1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Interesting extended discussion between Kristen Meghan ( @Kristenmeghan - a believer in chemtrails) and James Babb (who does not think there is good evidence of chemtrails)

    (actual discussion starts around seven minutes in, then most of the points get covered in the first ten minutes, and then there's a lot of laboring the same points)

    Please be polite in any criticism of either side's points here. Also the setting, Porcfest, is a Libertarian gathering (part of the Free State Project), but the actual political issues are irrelevant here, so let's keep the discussion simply to the debate, not the setting. Both Jim and Meghan seem to be of similar political persuasions - they both agree the government does bad things, and lies all the time. The debate centers around if there is actual evidence of Chemtrails.

    If you mention something from one of the videos, please note the part number, and the time.

    References given in the video:
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2014
  2. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    I only got into the debate about half an hour and have to leave right now.
    One thing I did notice is that Meghan makes the link between chemtrails and her samples by talking about knowing e.g. "how the wind blows" ( It might be Babb who said something similar, I'll try to find the quote when I got the time).
    However she also says she doesn't know at which altitude these planes fly? How is it possible to make the link then?
    • Like Like x 2
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    only watched the first one, what's with this moderator? Kristen and babbs seem to be ok with each other. the moderator is messing things up even more. so basically, this is a 3 way debate?

    has Kristen ever released her tests or 'methodology'?

    how can she talk about "hazard plotting' then say she doesn't know the altitudes? obviously I'm missing something.
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    One minor thing that leapt out was she described aluminum as "magnetic particles". Aluminum is, of course, not magnetic. And in her discussion of her "whistleblowing" activities, I think she said it was barrels of aluminum oxide (used as an abrasive) - also not magnetic.

    She mentioned later that it was nano-particles of aluminum, so small you can't test for them behind a plane. This makes no sense, as if they were that small, they would not diffuse light, and the trails would not appear white.

    Basically thought she seemed to go round and round saying there was evidence, but not saying what the evidence actually was, except in the vaguest of terms.

    In part 4 at 01:55, she basically says that asking her for evidence is like asking Christians for evidence that God is real.

    At the end she tells people to contact her, so she can tell them how to do testing.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    Meghan flips between reasons for not presenting her evidence, from pending court case to selective presentation to only people she feels can do somethings about it. Okay, that remains to be seen I guess. Talking of court case, she's refining her statement on her whistleblower status, stating one (of four) reasons for her gaining whistleblower protection is a covert geo-engineering program/chemtrails.

    She says she has evidence from her air sampling. She then goes on to say the public cannot test air samples as the particles are too small yet she's also professing to being able to instruct the public on how to gather their own samples.
    • Like Like x 3
  6. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Thanks. was going to ask that but didn't feel like looking it up.

    and what are the odds (literally) that even though 'not all trails are chemtrails' because 'that's the biggest thing that pushes people away' [12:00 min vid 1], there just happens to be a plane at the perfect distance from her particular house 'spraying'. ? she might want to consider moving.
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The guy who interrupts in Part 4 to mention his talk on Chemtrails is pilot Varrin Swearingen.

    This is the description of his talk.
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think, although it's not that clear, she's saying that when it comes out of the plane it's too fine to detect, but later it gets filtered somehow? At least for the soil and water.

    I agree though that makes no sense regarding air. Perhaps someone could ask her what that means next time. It's a pity Jim didn't dig into the science a bit more - there was certainly time. He did, in general, seem very familiar with the topic though.
  9. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    aw part 4 didn't go well for her and at 4:24 she annihilates herself. her whole schtick is appeal to authority and she goes on to say no one can use appeal to authority arguments.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    She is correct in that the filters on many air samplers are not fine enough to capture nano sized particles, however that is just a technical challenge that can be overcome.

    Edited to add: you can use a wet sampler were the sample is deposited in water
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    what are airplane engines made of? if there are magnetized particulates in the air wouldn't they stick to any engines going by?
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Rather unfortunate ad-hom comments on the YouTube videos, here's one of the more well reasoned:
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  13. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    No. Composites, aluminum alloys, nimonic alloys exposed to the airstream are all non-magnetic. Steel parts, if they are used, are to be found within these exterior materials, and the inverse square law sees to it that any attraction would be so minimal as to be virtually unmeasurable. Care is taken to ensure that the airframe and its components have as little effect as possible on the earth's magnetic field, in order that the plane's magnetic compass works effectively.
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2014
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes. You can still suck in a bunch of air, then take it back to the lab and analyze it. There are lots of techniques for detecting nanoparticles:

    However there's nothing at all to suggest that the particles proposed to be used for geoengineering would be that small. David Keith's proposal uses engineered nanoparticles that are 50nm thick, but 10µm (10 microns, 10,000 nm) wide. So could easily be sampled.

