1. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Senior Member

    Here is the interview:



    It seems to boil down to:


    • Was initially skeptical of chemtrails
    • After looking into the differences between chemtrails and contrails, noticed the clouds in the sky were just like the photos of chemtrails
    • Looked into information people posted - 'it's always unmarked airplanes I knew we had on our base'
    • As part of her MOS she was involved with screening chemicals passing into the base(differs from her earlier explanation of duties), noticed they were in canisters which contained "carcinogenic metals, oxides and powders" (no further detail provided about the canisters themselves though)
    • Her back yard was located on the flightline
    • Tried to get samples done by the EPA but was refused(no reason provided)
    • Decided to get samples done herself....is aware that common 'chemtrail' elements are found everywhere, but points out not at at these levels or "constituents"(kind of redundant thing to say)

    Firstly I'll point out that most military cargo planes look very similar to commercial jets to the untrained observer on the ground, the KC-135 in particular.

    I'm skeptical about her duties on base. She starts by saying her MOS involves environmental work(using fuel spills as an example), then goes on to say she screened hazardous materials before they were allowed on to the base. I could easily be wrong about this though, as I imagine there are relatively few people doing this kind of work in the military, it's quite possible they perform a wide range of duties related to materials.



    It seems to me she does not explain her testing methodology very much, but perhaps that is for brevity's sake?

    The extent of the explanation seems to be:
    • grid sampling(in her backyard I assume)
    • examined 'spray patterns', 'things she knew from her job, when they would fly and when I would see the trails'
    • 8 hours afterwards(of what?) she would perform the sampling because of 'dissipation rates of these materials'
  2. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Senior Member

  3. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    No. Different person. Her teeth are different and her accent is different.
  4. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member Staff Member

    Officer Job description . . . She was a GS-12 . . . Which requires a BS degree or higher . . .she was most likely an officer . . .



    Tinker AFB, OKC. OK



    Enlisted Job description . . .

  5. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Senior Member

    Where does she say this?
  6. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    If she was an officer, wouldn't she have given her rank? If she has left the military, she wouldn't have said she "left the federal government".
    In this video she says NCO:
    http://www.facebook.com/kristenmegh...815421740172&set=vb.1135187330&type=3&theater
    In this one, "Industrial Hygienist":
    http://www.facebook.com/kristenmegh...815355378513&set=vb.1135187330&type=3&theater

    To me, she sounds like an attention seeker, injecting herself into all sorts of things, TSA, 911, etc .
    "Grid samples" sounds like jargon. She doesn't seem to have real technical expertise.
    She has a youtube channel and this short video which shows lack of aviation knowledge and doesn't sound like anything an Air Force Officer would say.

    This doesn't smell good to me.

    FB:
    http://www.facebook.com/kristenmeghan/posts/4182976689441#!/kristenmeghan

    YT:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/IamKristenMeghan/videos?flow=grid&view=0
    • Like Like x 2
  7. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member


    She changes her job title a number of times in the opening video. She does not strike me as someone with a degree education as there is little content to her information. Having been in the military years she does seem young if it was after college.

    What was the content of the MSDS's? I have no idea what could be removed from a plane refit but I can presume there will be some toxic materials somewhere.

    Do they employ civilians in the USAF like they would in the RAF to do some of the cleaning and the like?
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    She says GS-12 at around 13:10

    I don't see any whistle blowing here. She's just repeating the usual chemtrail talking points. She offers no actual test results, or any actual evidence.
  9. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    What is GS 12?
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  11. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Thanks Mick. I apologise for my ignorance. I have just watched the video again and in parts she is quite compelling in parts. Her stuff on PTSD was spot on and I find it interesting she is suffering. That is a separate issue, and I am not saying it is linked to her CT claims. I have read she has been out the military 2 years so that would make her 32 if she joined at 19 for 9 years.

