member.
Your premise is faulty.
As Mick likes to say, we never try to debunk a theory. If a chemtrail evidence is presented and can't be debunked, we won't try to disqualify it. We always analyse only the evidence, and that's all.
We do not have a theory and try to prove or disprove that using evidences, that's not how it works.
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
Absolutely and whole heartedly agree with that statement BPD. @casper The biggest difference you'll see between CTs and DBs is that CTs "generally" force the "facts" and "evidence" (if there are any of either) to fit their theory rather than change the theory to fit the facts. If you're a fan of the old days of CSI, you'll hear Grisom preach that a lot.. and it holds true to Police work just as much as it does to anything else. The vast majority of the time you screw yourself over if you form a theory without having the data points to lead you to it.. you follow the evidence and let IT tell the story, rather than develop a story and try to make the evidence fit it. This is what Megan and the other 'geoengineer/chemtrail movement' types havent quite grasped yet.
Is not that I believe her fully, but she has put herself in the firing line to tell people some info and she appears credible, but has no hard evidence. I understand she could be a loony but the is no reason yet to believe that. I'm listening to both sides and ring to understand which is more believable.
Touche.... lol
I don't know, depends on the individual I guess. . Are you talking from experience? Because that's disgraceful if that's happened to you or your children. I've personally not known either. I have known some pushy and slightly aggressive people from both sides, I prefer to stay open minded until I see evidence.
Unfortunately nobody has evidence at the moment so hence why I would like proof of either side of the argument. At the moment kristen has provided her info to show her credibility, the military have not yet provided independent tests to prove otherwise so it's still open for discussion. No proof anywhere.
. Are you talking from experience? Because that's disgraceful if that's happened to you or your children. I've personally not known either. I have known some pushy and slightly aggressive people from both sides, I prefer to stay open minded until I see evidence. Unfortunately nobody has evidence at the moment so hence why I would like proof of either side of the argument. At the moment kristen has provided her info to show her credibility, the military have not yet provided independent tests to prove otherwise so it's still open for discussion. No proof anywhere.
Pete Tar
Senior Member
As our perception seems to be otherwise, can you clarify what you mean by this?
Ie. what info?
Last edited:
Strawman
Active Member
See, the problem with this is, it's merely an assessment of her character or person. I understand this may yield some emotional credibility. But if you're looking at the claims she is making, her person should not come into it. It's just not important whether she presents herself as a whistleblower who has given up something for the cause. What matters is the substance of the information, whether there is any tangible proof. Right now there is none. That is why her claims are not credible, no matter how nice or honest she may seem as a person. (And I'm sure she is.)
(And I do think that this very thread has, at times, given too much weight to Kristen as a person.)
Strawman
Active Member
I think I see the problem there. You are thinking in sides. Lots of people here do, too. While it may be attractive, and even inevitable at times. But when thinking about claims and evidence, it's hardly helpful. What you look into then is evidence and substance of a claim. Not who made it, etc. And right now, it is Kristen making a claim, not backing it up. As long as there is no substance to her claim, why should there even be an "other side" with any obligation whatsoever to confront her claims or put forth evidence? The only thing one can do right now is ask: What is she really saying? Does it make sense? And is there any evidence for it? No sides needed so far.
What I meant was by the answers to the questions about her employment, rank etc. That's all, not about any evidence.
I do agree with others that it is more about her person and nothing confirmed.
I wonder if the military would confirm her role and position, would that be more substantial but not totally believable? Although I still see that even if she worked there as she says there is still no proof other than what she is saying. (I kind of feel the same about Obama and his story of origin as you say about kristen, so I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite. Lol. )
Agreed! It's hard not to want to listen and believe when it's put forward by someone who appears legitimate. I guess human empathy is a bitch at times. Lol
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Exactly what is this "firing line"?
I don't know, you will have to ask her that.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
It's your words. What do you perceive the firing line to be especially given she has been an "activist" for a number of years. Exactly what risk is she taking?
KC-10FE
Senior Member
If she brings forward proof, I am sure people here would take her seriously. Anyone can speculate about anything and pass it off as "fact", in order to support their beliefs or theories. In my mind I am the best looking guy in the world, but any girl in her right mind would tell me that is not true.
For instance, the infamous KC-10 "sprayer" video which has been shown over and over by TankerEnemy and other conspiracy sites, is said by such people to be "ultimate proof" of the existence of chemtrails. However, when seen by someone like me that has 11 years in the Air Force, both as a jet engine mechanic and now a flight engineer on said KC-10, it is blatantly obvious that the "spray" is being created by the low pressure area that forms on the top of the wing as it creates lift. The aerodynamic contrail is visible since the aircraft is flying through patches of varying moist/dry air, creating the so called "start and stopping spraying." That explanation is more thoroughly covered by Mick in another thread on this board, so that's for another day.
The point is, Kristen can say all she likes, but without evidence, it doesn't hold a lot of water [...]. If speculation was all that was needed these days, there would be no need to take anything to court; one could just accuse someone of a transgression, and that would be it.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
