Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    The sad part is that Jim Phelps actually did testify before Congress. That was before he went insane.

    Pushing a hoax lke chemtails didn't help Jimbo, and it won't help Meghan. If she as something genuine, being involved in something like chemtrails demotes her credibility
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    For the rest of the thread, note that those two statements were 100% Jay's opinions. And even if we draw our own conclusions regarding what we don't 'believe' from Trivium, it doesn't render this contributor to not be 'very convincing' in general.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    I recall Kristen talking about seeing orders for planes to replace the entire KC-135 fleet, and taking that as evidence of chemtrails. Well, the KC 135 is 47 to 56 years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker) so that is not surprising. By the way, Kristen, I admire you for coming here and mixing it up, using your real name.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Indeed - but what was that, exactly - unknown "metal powder and oxides" that were labeled as carcinogenic? Er..yes..and so what??

    Now who is lumping her in with people??

    I want to know about the EVIDENCE - and her "eyewitness" account is short on that.

    Arrant nonsense.

    I do not disbelieve (sorry about the d-neg!) her account - but to me it says nothing at all about anything secret. She is not a whistleblower as far as I can see - she is someone that saw freight being moved around by the USAF, in a manner I would expect the USAF to move freight about.

    Stop lumping her in with people...or if you must do it then stop complaining when others do!

    Either way I see no reason why believing one must involve believing the other - each stands on the quality of their evidence - not on some esoteric link you imagine exists.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. TheTrivium

    TheTrivium New Member

    Exactly! As far as Meghan goes, she has already stated she is not a chem-trail “whistle-blower”… I don’t get what people are failing to understand? She isn’t using her status as a whistle-blower to give credence to the chem-trails, and isn’t using a bait and switch, it is you all who made the leap in your minds and assumed she was a chem-trail whistle-blower without knowing much about her, which has forced her to come here and defend a position that she has never claimed, and now you point to this non-deception as a way to discredit her, when all she is guilty of is becoming an activist as a result of her whistle-blower status.

    @MikeC She has already told you to email her if you wanted more information on it, and whats freight have to do with her samples? Seems like you are just making excuses for the military.


     
  6. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    You're joking right? Did you watch the interview?
     
  7. TheTrivium

    TheTrivium 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."
     
  8. Mattnik

    Mattnik Moderator

    I'm startled by this. We appear to b getting caught up in details and forgetting the question: Where is this evidence?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. TheTrivium

    TheTrivium New Member

    Do you people know how to read at all? "The samples I took were a few years ago, I have them some where in my house along with the air sampling that led to the whistleblowing issue. I know that sounds hooky but because they were taken while I was in the military its considered military property. If I publish them I may end up like Bradley Manning or face legal issues. I have them and copies, people close to me have seen them I just can't put them online until I get clarification from an attorney. I'd like to publish them because I want them to be included in an upcoming documentary."
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  10. Met Watch

    Met Watch Moderator

    Yes, because "I have evidence but can't show it" is evidence itself.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  11. Mattnik

    Mattnik Moderator

    speculation: this upcoming documentary will be of a similar vain to WITWAS etc and get the CT community all fired up but contain misconstrued or non-verifiable 'evidence'.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. TheTrivium

    TheTrivium New Member

    So now the argument is she is a liar after we spent the majority of this thread establishing her credibility? Amazing! Just ignore a whistle-blower when its staring you right in the face!
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  13. Met Watch

    Met Watch Moderator

    Who called her a liar? I pointed out that saying you have evidence but can't show it isn't evidence. I can say I have evidence that aliens live in Joe Biden's backyard but I can't publish it, but that doesn't mean there's evidence of aliens in Joe Biden's backyard. We're not calling her a liar, we're saying there is a significant lack of physical evidence to support the chemtrail theory. Saying "I have it but can't show it" is not physical.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  14. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    This whole story has been very badly played. Very unsophisticated and naive. Aimed low with no hope of advancing anything. Not commensurate with the claimed expertise.
    Unscientific and illogical. It seems that Krisen has some friends, but she needs to realize that they have misled her and possibly used her for a tool. The other possibility is that she is using them.

    Now, lacking evidence of any kind, what does she or her backers expect us to do? We are left to speculate, because there is no solid substance to discuss yet there are some factual errors in the story which could be discussed. Trivium, you say the majority of this thread has been an effort to estabish credibility? The result was the opposite, inadequate and even pointing in the other direction. So many easily answered questions left unanswered as well as some answers which made no sense.

