Kristen Meghan, former US Air Force whistle-blower?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand . . . I think Meghan is basically implying all elemental (in this case) Aluminum, no matter its compound constituents, needs to be accounted for . . . you feel because many compounds are insoluble and considered non-toxic they need not be included in the testing . . . Interesting? So are un-dissolved solids contaminates or not? Does the EPA recognize solids as a problem to be mitigated?
Aluminum is included in . . . secondary drinking water standards as a nuisance chemical . . . Not exactly sure what that means except Aluminum is not considered toxic in drinking water . . but is something to monitor . . .


Content from External Source
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#List
 
Aluminum is included in . . .


Content from External Source
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#List


Secondary standards are for appearance and taste. Not safety. It's like testing your water for sand.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/secondarystandards.cfm

EPA believes that if these contaminants are present in your water at levels above these standards, the contaminants may cause the water to appear cloudy or colored, or to taste or smell bad. This may cause a great number of people to stop using water from their public water system even though the water is actually safe to drink.

Secondary standards are set to give public water systems some guidance on removing these chemicals to levels that are below what most people will find to be noticeable.
Content from External Source
 
Meghan seems to be just repeating Wigington's misunderstanding of the tests. Wigington likes to repeat that metallic aluminium is not found naturally in nature. But he does not seem to understand that his tests are not measuring metallic aluminum - the measure it regardless of if it's metal or a compound. Meghan is simply repeating this.
Ok . . . so how does this play out in our narrative . . . does Aluminum become irrelevant as a concern for the purposes of human safety? Under what conditions would it be a concern . . . and are these conditions ever met in the natural environment?

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34

Seems Aluminum is generally safe except if inhaled in excessive amounts in manufacturing processes . . . many foods and medicines have significant amounts of Aluminum . . .
 
Last edited:
Has anyone found any published results of these newly-specified rainwater tests yet? I'm intrigued that it appears Kristen (and presumably others) are giving people specific directions for the tests and labs to use yet cannot find any test results to see why this might be the case. I know there's previous tests that were debunked, which might offer reason why not to repeat that test but it doesn't explain the narrowing critieria we're seeing, does it?
 
Ok . . . so how does this play out in our narrative . . . does Aluminum become irrelevant as a concern for the purposes of human safety? Under what conditions would it be a concern . . . and are these conditions ever met in the natural environment?

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34

Seems Aluminum is generally safe except if inhaled in excessive amounts in manufacturing processes . . . many foods and medicines have significant amounts of Aluminum . . .

Seems Aluminum is in almost everything we ingest . . . :)


People are exposed to aluminum in some cosmetics, antiperspirants, and pharmaceuticals such as antacids and buffered aspirin.

  • Antacids have 300–600 mg aluminum hydroxide (approximately 104–208 mg of aluminum) per tablet, capsule, or 5 milliliter (mL) liquid dose. Little of this form of aluminum is taken up into the bloodstream.
  • Buffered aspirin may contain 10–20 mg of aluminum per tablet
  • Vaccines may contain small amounts of aluminum compounds, no greater than 0.85 mg/dose.
-------
Aluminum compounds may be added during processing of foods, such as:

  • flour
  • baking powder
  • coloring agents
  • anticaking agents
An average adult in the United States eats about 7–9 mg of aluminum per day in their food.

Content from External Source
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34
 
Aluminum is classified as a toxic metal . . . Why?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_toxicity


Aluminium has no known biological role and its classification into toxic metals is controversial. Significant toxic effects and accumulation to tissues have been observed in renally impaired patients.[3] However, individuals with healthy kidneys can be exposed to large amounts of aluminium with no ill effects. Thus, aluminium is not considered dangerous to persons with normal elimination capacity.[4]
Content from External Source
Additional medical information . . . http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-overview#showall
 
Last edited:
Ok . . . so how does this play out in our narrative . . . does Aluminum become irrelevant as a concern for the purposes of human safety? Under what conditions would it be a concern . . . and are these conditions ever met in the natural environment?

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34
. . . many foods and medicines have significant amounts of Aluminum . . .

"Excessive" is generally an amount over the WHO recommended environmental limits......this usually applies to people who work around aluminium and aluminium manufacturing hazards.
 
