Kristen Meghan, former US Air Force whistle-blower?

Status
Not open for further replies.

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
True, but the statement does suggest that she didn't make the slightest effort to look into the scientific literature on the subject before simply accepting what the conspiracists claimed. In this respect her apparent credulity does impact her credibility.
Yes, my tax preparer tells me things as well . . . and I believe her . . . it is serious stuff but I don't have the interest or inclination to research the details . . . once I sign the form I could go to jail if she is wrong . . . sometimes you just have to trust someone . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
And who has not accepted inaccurate concepts from supposed experts . . . the key is once alerted to not make the same mistake again . .

That assumes that in fact the assessment of those experts was indeed inaccurate, and also that those same experts are making the same assessments again - in that case definitely do not make the same mistake again.

But it is not an excuse to summarily dismiss all assessments by all experts on all topics as inaccurate - specifically it does not justify dismissing 60 years of science about contrails from experts the world over.

And nor does it justify accepting the opinion of people who are not knowledgeable about contails AT ALL as being valid - which is what is done when repeating the mantra that "contrails do not last more than..." whatever.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
the key is once alerted to not make the same mistake again . .

And that is why you gave her the advice to run away and ply her conspiracy theory on more gullible folks, George.

George B said:
Otherwise you need to use your time corresponding with a less resistant group.

You do her no favors, George. You are setting both her and the group you send her to influence up for a fall.
She will one day have to face up to whatever shortcomings she has. The sooner the better, and better to do it before she spreads more bunk to more people.

But you don't really care about that, do you, George?

You have called yourself a "chemtrails advocate", and are sending a woman out to influence others who obviously hasn't a clue to influence others who haven't a clue. You know full well the results his has had for the last decade. You don't care and in fact are encouraging more of the same.

George, your behavior is disgusting to me, and shows me once again that you don't really care about Kristen or anyone else.

You still act as you came here many months ago, as a "chemtrails advocate", and you are willing to both tolerate and encourage the spreading of misinformation bunk to advocate for a hoax. The hundreds of pages directly written towards you on the subject of chemtrails have been a complete and total waste of time. Your behavior is recalcitrant and uncaring which can only be logically explained by some hidden personal agenda. You need to get over this, George. There is no future for any chemtrails believer. It is a dead-end road.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Yes, my tax preparer tells me things as well . . . and I believe her . . . it is serious stuff but I don't have the interest or inclination to research the details . . . once I sign the form I could go to jail if she is wrong . . . sometimes you just have to trust someone . . .

But if your tax preparer also told you that it was completely legal to travel 100 mph on the highway if the left lane was clear, you'd hopefully realize that while she might be a fine tax preparer, she shouldn't be trusted on all matters.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And that is why you gave her the advice to run away and ply her conspiracy theory on more gullible folks, George.



You do her no favors, George. You are setting both her and the group you send her to influence up for a fall.
She will one day have to face up to whatever shortcomings she has. The sooner the better, and better to do it before she spreads more bunk to more people.
But you don't really care about that, do you, George?

You have called yourself a "chemtrails advocate", and are sending a woman out to influence others who obviously hasn't a clue to influence others who haven't a clue. You now full well the results his has had for the last decade. You don't care and in fact are encouraging more of the same.

George, your behavior is disgusting to me, and shows me once again that you don't really care about Kristen or anyone else.

You still act as you came here many months ago, as a "chemtrails advocate", and you are willing to both tolerate and encourage the spreading of misinformation bunk to advocate for a hoax.
You are reading way too much into the comment . . . my intention was not to have her ply her ideas on some unsuspecting people but to challenge her to return and defend her position . . . as to my advocacy I have fully disclosed my position . . . it is well documented on this forum and I stand on every statement I made . . . I feel no need to retract any of it . . . you may be as disgusted as you wish . . . I will stand before any court of law with my evidence . . . intentional geoengineering via sulfur injection is possible, plausible and IMO will eventually be publicly adopted as the temporary answer to global warming. Experimentation in the past may well be admitted since there is no law or treaty preventing the US or other non signatories from engaging in such activities . . .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Not buying it George........... I've seen enough of how you and the hoax operates........ You've never fooled me for even one minute......I know more about you than you realize about yourself......
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But if your tax preparer also told you that it was completely legal to travel 100 mph on the highway if the left lane was clear, you'd hopefully realize that while she might be a fine tax preparer, she shouldn't be trusted on all matters.
Seems to me your analogy is flawed . . . the people she possibly listened to were holding themselves out as experts on the subject of contrails/atmospheric science/chemtrails . . . you may accuse her of improper or negligent vetting but she most likely felt they had the credential, knowledge and experience to advise her on such issues . . . as my tax preparer had held herself out as a tax expert but not as a traffic violation expert. . . I would take traffic advice from her at my peril . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Not buying it George........... I've seen enough of how you and the hoax operates........ You've never fooled me for even one minute......I know more about you than you realize about yourself......
That is your right and my right to disagree . . .
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Seems to me your analogy is flawed . . . the people she possibly listened to were holding themselves out as experts on the subject of contrails/atmospheric science/chemtrails . . . you may accuse her of improper or negligent vetting but she most likely felt they had the credential, knowledge and experience to advise her on such issues . . . as my tax preparer had held herself out as a tax expert but not as a traffic violation expert. . . I would take traffic advice from her at my peril . . .

