Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    I'm not sure why you say chemtrails are debunked they are completely real and have been around for years. Yes, I am a USAF whistleblower I mentioned the details in a different reply somewhere on this thread. The information is in front of our faces and the EPA knows it is going on but turns their head to it.

  2. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    The evidence is through the patents, the environmental workers who have observed, tested, and debate this at EPA and environmental symposiums all over the country. its not that they deny it, they deny its harmful.

  3. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    At this point, you probably shouldn't be calling yourself a whistleblower.
    You say you are blowing a whistle, but nothing is coming out.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    I'm trying to understand what you are saying. You claim to have found carcinogenic materials on an air base. Is that your evidence of chemtrails?
  5. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    Jay, carnicom is one of MANY examples of the EPA refuses to address or sample soils, and even address the results of samples collected by regular people.

    I learned a long time ago people believe what they want to believe. There is nothing I can do to get you to believe chemtrails are real if, by now, with the information out there through the FOIA hasn't convinced you yet. I respect opposition, but my point in coming on here was to show I was who I said I was.... not some women living in her mothers basement looking for attention, lol.

    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  6. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    Hey everyone, If you have further questions email me: or join me on my facebook... I have homework so I need to run, yay me.
  7. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    As a person who should know a thing or two about science, if you had 15 minutes in front of Congress to show them the most incontrovertible evidence for chemtrails, what would it be? Real evidence.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You're over-thinking things. All we are asking is what new evidence is Kristen bringing to the table as a "whistle blower". So far no evidence has been forthcoming.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers and they didn't want it reported, and since I took the samples, they wanted to demonize me in case I spoke out.

    It is going through what I did as a whistleblower than led to my activism. Chemtrails and the TSA are my biggest topics I am linked to.

  10. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    In my opinion, patents can make nice evidence but it should never be the end-all of discussion when trying to uncover the truth. I personally find patents to be a weaker form of evidence that may point to something, but it also may not. It is only one part of the puzzle, and yet the puzzle isn't quite complete without the missing pieces. Patents have been discussed numerous times on this board. So far, from what i have gathered in this thread here, this is nothing new presented. Movies like Michael Murphy's movies have already been discussed and debunked, and really, all it takes is to go back to those movies, see why it was debunked, and to make up your own form of opinion to see that.

    What is lacking thus far in the story of chemtrails is not patents, not movies, or not why the government is keeping silent; what is lacking is hard tangible proof, or at least more evidence that helps explain the picture. One such example would be an actual fuel sample obtained from a local airport. Perhaps a picture of these "on-off" switches people keep talking about. Or even something to trace the logistics of the whole theory, such as how chemicals are stored, moved, and loaded onto aircraft. I'm just throwing these out there.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    Mick, the confusion lies with people who aren't familiar with my activism, my whistleblower label is not related to chemtrails. I'm been doing media for a while and chemtrails is just one item I discuss. When I do shows they introduce me as a whistleblower but the topic I discuss that day isn't why I was a AF whistleblower. What I have brought to the table about chemtrails is that I personally saw the processes going on at Tinker AFB. I've never said anything more than that, nor embellished on any of that data. I did samples and I still take samples here in Chicago for a study I am doing. In this interview below, you can see I contribute to media for differnct reasons. I don't know if you have heard of Adam Kokesh, Danny Panzella, or Gary Franchi... these are people who also do this and I look up to them.

  12. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    Jay, I wasn't a whistleblower in regards to chemtrails. It was a completely different situation about overexposures to carcinogens on base they wanted to keep quiet.

  13. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    I'd bring EPA personnel that acknowledge it, that I met at an OSHA training institute and by way of being inspected by one. I'd also show them all the analytical samples ran accross the country and ask them to explain to me why such constituents on are the ground and I'd bring up the patents and all their own data pulished.

  14. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Hi Kristen-

    thanks for posting here!

    Can you please address the fact that your understanding of the nature of contrails is incorrect. Contrails can and often do persist for hours and spread into a haze of cirrus cloud.

    This is the fundamental premise of "chemtrails"...and if this is wrong...what then?
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    I hear this explanation too often. Chemtrails last and contrails don't. As a pilot with meteorology slammed into my face both on the ground and in the air over and over again, this is in my opinion, incorrect.

    Contrails form not because of "temperature variances" at high altitude. Quite simply, it's colder up in the wild blue yonder. At typical cruising altitudes of jets, temperatures can be as low as -40 to -60 degrees Celsius. Cold air does not hold water vapour as well as warm air, so when jet engines (that of which burn hydrocarbon fuels) release water vapor into this cold air, they condense (opposite of evaporate) and become visible. They are just like cirrus clouds, especially when the temperatures are below -40 or so, where this water deposits into ice crystals (just like cirrus clouds!). These trails can expand and persist just like the clouds akin to them.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  16. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    I see. I'm sorry for your troubles.

