Yes, it seems basically her entire evidence is that she claims that some ordinary substances were present in large quantities than she expected. No numbers. No documentation.
Then she just repeats the usual talking point. Nonsense like "The Chinese did it at the olympics" (referring to cloud seeding). And the biological weapons dispersement tests characterized as "experimenting" on people.
Still, I expect it to get a lot of traction. WAC and Infowars teaming up to promote her.
I thought I read somewhere that she works at Infowars now?
I am certain I posted at the start of the thread about her becoming a poster girl for the movement. While I make no judgements on her claims of threats (may well have happened), but her behaviour seems to play on the role of the victim. People love that, but I will put a caveat that I say that purely based on internet stuff. I find personal attacks loathsome, however if you base your argument not on evidence but on trust based on your character one must expect that character to be challenged.
Yes, it seems basically her entire evidence is that she claims that some ordinary substances were present in large quantities than she expected. No numbers. No documentation.
Then she just repeats the usual talking point. Nonsense like "The Chinese did it at the olympics" (referring to cloud seeding). And the biological weapons dispersement tests characterized as "experimenting" on people.
Still, I expect it to get a lot of traction. WAC and Infowars teaming up to promote her.
I thought I read somewhere that she works at Infowars now?
Mick . . . if she is employed by Infowars one would expect that they vetted her claims and stand by them . . . or they are using her to intentionally promote misinformation . . .
I remember she stated originally that she retained some copies of documents she considered evidence . . . but evidence of what specifically she did not detail . . .
You seem to be implying infowars have a standard of proof and some journalistic integrity. I'm pretty sure they are more than content to re-print *any* claim without 'vetting' it as long as it's anti-government/illuminati in some way.
You seem to be implying infowars have a standard of proof and some journalistic integrity. I'm pretty sure they are more than content to re-print *any* claim without 'vetting' it as long as it's anti-government/illuminati in some way.
Maybe . . . but she has credentials . . . and that elevates her claims into the professional realm . . . an attorney can not be taken seriously unless they refer to case law or legal authority . . . now Meghan is in the same category . . . she has a higher standard to meet. . .
Mick . . . if she is employed by Infowars one would expect that they vetted her claims and stand by them . . . or they are using her to intentionally promote misinformation . . .
I'm not sure that she is employed by Infowars, or anyone. She has http://nextnewsnetwork.com/ linked from her Twitter page, maybe it was that.
Anyway. Let's try to focus on the claims of evidence. Which in this case means pointing out the lack of actual evidence besides some vague claims about quantities.
Some news stories about Megan's claims of OSHA violations are listed in messages 194 and 195 of this thread - the health concerns she espoused on pages 1 and 2 seem real enough....but that's about all that I can see.
With regard to her claim that the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the allegedly suspicious shipments did not have manufacturers names on them:
The US Defense Logistics Agency operates the Hazardous Materials Information Resource System (HMIRS), which contains a registry of standard MSDS sheets for over 380,000 substances. Contractors to the Defense Dept can sign up to the HMIRS and access those MSDS Sheets.
I suspect this is why she saw MSDS sheets without manufacturers names. Barium is Barium no matter who supplies it. Edit: this is the actual video and claim regarding MSDS Claim at 11.43
Synopsis:
Added: Mar 21, 2012 5:39 pm
Barium Nitrate, Mil-B-162D, Class 6, Gran B, 20 Mic. Max, 15 Mic Min.; packaged in 100 lb drums; COA and MSDS required; delivery schedule 10# required by 15 JUN; 10# monthly thereafter.
Used for green signal flares, and incendiary grenades. 1,000 pounds a month there, by the looks of it. Surprising that this has not been picked up on, as FBO mining seems a common source of conspiracies.
When you order a dry probe cover in the US Navy you get a small thin package wrapped up tight in brown paper and packing tape with a big standard label. You unwrap it and it is a Trojan condom. The feds buy condoms in bulk, un-package them, and re-package and re-label them individually and ship them out.
Synopsis:
Added: Mar 21, 2012 5:39 pm
Barium Nitrate, Mil-B-162D, Class 6, Gran B, 20 Mic. Max, 15 Mic Min.; packaged in 100 lb drums; COA and MSDS required; delivery schedule 10# required by 15 JUN; 10# monthly thereafter.
Used for green signal flares, and incendiary grenades. 1,000 pounds a month there, by the looks of it. Surprising that this has not been picked up on, as FBO mining seems a common source of conspiracies.
I'm not at all clear if Kristen's statements in the video tally with her previous statement. Is this a different use of the word "whistleblower"? The pressure from management was for things entirely unrelated to the chemtrail theory?
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is confusing. With regards to her claim that electronic MSDS did not have manufacturers names, as they appear to have been standardised; that seems to be what happened in the US military with the HMIRS system. This started around 2002.
There are many free MSDS databases around the world. Her job did not require her to know who the manufacturer was, just what OSHA precautions needed to be applied to materials under her responsibility. This was supplied by the standardised HMIRS MSDS, so I don't know why the lack of a manufacturer on that made her suspicious.