I found your analogy flawed, thus my point. Michael Murphy et al. do not claim or hold any expertise on contrails or atmospheric science. Nowhere do they say that. They just make bald claims. Anyone with a science background should hear such claims from non-specialists such as these and think to themselves, "Wait, is that true?" - and look it up. I can understand why the average person might fail to do this, but not someone who is representing him/herself as a scientist or engineer.

There are exceptions - for example, Mangels does have enough of a related background that he should be able to easily debunk his own claims with a quick literature search, and he holds himself out as an expert (though on soils and such, not contrails). However, he seems to have spent more time establishing his status as a self-proclaimed genius.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I found your analogy flawed, thus my point. Michael Murphy et al. do not claim or hold any expertise on contrails or atmospheric science. Nowhere do they say that. They just make bald claims. Anyone with a science background should hear such claims from non-specialists such as these and think to themselves, "Wait, is that true?" - and look it up. I can understand why the average person might fail to do this, but not someone who is representing him/herself as a scientist or engineer.

There are exceptions - for example, Mangels does have enough of a related background that he should be able to easily debunk his own claims with a quick literature search, and he holds himself out as an expert (though on soils and such, not contrails). However, he seems to have spent more time establishing his status as a self-proclaimed genius.
Do you know who she listened to? Has she stated she listened to Michael Murphy? Do you know her knowledge of atmospheric science? I am saying if you wish a dialog giver her time to research and vet her sources . . . you have alerted her to the availability of more scientific sources of information . . . some time is not going to hurt the discussion . . .
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
Has she stated she listened to Michael Murphy? Do you know her knowledge of atmospheric science?

She advocates witwats on her facebook page and in one of her opening comments in this thread writes "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."

I'd suggest that is a resounding YES to her listening to Michael J Murphy.

So she wrote all that and posted the same letter on her facebook page but it seems to have never occurred to her to research the science of condensation trails other than repeating the assertions of a witwats youtube video.
I'm not sure if all this is going to look so great on her science resume.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
She advocates witwats on her facebook page and in one of her opening comments in this thread writes "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."

I'd suggest that is a resounding YES to her listening to Michael J Murphy.

So she wrote all that and posted the same letter on her facebook page but it seems to have never occurred to her to research the science of condensation trails other than repeating the assertions of a witwats youtube video.
I'm not sure if all this is going to look so great on her science resume.
So now she has been made aware of alternate explanations . . . it will take time for her to assimilate the cognitive confusion caused by the apparent contradictions . . . she will require time to recalibrate . . . patience is called for . . .
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Seems to me your analogy is flawed . . . the people she possibly listened to were holding themselves out as experts on the subject of contrails/atmospheric science/chemtrails . . . you may accuse her of improper or negligent vetting but she most likely felt they had the credential, knowledge and experience to advise her on such issues . . . as my tax preparer had held herself out as a tax expert but not as a traffic violation expert. . . I would take traffic advice from her at my peril . . .

George, in one of her interviews, the OP vid I believe, she complained that dot com's and dot edu's were not acceptable sources of citations in her graduate studies. Oh Em Effin Gee, seriously? You've got to be kidding me. Websites aren't acceptable at ANY level of formal academics, much less graduate studies. And she's not talking about published peer-reviewed papers that are available on the internet. However she finds a bit of solace that articles in newsletters published by the National Health Federation, essentially peddlers of snake oil, are acceptable citations? Be Wary of the National Health Federation. What I'm seeing is a distinct lack of professionalism and zero details to support her claims, despite her "fifteen minutes of fame". A whistleblower is someone who provides actual evidence, not just boasts of having it "laying somewhere around the house", or something to that effect. And anyone in graduate studies ought to be capable of better research than she's demonstrated thus far.

