Kristen Meghan, former US Air Force whistle-blower?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If it weren't so tragic, and in some ways horrific, it would be grossly funny. It seems as though Rosalind, has to some extent, passed through a barrier. Experience has taught her something, but not enough. Certainly no atmospheric science.

I think that the "ability" to continuously hold such beliefs in the face of the absolute absence of real evidence* is a litmus test of our ability to face the immediate future. If the proportion of these people in the general population is greater than a certain amount, then my grandchildren may have no future at all.

The only consolation left is the thought that the Earth will recover, as if from a debilitating illness. Parasites attempting to kill their host evolve themselves out of existence.

* That reminds me of something else. How many, if any, of these people are atheists?
 
Jazzy said:
If it weren't so tragic, and in some ways horrific, it would be grossly funny. It seems as though Rosalind, has to some extent, passed through a barrier. Experience has taught her something, but not enough. Certainly no atmospheric science.

I think that the "ability" to continuously hold such beliefs in the face of the absolute absence of real evidence* is a litmus test of our ability to face the immediate future. If the proportion of these people in the general population is greater than a certain amount, then my grandchildren may have no future at all.

The only consolation left is the thought that the Earth will recover, as if from a debilitating illness. Parasites attempting to kill their host evolve themselves out of existence.

* That reminds me of something else. How many, if any, of these people are atheists?
Click to expand...

In fairness to Rosalind, she has NEVER mentioned chemtrails on her webpage (That i have seen). Never. Her big thing was/is contrails and the effect the contrails are having on the environment. Even in her interviews, when she was paraded out as a spokesperson for chemtrail activity, notice she never says the word "chemtrails."

So when she was asked point-blank in this radio interview to address chemtrails, her response is actually quite consistent with her long standing, silent, non-position on chemtrails.

Rosalind's problem is, she allowed herself to be paraded about in the chemtrailers' dog and pony shows. Had Rosalind unequivocally stated "I don't believe in chemtrails, my issue is with the effects of contrails on the environment" on her webpage and in her interviews she would have been ignored. Like Kristen Meghan, Rosalind was deceptive by omission. For whatever reason, Rosalind allowed herself to become connected to chemtrails knowing she didn't have the goods to justify the connection.

That's why i say Kristen will suffer the same demise as Rosalind. At some point the CTers will want to lean on Kristen's (implied) chemtrail expertise (IE: another lawsuit) and Kristen can only come up short. I think Kristen knows this, but she has fallen into the same trap as Rosalind.

All the praise and attention must be intoxicating. It's the morning-after hangover she needs to worry about. :rolleyes:
 
PCWilliams said:
In fairness to Rosalind, she has NEVER mentioned chemtrails on her webpage (That i have seen). Never. Her big thing was/is contrails and the effect the contrails are having on the environment. Even in her interviews, when she was paraded out as a spokesperson for chemtrail activity, notice she never says the word "chemtrails."

So when she was asked point-blank in this radio interview to address chemtrails, her response is actually quite consistent with her long standing, silent, non-position on chemtrails.
Click to expand...

Well, she used it until she stopped using it. But since she's not actually changed her position, she's really only moved away from it in a PR point of view. She explains here:

http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/content/california-skywatch
External Quote:
In 2002, when I first started researching this subject I discovered that the use of the word "chemtrails" was not accepted by any elected official or government agency. The media was not interested in this subject unless it was used to marginalize those that used the word. This continues to be true today. When I discovered that this had been happening for years I stopped using the term in 2002, unless asked directly why I wouldn't use this term.
There are 208 mentions of the word "chemtrails" on her site:
https://www.google.com/search?q=chemtrails+site:www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org
 
Mick said:
Well, she used it until she stopped using it. But since she's not actually changed her position, she's really only moved away from it in a PR point of view. She explains here:

http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/content/california-skywatch
External Quote:
In 2002, when I first started researching this subject I discovered that the use of the word "chemtrails" was not accepted by any elected official or government agency. The media was not interested in this subject unless it was used to marginalize those that used the word. This continues to be true today. When I discovered that this had been happening for years I stopped using the term in 2002, unless asked directly why I wouldn't use this term.
There are 208 mentions of the word "chemtrails" on her site:
https://www.google.com/search?q=chemtrails+site:www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org
Click to expand...

I find her words interesting. In my yesteryears as a negotiator we would have called these "weasel words." If she were honest, she would say she doesn't use the phrase "chemtrails" because she doesn't believe the existence of chemtrails can be shown to exist. If she thought chemtrails can be shown to exist, she would push to get the term legitimatized and accepted by elected officials and government agencies.