    If she did not bounce from conspiracy to conspiracy and just concentrated on chemtrails I would say there would be something to look at. But as it is she is all over the place. She did remind me of a guy called Bear Grylls who totally exaggerated his military service and made up what he did for personal gain.
  12. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Identifying with a GS-12 grade implies a civilian employee, as does the title of Industrial Hygienist. The Air Force advertises civilian job openings for Industrial Hygienists. Here's one at a grade of GS-13

    https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/PrintPreview/305424300

  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Her qualifications really should be irrelevant. There's plenty of people with seemingly impressive credentials (like Ted Gunderson, head of the Los Angeles FBI office) who fall into conspiracy culture and end up repeating bunk. It's the actual evidence that's important. She does not appear to have any.

    However, examining her credential IS still somewhat valid debunking if people are using it as evidence. It's a fallacy (appeal to authority), but still worth pointing out if the authority is fake.
  14. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    That's part of the point, the appeal to authority is more detailed than the supposed evidence so far.
    We see this a lot in anonymous hoaxers, and sometimes, like A.C. Griffith, live ones.
  15. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I was going to say that credentials should have nothing to do with it, but people abuse qualifications.

    I would be sold if she provided an honest and open CV (resume?).

    I will in a bit ;-)
  16. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    I just want people to know Kristen is genuine in her providing of information, and her credentials are authentic. Email her directly, her email is valid and she is happy to answer and of your questions.
  17. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    Good afternoon everyone,

    I found this thread by way of a friend informing me there were questions about the validity of my activism and the information I share. In the above comments there seems to be concerns about my background. I spent nine years in the USAF on active duty, the AF does not use "MOS" we use AFSC (Air Force Specialty Code). My AFSC was 4B071, I was an E-5 SSgt NCO. I completed certifications on the job from my extensive and diverse work experience and worked toward my degree while I was on active duty. Once I separated from Active Duty I was hired as a GS-12 at the VHA with the Position Description (PD) of "Industrial Hygienist/GEMS Coordinator. What GEMS mean is Green Environmental Management Systems. Another word for this is Environmental Specialist. I am currently in Grad school and working toward my CIH. With all this said, my background has little to do with my personal and professional integrity.

    I have done numerous media appearances and contributed to different sites as a journalist. Any time you put yourself out there in any forum, with it brings accepting there will be times you will be assumed a liar, made fun of, mocked for physical features and have your motives questioned. I applaud those who research information any one share, too often people jump on a conspiracy bandwagon without their own critical thinking. My involvement as an activist surrounding out government infringing upon our constitutionally protected liberty is directly coordinated with my leaving the military as a whistleblower. I used to think people who questioned “everything” were a hindrance on society and a waste of time to deal with. I found that, for some, it is not until something directly impacts you on a personal level that your eyes open to what really goes on and can happen.

    There have been comments made about me changing the descriptions of my job, which I disagree with. My job in the military was a multifaceted and complex, ranging from industrial hygiene, environmental, emergency response/management, and MNBC programs. One of the duties was to link hazardous materials brought on base to a specific task. In the AF us called a “3952”. Although an official form, it was also in an electronic format. Personnel would request the purchase and use of hazardous materials and it had to be approved, declined, or approved with conditions. In some cases, if in a different country, some chemicals could not be used to the host nation’s environmental laws.

    To avoid this thread going into an assumption direction, I am here to answer questions and reply back on this thread, or you can email me at kristenmeghan@gmail.com
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    Are you all aware of the US Patents that admit geoengineering and weather modification?
  19. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    First off she was enlisted, she was not a officer. Secondly I see all of you trying to disprove her and what she say's instead of looking up what she had to say and realizing that she is dead on. Her credentials are gained through actually on the job experience. She was in the Air Force as an enlisted person. She then left the Air Force and went to work for the VA. Her pay grade in the VA was GS.12. I see she invites all of you to Email her directly and will answer your questions. I also wanted to point out that nobody is trying to initerview any of you. That should go to show she knows what she is talking about and YOU don't. Stop being lap top hero's and judges and get out and do your own research.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    Hello Jay,

    I was in the military as a 4B071, I was active duty for nine years and then went to work for the VHA as a civilian GS12. When I say I left the federal goverment I say that becuase my total time as a federal employee (which include military people) was just over 11 years. I now work in the private sector so I am no longer a federal employee. I left the military at the end of 2010 and left the VHA at the end of 2012.

