Kristen Meghan, former US Air Force whistle-blower?

Status
Not open for further replies.
KC-10FE said:
If she brings forward proof, I am sure people here would take her seriously. Anyone can speculate about anything and pass it off as "fact", in order to support their beliefs or theories. In my mind I am the best looking guy in the world, but any girl in her right mind would tell me that is not true.

For instance, the infamous KC-10 "sprayer" video which has been shown over and over by TankerEnemy and other conspiracy sites, is said by such people to be "ultimate proof" of the existence of chemtrails. However, when seen by someone like me that has 11 years in the Air Force, both as a jet engine mechanic and now a flight engineer on said KC-10, it is blatantly obvious that the "spray" is being created by the low pressure area that forms on the top of the wing as it creates lift. The aerodynamic contrail is visible since the aircraft is flying through patches of varying moist/dry air, creating the so called "start and stopping spraying." That explanation is more thoroughly covered by Mick in another thread on this board, so that's for another day.

The point is, Kristen can say all she likes, but without evidence, it doesn't hold a lot of water [...]. If speculation was all that was needed these days, there would be no need to take anything to court; one could just accuse someone of a transgression, and that would be it.
Click to expand...

Lol to your example, don't put yourself down, it only takes 1 woman to agree. Lol.
I agree with the lack of evidence it's pointless saying anything.

I'm aware this may be taken out of context or some kind of personal attack but it honestly isn't and I hope it isn't taken that way, I'm just trying to make a small point.... how do I know you are telling the truth when you say you work on aircraft? It would be quite hard to prove this to anyone unless they got in touch with your employer, and even then, I would need to sit with you when you log into this site just to prove that it is you. It could get quite messy, so although kristen has no real evidence, it doesn't mean she isn't telling the truth with what she had seen etc.maybe just got the wrong answer because of what she has read elsewhere. (I think she has become a lone ranger and done her own investigations, put 1 and 1 together and came up with the answer she deems correct, whether it be right or wrong. )
What I want people to understand is that I'm not trying to prove kristen right, I just want the same as you guys.... Hard proof!

One last thing.... I totally agree with your speculation comment, I could say obama is an alien, doesn't make him one.... But can he prove it? lol
 
David Fraser said:
It's your words. What do you perceive the firing line to be especially given she has been an "activist" for a number of years. Exactly what risk is she taking?
Click to expand...
At a guess, I would say to think of examples like Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and see what conclusions you come to there.
She mentioned early on in this post that she was discredited and get child taken from her so I think that's where my tail of thought came from.
If she truly believed she was exposing the military or government then I would have thought the firing line she would be stepping into would be obvious.
 
I feel this is starting to go off track again now and more about me proving or backing up my comments, but my comments are nothing to do with proving facts so I feel It's a waste of time. I just want to sit back and watch the real facts come out and be analysed.
 
casper said:
At a guess, I would say to think of examples like Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and see what conclusions you come to there.
She mentioned early on in this post that she was discredited and get child taken from her so I think that's where my tail of thought came from.
If she truly believed she was exposing the military or government then I would have thought the firing line she would be stepping into would be obvious.
Click to expand...

Do you think she is still in a firing line? This is the meme that goes around which obviously you accept to some point. Given she has been an activist for a number of years, and has been on TV and in her own words "earns a 6 figure salary" in her main job, I fail to see the risks. I have yet to see any public discrediting by her former employers.
 
David Fraser said:
Do you think she is still in a firing line? This is the meme that goes around which obviously you accept to some point. Given she has been an activist for a number of years, and has been on TV and in her own words "earns a 6 figure salary" in her main job, I fail to see the risks. I have yet to see any public discrediting by her former employers.
Click to expand...
Good analysis! If Kristen was truly shaking the trees and rocking the foundations of the Chemtrail coverup she is getting little resistance from anyone . . . except questions from debunkers who wish to see evidence produced to substantiate her claims . . .

This does identify a pitfall of debunking . . . by debunking the claims of a public figure one creates the impression that the claims are worthy of being debunked and thereby giving more publicity to the individuals claims . . . be they correct or bunk . . . an interesting paradox . . . :confused:
 
Last edited:
David Fraser said:
Do you think she is still in a firing line? This is the meme that goes around which obviously you accept to some point. Given she has been an activist for a number of years, and has been on TV and in her own words "earns a 6 figure salary" in her main job, I fail to see the risks. I have yet to see any public discrediting by her former employers.
Click to expand...