It would be useful if @Kristenmeghan could clarify exactly what chemicals she saw, and in what quantities. Aluminum oxide is used for abrasive blasting, barium sulfate is used for white paint. Things that a large base would probably use a lot of. Strontium carbonate is used for ordinary cheap red flares.
So you've got chemicals that would naturally use a lot of. You've got Kristen saying there's some of that was unaccounted for, as far as she could tell. At the same time she was whistle blowing for some ground contamination? Possibly the chemtrail inspired tests?
Hard to really draw any conclusions from any of this. Very little actual evidence. Just some rather ill-quantified claims.
With regard to her claim that the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the allegedly suspicious shipments did not have manufacturers names on them:
The US Defense Logistics Agency operates the Hazardous Materials Information Resource System (HMIRS), which contains a registry of standard MSDS sheets for over 380,000 substances. Contractors to the Defense Dept can sign up to the HMIRS and access those MSDS Sheets.
I suspect this is why she saw MSDS sheets without manufacturers names. Barium is Barium no matter who supplies it. Edit: this is the actual video and claim regarding MSDS Claim at 11.43
From the video above the last approximate 30 minutes on Infowars news . . . Meghan is deeply into the 911 Truthers movement . . . so she probably sees the Chemtrail issue as just connecting the dots with overall governmental skullduggery . . .
Quote: "What are this being used for? I never got an answer so I didn't approve it"
So we have a NCO refusing to approve some commonly used chemicals on a base, complete with MSDS, until she knows what they are being used for.
There are two alternatives here; either,
1. She was required to know the intended purpose of every raw material coming on base, instead of just the handling and disposal methods, or,
2. She was grossly overstepping her authority by refusing the process the materials until she found out their intended purpose.
That is a call for someone with more knowledge of the US military than I. It was however after her refusal to approve these chemicals coming on to the base that she started attracting "heat" as she calls it.
Quote: "What are this being used for? I never got an answer so I didn't approve it"
So we have a NCO refusing to approve some commonly used chemicals on a base, complete with MSDS, until she knows what they are being used for.
There are two alternatives here; either,
1. She was required to know the intended purpose of every raw material coming on base, instead of just the handling and disposal methods, or,
2. She was grossly overstepping her authority by refusing the process the materials until she found out their intended purpose.
That is a call for someone with more knowledge of the US military than I. It was however after her refusal to approve these chemicals coming on to the base that she started attracting "heat" as she calls it.
The issues you cite are very process oriented in a complex regulatory environment where there are competing turf wars . . . basically operational considerations of getting the mission accomplished versus covering your rear if you step too hard on regulatory and safety surveillance and enforcement . . . Meghan was basically in the regulatory advisory role and could be ignored at ones own risk . . . she only had the authority and power command allowed her to exert . . . she as you surmised was most likely use to being allowed to work independently without supervision or challenge and may have assumed she held more power than she really had . . . and may have been hard to reel in when compromise was essential because not everything was easy to resolve in the manner she expected . . . advisors advise, they make recommendations and do not tell people how to accomplish their job or even how to correct something not in compliance, they may be asked to brief safety and compliance procedures, take environmental samples and inform command on abnormal findings . . . mostly they report their findings to higher authority and wait for further instructions . . .
I don't think she has any chemtrail evidence. She states she is connecting dots between what she knows (and doesn't know) and what other conspiracy theories have told her.
This is a bit long and drawn out but she does go into some further details and revelations about what she believes and why and gives her reasons for not revealing certain info.
Around 27mins, she admits and regrets publicly telling a (drunken?/emotional) untruth about her pregnancy
I think she makes an inference of this site around 31mins. She doesn't doesn't want to mention the site name/give it publicity/hits but "they're a bunch of...."
Kristen often begins explaining her position that, after learning about the chemtrail conspiracy she tried (but failed) to debunk it.
However, she also makes it clear she's well aware about this site - which contains much scientific (her speciality) and factual information and evidence - that does debunk a lot, if not all of what she believes. Yet by claiming metabunk is disinfo and "a bunch of F*tards" she's obviously been able to (in her mind) debunk this site??
I am now suffering a seizure of cognitive dissedence.
Unfortunately I think this thread will always recycle points raised before as there is nothing new to add until she produces some evidence. I think we can be rest assured that ain't gonna happen and it be best leaving things there.
I think that part of her story is a later addition and simply made up to make it sound as if she did her homework. She never actually did any such thing.
On top of the chemtrails today, they are spraying a biological product called "Btk". If you are not familiar with Btk, it is used to kill moth outbreaks. The Illinois Dept of Agriculture wants to reassure the people in my are that it is not toxic to our health. Unbelievable! I am very familiar with Btk, its shares a similar make up to anthrax.
To be polite I'll just say that Kristen is very 'loose with the truth'. If she was truly 'very familiar' with bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki (Btk) she would know that it is totally harmless to humans, as are all strains of Bt. I use Btk myself because it's effective and safe. It is a member of the same genus as bacillus anthracis, the bacterium that causes the disease anthrax, but Btk produces totally different toxins that only effect cells in the guts of certain insects. Trying to equate Bt with anthrax is just nothing more than fearmongering.