    Do you want to continue this slow-motion train wreck, or just leave it the way it is? Let me know.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. HappyMonday

    HappyMonday Moderator

    Asking for evidence of claims is not ignoring a whistleblower.

    Kristen's belief in chemtrail conspiracy appears to be based on the same flawed assumptions as almost every other believer I've encountered. Her credentials are irrelevant in that regard, because she is demonstratably wrong.

    If a whistleblower doesn't wish to face this kind of skepticism, they should consider checking the facts before going public in support of such theories.

    Similarly, it's best to check your evidence can be made public BEFORE relying on it to back your claims in the public arena.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Not that I have seen - she posted an email address and "if you want to know more email me or join me on facebook" - that is not quite the same thing.

    But why should I have to email her anyway?

    If she can email me something in reply then she can post it to a public forum. Why hasn't she done so??

    And if the evidence is "lying around her house somewhere" and is so important WTF hasn't she bothered to find it???

    These questions speak to me of something less than a substantial revelation of wrongdoing.


    My comment about freight is because that it sounds like she is describing materials as passing through USAF freight - it is not an excuse or a reason or anything except what her evidence about "metal powders" etc sounds like to me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Ah, yes, though Kristen won't show us any evidence for chemtrails, I see that geoengineeringwatch.org is using her for that end. Who is zooming who?
    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...st-confirms-geoengineering-chemtrail-reality/

    Kristen, having a look at the comments at the above link, I see mention that the administrator of geoengineering.org suggests using diatomaceous earth as a dietary supplement.
    Yet, geoengineering.org also claims that aluminum is toxic!
    here is an analysis of diatomaceous earth, which shows high levels of aluminum:
    http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org/deanlsbw.htm

    As an Industrial Hygienist, which is correct, is aluminum in the diatomaceous earth toxic?

    How do you rectify the contradictory claims of the administrator of geoengineeering.org?

    Trivium, what do you say about this?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  18. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Jay, the primary component in Diatomaceous Earth (DE) is 'silica'. In nature, if you find aluminum, you invariably find silica because they balance each other. There is aluminum in silica as part of the natural balancing intentions but the effect of silica in that form (i.e. DE) is to 'connect' with aluminum in the body as it does in nature and to pass it out of the body. It is aluminum found WITHOUT silica or with greatly lower levels of silica than those found in nature that is toxic in high amounts in the body. Finding aluminum out of balance with silica in nature is an indicator biologically that the aluminum found is potentially from an outside source. Of course everyone here knows that alumina (aluminum oxide) is an alleged compound used in these alleged aerosol sprayings. A video in the link below discusses the aluminum/silica balance in nature from a point of view of using aluminum adjuvants in vaccines but it is still relevant for the sake of this specific health/biology question posed by Jay WHETHER OR NOT any particular researcher reading this site here subscribes to the potential dangers of these adjuvants in vaccines or if they care about aerosol spraying at all:

    "Leach Aluminum from Your Body: Drink Silicon-Rich Water"
    http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2011-12-14/leach-aluminum-from-your-body-drink-silicon-rich-water/

    Aluminum also mimics magnesium (Mg) in the body as they are chemically similar (see periodic table of elements) and therefore disrupts the many functions (over 300) of Magnesium in the body. A primary function of Mg is for calcium (Ca) metabolism. Ca is critically in bones, teeth as well as nerves. The nervous system aspect of a 'perceived Mg deficiency' in the body due to aluminum toxicity lends itself to the claims of increased autism/ADHD in children and Alzheimers in the elderly for example with vaccines, aluminum pans, or whatever the source. So, IF aluminum is being sprayed, whether as just part of the jet fuel or for another intention like weather modification or geoengineering (I personally suspect that geoengineering hass not occurred yet), aluminum in the body can have toxic effects by disrupting Mg and, therefore, silica products (which do include Mg as an ingredient) can be used to assist in bringing levels of aluminum in the body down to levels where Mg can properly function. This can restore the 'messages' to someone suffering from either a pediatric form ( ADHD/autism) or a geriatric form (Alzheimers) of general disorders of 'disassociation' (i.e. disrupted nerve and message functioning).

    Regarding these next two articles. Imagine the implications of JUST adding trimethyaluminum in jet fuel to water vapor produced by a 'normal' contrail. Could inadvertent 'chemtrails' (i.e. lingering trails of alumina) have been part of our skies for decades as many debunkers claim as a way to counter people like Michael Murphy who tout that these activities didn't start until the 1990's WITHOUT jumping to a conclusion of covert nefarious plots?