"Excessive" is generally an amount over the WHO recommended environmental limits......this usually applies to people who work around aluminium and aluminium manufacturing hazards.
Seems Aluminum in rain or drinking water is of little or no concern . . . http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-overview#showall


Aluminum is a trivalent cation found in its ionic form in most kinds of animal and plant tissues and in natural waters everywhere.[1] It is the third most prevalent element and the most abundant metal in the earth's crust, representing approximately 8% of total mineral components.[2] Due to its reactivity, aluminum in nature is found only in combination with other elements.

Dietary aluminum is ubiquitous but in such small quantities that it is not a significant source of concern in persons with normal elimination capacity. Urban water supplies may contain a greater concentration because water is usually treated with aluminum before becoming part of the supply. Subsequent purification processes that remove organic compounds take away many of the same compounds that bind the element in its free state, further increasing aluminum concentration.

Content from External Source
 
Has anyone asked Kristen how she got to the Long Island conference? Did she, I don't know, fly in an airplane?
 
Aluminum is of little concern to humans but what about our crops . . . well since Al+++ is the culprit . . . it only forms in significant concentrations when the soil pH is too low and thereby too acidic except for Aluminum +++ resistant plants like blueberries . . . there is sufficient Aluminum in most any soils to cause this situation so a tiny amount blown in from some other source is irrelevant . .


The soil pH is probably the single most important management factor controlling the amount of Al+++ in the soil solution. Soluble Al is present in the soil when the pH begins to drop below pH 6.0. However, it is inconsequential in the vast majority of soils until the pH drops below pH 5.5. Even then, it is rarely a problem until the soil pH drops below pH 5.0. However, the amount of soluble Al increases dramatically in nearly all soils as the soil pH drops below pH 5.0. In these extremely acid soils, only those species adapted to acid soils (such as blueberries, cranberries, and acid-loving ornamentals) or the few crop species bred to tolerate high soil Al levels can be expected to do well.
Content from External Source
http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Soil_Aluminum_and_test_interpretation.htm
 
Last edited:
Getting a bit off topic George. There's lots of existing discussion on Aluminum. Unless she's making specific claims about it we don't need to get into the nitty-gritty.
 
Getting a bit off topic George. There's lots of existing discussion on Aluminum. Unless she's making specific claims about it we don't need to get into the nitty-gritty.
I am through now . . . since most of the emphasis on the testing from Kristen will result in Aluminum detected (if anyone publishes their finding that is). . . thought a small discussion on how insignificant the findings would be was appropriate . . .;)
 
You mean no-one's going to find nano-bots? :( Cos she says the lab need to be able to test at the nano level.
 
You mean no-one's going to find nano-bots? :( Cos she says the lab need to be able to test at the nano level.
Hmmmm . . . do you have a cite on that . . . seems testing at the molecular or elemental level (which is the way it is done ) would accomplish that . . . what other testing is available . . . microscopic?
 
A sudden increase in Al soil
may be significant ....like in the last 20 years.
Has Megan tallied the world-wide (or local USA) increases ?
 
The last video I posted, the unedited one, in the unedited section, somewhere passed the 18min mark.

EDIT: "because these are nano-particulates, they are very small" ~19:50min
Her concerns are being addressed . . . except there is no published scientific papers on nano-particles being used to turn people into zombies as some of the Chemtrail believers think possible . . .


Effects of nanotechnology on health and environment


Palazuelos is investigating what happens to living cells when confronted with aluminum nanoparticles. For the type of cells she has tested, the cells can readily absorb the aluminum nanoparticles, and there is a correlation between size, shape and toxicity. That said, Palazuelos stressed that it is far too early to conclude that aluminum nanoparticles are harmful to human health. Epidemiological studies evaluating years of exposure to aluminum in foundry workers and welders have not shown dramatic health effects . . .
Content from External Source
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/01/30/21628.aspx
 
Last edited:
Here is the problem, since the beginning...Megan has not released her data. Soil tests just outside a military aircraft refurb facility is in no way indicative of real-world soil samples.
Frankly, If I were investigating the issue through soils samples alone, I would be responsible enough to test a wide variety of (geographical) locations.....statewide and country-wide, and then
correlate the results.
It doesn't take a g_damn scientist to realize this is how it's done, even if you already think you have the answers.
 
Here is the problem, since the beginning...Megan has not released her data. Soil tests just outside a military aircraft refurb facility is in no way indicative of real-world soil samples.
Frankly, If I were investigating the issue through soils samples alone, I would be responsible enough to test a wide variety of (geographical) locations.....statewide and country-wide, and then
correlate the results.
It doesn't take a g_damn scientist to realize this is how it's done, even if you already think you have the answers.