And stop apologizing for her, George, she's a big girl she can speak for herself.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, in one of her interviews, the OP vid I believe, she complained that dot com's and dot edu's were not acceptable sources of citations in her graduate studies. Oh Em Effin Gee, seriously? You've got to be kidding me. Websites aren't acceptable at ANY level of formal academics, much less graduate studies. And she's not talking about published peer-reviewed papers that are available on the internet. However she finds a bit of solace that articles in newsletters published by the National Health Federation, essentially peddlers of snake oil, are acceptable citations? Be Wary of the National Health Federation. What I'm seeing is a distinct lack of professionalism and zero details to support her claims, despite her "fifteen minutes of fame". A whistleblower is someone who provides actual evidence, not just boasts of having it "laying somewhere around the house", or something to that effect. And anyone in graduate studies ought to be capable of better research than she's demonstrated thus far.

And stop apologizing for her, George, she's a big girl she can speak for herself.
I am not trying to apologize for her . . . I am simply saying give her some time . . . she has the background and inquisitiveness to figure it out . . . when attacked most people don't respond with an open mind . . .
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
George, in one of her interviews, the OP vid I believe, she complained that dot com's and dot edu's were not acceptable sources of citations in her graduate studies. Oh Em Effin Gee, seriously? You've got to be kidding me. Websites aren't acceptable at ANY level of formal academics, much less graduate studies. And she's not talking about published peer-reviewed papers that are available on the internet. However she finds a bit of solace that articles in newsletters published by the National Health Federation, essentially peddlers of snake oil, are acceptable citations? Be Wary of the National Health Federation. What I'm seeing is a distinct lack of professionalism and zero details to support her claims, despite her "fifteen minutes of fame". A whistleblower is someone who provides actual evidence, not just boasts of having it "laying somewhere around the house", or something to that effect. And anyone in graduate studies ought to be capable of better research than she's demonstrated thus far.

And stop apologizing for her, George, she's a big girl she can speak for herself.

I could not agree more with this. I don't understand all this secretive whistle lower stuff. In many industries you have the potential to come into contact with potentially toxic and carcinogenic substances, that is why you have safety procedures and risk assessments. I certainly don't buy into the secrecy as it is military. I was in the medical corp in the Uk around the time if Gulf War Syndrome and later the use of depleted uranium. Admittedly in the Uk but the principle is the same in that people in the military are not mindless automotons. This is purely conjecture but I would have thought you would have lawyers and journalists lining up to help her out.

However by maintaining the secrecy the chemtrailers now have a hero, although not one willing to be a martyr, and all based on absolutely nothing. It is almost bordering on a farce.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I could not agree more with this. I don't understand all this secretive whistle lower stuff. In many industries you have the potential to come into contact with potentially toxic and carcinogenic substances, that is why you have safety procedures and risk assessments. I certainly don't buy into the secrecy as it is military. I was in the medical corp in the Uk around the time if Gulf War Syndrome and later the use of depleted uranium. Admittedly in the Uk but the principle is the same in that people in the military are not mindless automotons. This is purely conjecture but I would have thought you would have lawyers and journalists lining up to help her out.

However by maintaining the secrecy the chemtrailers now have a hero, although not one willing to be a martyr, and all based on absolutely nothing. It is almost bordering on a farce.
So you believe she has become celeb of the moment in the Chemtrail conspiracy circles?
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
Atmospheric science is complex and a dynamic discipline . . . especially as it relates to contrail formation which is a rather obscure area of study . . . she was not introduced to it I am sure in engineering school . . .

No. I disagree with this, and I'm not going to let you get away with it.

Atmospheric science is a cover-all term for a group of disciplines (climatology, meteorology, aeronomy, etc). None of these are "complex". They are all pretty well understood, and studied from high school and undergraduate level. Perhaps you should explain your use of "dynamic" here. I think you threw it in to make the subject sound less tractable than it actually is.

Then you amplify and link that idea with "contrail formation", claiming it to be "obscure area of study". Contrail formation and dissipation is very well understood and has been for a long time. (You and I have covered this on this forum in relation to engine efficiency.) Any problems with this are because of the lack of data. And this is a common problem in all the atmospheric sciences.

I don't know what engineering she studies, but mechanical engineers come across the properties of water and the thermodynamics of it's phase changes in relation to air conditioning and refrigeration. So it's not a completely foreign subject for engineers.