    "Just Add Water: New Fuel from Aluminum Nanoparticles"
    http://www.ndep.us/Just-Add-Water

    "1958 Documents Link Chemtrails to Trimethyaluminum in Jet Fuel"
    http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2012/12...k-chemtrails-to-trimethyaluminum-in-jet-fuel/

    Also, considering that Wright-Patterson AF Base is where alleged secret technologies have been kept since the Roswell incident in 1947, would that not be a location equipped for secret research activities? AC Griffith (who you obviously claim on this site to be a debunkable source altogether) suggests that this is where activities using Barium were initiated for the purpose of ionizing the atmosphere for weather modification and military weaponry in the late 1990's. Whether or not this is true, this particular AF Base being involved in the education of youth regarding alumina and fuel is at least suspicious considering the above.

    Also, consider that the Carnegie Institute is behind much of the funding for David Keith and Ken Caldeira regarding geoengineering research to 'cool' the planet from global warming. This same institute was involved in much of the research with aluminum companies such as ALCOA regarding using their toxic waste (i.e. sodium fluoride etc) in ways that they could market it to local governments as a dental nutrient in the water supplies. Could they also have been involved in the research leading up to using trimethylalumnium in jet fuel as another revenue stream for aluminum companies like ALCOA? From a health perspective, fluoride in water helps aluminum cross the blood-brain barrier in the body which would lead to the kind of Mg receptor disruption and inherent Ca metabolism issues associated with dis-associative disorders such as Alzheimers and ADHD etc.

    These are JUST questions with no 'smoking gun' but considering the above information, these are questions worth asking in my opinion...and the on-the-ground experiences of an industrial hygienist from the AF is worth listening to in whatever form BEFORE debunking her on the grounds of no 'evidence' even if she hasn't personally strapped herself to the belly of an airplane to take measurements from its trail streams or if she happens NOT to have confidential government documents on her jump drive to share with all of us.

    We are likely all adults on this thread and I think we are all capable of 'taking the best and leaving the rest' when it comes to information and deciding for ourselves. Open discussions allow the truth to surface naturally without trying to hard, while discussions operating from the intention of preconceived narratives and conclusions only serve those conclusions. ANYTHING can be debunked...but the truth...whatever it is in this case can find its way to the light of day WITHOUT directing the narrative toward a preconceived conclusion...
     
  19. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    So Kristen becomes "awake" and aware of "chemtrails" so as a result also becomes aware of "canisters containing carcinogenic metals, oxides and powders", the kind of materials I would expect at any major aircraft maintenance depot and which have likely been used there from day one.

    So Kristen, what exactly were these materials? Those vague descriptions don't cut it for an ex-aircraft mechanic like myself. For example, Aluminum Oxide is a common widely used abrasive for sand blasting, graphite powder is a dry lubricant used on aircraft and I would be more surprised if those substances were NOT used at Tinker, AFB.

    So in the video Kristen specifically mentions barium and aluminum in the soil from her back yard she had tested, then goes on to say that there are a lot of naturally occurring things in Earth that are just there, but not at these levels and not of these constituents. Conveniently she fails to mention that barium and aluminum are among those things that are "just there" in Earth. So Kristen, do you not think your choice of words there to be a bit mis-leading, I sure do.

    What were those constituents that aren't supposed to be there?
    What are the levels, exactly?
    Did you do any comparative sampling from other locations away from the base and flight line, like on the other side of town?
    A copy of a lab report would be helpful.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    It's not the EPA's job to test samples from random private citizens, there are private EPA certified labs for that. In fact, when I managed a small sewage treatment plant for a couple of years all of our outside lab work was done by a private lab, but the paperwork was included in my monthly reports to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Daily testing we did on site, and every quarter I'd use some of the lab equipment at a larger municipal sewage plant. None of the testing I've ever had to have done for gov't compliance of sewage treatment or fresh water supplies, on a village size level mind you, has ever been performed by a gov't agency. Why should it? Who pays for the testing? I certainly don't think taxpayers should foot the bill for everybody that wants soil or water tested, but to the believers it's a conspiracy. And if the EPA didn't follow up on any of the private lab reports that were sent to them by chemtrail believers it's because they saw the same results we on this forum have seen, levels that are within normal natural variations and/or unacceptable sampling methodology.

    Speaking of methodology, could you give us the details of your grid sampling, such as how many samples were tested covering how large an area?

    Kristen, if you don't mind clarifying a few things please.