    Using actual nanoparticles (with a largest dimension of 100nm) would not be sensible, as nanoparticles are sub-visible - essentially transparent. (not sure on the actual numbers there though, might be worth looking into)
  15. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    If you come across a recording link, I'd like to listen to it.
  16. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Say a river is polluted.
    Upriver, there is company A and company B (or C,D,E,etc...) who may use chemicals found in the river.
    Until you test the source (not the result down-river), neither company can be pinpointed as the source.
    This is a simplification, to be sure.
  17. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Is there ANY chance that such vitriol directed at Mr. Babb will sink in to some fans of Meghan, and make them realize the deception?
  18. Jim Babb

    Jim Babb New Member

    Yes, I'm a dick to con-artists. I was asked to do this "event" at the last minute, with minimal network access in the hinterlands to prepare. It should not be taken seriously.

    I'm not sure what science I could have used, because she presented no coherent theory or evidence to explore.
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Like Like x 3
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Thanks for stopping by Jim.

    I was thinking more about the tests. Like how she did them, what levels she found. What she expected. Why nobody else has found these things. The natural levels of aluminum.

    Also she made a few odd statements, like the particles being magnetic. Which it would have been good to clarify what she meant. Then the issue of "nano" particles. What are they doing, and if they are too small to sample tehn how did she do air samples. And if they are that small, then how are they even visible?

    But overall I think the key point was that she presented no actual evidence, and you covered that very well.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    LOL!! Welcome, Mr. Babb!!

    There are some resources here that investigate Meghan's claims, and they are open for viewing...she herself has contributed. The "search" function will lead you to them.
  21. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    She said for people at home, to take their own samples.

    One bit of science could have been offered as a rebuttal point, is her assertion that rain water sample tests would make the EPA agency take note......that the levels are extremely high.

    This assertion (and lists of home tests already done by chemtrail believers) has been well covered on this site, and elsewhere.
    The vast,vast majority of samples, show normal (or lesser) amounts.

  22. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    A really bad idea. What I mean is, to properly analyze "samples" will require rigorous controls, "blind" and "double-blind" tests, etc. PLUS the expense of having a qualified lab do the analyses.

    But of course, these scientific protocols usually don't occur to those with the "chem"trail belief already in their minds.....
  23. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    I've seen horrible examples of "people at home" doing their own samples and the conclusions they draw from the lab result. Most of you in here know what I'm talking about ;)
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Like this??:

    • Funny Funny x 2
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This type of thing - sample of dirty water that was then sent in to a lab to test for chemtrail evidence.

    Related to that I'm wondering why Meghan suggested people get in touch with her for help with testing, when recently on Facebook she said:
  26. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    I have to hand it to Jim, sticking to his guns asking for evidence of the link to aircraft emissions and specifically what we all see as contrails.
  27. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Jim, I think you did an admirable job trying to nail jello to a wall!!! ;)
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Jim Babb

    Jim Babb New Member

    I had notes on the normal levels of aluminum in the soil, but it didn't matter.

    1) She would probably just make up results to her "research" into "magnetic aluminum."

    2) There is no logical connection between soil samples and airplanes, when terrestrial sources are far more plausible.

    Being told to do a FOIA request to get her supporting evidence was priceless. I could have been nicer, but her bullshit reeks.

    What are the odds she has a lawsuit in progress even vaguely connected to "chemtrails?" Try to get a docket number and see what happens.
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Peter

    Peter Member

    Well I'd love for someone to approach Kristen and see what she comes up with as a proper way to test for chemtrails for ourselves.. Pretty sure it'd be interesting. (ETA: just read the comment above from her facebook where she mentions she's not accepting emails for lab requests anymore)

    And I wish James would've pinned Kristen down a bit more on how exactly we can distinguish a chemtrail from a 'normal' contrail'. Is it the persistence? Or does she think 'normal' contrails do persist as well? Do normal contrails form grids? You know.. all the attributes that Chemtrail believers think distinguishes a chemtrail from a contrail.