  21. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    Hey everyone, I forgot to post this in my previous reply. Here is the CFETP (Career Field Education and Training Plan) for my job in the Air Force. Page 23 goes into specific tasks of the job. This career field exists in the Air Force and a somewhat similar one the Army, although the Army has downsized theirs and now use Bio folks from the AF to deploy with Army units. In the attachment you will see how many different things were did as it related to health, safety, and environmental... along with emergency response. Its always hard to explain what I do, becuase its sort of a "Jack of all trades" in the realm of Environmental Safety and Health.

    http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/CFETP4B0X1.pdf
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Thanks for the clarification Kristen. Like I've said before, I don't think qualifications are that important - it's the facts that are important. Qualifications usually only come into play when someone makes an "appeal to authority" - like "X says this, and X is in the air force, so it must be true".

    I presume you still believe in chemtrails? Do you have what you would consider to be some "smoking gun" piece of evidence?
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes. Patents only show that someone has thought about something, and thought it might be used at some point.

    I does not show that that thing is viable, planned to be used, or actually in use.

    Example:

    http://www.google.com/patents/US3216423
    APPARATUS FOR FACILITATING THE BIRTH OF A CHILD BY CENTRIFUGAL FORCE
    [​IMG]
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 4
  24. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Its funny the debunkers are bringing up the appeal to authority argument, isn't that their go to move? They also like to pick and choose which facts they use and choose to ignore others, the real science is debunking the debunkers!
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member Staff Member

    Hello Kristen . . . welcome . . . I am a retired AF member myself . . . didn't know anything about the Chemtrail conspiracy until 2009 . .
  26. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Kristen,
    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?
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Which facts have been ignored? Please bring them up here.
  28. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    Mick, I agree with you. Although having degrees and certifications are a plus when it comes to how you are paid, I know lots of engineering who can't tie their shoe laces, lol. Anyone can memorize, test, pass, and put paper on their wall... but how many can do the job with backed experience and their own research.

    As far as evidence, the government has over 20 patents related to geoengineering. I know it is sort of long, but if you don't mind, I'll past a report I wrote recently below:





    Growing up in Michigan, I was surrounded by some of the most beautiful natural scenery and raised to appreciate the outdoors, which led to summers on the water and many camping trips along Lake Michigan. I remember staring up into the sky pointing out to my mother what each cloud was called, showcasing what I had learned in school. The infamous game of finding the best cloud shapes that resembled real objects kept us entertained and the kids competitive. As I grew up, this stayed with me. I would always look to the sky when I was deep in thought or lost in frustration; the sky was my peace, my grounding calm. A couple years after high school, I joined the military working in Bioenvironmental Engineering, helping government employees ensure we weren’t harming the environment and ensured workers were protected from health and safety hazards. I spent my first two years in England, embracing the scenery and still having the stars and blue sky linking me to my family across the pond. When I came back to the states I noticed a clear difference in the beautiful blue skies I had once loved to admire. Clouds no longer resembled interesting shapes, but rather Etch A Sketch lines and “X’s” in the sky; I used to joke the jets leaving contrails in the sky made it look as if our pilots had vertigo! During this time, social media sites came online and the sharing of photos and information was suddenly “mainstream”. Over time, photos of odd cloud designs and lines sparked conspiracy theories all over the web. The conspiracy rhetoric the government was spraying toxic constituents on us seemed like the thoughts of a paranoid loon! The theories became reality, when I attempted to debunk this conspiracy. In an attempt to do so, I kept coming across an increase in environmental regulations, green products, and revenue based punishment for environmental disruptors. The information I obtained, led me to connect the dots on the so called “Green Initiative”.