    Were the workers themselves tested?
    What substances were the workers overexposed to and for how long?
    What was the nature of the ground activities?

    Would you now be willing to embellish the details of the process you saw going on at Tinker? It's a major overhaul depot after all and I think it would be wise to rule out if what you saw is just normal operations at a facility of that nature.

    If you could take a few minutes I'd like to know if the overexposure to workers is related to any of following and why your info would be singled out for a coverup:

    EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Tinker AFB 1990

    Final Five Year Review Report: Tinker AFB 2003

    PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT TINKER AIR FORCE (SOLDIER CR/BUILDING 3001)

    Military Base Contamination

    Carcinogenic Effect of Military Fuel Vapors

    US Military Bases Known To Be Contaminated (ca. 1992)

    Thanks.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  21. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    this artcle is about making Hydrogen - here is a better article that describes it. It also requires gallium.

    Hydrogen is not a jet fuel except for some experimental aircraft.


    This 2nd article includes this "explanatory" or introductory paragraph:

    The premise that some additives to jet fuel are classified for "national security" is a lie.

    The specification for Jet-A1 is available publically on line as Def Std 91-91 - which you can download here - it is a small file - only 175kb or so. You will see that there are a couple of additives that have proprietary info - but there is nothing that is classified.

    if you find anything in jet fuel othe than what is in this documetn then yuo have evidence that a crime has been committed and you should take that to law enforcement and aviation regulatory bodies, and feel free to advertise it around the 'net too!

    the 1958 document linked to is a relatively short but large (7.5mb) study about injecting chemicals into the fuel used in AFTERBURNERS. There are no civil airliners equipped with afterburners.

    and how successful was TMA? it wasn't - it gave only marginal improvemetns, much less than injecting straight hydrogen, and it was also a PITA to handle.

    TMA.

    If there is any TMA in use it requires special handling - it cannot simply be mixed with fuel and pumped as normal - in the study the fuel/TMA mix used (14% TMA) had to be kept in seperate tanks under an inert atmosphere, and the lines purged of it before and after every use:

    TMA-2.

    there is nothing in the study about contrails at all - everything on the Saive webpage linking TMA to contails, etc. is pure supposition on his part starting from the conclusion that chemtrails exist and therfore he needs to explain or assign blame for them.
     
    • Like Like x 13
  22. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Some of what you say I agree with. That isthe reason why I paid for rain water samples to be taken at Mt. Shasta which revealed that the Shasta rain aluminum levels associated with silicon indicate a signature not of geoengineering, but the signature of mother earth itself.
    see:
    https://www.metabunk.org/posts/20299

    Actually, I think that for both silicon and aluminum, the second and third most common elements in earth's crust will more likely be found in combination with the first-most abundant element in earth's crust, oxygen.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  23. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Sounds like new age "woo" to me.

    Aluminium is mined from Bauxite - which is a mix of various compunds of aluminium - NONE of them involving Silicon - they are all
    AlO/OH variations.

    Al2O3 is a relatively common natural oxide of aluminium known as Corundum - rubies and saphires are forms of it laced with various other trace elements for colour.

    Given that Al bonds very strongly with silica and oxygen, how does it also "connect" with other aluminium??

    EVERTHING is toxic in large amounts - but I don't see people keeling over from wearing aluminium-based gemstones!

    no it isn't - your post is nonsense based on fantasy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    Many of you have gone off into dead end paths, there are so many assumptions I don't even know where to begin. My bring a whistleblower has nothing to do with anything at Tinker AFB, that was just one place I was stationed. I feel like I do a video reply to this thread because I'm worn out reading how far of things have gotten.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  25. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    So Kristen, can you tell us if your whistleblowing has anything to do with chemtrails, apart from your personal opinion that they exist?
     
  26. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Please, no video replies. They just add to the confusion, imo. Have you considered some or most of the assumptions might be due to a certain lack of clarity on your part Kristen?

    So the whistleblowing has nothing to do with Tinker, fair enough but you did claim to have seen evidence of "chemtrail" activity at Tinker. I must have missed it the first time but on the vid in the OP didn't you say the overexposure to workers happened at another maintenance depot base in Georgia? Regardless, I think what you saw is way more important than where you saw it.

    So you can't just simply clarify a few details on this thread, you feel the need to do a vid? What is up with conspiracists and youtube?
     
  27. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Just address the issues you feel are important then - you are not obliged to answer every branch of the thread :)

    Perhaps some clear identification of the situation(s) you have blown the whistle on - where, when and what. How you brought the issue to the attention of the authorities, and what was their response. That sort of thing.
     