    Please bear with me, I just want this to be perfectly clear for future reference. You are saying that during your tenure in the USAF you never found any evidence, on the air force bases where you served, that would lead you to conclude the USAF was conducting "chemtrail" operations.
    • Like Like x 4
  17. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    So, you personally have no samples relevant to chemtrails, but you are relying on which analytical samples?
    Which specific samples(link please) do you find compelling, and why?
  18. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I am sorry Kristen but I am getting confused. You say that you took samples, now was that in relation to carcinogens in base or "chemtrails"?

    As regards to your samples, is the data publicly available? I would be interested to have a read but I have to admit I will have to spend some time researching geology etc for your part of the US as I am in the UK.
  19. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Why do you think the Air Force would just let her walk off with the samples? There is no link, the evidence is her testimony that its being covered up and there is no reason not to believe her since she was there and has the credentials that says she was. What the hell do you think a whistle-blower is? Some of you people are mind-blowing!
  20. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    But patents are not evidence that something is in use. And indeed are evidence that whatever has been patented is NOT secret.

    Where are the EPA tests of chemtrails? I have never seen any evidence of such tests existing.
  21. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Blimey! I've just caught up on this whole deal - fascinating, it is!

    Hey Kristen

    Damn! After such an inappropriate career choice, you then had to spend two years over here! Bad luck. Whereabouts in England were you based?
  22. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Former Air-Force Pilot Chemtrail Whistleblower speaks out!
    states... " they don't exist!!!"

    There's a scoop for Metabunk. You're welcome...;)

    • Like Like x 4
    • Funny Funny x 1
  23. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    So far I have no questions as to your credentials, Kristen, thank you for clearing that up.

    However, I would like some of the research on chemtrails you mentioned that you conducted while at Tinker AFB to be shown. I want to see methodology and test results.

    Can you please refer us to these as well?
  24. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    The Wasp Factory
  25. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    I can't see your 'credentials' anywhere on offer. Witnesses credentials should be looked at but what about the self-appointed judge, you? What qualifies you to judge anything. And more specifically, what qualifies you to judge this?
  26. TheTrivium

    TheTrivium New Member

    Figured I’d register to make sure my posts get through, these are my posts above… Anyways, why do you think the Air Force would just let her walk off with the samples? There is no link, the evidence is her eye witness testimony (referring to the carcinogenic materials found not chemtrails) that its being covered up and there is no reason not to believe her since she was there and has the credentials that says she was. Just what in the world do you think a whistle-blower is?
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Credential need only be looked at if those credentials are claimed as evidence of something, or as something that strengthens evidence. Even then, not really so much.

    Like, you do some construction related work, but that's not really relevant to your theories about WTC1/2 collapse. What is relevant is the facts and figures.
    • Like Like x 2
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Rather amusingly I just now went to lunch with a writer friend, and we mentioned The Wasp Factory, as it was the only Iain Banks we had in common. And even more amusingly on the wall was a print of this:


    So I was kind of getting mixed messages :)
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  29. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    More banal straw....zzzzz
  30. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Jung would have something to say, no doubt
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  31. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    I'm still interested in why "carcinogenic materials" - metal powders, etc., are considered whistle blowing at all.

    There are many dangerous chemicals used in civilian aircraft maintenance - I assume military maintenance is similar.

    "Metal powders and oxides"? Yep - for powder coating, building up worn components, welding and possibly now for 3-d printing I guess too. There are many entirely reasonable uses for such materials.

    Seems unlikely to me that she saw anything other than normal materials being shipped - however without EXACT descriptions of what it was that remains speculation on my part - as, to me, it seems speculation on her part that they are in any ay connected to anything like chemtails.

    However my speculation has the advantage of being based on processes that are known to exist in hte first place.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't think he would impose causality upon the events though.

    Anyway I think the conclusion of this thread is that Kristen is not a chemtrail whistleblower, just a regular chemtrail believer?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  33. HappyMonday

    HappyMonday Moderator Staff Member

    Bait and switch.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  34. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    I as well, I'm especially interested because it is the cornerstone to her revelations that chemtrails are indeed real.

    I started the thread, and in the first post you'll see I questioned her claims as to her background. Regardless, am I the one making claims that I was in the military and have insider knowledge of the "chemtrail program"? What claims am I making that my credentials need to be inspected in order to provide them with authenticity? I asked for the methodology and lab results of the testing she claims to have done which revealed her suspicions regarding chemtrails were correct.

    Has anyone else noticed that she has spent several posts, paragraphs of text, proving her background, but has not provided any real methods or results from the testing she mentions at 4:08 in this video:

    • Like Like x 1
  35. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Kristen, thanks for coming into the conversation. I've been reading through, and it appears that you agree that you don't have any firsthand knowledge about "chemtrails" beyond what you've seen on chemtrails conspiracy websites, videos, and the like. Does that sound correct?