No I think if she was in the firing line from the start something would have happened by now, other than the apparent calling her a loony tune. :). Maybe she isn't as famous as she thinks because I hadn't heard of her up until a couple of days ago.
ultimately, if there is any substance to her claims it will come out eventually, until then nothing else can be said.
 
George B said:
Good analysis! If Kristen was truly shaking the trees and rocking the foundations of the Chemtrail coverup she is getting little resistance from anyone . . . except questions from debunkers who wish to see evidence produced to substantiate her claims . . .

This does identify a pitfall of debunking . . . by debunking the claims of a public figure one creates the impression that the claims are worthy of being debunked and thereby giving more publicity to the individuals claims . . . be they correct or bunk . . . an interesting paradox . . . :confused:
Click to expand...

Good point. obviously not a threat to the terror cell called the military/government. Lol (that is a joke. )
 
casper said:
Another good point but this could go on forever if we act that suspicious/paranoid about every point.
With my distrust for governments nothing would surprise me so I don't have a problem believing something like this could be hidden from the public. I'm not saying I believe it's true without the evidence.
But things like this can't go ignored, but could probably be debunked as with most things.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
Click to expand...

How does your distrust for the government equate to their ability to hide a massive spraying program? Since some 90% of the trails seen in the sky were put there by commercial airliners (chemtrail researcher G Edward Griffin), that would mean involvement by thousands of pilots, mechanics and maintenance people who are not affiliated to the government at all. How do you imagine that would work?
 
casper said:
I've come to realise that conspiracy theorists and debunkers aren't all that different from each other, right up until the evidence comes out clear.
Click to expand...

Then you don't understand the meaning of evidence and the scientific method, because it HAS 'come out clear'.
 
casper said:
Slightly off topic in terms of achieving evidence but still related to the overall theory of her claims. If they lied and covered up once why can't they still be actively covering now?
Click to expand...

It's not about speculating that they "might" be doing something. It's about showing that they ARE doing something.
 
Hama Neggs said:
How does your distrust for the government equate to their ability to hide a massive spraying program? Since some 90% of the trails seen in the sky were put there by commercial airliners (chemtrail researcher G Edward Griffin), that would mean involvement by thousands of pilots, mechanics and maintenance people who are not affiliated to the government at all. How do you imagine that would work?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't like to comment on that without any facts, I can only suggest some sort of mass cover up of the illuminati aliens and their minions. ;)
 
casper said:
If she truly believed she was exposing the military or government then I would have thought the firing line she would be stepping into would be obvious.
Click to expand...

You are describing an imaginary firing line, perceived only by herself until she convinces others to believe her story.
 
casper said:
I feel this is starting to go off track again now and more about me proving or backing up my comments, but my comments are nothing to do with proving facts so I feel It's a waste of time. I just want to sit back and watch the real facts come out and be analysed.
Click to expand...
The real facts HAVE come out and been analysed. Read contrailscience.com. It only appears otherwise because those who promote the chemtrail hoax continue to repeat disproven nonsense and outright lies as if it was factual information.
 
Hama Neggs said:
Then you don't understand the meaning of evidence and the scientific method, because it HAS 'come out clear'.
Click to expand...
I totally understand the meaning, hence why I came on here to listen to the facts and evidence you guys are asking for. I just haven't seen anything hard from either side apart from the science provided to explain what contrails are and how they occur. Which I agree with.
From the start of my joining I've come to accept people's views and changed my views on kristens claims.
 
casper said:
Lol to your example, don't put yourself down, it only takes 1 woman to agree. Lol.
I agree with the lack of evidence it's pointless saying anything.

I'm aware this may be taken out of context or some kind of personal attack but it honestly isn't and I hope it isn't taken that way, I'm just trying to make a small point.... how do I know you are telling the truth when you say you work on aircraft? It would be quite hard to prove this to anyone unless they got in touch with your employer, and even then, I would need to sit with you when you log into this site just to prove that it is you. It could get quite messy, so although kristen has no real evidence, it doesn't mean she isn't telling the truth with what she had seen etc.maybe just got the wrong answer because of what she has read elsewhere. (I think she has become a lone ranger and done her own investigations, put 1 and 1 together and came up with the answer she deems correct, whether it be right or wrong. )
What I want people to understand is that I'm not trying to prove kristen right, I just want the same as you guys.... Hard proof!