You are apologising for Kristen Meghan with her promotion of the chemtrails meme, but there is really no need to. I think she has already explained that her so called whistle blowing (something about chemicals handling or contamination) has nothing to do with chemtrails (misidentified persistent contrails). It seems to me that she took the opportunity to mention them while she had an audience (the video that was made of her statement or interview). She has no more knowledge or information about them than any of the rank and file followers of Michael J Murphy, Russ Tanner, Harold Saive, and the other movement leaders. But, mention them she did, and she has been called out to back up her statements ... as everybody should be if they make unfounded claims in the public arena.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No. I disagree with this, and I'm not going to let you get away with it.

Atmospheric science is a cover-all term for a group of disciplines (climatology, meteorology, aeronomy, etc). None of these are "complex". They are all pretty well understood, and studied from high school and undergraduate level. Perhaps you should explain your use of "dynamic" here. I think you threw it in to make the subject sound less tractable than it actually is.

Then you amplify and link that idea with "contrail formation", claiming it to be "obscure area of study". Contrail formation and dissipation is very well understood and has been for a long time. (You and I have covered this on this forum in relation to engine efficiency.) Any problems with this are because of the lack of data. And this is a common problem in all the atmospheric sciences.

I don't know what engineering she studies, but mechanical engineers come across the properties of water and the thermodynamics of it's phase changes in relation to air conditioning and refrigeration. So it's not a completely foreign subject for engineers.

You are apologising for Kristen Meghan with her promotion of the chemtrails meme, but there is really no need to. I think she has already explained that her so called whistle blowing (something about chemicals handling or contamination) has nothing to do with chemtrails (misidentified persistent contrails). It seems to me that she took the opportunity to mention them while she had an audience (the video that was made of her statement or interview). She has no more knowledge or information about them than any of the rank and file followers of Michael J Murphy, Russ Tanner, Harold Saive, and the other movement leaders. But, mention them she did, and she has been called out to back up her statements ... as everybody should be if they make unfounded claims in the public arena.


I think others feel she is the Chemtrail poster girl for whatever reason . . . they tell me she is endorsing several videos about chemtrails on her FaceBook, etc. so seems the discussion is relatively moot. My primary point was . . . she now has been given alternative info contradicting the info from the CT Advocates . . . give her time to assimilate the information and see if she changes her spots.


I don't know your training or education but mine is not geophysical science; I have been researching contrails for over two years and find it confusing, obscure, and difficult to pin down precise explanations detailing the interactions and dynamics of contrail formation, persistence and cirrus cloud formation and propagation and the precise way it effects micro and macro climates . . . the early research regarding the simple Appleman Chart is no longer adequate with the new engine efficiencies and effects of increased air traffic . . . effects of global warming, etc.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
I think others feel she is the Chemtrail poster girl for whatever reason . . . they tell me she is endorsing several videos about chemtrails on her FaceBook, etc. so seems the discussion is relatively moot. My primary point was . . . she now has been given alternative info contradicting the info from the CT Advocates . . . give her time to assimilate the information and see if she changes her spots.


I don't know your training or education but mine is not geophysical science; I have been researching contrails for over two years and find it confusing, obscure, and difficult to pin down precise explanations detailing the interactions and dynamics of contrail formation, persistence and cirrus cloud formation and propagation and the precise way it effects micro and macro climates . . . the early research regarding the simple Appleman Chart is no longer adequate with the new engine efficiencies and effects of increased air traffic . . . effects of global warming, etc.

George, I respect your approach here. At least in giving another person some dignity, I certainly think that your heart is in the right place. While I fully disagree with Kristen's views on the chemtrail theory, and particularly how her credentials are used in this matter, I think the tone of this thread has turned a little blunt. In any case, it's probably best to let it rest. It's her choice what she believes in, and pressing her on how she is wrong probably won't make her change her mind.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It's not about the credentials. It's about the facts.
There is no dispute there; however, it is good to have someone with the proper experience and education to authoritatively interpret the facts as they pertain to unique situations . . .
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
it is good to have someone with the proper experience and education to authoritatively interpret the facts as they pertain to unique situations . . .

Does that mean you will accept his assessment that the components of the atmospheric sciences are not complex and well understood?

Will you repeat to him that "contrail formation is a rather obscure area of study"?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Does that mean you will accept his assessment that the components of the atmospheric sciences are not complex and well understood?