  28. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Cool, so now you know how conspiracies are created.

    Looks like you'll start gaining experience in how impossible it is to change the opinions of the other side. It's quite amusing how you think that a video will sort it all out.

    I do hope you learn from this experience.
     
  29. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Kristen, if this thread has gone off into dead end paths it is only because you have not been responsive or provided documentation for what you have said.
    If our questions are not answered, it is because your lack of answers led down a dead end path.

    It is not because we did not ask questions. It is because you haven't answered the questions we did ask.

    I will reiterate them:

    -Speaking of methodology, could you give us the details of your grid sampling, such as how many samples were tested covering how large an area?
    -Were the workers themselves tested?
    -What substances were the workers overexposed to and for how long?
    -What was the nature of the ground activities?
    -Would you now be willing to embellish the details of the process you saw going on at Tinker?
    -What were those constituents that aren't supposed to be there?
    -What are the levels, exactly?
    -Did you do any comparative sampling from other locations away from the base and flight line, like on the other side of town?
    -As an Industrial Hygienist, which is correct, is aluminum in the diatomaceous earth toxic?
    -How do you rectify the contradictory claims of the administrator of geoengineeering.org?
    -You claim to have found carcinogenic materials on an air base. Is that your evidence of chemtrails?
    -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?
    -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?
    -Where are the EPA tests of chemtrails? I have never seen any evidence of such tests existing.
    -Just what in the world do you think a whistle-blower is?
    -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?
    -What was the content of the MSDS's?(The ones you mentioned in the video)
    -What is the extent of your whistleblowing? So far we haven't seen anything in writing.
    -What do you find is the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail?
    -Where are the sample results you say that you have taken?
    -In writing this article, did you go straight to the source, to Carnicom?
    -Did he (Carnicom) explain how I was involved?
    -Did he (Carnicom) show you any of the documents?
    -I think what people here would like to know is what evidence of chemtrail operations, if any, did you personally acquire working as an "Industrial Hygienist/GEMS Coordinator" for the USAF? People are labeling you a whistle blower, implying you have inside information.
    -This other stuff you posted is old news and largely debunked. Do you have anything new to offer?
    -What's the smoking gun? Where's the actual evidence?
    -What evidence did Dr. Blaylock show you that there is spraying of "nanosized aluminum compounds"?
    -Did you communicate with him (Blaylock)personally?
    -How can RFID control the environment as you say in your article?
    -What heavy metal particulates are you speaking about which are claimed to have ototoxicity, and what evidence do you have that is happening?
    -What sort of "assumptive data" did Chester France show David Peterson, have you seen it?


    As you can see, the bulk of questions pertain to real substantial evidence.
    Some of these which you have no evidence for, just answer no.
    You say you are a "whistleblower".
    Now is your opportunity to blow.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Kristen, you must remember you are corresponding with a debunking forum . . . members here have dedicated much of their energy over the years to dismantling the Chemtrail conspiracy . . . they use the scientific method as their tool to accomplish their communal task. If your evidence doesn't meet or exceed the standards of a controlled experiment you will be criticized and chastised accordingly. I suggest you review your evidence and present only that which might meet such strict scrutiny. Otherwise you need to use your time corresponding with a less resistant group.
     
  31. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    George that is rubbish.

    "The scientific method" is hte gold star for credible evidence, but not all good evidence meets it by any means - credibility can also be built upon connections to known facts, reasonableness, examination at a less than "Scientific" standard, and logic.

    The Chemtrail hoax is easy to debunk because it fails to meet any reasonable standard of examination - the so-called evidence is just nonsense.

    however a conspiracy involving carginogenic materials is anotehr matter entirely - we know such materials exist, we know that they get shipped, we know they are supposed to have labels and handling standards, we know there are health and safety requirements, and so on - so there are a LOT of "hooks" that might be the basis of a perfectly reasonable conspiracy theory.

    there is nothing at all inherently implausible or obviously wrong with Kristen's observations that ther might have been a wrong done.

    But it is important to remember that such observations are just the start - a trigger to go looking for evidence of what has actually happened or is happening. By themselves they prove nothing.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  32. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Kristen holds herself out as a person with a science degree who is working at the graduate level. If she hopes to succeed at that level she should practice making her personal statements commensurate with that level.
    If she expects openness and responsiveness from others including the Federal government she is criticising, she had better set a good example herself, otherwise she is demonstrating a lack of integrity and personal hypocrisy.
    If she hopes to take on the government, showing substantive documentation, answering questions, explaining, and being responsive is imperative, or else she will get the same treatment Carnicom gets, she will be ignored. As we've seen in his case, he likes it like that. He uses that as a weapon, and feeds his followers on a diet of "I'm being ignored", when the truth is that there is nothing to discuss, since he won't tolerate discussion and won't do real science.