One last thing.... I totally agree with your speculation comment, I could say obama is an alien, doesn't make him one.... But can he prove it? lol
Click to expand...

If you want proof I worked on aircraft, I could show my entire Air Force 623 Training Record, showing that I was a fully qualified engine 7-level (Craftsman) on the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100, used on the earlier models of the F15C/D Eagle. I worked this engine for 6 years at Tyndall AFB in FL. And that does include borescope, blade blend and engine run qualified as well. That engine now has been replaced on those models by the far more efficient F100-PW-220 engines.as The F100-PW-229 is used on newer models of the F15E Strike Eagle as well as the F16C Block 52's.

In 2008 I cross trained to be a flight engineer, being picked up for KC-10's. I have amassed 3500 hours flying, 1900 of that being over Afghanistan and Iraq. Fully qualified instructor FE, my Flight Evaluation Folder (FEF) will display that. I know. I am deployed now and am flying tonight. If you like, I'll give you the link to the pictures I have posted on other threads that I have taken myself, both of other KC-10's creating contrails, as well as the flap hinges that were claimed to be spray nozzles. I'll post you a pic below. Hell, I'll describe each system by heart, I don't even need the schematics.

I think this forum has been quite forthright with facts and scientific/aerodynamic theory. The knowledge of experienced pilots such as Weedwhacker who actually have experience in the flying business will always trump that of someone like Max Bliss or Dane Wigington, whose theories are based off wild speculation. There is a reason that pilots and other aviators train for years to become experts in their field.

flap hne 2.jpg
 
casper said:
I just haven't seen anything hard from either side apart from the science provided to explain what contrails are and how they occur.
Click to expand...

As it happens (for me at least) understanding how contrails are formed, what they are, why they can linger and spread and how why they are visible from such a distance high in the sky is very hard evidence not only to explain what you're seeing, but to explain what they cannot be.
 
Svartbjørn said:
Absolutely and whole heartedly agree with that statement BPD. @casper The biggest difference you'll see between CTs and DBs is that CTs "generally" force the "facts" and "evidence" (if there are any of either) to fit their theory rather than change the theory to fit the facts. If you're a fan of the old days of CSI, you'll hear Grisom preach that a lot.. and it holds true to Police work just as much as it does to anything else. The vast majority of the time you screw yourself over if you form a theory without having the data points to lead you to it.. you follow the evidence and let IT tell the story, rather than develop a story and try to make the evidence fit it. This is what Megan and the other 'geoengineer/chemtrail movement' types havent quite grasped yet.
Click to expand...

:)

I didn't know Grisom used to say that. I'm more of a Conan Doyle guy. ;) Sherlock Homes loved to preach on the same lines too.
 
@casper , I think what people are trying to make you understand here is:
If there are real physical explanations for everything that was presented (permanent contrails, on/off contrails, tanks, photos, etc) and examples of why it would be nearly impossible for a spraying cover-up to be taking place (amount of people involved, amount of material to be sprayed, tampering with flight radars, etc), and there are really no unanswered questions or unquestionable evidence for the chemtrails theory, what are you expecting as Hard Proof for the non-existence of chemtrails?
 
Hama Neggs said:
The real facts HAVE come out and been analysed. Read contrailscience.com. It only appears otherwise because those who promote the chemtrail hoax continue to repeat disproven nonsense and outright lies as if it was factual information.
Click to expand...

OK, you will hate me for saying this but let's say chemtrails were going ahead as per the discussions, would it produce the same effects that we are seeing already?
 
Hama Neggs said:
Sorry? What "effects" would those be?
Click to expand...
I think what he's asking is, would releasing materials from planes for the purpose of geo-engineering lead to something that looks like persistent contrails?

My understanding is that the answer is no - releasing compounds in the stratosphere (as proposed) would not leave persistent visible cloud trails across the sky.

ETA: That would make a nice informative thread, by the way: "What would geoengineering look like?" Maybe talk to Minnis, Keith, Caldeira et al about it.
 
Last edited:
Belfrey said:
I think what he's asking is, would releasing materials from planes for the purpose of geo-engineering lead to something that looks like persistent contrails?

My understanding is that the answer is no - releasing compounds in the stratosphere (as proposed) would not leave persistent visible cloud trails across the sky.
Click to expand...