    Within the first week of President Obama being reelected into office, his administration was already reigniting the infamous carbon tax. President Obama and his administrative supporters touted the needed for increased environmental regulations. With these new regulations comes revenue generating fines imposed on businesses throughout the United States. This propaganda misleads the public into thinking the revenue generated from these fines would decrease our country’s historical debt. What one Infowars reporter explains is how the enforcement of these proposed environmental regulations actually would cost tax payers an approximate $700 billion, Dykes (2012). What could be the driver behind the “green” agenda designed to reduce debt and save the environment? Specifically, Rappoport authored a recent story illustrating how the New World Order (NWO) has hijacked the “Save the Planet” initiative by instilling fear and promoting collectivism; if we do not “go green” together we cannot prevent global warming. Rappoport states, “The fatally flawed science of man-made global warming has emphasized yet another form of striving together to avoid another holocaust.” This all ties into the mindset that we are no longer individuals, we must be grouped and act in a group. The masses cannot be deceived without first thinking for them. This is a way our country, guided by the United Nations and the NWO, has been able to pull off the biggest acts of environmental pollution!


    Global warming has been a household topic since the early 1990s, and has been pushed by the Federal government as a crucial threat to our environment. The U.S. Government has been the leading polluter by way of Geo-engineering, Chemtrails, and military operations. Linda Marshall from the Feminist Peace Network stated, “The US military is responsible for the most egregious and widespread pollution of the planet, yet this information and accompanying documentation goes almost entirely unreported. This impact includes uninhibited use of fossil fuels, massive creation of greenhouse gases, and extensive release of radioactive and chemical contaminants into the air, water, and soil.” Chemtrails involve the deliberate spraying of hazardous materials into the atmosphere that goes back over 30 years. Also known as cloud seeding, the U.S. Government has been spraying harmful chemicals and heavy metals into the atmosphere for numerous reasons. Some say this is to prevent global warming; however, the lack of media acknowledged Chemtrails tells a different story. David Peterson from the Carnicom Institution provided the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with soil samples that were retrieved after planes had sprayed particles above the land; this information was to be used for a Chemtrails Research Initiative. Chester France, from the EPA’s Assessment and Standards Division, refused to analyze these samples and provided Mr. Peterson with assumptive data. Mr. France responded saying he was mistaken, stating the EPA had no knowledge of Chemtrails and evaded the information through a distractive response. Despite Mr. France’s opinion, it is his ethical responsibility to analyze these samples, even if he were to inform Mr. Peterson he would have to fund the lab analysis and soil samples. This story mirrors many situations like this throughout the country, including my own encounter with the EPA when I worked in Bioenvironmental Engineering in the United State Air Force. Why would the EPA refuse to acknowledge Chemtrails? Consequently, a world renowned neurosurgeon turned activist and researcher, addresses the health effects associated with constituents used in Chemtrails. Specifically, Dr. Blaylock discusses nano-sized particles and how the intranasal route of exposure makes the spraying of these hazardous particles even more dangerous. Additionally, he goes on to explain how at first he dismissed the reality of Chemtrails, but the overwhelming evidence convinced him otherwise. He states, “I pray the pilots who are spraying this dangerous substance fully understand that they are destroying the lives and health of their families as well” (Blaylock, 2012). What has not been addressed is the systemic impact on hearing and balance through the ototoxicity of these heavy metal particulates coupled with exposures from pharmaceuticals containing ototoxic drugs! There is innumerous evidence ignored by the mainstream media that is available for the general public, which includes several organizations that champion exposing these practices to the general public.