By her own admission (there's no proof of chemrails) chemtrails should NOT be accepted by elected officials and government agencies and those using the term SHOULD be marginalized.

She wants to continue pushing her contrail agenda by remaining within arms reach of an agenda she knows is illegitimate. This is dishonest.
 
Mick said:
There are 208 mentions of the word "chemtrails" on her site:
https://www.google.com/search?q=chemtrails+site:www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org
Click to expand...

I guess i was thinking more along the lines of her personally making/writing unequivocal statements regarding the existence of chemtrails. I can't see where she speaks directly to the question of their existence, she walks the line. She seems to allow the use of the word under the guise of "reporting on chemtrails" - where the term is used, how it is used, who is using it. A lot of the links at the google link (8 out of 10 links on the first page) are to PDFs of her appearances in videos, interviews or mentions of herself in newspaper articles. She sure doesn't mind having the word "chemtrail" next to her name.

Contrast the above with what she wrote here (http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/category/general/chemtrails):

External Quote:
The first video you will see below was produced in May 2010, and recently aired on Channel 10 News (May 4, 2010), in Sacramento, California. And its title is: "Chemtrails: Are They Fact or Fiction?" I was interviewed for this program for over one hour and the crew traveled for six hours round-trip to make sure that I was included in this interview...even knowing that I don't ever use the word "chemtrails" in any form and don't like "hit pieces". [emphasis mine]
She seems to relish what she denounces. What form of duality would this be?
 
Don't forget also the discussion with Darrin McBreen who interviewed her in his "Danger in the sky" video I linked to above. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdtLTyNOB0A
He was challenged on her belief in chemtrails and he asserted she speaks to him privately nearly everyday as friends and that she definitely (at that time) believes in chemtrails and refers to them as such in private but refuses to use the term in public so she can try to legitimise the concept by using the term geoengineering. She also stated clearly that she did not believe that airliners made turns, and would not do oval shaped loops as that would "use up too much fuel" (which I guess they need for making huge fireballs in their wreckage by not waiting their turn to land at their congested destination).
Hopefully she has moved on from such misconceptions but "core belief" is a hard thing to shake for many people once it has taken root.
 
GregMc said:
... She also stated clearly that she did not believe that airliners made turns, and would not do oval shaped loops as that would "use up too much fuel" ...
Click to expand...

WOW! That's all i can say. Wow! Every single flight is turned. Without exception. Wow. :eek:
 
She must have flown in a modern jet airliner. Surely.
Then again, a well set up turn is _impossible_ to detect if you can't reference the real horizon out a window.
 
It's weird isn't it. So many youtube "chemtrail" videos show airliners making turns and the posters say things like "no airliner would ever turn like that... any passengers on board would throw up, be thrown out of their seats etc" Perhaps many of these folks have never travelled in airliners, or have trouble realising that planes don't corner in a lateral G manner like a car, thinking the passengers would be thrown sideways rather than the G force going directly downwards through the seat. I've noticed many if not most folks have no idea how planes actually turn. i have heard lots of people mystified that my hang glider and RC planes have no functioning rudder.
Passengers do gasp sometimes as a plane banks steeply for a tight turn. Mike Glynn might be familiar with the gasps from some folks on approaches to Sydney airport where you often cop an eyefull of ocean in a steep bank and what almost feels like the wingtip about to scrape the sea.
 
GregMc said:
It's weird isn't it. So many youtube "chemtrail" videos show airliners making turns and the posters say things like "no airliner would ever turn like that... any passengers on board would throw up, be thrown out of their seats etc" Perhaps many of these folks have never travelled in airliners, or have trouble realising that planes don't corner in a lateral G manner like a car, thinking the passengers would be thrown sideways rather than the G force going directly downwards through the seat. I've noticed many if not most folks have no idea how planes actually turn. i have heard lots of people mystified that my hang glider and RC planes have no functioning rudder.
Passengers do gasp sometimes as a plane banks steeply for a tight turn. Mike Glynn might be familiar with the gasps from some folks on approaches to Sydney airport where you often cop an eyefull of ocean in a steep bank and what almost feels like the wingtip about to scrape the sea.
Click to expand...

Check out this video:

​
 
GregMc said:
It's weird isn't it. So many youtube "chemtrail" videos show airliners making turns and the posters say things like "no airliner would ever turn like that... any passengers on board would throw up, be thrown out of their seats etc" Perhaps many of these folks have never travelled in airliners, or have trouble realising that planes don't corner in a lateral G manner like a car, thinking the passengers would be thrown sideways rather than the G force going directly downwards through the seat. I've noticed many if not most folks have no idea how planes actually turn. i have heard lots of people mystified that my hang glider and RC planes have no functioning rudder.
Passengers do gasp sometimes as a plane banks steeply for a tight turn. Mike Glynn might be familiar with the gasps from some folks on approaches to Sydney airport where you often cop an eyefull of ocean in a steep bank and what almost feels like the wingtip about to scrape the sea.
Click to expand...