    So far I've seen you talk about patents. The existence of a patent does not demonstrate that something is being used (the vast majority of patents never are), nor even that it would work. I've seen you bring up some of the common claims that are provably false, such as that contrails can't persist for hours (you can prove this false yourself with a quick literature search). Do you have new information that you came by independently?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  36. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Frankly speaking, as I did before, it is unwise for a whistleblower to start blowing unless something is ready to come out. Until something comes out which is useful to others besides Kristen making claims, no whistle has been blown. Maybe there is no reason to NOT believe her, but she hasnt actually stated any reason TO believe her. Don't blame us for being sceptical if there is no evidence presented. What good is having a whistleblower if the whistle produces nothing?

    Here is an example:

    In 2003, a fellow who called himself Dr. Judah Ben Hur showed up telling all the chemtrail believers he was a "HAARP Whistleblower"!
    He actually claimed to have been "The Inventor of HAARP", and to have incredible weapons he was even willing to sell to Saddam Hussein!
    He got the folks all in an uproar, wasted a good six months before it became crystal clear to everyone he was just a nutcase.
    Ten years later, nobody even remembers him except for a laugh.


    Also in 2003, another fellow named Jim Phelps (yes, that's his real name, but not the Mission Impossible actor) claimed to be a REAL DOE Whistleblower, and that he was actually the "The Inventor of Chemtrails"! Who could have asked for better evidence than that!
    Again, turned out he actuall had worked for the DOE, but again, he was a nutcase.
    Never heard of Jim Phelps? I expect not, but he still has a website explaining who he is and what he has done, but like Kristens, though he says he is a whistleblower, nothing on the website shows it.

    Now, both of these guys saw a chance to make a name for themselves, they called themselves "Whistleblowers", and eventually it became obvious they were anything but. Now Kristen seems like a nice woman, perhaps she has something to say eventually, but what she is doing so far has been very scant. We all tried to pin her down and got no substantive response, except she told us to head over to, a site run by Dane Wigington.

    I see she is connecting herself with Alex Jones and others, and I'm not sure who is riding on whose coattails, but she needs to closely look at what she is doing.
    A wise whistleblower would have remained quiet until the whistle had been finely tuned and was ready for deployment. A smart whistleblower shouldn't play until the musical score finely honed, the instrument is ready to play, and the concert venue is ready for the performance. A successful whistleblower doesn't start out on the street corner asking for a handout from just any passerby, she/he finds the proper patron who can turn a single performance into a Magnum Opus, because that first performance might well be the whisleblower's Swan Song.

    If Kristen thinks that she can claim to be a whistleblower, and not have to eventualy perform, she is fooling herself. You can't "Lip Synch" your way through a whistleblowing like Beyonce can, eventually folks are going to expect to hear some real music. Even Alex Jones won't wait forever for a "One Trick Pony" who won't produce. If you think otherwise, just remember the examples above, because a scant few weeks or months from now, they won't even remember you.

    I hope his doesn't sound too harsh, but that's the way I see it.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  37. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    I tend to agree. But then she writes the following and muddies the waters:

    "processes"... what does that mean? When asked for smoking gun evidence of chemtrails she spends 1500 words talking about patents, Agenda 21 and how clouds no longer resemble interesting shapes. In that post, I don't think she once mentioned what she personally saw at Tinker AFB regarding chemtrails. Odd.
    • Like Like x 6
    • Agree Agree x 1
  38. TheTrivium

    TheTrivium New Member

    So now you are using a straw-man by lumping her in with all these other fake whistle-blowers? I see no reason for Meghan not to come out and whistle-blow if she witnessed with her own eyes, and that's her own physical experience... Take Amber Lyon for example? The CNN whistle-blower who exposed nato sponsored terror overseas, now a lot of her footage was confiscated at a military checkpoint... Should she not speak on the experiences that were not backed by visual evidence? Should we discount everything she says even though CNN paid her to be over there then outted her because of her whistle-blower status? Eye-witnesses and boots on the ground are what whistle-blowers are they don't necessarily need to bring us the evidence, because they are the evidence.... Whether you believe them or not is another story. There is simply no reason not to believe Meghans accounts and certainly not Amber Lyons accounts....
  39. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    But so far, as far as I've seen, Meghan has not said that she she witnessed anything related to "chemtrails" with her own eyes, in the course of her working life. The "whistleblowing" she did is apparently regarding an unrelated issue, and (if I'm reading right) she came by the chemtrails idea via the usual sources.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  40. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    So far, no accounts to believe!

    Trivium, you aren't very convincing.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.