I suspect he might be referring to stuff found in soil and water tests. How is one to know which aspect of the chemtrail hoax he is taking seriously?
 
casper said:
I totally understand the meaning, hence why I came on here to listen to the facts and evidence you guys are asking for. I just haven't seen anything hard from either side apart from the science provided to explain what contrails are and how they occur. Which I agree with.
From the start of my joining I've come to accept people's views and changed my views on kristens claims.
Click to expand...
maybe if you spent more time reading (especially other threads on this site) you'd have some answers to your questions. Youre not the first person to come here asking every question in the book. Check the Rambles Forum section.
 
Belfrey said:
I think what he's asking is, would releasing materials from planes for the purpose of geo-engineering lead to something that looks like persistent contrails?

My understanding is that the answer is no - releasing compounds in the stratosphere (as proposed) would not leave persistent visible cloud trails across the sky.

ETA: That would make a nice informative thread, by the way: "What would geoengineering look like?" Maybe talk to Minnis, Keith, Caldeira et al about it.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I meant. I had heard that this is in part of the discussions being made to combat global warming but is only ideas and not going ahead. I suppose it can't be proved until it's actually in action. :(
 
casper said:
Belfry was right in what I was asking.
Click to expand...
As he explained, actual geo-engineering would look nothing like the persistent contrails left in the sky by aircraft. I don't see that you directly responded to that revelation. Do you understand what he said? When chemtrail believers point at persistent contrails and say it is geo-engineering, it is clear that they have no grasp on what actual geo-engineering would look like. ALL of the beliefs upon which the chemtrail story is based are just that erroneous. Geo- engineering would NOT have the "effect" of leaving long, fat, obvious trails across the sky. Get it?
 
KC-10FE said:
If you want proof I worked on aircraft, I could show my entire Air Force 623 Training Record, showing that I was a fully qualified engine 7-level (Craftsman) on the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100, used on the earlier models of the F15C/D Eagle. I worked this engine for 6 years at Tyndall AFB in FL. And that does include borescope, blade blend and engine run qualified as well. That engine now has been replaced on those models by the far more efficient F100-PW-220 engines.as The F100-PW-229 is used on newer models of the F15E Strike Eagle as well as the F16C Block 52's.

In 2008 I cross trained to be a flight engineer, being picked up for KC-10's. I have amassed 3500 hours flying, 1900 of that being over Afghanistan and Iraq. Fully qualified instructor FE, my Flight Evaluation Folder (FEF) will display that. I know. I am deployed now and am flying tonight. If you like, I'll give you the link to the pictures I have posted on other threads that I have taken myself, both of other KC-10's creating contrails, as well as the flap hinges that were claimed to be spray nozzles. I'll post you a pic below. Hell, I'll describe each system by heart, I don't even need the schematics.

I think this forum has been quite forthright with facts and scientific/aerodynamic theory. The knowledge of experienced pilots such as Weedwhacker who actually have experience in the flying business will always trump that of someone like Max Bliss or Dane Wigington, whose theories are based off wild speculation. There is a reason that pilots and other aviators train for years to become experts in their field.

flap hne 2.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow, impressive and fair play for what you do. I do believe you.
If I was sceptical of something you were saying (say you were telling me chemtrails were real) I could just state that you created the forms, files, certificates and I would have to push for you to prove it some other way but if you have no evidence like kristen, then would everything you say be discredited. (People say Obamas birth certificate is a fake.... is it though, I'm not sure.) There can always be these kinds of accusations especially when the info is just provided over messages online. It's hard to provide solid evidence of who you are and what you do unless I come over and live a few days of your life with you. That's the only real way to fully believe.

I hope you see the point I'm trying to make and don't think I'm calling you a liar, because I'm not.
 
Last edited:
Hama Neggs said:
As he explained, actual geo-engineering would look nothing like the persistent contrails left in the sky by aircraft. I don't see that you directly responded to that revelation. Do you understand what he said? When chemtrail believers point at persistent contrails and say it is geo-engineering, it is clear that they have no grasp on what actual geo-engineering would look like. ALL of the beliefs upon which the chemtrail story is based are just that erroneous. Geo- engineering would NOT have the "effect" of leaving long, fat, obvious trails across the sky. Get it?
Click to expand...