Half the planes out of LAX make a near immediate steep 180, with a great view of the ocean or the sky, depending on which side you are looking out out. But then that's not going to leave contrails.

High altitude turns, of course, are well understood, even high altitude racetrack turns.
 
It all falls apart for me when Kristen mentions 'unmarked planes'. This claims is bandied about by the chemtrailers but where is the evidence? Think about the number of aviation enthusiasts monitoring and observing? I'm afraid that it doesn't wash, Kristen.
 
Unregistered said:
It all falls apart for me when Kristen mentions 'unmarked planes'. This claims is bandied about by the chemtrailers but where is the evidence? Think about the number of aviation enthusiasts monitoring and observing? I'm afraid that it doesn't wash, Kristen.
Click to expand...

Here is an airplane at a fairly low altitude, and at least on film, you cannot see any markings, even though it is a video of a very well known incident. Some of the commenters say they cannot see windows either, even though we know it is an ordinary paasenger plane with windows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFCS_OdDsJw

If Kristen would advocate for folks to document what they are seeing, there would be no more mysteries about "unmarked sprayers".
Here is how you could help people, Kristen.
Kristen, YOU could help solve the mystery of chemtrails.
You could become famous for being the person who solved "chemtrails".
You don't have to share he spotlight with anyoe, or play second-fiddle, either.
Here is what you need to know:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/100-14-Years-of-Chemtrails-Comments-and-Suggestions
As you can see, I wrote that two years ago. I can advise you how to go about becoming the go-to person about chemtrails. A hero, respected and admired for being a problem-solver.
PM me, we need to talk.
Jay
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kristen seems to be more of an attention seeking libertarian ideologue than a whistle blower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oznpcdFZ52o

Who in their right mind makes all that ruckus over the traditional school assignment of writing a letter to the President of the US? Throughout my education we wrote several letters to a variety of representatives from the President to our local state reps. The ability to express ones opinions to the government is one of the cornerstones of a free society. I feel sorry for any teacher who has to put up with an unreasonable parent like that.
 
Not exactly sure why there is the concern over metal powders on an airforce base? Aluminium powder is used in fuel air explosives and as a sensitiser in Gell Slurry explosives. She was on a military base engaged in ...... urban beautification?... or more likely war.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prep.19910160603/abstractOther kinds of air-fuel explosive also used powdered metals.
http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/papersubmit/finalmanuscript/pdf/brousseau-193.pdf
http://aaqr.org/VOL10_No1_February2010/5_AAQR-09-06-OA-0043_38-42.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

http://www.publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj/article/viewFile/2060/1092
 
GregMc said:
Not exactly sure why there is the concern over metal powders on an airforce base?
Click to expand...
Correct, she never gave any details, even when asked. This may be another case of Murphy conniving someone into an interview and then once the release is signed giving Murphy full use of the content, he spins it any way he likes.

In his last movie, Murphy interviewed Dr. James Fleming who had written a book about the history of weather modification. Murphy evidently didn't tell Fleming that the interview would be used in a movie promoting the chemtrails hoax, because when Steve Funk wrote him, Fleming said:
"Dear Mr. Funk,
They interviewed me about geoengineering, mostly the military history of this. Then they cut and pasted my remarks into their script. I am definitely not an advocate of the chemtrails conspiracy theory and never have been.

Jim Fleming"
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/15773
Click to expand...

Even though Kristen says her concerns are about soil contamination at an Air Force base, it sounds like Murphy is trying to spin it into the chemtrails hoax, while she specifically said there was no connection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I get the impression that others do that 'trick'. Deborah Dupree will post quotes from emails to her, from 'experts' but it is obvious that the quote is lifted. She had one from an astronomer to support her belief that a meteor shower set methane explosions off, at an armory near Shreveport (the methane had traveled from the Macondo well area, 100 miles south of New Orleans to the Shreveport area, underground). The astronomer was a specialist in black holes, not meteors.
 
I may be wrong but residue from munitions would be something to worry about. I only have army experience but munitions are only opened well away. I was under the impression she worked at a base refitting planes, I would presume there would be a lot of stuff. some valid to her "complaint". However as a professional why not make that complaint,?
 