Will you repeat to him that "contrail formation is a rather obscure area of study"?
Absolutely!! I will . . . after reading tons of research from DoE, NASA, IPCC, NOAA, and corresponding with Dr Minnis of NASA regarding persistent contrail propagation and cirrus cloud bank predictions . . . I think for most people other than the experts it is an obscure science . . . if you mean, does it take a meteorologist to point out a cloud . . . NO! . . . but if you are trying to ask a person what is a cloud's altitude, how did it form based on atmospheric soundings . . . how would changing conditions effect its appearance as it appears from the ground, from space, on Infrared, on doppler radar . . . YES!!!
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
Kristen, I admire you for coming here and mixing it up, using your real name.

I'll second that sentiment. Major kudos to her for stepping forward.

I've been silently reading along. Great discussion. But i have to admit, after all those words put forth by Kristen we didn't get any real, tangible evidence. Nothing. I'm disappointed. :confused:
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
She isn’t using her status as a whistle-blower to give credence to the chem-trails, and isn’t using a bait and switch, it is you all who made the leap in your minds and assumed she was a chem-trail whistle-blower without knowing much about her, which has forced her to come here and defend a position that she has never claimed, and now you point to this non-deception as a way to discredit her, when all she is guilty of is becoming an activist as a result of her whistle-blower status.

The problem is headlines like "Kristen Meghan - ex-military bio-environmental engineer - the reality of Chemtrails" (source) on chemtrail websites.

Somebody is using her "ex-military bio-environmental engineer" credential as an appeal to authority and, from what i read in her exchange here, she made the same appeal to her credentials while never producing any chemtrail evidence. If she were an ex-street sweeper claiming chemtrails are real she wouldn't be getting this much attention. At a minimum, she is allowing the inference that her job with the military and her whistleblowing are somehow related to the existence of chemtrails.

I'll call this deception by omission. She is not being forthright, knowing people will make false connections.
 

Mattnik

Moderator
To be honest, I think the next thing will be a lengthy youtube video and an interview with Alex Jones. Neither addressing any questions presented here or sharing any data. I would like to be proved wrong.
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
I was over at a webpage run by Miss Meghan (here) and found this interesting quote:

"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."

This is somebody who believes chemtrails are cloud seeding. Wow. :eek:
 

Mattnik

Moderator
If I referenced my essays like it's done on that site I'd get nailed for it - I'd expect more from a graduate. They seem to just feed from the echo-chamber of the usual websites.
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
This whole story has been very badly played. Very unsophisticated and naive. Aimed low with no hope of advancing anything. Not commensurate with the claimed expertise.
Unscientific and illogical. It seems that Krisen has some friends, but she needs to realize that they have misled her and possibly used her for a tool. The other possibility is that she is using them.

She may wind up like Rosalind Peterson who, once cornered, pressured to show the evidence and join the lawsuit, backed out and admitted on radio that there wasn't any evidence of chemtrails.

I think Kristen is enjoying the attention, but at some point she will also have to put up or fade away.
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
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.

All i want is evidence of chemtrails. Evidence. Real, tangible, testable evidence. That's it.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
She may wind up like Rosalind Peterson who, once cornered, pressured to show the evidence and join the lawsuit, backed out and admitted on radio that there wasn't any evidence of chemtrails.
Is that so? Wow. Do you have a copy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Jim Babb & Kristen Meghan - Chemtrails Debate at Porcfest Contrails and Chemtrails 55
Mick West Andrea Themely, Former Air Force Pilot, Breaks Down UFO Footage UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 11
Rocky Upcoming UFO report will be 'difficult to explain,' former national intelligence official says UFOs and Aliens 6
JFDee Washington Post: Former QAnon believer's tale Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West TFTRH #32 - The Skeptic of the North: Former Conspiracist, Current Skeptic Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West TFTRH 9: Joe - Former Chemtrail Conspiracist, Current New World Order Conspiracist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 51
Mick West TFTRH #5 - Dan, the former Apocalyptic Prepper Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 4
M ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Cantonear1968 A Former AGW (Man-made global warming) Denier Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West Donte Stallworth - Former 9/11 Truther, now CNN contributer Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West False Authority: "Thoughts From a Former NIST Employee" on 9/11 9/11 92
cmnit Former top NATO Italian General Fabio Mini Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Tobes Email from former Connecticut state worker claiming lottery/Sandy Hook connection Sandy Hook 22
jvnk08 Charlie Veitch, former prominent 9/11 truther Escaping The Rabbit Hole 5
Mick West Temecula: Former "Loose Change" forum mod posts on randi.org Escaping The Rabbit Hole 1
BlueCollarCritic Former CNN Reporter Expoes CNN Self-Censsorship And Coverup Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Former believers, and lessons learned Escaping The Rabbit Hole 164
Mick West Debunked: Scott Stevens, former TV weather man. People Debunked 36

Related Articles

Top