    Anyway James.. good job! It's nice to finally see someone with some debating skills going up against one of the stars of the Chemtrail movement. I guess most of the chemtrail believers don't realize how she doesn't seem to adhere to some of their fundamental beliefs though (ie chemtrails aren't for killing us, dumbing us down, mindcontrolling us, she can't verify airliners being used, unsure about persistence, ect)
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  30. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Jim, completely agree. She hides behind convenient technicalities, something we have noticed before. Always spouting vague connections to dots that just don't quite connect. Always leaving room to weasel out of committing to any definitive position.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  31. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    she seemed to commit to "its Solar radiation Management". so Jim did well with the troposphere part I thought. IF she honestly thinks its SRM, which she right out stated chemtrails are for, then obviously the trails people are seeing isn't 'geo engineering/weather modification/SRM' because even I know they are too low and it would be idiotic to spray at those low heights.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  32. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Seems she also indicated she had studied SRM and knew it was likely being done by the Air Force or she sometimes called it weather modification. If she has, she knows the tonnage required and altitude needed for injecting the particulate or other substances. She should also know the heavy lift aircraft used by the AF are not designed to deliver those weights into the stratosphere. And that the AF does not have an adequate inventory to do enough injection flights and meet other missions.
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Most "home testing" of rainwater has resulted in average expected results (not high).....even without rigorous controls. Yes it's a ballpark figure, with variables introduced by "non-professional" testing.
    When proper home procedure is followed, a close approximation can be obtained.
    (It's easy to post a few bad testing videos, then call all testing null-and-void.)
    (( I thought we were trying not to lump accusations ?))

    See both of these online encouragements to test rain water.....

    90%+ of these test results show no elevated amounts of the suspected elements.
    I understand the need and purpose of rigorous test procedures......however, many chemtrail believers do not trust gov't testing and/or the results.
    Home testing should say to them, "gee, I thought the results should be higher" (if they are also instructed on how to interpret the results.)

    Another problem in discouraging private test samples of rainwater is.......they could easily say, "But the debunkers are asking for evidence. So when we try to obtain evidence....they say it's not valid. What are they hiding ?......are they being hypocritical assholes ?".

    We don't know how many people were discouraged (and dis-heartened in their beliefs) by obtaining normal results of Al, Ba, Strontium in their rainwater.
    Problematically, there is a large amount of incorrect information on how to interpret the results. That problem is what needs to be understood, and corrected/explained to the test-takers.
    The interpretation of the results is a much larger hurdle of understanding (and variable), than the test lab element percentages.

    I don't know Ms. Megan's interpretation of "high levels" of Al, Ba, and St in rainwater tests......I'd like to see them, and her explanation.
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2014
  34. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    To note.....she says she does not know the flight elevations of the suspect planes, but is able to determine where the suspected toxins will land, then test that soil and air.
    Curious.....as that would make her an expert meteorologist, as well.
    I doubt even an expert meteorologist / weather scientist would be able to pinpoint such a landing area of small particles, let alone the aloft nature and time of descending "nanoparticles".
    Can I say...."not likely" ?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  35. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Maybe she has access to all the zinc cadmium sulfide dissipation studies from the 50s and 60s.
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    True nanoparticles take a VERY long time to settle out. The settle time for nanoparticles in a room is about 12 hours. That's 10 feet in 12 hours, 20 feet per day. So nanoparticles sprayed at 32,000 feet would take over four years to settle, and would be dissipated over the entire surface of the globe.

    And David Keith's nanoparticles are designed to never settle.

    More reference:
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  37. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    I believe NASA uses a type of aerogel, to collect ultrafine particles from passing comets, in spacecraft designed for such.

    But yes.....this technology is not likely available to the home scientist.....err.....the testing of trapped nano-sized particles caught in aerogel.
    And NASA uses it to "net" (catch) larger particles, which become embedded in the aerated silicon gel.
    I'm not sure of the smallest particle that can be captured for testing
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2014
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's only going to work in a vacuum though.
  39. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    ....hmmmm.....I can see the problems.
  40. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I have been looking at the potential to predict "fallout" using software for the deposition of volcanic ash and pollution events. That is based on the assumption that a "chemtrail" is essentially a form of ash cloud and it would be possible to predict what rainwater content may be. I had had no joy with that but I found it interesting that she mentioned similar.

    While I am loathe to go on a personal attack, it appears that there are now layers been added to the story that address the many criticisms she has faced across many social media forum. I guess that all we can do is join this merry-go-round and one the court cases are completed we will have access to the data as she claims. I am guessing that there will some record of her having "Whistleblower Protection", although I have to admit I find it strange that someone is afforded such protection yet is unable to provide specifics to the case. Not even the piece of legislation it is brought under. How is that not in the public interest?
    • Agree Agree x 1