Kristen claims that workers were exposed to carcinogenic substances but she does not provide details as to what those substances were nor does she recount the nature or duration of the exposure, etc. These violations allegedly took place at one or more aircraft maintenance/overhaul facilities. An operation of that nature will have a variety of substances on site listed as carcinogenic such as fuel, solvents, paints, primers and hydraulic fluid, to name a few, the likes of which aircraft mechanics across the world are exposed to every day. However simply being exposed does not mean that safe limits were exceeded. Given her qualifications and job responsibilities it does not make sense to sequester samples of the substances without also conducting and obtaining test results from blood, urine or hair samples, for without some kind of medical diagnosis how can there be proof of exposure above legal limits? The mere presence of carcinogenic substances is not proof that anyone was even exposed at all, much less over-exposed.

As I've stated previously, powders such as aluminum oxide for sand blasting and graphite for dry lube will be common materials at any serious aviation maintenance facility.

Given Kristen's over the top knee-jerk response to her daughters assignment of writing a letter to the president on top of everything else, what I see here is someone who spouts off without knowing all the facts. She's given me no reason to believe her allegations are valid, quite the opposite in fact.
 
We had a Naval Reserve Base near us closed in 1998. The city was excited to get their land back (it had been leased for $1 a year). It ended up as a white elephant, because of pollution issues. Early in the 2000s it was reopened as a training facility.

I believe that there were statements to the effect that cleaning it up for use was so costly as make the land nearly worthless
 
As a former aircraft mechanic (civilian although we did do maintenance for military too) who worked on fuel, hydraulic and pneumatic component overhaul in the late 70's and early 80's I can absolutely assure you that there is a great deal of carcinogenic and otherwise bad material used in aviation!!

Materials such as methylethylketone (MEK), 1-1-1 trichloroethylene and toluene were commonly used as cleaners - often using rags soaked in them with bare hands -and I think we may have used Carbon Tetrachloride for a few years too before it weas banned - those are just the ones I still remember 30 years later! MEK used to sting like hell if it got into any cut or graze. Various lubricants - greases & oils - had mineral, synthetic and even vegetable origins. Kerosene itself is not a good thing to be exposed to.

and then there are materials used in heat treatment or plating baths - various cyanides, cadmium solutions, metal salts heated to be liquids, dust from grinding and smoke from welding, the fluxes involved, the nasty yellow goop used for paint stripping in those days that would literally burn the skin off you if it got on you and you didn't wash it off soon enough, corrosion inhibitors.....

As an apprentice I recall one job sealing the wing tanks of a 737 that has had it's wing spar caps replaced by a team from Boeing - so in an enclosed space about the size of a coffin with a forced air feedand a pneumatic gun charged with tubes of a 2-part PRC sealant that came out roughly the colour, consistency and smell of fresh excrement that had to be applied to every seam - it ended up in hair, hands and fac e- and then having to go back in after the tanks had been filled and leak checked to get the bits that had been missed.

Aircraft maintenance is an industry that uses all sorts of carcinogenic and otehrwise dangerous materials - these days they are a lot more focused on workplace health and safety and preventing exposure - but they are still in use.
 
This thread and others always get off topic. Rosalind is maligned for aiming toward the heart of the matter. Her error is mostly not keying in enough on plasma research and atmospheric moderation that is proven. Rosalind has highlighted the care project, but neglected to focus in on the tuneable properties of contrails that contain soot and nano composite materials. The documentation clearly shows that the atmosphere can be heated far beneath the ionosphere (50 km AND LOWER). Other research and development clearly shows that frequencies from antenaes effect the lower atmosphere down to several meters below the Earth. Def standard 91-91 does not give 2 ingredients names. Spec aid 8q462 also does not list 2 ingredients. So in order to know what these ingredients are, indeed have to be what is required? Diligence and study or a keen understanding of jet fuel issues.

I do not see much willingness here to get after these trade secret/proprietary ingredients. Posts that point to betz dearborn, Raytheon, Alcoa are pretty much glossed over to get to the not so relevant discussions about contrail characteristic errors.

Trace metals, soot, sulphur all are tuneable. There are platforms and arrays all over the globe that are proven to be able to heat aerosols. It simply does not require more than water vapor to cause heating, nano composites definitely can improve the heating. HAARP and other facilities and satellites have demonstrated this technology. Star Wars never went away, it is fully engaged and active.

The proof is well documented. It comes via official documents, studies, experiments that have been conducted for well over 60 years.
 
Unregistered said:
... focus in on the tuneable properties of contrails that contain soot and nano composite materials.
...
Trace metals, soot, sulphur all are tuneable.
...
The proof is well documented. It comes via official documents, studies, experiments that have been conducted for well over 60 years.
Click to expand...