If you listen to the end part of that last video I posted, Kristen advises everyone to not bother taking soil samples because soil is/can be pre-contaminated from other sources (which ironically backs up the debunking done here that she calls disinfo). Instead, she advises people only take rain and snow samples (so obviously still missess the point of pre-contamination)
 
Her story changes so much, I don't think we'll ever hear the truth from Kristen.

Yes, this thread caught me eye, as I hadn't heard of her, until someone linked to a video on YT. In that video (don't have it handy atm) I noticed a very easy lie in her narrative, when she was relating her time at Tinker AFB, the date of her decision to re-enlist (c. 2008, she said), then casually mentioned her "nine-year-old" daughter, who was with her (but offstage), and that she was "pregnant" with that daughter at the time of her decision to "re-up".

Something's fishy in her tale.
 
Yes, this thread caught me eye, as I hadn't heard of her, until someone linked to a video on YT. In that video (don't have it handy atm) I noticed a very easy lie in her narrative, when she was relating her time at Tinker AFB, the date of her decision to re-enlist (c. 2008, she said), then casually mentioned her "nine-year-old" daughter, who was with her (but offstage), and that she was "pregnant" with that daughter at the time of her decision to "re-up".

Something's fishy in her tale.

I noted that also but I think the time frame for her re-enlistment was earlier than 2008.
 

Kristen MeghanA comment by a user I have just banned.
I just want to publicly answer this for everyone to read:
As an Industrial Hygienist and an Environmental Specialist I make six figures in my day job, not related to my activism. I have never been paid a dime for anything related to my activism, especially Geoengineering, in fact, I donate.
Content from External Source
Kristen MeghanAlso I never said "I make my living off" public speaking. I said I am not nervous to speak in front of people, I do this for a living... meaning it's part of my profession. Only, get nervous to not get emotional.
Content from External Source
From the video...
...Every time I'm asked to speak, I publicly speak for a living...
Content from External Source


For someone that public speaks for a living, she's sure got me confused! Can someone please clarify what she's telling people? Is she saying she works (for a living) as an Industrial Hygenist and Environmental Specialist for the private sector which involves many duties including public speaking but all these public speeches on activism/geo-engineering are voluntary?


I noticed a very easy lie in her narrative
This is covered earlier in the thread. I think I posted a video of her admitting it was a silly thing to say in the heat-of-the-moment-sort-of-excuse-way. (Y'know, like professional speakers can be :rolleyes: )
 
I noted that also but I think the time frame for her re-enlistment was earlier than 2008.
Cobra, thanks. As I tried to say, it was only an impression that I had...seems many others have pointed out, in this thread, sufficient cause to doubt her credibility.
 
I managed to review a lot of videos of Kristen, from her public-speaking to being guest on internet shows such as infowars, nextnewsnetwork, wideawake etc to even hosting. She's often not sure of her dates, whether it be her service at airbases (has claimed between 8 and 10 years) or when her newly-found EPA friend is to retire (ranging from a month to two years) for instance. She speaks a lot of others discrediting her but in all I've heard so far, she's doing it very well for herself. For example...

In the following (AVTM published Aug 2013) video @ 6:00 she is asked re chemtrails/contrails/geoengineering
"What do you think is the strongest piece of evidence we have....that you've come across?"
Content from External Source
to which she replies
"The strongest piece of evidence? I'd say is two things. 1: It's what's in our rain......"
Content from External Source
It's worth noting her claimed second strongest evidence is deferred to claim Dane Wigginton's evidence of damage to our eco-system".

Skip forward to ~11:35 where she talks about raising awareness
"...we gotta reel them in little by little with the science..."
Content from External Source
at which point the host is prompted to ask
"...so on that aspect did you say you've done soil sample tests yourself?"
Content from External Source
Kristen responds
"Ya, ah numerous....I do them frequently here in Chicago, my daughter even has a little raincatcher out in the backyard"
Content from External Source
Then she goes on to make the point she recommends rain sampling over soil sampling.

Sadly the host failed to ask for a direct link/pointer to this important evidence. So I'm asking here, has anyone found her published rain samples that contain these "strongest pieces of scientific evidence" of chemtrails in the Chicago area? Especially the one she claimed...
"...came back hot"
Content from External Source
I have to admit, I find it extremely difficult to navigate geoengineeringwatch for the claimed rain sample info. It's a bit like a gish gallop picto/videograph to me and I've not got the patience to trawl it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GoNXQ6dfvXU#t=360
 
As an addendum (did I get it right this time?), someone posted a page "so you don't believe in chemtrails" during an online debate. One of the links was to rain samples which I clicked. It came up as geoengineering page not found. :confused:

Has it been moved or removed?
 