    For example, it is admitted there are elite members of society that support and finance the spraying of hazardous chemicals and materials into our atmosphere in the disguise of preventing man-made global warming; one of these promoters and financial backers is none other than Bill Gates (Huff, 2012). Spraying this material alters how the natural sunlight, that living things rely on for nourishment, is able to be absorbed. While continued to be labeled a conspiracy theory, the U.S. owns over twenty patents surrounding weather modification, stratospheric aerosol spraying and the use of RFID to control the environment. All of the processes listed within these patents not only disrupts our ecosystem, but is an additional danger to human life and our environmental cycle. Documentaries such as, “What In The World Are They Spraying”, and “Why In The World Are They Spraying”, expose the validity of Geoengineering and Chemtrails and why such a hoax it being put upon the American people. The United Nations Agenda 21 is the driving force behind sustainable development by way of population control through soft kill. The carcinogenic materials sprayed upon us have been directly linked to the historical rise in neurological disorders and respiratory illnesses. With all this information readily available and the current data on the environmental and health effects widely known, what is being done to truly conserve what resources we have left?

    In simpler terms, the U.S. government has become the largest polluter while self-declaring they are the leaders of the “green” world. The government has gone to great lengths to conceal its treasonous acts upon its citizens from the skies. Although openly admitted in their own documents, the leaders of the U.S. refute its’ existence and controversial purpose. Crusaders in the form of meteorologists, chemists, farmers, politicians, whistleblowers, and military service members continue to vocalize the validity of this dangerous practice. As more and more people wake up to the atrocities of Geoengineering, our government will soon face the outraged citizens of not only this country, but people of neighboring nations. Recently, Congressman Paul Broun introduced a bill, H.R. 75, which calls for the United States to break away from the United Nations. Representative Broun has yet to find a co-sponsor for the bill; it is likely this bill will dissolve before it is giving any media coverage. What will it take for the American people to hold their government accountable for violating there oath of office! We should ask ourselves, should our President answer to its people, or the U.N.?










    References

    Blaylock, R.M.D. (2012). Chemtrails, nanoaluminum, and neurodegenerative, and neurodevelopmental effects. Health Freedom News, 30(3), 20-21

    Dykes, A. (2012, December). Why Obama will revive the push for co2 taxes and the “green” agenda is about control and profits, not saving the environment. Infowars The Magazine, 1(4), 20-2

    Huff, E. (2012, Jul 26). Bill Gates funds scheme to spray artificial “planet-cooling” sulfur particles into atmosphere. Retrieved from http://geoengineeringwatch.org

    Messamore, W.E. (April 2012). The Number One Worst Polluter on Earth. Retrieved from
    http://ivn.us/2012/04/18/the-number-one-worst-polluter-on-earth-is-the-u-s-federal-government/

    Peterson, D. (June, 2000 28). EPA refuses to identify sample. Retrieved from http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/epa6.htm

    Rappoport, J. (2012, October). How the now hijacked “save the planet”. Infowars The Magazine, 1(3), 52-53.
  29. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    The first reason why we look into background is to do due diligence. Sometimes people aren't who or what they say they are.
    I'm satisfied for now, although I've still seen no proof for her expertise which I can confirm through another independent source.
    If she isn't what she says she is, it will come to light eventually, anyways.
    The second reason is that Kristen hasn't shown anything else to which anybody can speak to. If she does, it can be discussed.
    That is why this thread has gone nowhere.
    That is why I have asked some questions.
  30. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    neat, what was your AFSC title

  31. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Interesting article, Kristen. I was personally involved in Carnicom's dealings with EPA. I forced them, by using the Freedom Of Information Act, to respond to him.
    You can read about it here:
    http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/FOIA.html

    In writing this article, did you go straight to the source, to Carnicom?
    Did he explain how I was involved?
    Did he show you any of the documents?

    I doubt that you did, because what he sent to EPA were not soil samples.
    Your article is in error.

    This is the sort of stuff he sent to EPA, and here is how he should have had the substance analyzed.
    http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/silk.html
    He never has shown anyone any samples which have been properly analyzed.
    Never. Not once. Ever.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    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?
  33. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    Hi Jay,

    It was a long story involving the AF trying to cover up carcinogenic exposures. Seeing how I was the one who conducted the sampling and found this serious overexposure, I was then demonized and not allowed to share the results with employees, which is illegal. To summarize, I was threatened to be deemed "mentally unfit" and my daughter removed from me. There are news clips out there about it, I may have one on my FB video section... it was from almost 3 years ago.