A wide range of studies have been conducted on test animals, using several routes of exposure. (The highest dose tested was 6.7 x 10 to the 11th spores per animal.) The results of these tests suggest that the use of B.t. products can cause few, if any, negative effects. B.t. did not have acute toxicity in other tests conducted on birds, dogs, guinea pigs, mice, rats, humans, or other animals. When rats were injected with B.t.k., no toxic or virus- like effects were seen. No oral toxicity was found in rats, mice or Japanese quail fed protein crystals from B.t. var. israelensis.
I think one or two commentors who were questioning her claims said something to the effect that "we don't even know if you were actually in the Air Force", so she came out with that. It's the only documentation she ever provided about anything. Zero on any of her claims about what she saw or tests she claims to have done.
I do wonder about Meghan . . . I have no doubt she was a capable Environmental Tech in the Air Force . . . what was the evolution of her journey and how did she get to where she is today? . . . she appears to be an articulate, intelligent individual and was IMO mismanaged by a group of clumsy supervisors and managers (possibly inexperienced dealing with people with such energy) who were unable to properly direct her enthusiasm for her mission . . . she was disillusioned by her active duty experience and sought to explain what happened and turned to a grand conspiracy to explain local sloppy and subpar process and management . . . she took her life experience and suspicions and fit them into this worldview. Then along comes those who recognized her potential as a tool for their cause . . . she was praised, reinforced and isolated from reasonable alternative explanations. She is a passionate person and throws her self into whatever she does but is what we call someone who often draws her gun, fires and then aims . . . once she has time to investigate further on her own, away from the influences of vested interests, she may find she has been played . . .
Unfortunately I think this thread will always recycle points raised before as there is nothing new to add until she produces some evidence. I think we can be rest assured that ain't gonna happen and it be best leaving things there.
Claims with no evidence can be sustained for a lifetime and beyond.
For example, "Chemtrails Whistleblower" A.C. Griffith claimed to have been a CIA/NSA employee with evidence that barium was being sprayed. He was the sole source of that meme, and began it in 2000. 14 years afterwards, very few, including Kristen herself have even a clue how flimsy that claim was, it is simply accepted.
Claims with no evidence can be sustained for a lifetime and beyond.
For example, "Chemtrails Whistleblower" A.C. Griffith claimed to have been a CIA/NSA employee with evidence that barium was being sprayed. He was the sole source of that meme, and began it in 2000. 14 years afterwards, very few, including Kristen herself have even a clue how flimsy that claim was, it is simply accepted.
There should be a term for circular validation of unconfirmed/fantom evidence that is validated by a lack of due diligence . . . most conspiracy promoters use the evidence if it came from three independent sources without realizing or confirming the same erroneous source was used by all three . . . Maybe "validation through multiple fantom evidence convergence" or VTMFEC for short . . . LoL!!!
or maybe "a self-validating do-loop" if you are into computers . . .
Use a Do...Loop structure when you want to repeat a set of statements an indefinite number of times, until a condition is satisfied. If you want to repeat the statements a set number of times, the For...Next Statement is usually a better choice. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/eked04a7.aspx
Is it just coincidence, or is there some reason why none of these interviewers are asking Kristen, "Well, what's next?"
For sure some of the commenters are, but why aren't the questioners asking about the elephant in the room?
Are they just too stupid to want more of the story, are they warned off beforehand by her, is someone else pulling the strings, or are they all in on it?
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?
You are seriously not believing what you write Mr Administrator and I am here to tell you how clear your efforts to discredit this brave young woman are.
You keep spinning what she is saying, you keep going to these 'corner arguments' and the best part is that I dont think you even believe yourself and you are just here to create these 'false narratives' and 'false arguments' which are nothing more than a smoke screen (pun intended) to the truth.
I dont seriously believe you think that after these little planes pass at much higher altitudes than other commercial planes and at much different speeds and they make a VERY SPECIFIC pattern in the sky (shape like nets) with this "white" smoke that when the Sun light passes through it (or the Moon) that they change colors to very distinctive hues of green/red/yellow which is not the normal hues created by sunlight hitting 'REAL CLOUDS' and you sit here and try to debate her background, knowledge, grade in the military to distract everyone else to the REAL FACTS THAN YOU CAN SEE WITH YOUR EYES AND DONT NEED NO DEGREE TO COME UP WITH VERY CLEAR CONCLUSIONS????
I dont think you believe yourself and you are here with ulterior motives besides a true search as to what is really causing this phenomenon in the sky.
It is hilariously easy to figure you out and what you are REALLY after in this forum by reading deep into just a few of your comments.
You need to improve your deceptive techniques because some of us still see right through you.
I dont think you believe yourself and you are here with ulterior motives besides a true search as to what is really causing this phenomenon in the sky.
I'm pretty sure it's just contrails and clouds. The actual science has been extensively discussed in this forum, and in http://contrailscience.com, bt if you find anything wrong, or anything missing them feel free to let me know, so I can correct it.
I'm not trying to discredit Ms Meghan. Her credentials see to be as she says they are. I'm just pointing out that she's not actually presented any evidence to back up her claims - or even really made any specific claims beyond not being able to account for some chemicals.
