Jim Babb & Kristen Meghan - Chemtrails Debate at Porcfest

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
I think she said it was barrels of aluminum oxide (used as an abrasive) - also not magnetic.
I indeed remembered her saying that too...but then I also realized... barrels? barrels? How many barrels would one need to spray just a single trail, there must have been a massive transportation operation going on to supply this. ;)
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
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?
Although I know very little about these legal issues, it seems strange to me that she speaks openly at public events about her accusations against the government regarding "chemtrails," but says that she can't reveal her evidence due to the ongoing court proceedings. It seems like the accusations are what could get her in trouble, while evidence is what would establish her as a protected "whistleblower." I don't understand why she'd go public with one and not the other.

And then of course there's her earlier statements (which Jim mentioned at the beginning), such as this:
Kristenmeghan said:
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.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Slightly off topic but I presume that the US legal system is similar to England. While there are many hearings that are automatically closed, like family hearings, for any other to be closed needs a court order explaining the circumstances. For that you need an initial hearing so where is the record? As far as I understand it a closed hearing is also a First Amendment issue with regards to access?

Either way are ongoing court proceedings yet another claim that is unsupported? I have no idea where to start searching. I know a case like this would be in the High Court in England.
 

Jim Babb

New Member
If she really is important to the chemtrail cult, somebody should expose whatever lawsuit she claims is related to chemtrails. I'd say there is a 99% chance that it's totally fictitious. Exposing that lie, might at least get rid of her appearances at "liberty" events.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If she really is important to the chemtrail cult, somebody should expose whatever lawsuit she claims is related to chemtrails. I'd say there is a 99% chance that it's totally fictitious. Exposing that lie, might at least get rid of her appearances at "liberty" events.
Legal remedies are easy to initiate. However, there should be some type of filing document which could easily be produced with any confidential information or legally sensitive info redacted. If she has filed for whistleblower protection this document should be easy to produce. Why not publish a redacted copy on Facebook or her website?

She could specify which court, state, or agency she filed for protection through and the dates filed. This could be verified by interested parties and partially validate her claims. If she doesn't she probably has not done anything. I would not doubt she is all talk.
 
Last edited:

KC-10FE

Senior Member.
If she really is important to the chemtrail cult, somebody should expose whatever lawsuit she claims is related to chemtrails. I'd say there is a 99% chance that it's totally fictitious. Exposing that lie, might at least get rid of her appearances at "liberty" events.

I think she knows full well she has no valid proof when it comes to chemtrails or any kind of aerial spraying. Her original "whistleblowing" was concerning carcinogens used at the USAF aircraft maintenance depot at Tinker AFB, however it seems when she came in contact with the chemtrail community/cause it seemed too good of an opportunity to pass up, when it came to supporting and advancing her cause, and vice versa.
 

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
I think she knows full well she has no valid proof when it comes to chemtrails or any kind of aerial spraying. Her original "whistleblowing" was concerning carcinogens used at the USAF aircraft maintenance depot at Tinker AFB, however it seems when she came in contact with the chemtrail community/cause it seemed too good of an opportunity to pass up, when it came to supporting and advancing her cause, and vice versa.
Indeed this is what she said about a year ago:



It seems like she has been changing point of view on more things:
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry Jim, that podcast is is almost an hour and a half long. Can you please point to the part(s) that you think might be most relevant to your debate with KM.

There's actually very little about KM, near the start. It's mostly just a general discussion of the problems chemtrail theory. Quite reasonable and well-informed though.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.

Hadn't seen this before. Of course, the "magnetic" angle with non-ferrous metals.

Kristen tosses out all this jargon describing scientific methods, which SOUNDS good, and the others there think it's meaningful, but where did Kristen publish the results of those tests? Nowhere, afaik.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.

At the beginning of this one Kristen denies having said that her whistleblowing was NOT about chemtrails. Of course, she DID say exactly that on this very forum.

What is "whistleblower protection" and who is providing it?

What is her "pending court case"?

Umm... "Drones are spraying now"? What?

Kristen "... helps people write their orders for the lab"? Last I heard, she was way behind on all of that and appears to not be doing it at all. She has said that they have been "black-listed" by the labs, who won't test their samples. Sorry, but no ready references on those bits.

You can't sample "nano-particles" behind planes, but you CAN sample them on the ground? Why?

She keeps saying: "Look at the history of stratospheric aerosol spraying". That would consist of what... sounding rockets? Oh... now she says that "stratosphere" means anything "above the ground". :eyeroll: In other words, she just completely gutted her own point.

She makes a major point of: "weather modification, therefor geoengineering". He tries, in vain, to tell her they aren't the same thing.

This whole think about people "doing their own samples" is really a dodge and tricky tactic, because most people will never acually DO that. They will simply believe the bravado being expressed telling them that IF they did that, here's what they would find. Saw exactly that tactic with the "Planet X" story.

PS: She says that at one time she put stuff on the internet, but that it's not there now. Um.. what? The internet doesn't forget. It should still be available, somewhere in some form.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Kristen claims: "It changes.... after a heavy rainfall[toxic elements in soil samples]..." I have seen this claim made before, but never any actual test results for "before and after" what they call "spraying" has occurred. I think she has no such tests.

Kristen: "I make no money off of this". Well, that is false, since she has also stated that she "public speaks for a living". Sorry, no reference.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

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

Sure it mattered. You should have mentioned how much aluminum is normally in soil.

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

Please don't say what she "probably" would have said or done. That's exactly what she says about your supposed reaction to evidence not shown. It's not helpful.
 
Top