    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.

    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. Most of the time it is obvious by the flight patterns. I see it a lot here in Chicago, its ridiculous the patterns they make. I am actually in the process of a big study and hope to complete it by the end of summer. I'm tracking waste disposal soil sample data from special waste sites from contract work and trying to persuade some pilots to come forward. The government doesn't hide it; they just don't talk about it. The patents the U.S. Government holds, to me, is all anyone really needs. Has anyone looked a the documents section of www.geoengineeringwatch.org ?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But that's not true. There is research into possibly doing geoengineering in the future. But nobody has actually sprayed anything yet.

    And as I pointed out elsewhere. Patents are proof only of the possibility that something might work, or that it might be used. They are no evidence at all that it IS being used. There's plenty of patents for manned moon base related technology, yet no manned moon bases.

    What's the smoking gun? Where's the actual evidence?
  35. Kristenmeghan

    Kristenmeghan New Member

    Jay, feel free to friend me on FB, a lot of my old colleagues can let you know I am who I say I am. I am trying to think what I can provide here as far as my epertise for ya.

    I posted the link to the duties of my job in the AF. Most documents I have contain my ssn but I could black them out. I know what its like to want to verify someone or their credentials.

  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But that's not true either. Contrails often persist and spread if the weather conditions aloft are right for it (ice-supersaturated air). It's basic physics. They can't not persist.
    http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
    • Like Like x 4
  37. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Kristen,
    What evidence did Dr. Blaylock show you that there is spraying of "nanosized aluminum compounds"?
    Did you communicate with him 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?
  38. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Is it due diligence? Or is it cognitive dissonance? What I see is people making all sorts of excuses like "OH her eye movements are pointing in different directions"! And "OH shes just seeking attention!" I mean there must be just no possible way she could have the credentials she says she has if she is saying the things she does! Clearly, there are never any legitimate whistleblowers and besides even if there were that would just be using an "appeal to authority" argument anyways! Lets instead point to the facts, the facts backed by data that a team of scientists or people (appeal to majority) that suffer from group think and are well compensated for their actions, while ignoring a minority of people who present different data because clearly they have ulterior motives!
  39. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    1) The authority argument is used to grab the attention of anyone researching this topic and take advantage of our indoctrinated education systems where we all pretty much learned early to defer to the opinions of authorities rather than to our inner authority when it comes to drawing conclusions for ourselves. It makes the person saying it (Mick) sound more credible on an unconscious level.

    2) No one is respecting Kristen's request to stop the public discussion and to defer the conversation to email which suggests 'perhaps' that the debunkers here are more interested in attempting to make her look 'un-credible' publicly using 'tricks of the trade' rather than actually listening to what she has to say from her 'on-the-ground' perspective and experience.

    3) The word 'believe' is used in association with 'chemtrails' which imposes the image to researchers ignorant of the topic to unconsciously see this possible phenomenon as something that is 'believed' rather than a possible reality. It draws the conclusion that they are not 'real' before allowing researchers to draw their own conclusions AFTER the cases are heard.

    4) "Smoking gun" piece of evidence is quoted and yet the parameters of what would qualify as "smoking gun" evidence have not been defined. I'm sure on her last day with the AF they allowed her to make some copies of important documents on her way out, right? The military hasn't exactly been open regarding transparency and file sharing. What exactly constitutes as smoking gun evidence? These expectations need to be defined PRIOR to eliciting a response. Otherwise, it suggests an attempt to see if she will just come back with evidence you can easily categorize into 'hear-say' and 'anecdotal' decreasing the perception of her credibility to an average researcher who know may interpret you as the 'authority' to whom to listen and her as someone with a bunch of debunk-able ideas and no actual documents from her old AF computer.

    Just sayin...;)
  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think we are past the credential thing. Let's move on to evidence.
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page