Just to throw it out there, I've worked at several environmental labs, and sampling containers and instructions were always provided free in advance, payment when submitting.
 
Just to throw it out there, I've worked at several environmental labs, and sampling containers and instructions were always provided free in advance, payment when submitting.
Does it matter to the laborstory whether the sample is submitted as drinking water or rain water as to how it is processed and what is tested? Is there a cost difference?
 
As an addendum (did I get it right this time?), someone posted a page "so you don't believe in chemtrails" during an online debate. One of the links was to rain samples which I clicked. It came up as geoengineering page not found. :confused:

Has it been moved or removed?
Did you try to get it from an internet cache or archive?
 
Hmmmmm . . . Seems there are no results listed from Chicago area or Illinois at all . . . isn't that where Kristen indicated her daughter has collected rain samples in their back yard ???
Don't forget that that is an archive dated 2012 and it appears that all the information contained in it is far older than that.

2007 and 2008 it appears.

Looking at the "extensive blood testing" link I can see why it went away.

He seems to have no understanding of fibrin in blood.
 
Don't forget that that is an archive dated 2012 and it appears that all the information contained in it is far older than that.

2007 and 2008 it appears.

Looking at the "extensive blood testing" link I can see why it went away.

He seems to have no understanding of fibrin in blood.
Yes. . . didn't read the whole thing but could easily explain the findings as fibrin clots . . . unless one uses anticoagulants (such as EDTA ) when collecting the blood sample that is exactly what one would expect to see . . . https://web.archive.org/web/20130927165222/http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/bloodtest1.htm
 
Their "how to test" is still flat wrong, so if Meghan is doing tests like this, then it's utterly meaningless:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/how-to-test-2/ (http://archive.is/cYiRb)
If you are testing a pond, then the only thing different is how you collect the sample. The very bottom of the pond is where the elements stack up. Turn your jar upside down and get the mouth to the bottom of the pond or still water….the older the pond the higher the readings. Turn the jar over and collect both the water and a LITTLE of the bottom sediment.
Content from External Source
Getting a random amount of sediment in your sample means you will just get random readings - because you are basically testing a mixture of "a little" dirt in the water. And dirt contains aluminum naturally.
 
Their "how to test" is still flat wrong, so if Meghan is doing tests like this, then it's utterly meaningless:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/how-to-test-2/ (http://archive.is/cYiRb)
If you are testing a pond, then the only thing different is how you collect the sample. The very bottom of the pond is where the elements stack up. Turn your jar upside down and get the mouth to the bottom of the pond or still water….the older the pond the higher the readings. Turn the jar over and collect both the water and a LITTLE of the bottom sediment.
Content from External Source
Getting a random amount of sediment in your sample means you will just get random readings - because you are basically testing a mixture of "a little" dirt in the water. And dirt contains aluminum naturally.
Yes that collection technique made me chuckle.

There is no way NOT to find substantial amounts of aluminum testing that way.
 
Their "how to test" is still flat wrong, so if Meghan is doing tests like this, then it's utterly meaningless:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/how-to-test-2/ (http://archive.is/cYiRb)
If you are testing a pond, then the only thing different is how you collect the sample. The very bottom of the pond is where the elements stack up. Turn your jar upside down and get the mouth to the bottom of the pond or still water….the older the pond the higher the readings. Turn the jar over and collect both the water and a LITTLE of the bottom sediment.
Content from External Source
Getting a random amount of sediment in your sample means you will just get random readings - because you are basically testing a mixture of "a little" dirt in the water. And dirt contains aluminum naturally.
Have they ever taken sediment samples? Dependant on the depth and consistency of the sample if you take a core you can have an historical record of metal deposition. A trained eye should be able to differentiate the seasons. Obviously this is dependant on the size of a pond. Maybe they could find a nearby lake?
 
Have they ever taken sediment samples? Dependant on the depth and consistency of the sample if you take a core you can have an historical record of metal deposition. A trained eye should be able to differentiate the seasons. Obviously this is dependant on the size of a pond. Maybe they could find a nearby lake?

There's a thread on that here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wi...how-up-in-varves-ice-cores-or-tree-rings.743/

(although it got a little off track)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top