    George, your advice sends her out to proselytize weak people she could probably give a snow job to, and maybe that's all she wants. If that is all she wants, she is setting her bar way low, because those folks have already demonstrated they will not substantively support any cause because they really can't act as more than mere noisemakers. She will have a few years and they will move on to the next rising star who offers a fresh endorphin rush, just like they have done for her now. There is no long-term fun in it Kristen, gathering foolish groupies might seem fun at first, but when you have to actually exert effort to constantly find fools to follow you is such a career really worth the effort? Do you really want to emulate Carnicom, and follow the same course his life has taken for 13 years? That's the path George's suggestion heads you towards. Essentially being a top dog among nobodies. Have fun with that.

    Think about it. If you won't answer any of these questions, the case can be closed and forgotten, just another misinformed person making chemtrail claims. Seen that, asked those questions thousands of times for over a decade. I can get over it.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  33. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member


    I don't think it bodes well for Kristen when she embarks on such a publicity seeking campaign yet has made negligible effort to understand a subject she is trying to generate publicity about. Her statement "The difference between contrails and chemtrails is easy. Contrails are from temperature variances at high altitudes that dissipate rapidly, where as chemtrails are stagnant and do not dissipate, they expand. " is a red flag.

    For someone who has a science degree to make such an incorrect or certainly incomplete , poorly researched statement, it's like someone claiming to have a medical degree and suggesting infections are caused by demonic possession. It shows she has made minimal effort to understand atmospheric phenomena and has instead parroted a fabricated meme of conspiracy hoaxers.

    Kristen, you are wrong on the most basic aspect of contrail characteristics so hopefully you can understand that makes people who are well informed on atmospheric phenomena hesitant to take anything else you have to say on the subject seriously?
    As Jay has suggested it is probably tempting and exciting "yay me" to wallow in public attention and achieve celebrity status.
    Others have tried it but you should realise that whilst gullible people will be happy to accept your claims at face value, people who have more concern for verifying truth are considerably more demanding like some of the regular posters here.
    You don't want to be compared in credibility and attention seeking qualities to Desiree Jennings, Dystonia hoax cheerleader do you? http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/desiree-jennings-dystonia-hoax

    Demonstrating that you actually understand condensation trail physics and providing EVIDENCE for your claims would help elevate your credibility above Desiree.

    You might start by indicating that you understand the following atmospheric science papers and the previous links by Mick and others.


    "The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet."

    from Peter Kuhn," Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget" published 1970.
    Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970)

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1970)027<0937:AOOCEO>2.0.CO;2

    “It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails.”
    http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdf
     
    • Like Like x 2
  34. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    You need to give her a chance to present her evidence in total . . . she is now aware of the standards . . . she needs time to review her evidence to see if it meets those standards. The ball is in her court.
     
  35. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Kristen, although you may not have been aware of it, the military has known about persistent contrails since at least the WWII era. See the 1951 report from Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory to the Office of Naval Research, "Prediction of Aircraft Condensation Trails: Project Contrails".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  36. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member


    For sure, but it certainly doesn't help her credibility by not even getting basic science right from the outset. One would have hoped that even before she attempts to provide some evidence, she should at least demonstrate she has an understanding of atmospheric physics. So far she has shown that she can't get that right. Not a good start.

    Imagine if someone said "Rockets work by pushing against the air and therefore after they leave the atmosphere they can only drift towards the moon. In the coming weeks I will present evidence that the moon is covered in Cheese and crackers"

    Even though you might think it is worth waiting for the Cheese and crackers, the opening sentence has already jeopardised credibility.
     
  37. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Atmospheric science is complex and a dynamic discipline . . . especially as it relates to contrail formation which is a rather obscure area of study . . . she was not introduced to it I am sure in engineering school . . .
     
  38. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    And yet she felt qualified to say the following:

    https://www.metabunk.org/posts/24786
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  39. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    True, but the statement does suggest that she didn't make the slightest effort to look into the scientific literature on the subject before simply accepting what the conspiracists claimed. In this respect her apparent credulity does impact her credibility.
     
  40. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    And who has not accepted inaccurate concepts from supposed experts . . . the key is once alerted to not make the same mistake again . .
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.