I understand, but from your response, it sounds like you can explain what geo engineering would look like. Can you explain what it would look likelplease?

my original understanding was that it would look like some sort of cloud seeding, but that has became clear I've been wrong.
 
casper said:
It's hard to provide solid evidence of who you are and what you do unless I come over and live a few days of your life with you.
Click to expand...

What is difficult to convey is the technical aspects of the science involved in subjects like this. People react to technical- SOUNDING jargon but have not the background to assess it for veracity. THAT is how hoaxes like the chemtrail movement become persistent. People are pointing to the likes of Dane Wigington as being their "scientific expert", when in reality he has little such training and what he claims is utterly bankrupt, scientifically.
 
casper said:
I understand, but from your response, it sounds like you can explain what hero engineering would look like. Can you explain what it would look likelplease?

my original understanding was that it would look like some sort of cloud seeding, but that has became clear I've been wrong.
Click to expand...

Others here can certainly speak to that more expertly than I, but I think I am correct when I say it would be virtually invisible from ground level. I have to leave the discussion for the time-being.

PS: It would look like "cloud seeding"? Cloud seeding does not produce trails visible from ground level.
 
Hama Neggs said:
Others here can certainly speak to that more expertly than I, but I think I am correct when I say it would be virtually invisible from ground level. I have to leave the discussion for the time-being.

PS: It would look like "cloud seeding"? Cloud seeding does not produce trails visible from ground level.
Click to expand...

Well then I have been mislead with that too then.i don't know so you could be right or wrong and I can't argue. I'll just have to go and research a bit more into it to see if you are or not.
 
If geo-engineering was being attempted, what a horribly inefficient failure it has been. Could you imagine implementing a 20+ year endeavor of spewing <compound X> into the atmosphere to <enter outcome here>? I don't even know what the cogent motive is. Maybe the reason for "chem-trailing" is to piss off a lonely misfit minority. In that case.... well done!

Why attempt to prove something so preposterous? I could attempt to describe the implementation of levitating automobiles and have more success, not to mention do it more efficiently.
 
All that aside, these legitimate contrails criss crossing the sky piss me off when it's a lovely clear sunny day because it covers the bloody sky with cloud and blocks my rays! :)
maybe that's what should be challenged by the chemtrail community and not the imaginary chemicals.

That's my last comment on this because I only have 1cm of my thumb left after all the questions I've had to answer. (I'm using my phone).
Thanks for all the info and advice - intentional or not.

In the words of Vinny Jones.. "It's been emotional."
 
casper said:
Well then I have been mislead with that too then.i don't know so you could be right or wrong and I can't argue. I'll just have to go and research a bit more into it to see if you are or not.
Click to expand...

The chemtrail story is based on a plethora of misrepresentations, wild speculation, baseless innuendo and outright lies.
 
One must also not forget that she was a Air Force Environmental Technician and that her claimed experience as a so called whistleblower was due to identifying and reporting of hazmat materials being found improperly handled in not just the work spaces but common clean areas of a PDM (Phase Depot Maintenance) Facility. PDM is just another term for Overhaul, consider it like taking your car in to get some body damaged repaired and repainted. The workers at the facility were taking shortcuts which were hazarding themselves as we all have a tendency to do in everything we do and being a Union facility you can imagine why she felt "pressured' by her chain of command. Many of our junior personal do not understand the effects of the bigger picture involving government/corporate contracts, union agreements, the law and many other actors and just blindly assume the CoC is being unfair and any action taken by the CoC is persecution and/or threatening. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with her current claims of being related to chemtrails to which she originally confirmed and now seems to be straying from...
 
casper said:
That's exactly what I meant. I had heard that this is in part of the discussions being made to combat global warming but is only ideas and not going ahead. I suppose it can't be proved until it's actually in action. :(
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there are no chemtrails I'm aware of we can look to for a valid comparison but coupled with what I mentioned last, plus known other aerosols (crop-dusting, cloud-seeding, air display smoke, volcano's etc) I'm sure you could form your own conclusions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NorCal Dave
Claim: New HD video Shows Bigfoot
Replies
20
Views
4K
PublicStranger
PublicStranger
NorCal Dave
QAnon and Yoga Making Strange Connections
Replies
26
Views
4K
Mauro
Mauro
NorCal Dave
Meta Materials From UFOs
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
23K
Gary C
Gary C
BartekSitek
Turkish beach UFO 2023 - a curious high res photo
2
Replies
75
Views
9K
Trailblazer
Trailblazer
John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf

Latest posts

Back
Top