"Tunable", OK. Can you link to a laboratory experiment that demonstrates this? Something we can all do at home... potentially. Thanks.
 
How in the devil is a contrail 'tunable"? Or how are particles tunable?

Who is the expert in jet fuel, please?

I would accept a peer reviewed paper on them being tunable.
 
MikeC said:
As a former aircraft mechanic (civilian although we did do maintenance for military too) who worked on fuel, hydraulic and pneumatic component overhaul in the late 70's and early 80's I can absolutely assure you that there is a great deal of carcinogenic and otherwise bad material used in aviation!!

Materials such as methylethylketone (MEK), 1-1-1 trichloroethylene and toluene were commonly used as cleaners - often using rags soaked in them with bare hands -and I think we may have used Carbon Tetrachloride for a few years too before it weas banned - those are just the ones I still remember 30 years later! MEK used to sting like hell if it got into any cut or graze. Various lubricants - greases & oils - had mineral, synthetic and even vegetable origins. Kerosene itself is not a good thing to be exposed to.

and then there are materials used in heat treatment or plating baths - various cyanides, cadmium solutions, metal salts heated to be liquids, dust from grinding and smoke from welding, the fluxes involved, the nasty yellow goop used for paint stripping in those days that would literally burn the skin off you if it got on you and you didn't wash it off soon enough, corrosion inhibitors.....

As an apprentice I recall one job sealing the wing tanks of a 737 that has had it's wing spar caps replaced by a team from Boeing - so in an enclosed space about the size of a coffin with a forced air feedand a pneumatic gun charged with tubes of a 2-part PRC sealant that came out roughly the colour, consistency and smell of fresh excrement that had to be applied to every seam - it ended up in hair, hands and fac e- and then having to go back in after the tanks had been filled and leak checked to get the bits that had been missed.

Aircraft maintenance is an industry that uses all sorts of carcinogenic and otehrwise dangerous materials - these days they are a lot more focused on workplace health and safety and preventing exposure - but they are still in use.
Click to expand...


Here is the original story Kristen mentioned, regarding the exposures to carcinogens that the military tried to cover up.

http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/933-former-rafb-bio-tester-talks-osha-citations
 
MikeC said:
As a former aircraft mechanic (civilian although we did do maintenance for military too) who worked on fuel, hydraulic and pneumatic component overhaul in the late 70's and early 80's I can absolutely assure you that there is a great deal of carcinogenic and otherwise bad material used in aviation!!

Materials such as methylethylketone (MEK), 1-1-1 trichloroethylene and toluene were commonly used as cleaners - often using rags soaked in them with bare hands -and I think we may have used Carbon Tetrachloride for a few years too before it weas banned - those are just the ones I still remember 30 years later! MEK used to sting like hell if it got into any cut or graze. Various lubricants - greases & oils - had mineral, synthetic and even vegetable origins. Kerosene itself is not a good thing to be exposed to.

and then there are materials used in heat treatment or plating baths - various cyanides, cadmium solutions, metal salts heated to be liquids, dust from grinding and smoke from welding, the fluxes involved, the nasty yellow goop used for paint stripping in those days that would literally burn the skin off you if it got on you and you didn't wash it off soon enough, corrosion inhibitors.....

As an apprentice I recall one job sealing the wing tanks of a 737 that has had it's wing spar caps replaced by a team from Boeing - so in an enclosed space about the size of a coffin with a forced air feedand a pneumatic gun charged with tubes of a 2-part PRC sealant that came out roughly the colour, consistency and smell of fresh excrement that had to be applied to every seam - it ended up in hair, hands and fac e- and then having to go back in after the tanks had been filled and leak checked to get the bits that had been missed.

Aircraft maintenance is an industry that uses all sorts of carcinogenic and otehrwise dangerous materials - these days they are a lot more focused on workplace health and safety and preventing exposure - but they are still in use.
Click to expand...



http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/860-robins-air-force-base-receives-2nd-set-of-osha-citations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIlOT_H6r_o

You cannot test for all these contaminants in blood, only lead. Cadmium, Strontium... not evident in blood testing of this nature.
 
For Ross,

slice a grape ( I have used the green variety ) in half stopping the cut just before breaking the skin on the far side. Put it into the microwave for 15 seconds or so ( not sure of your wattage )

voila plasma. The grape will flame out of both halves. I like to stand a few feet away while observing this one. The smell is a bit peculiar also. Fresh grapes seem to perform a little better.

Also you can superheat a glass or ceramic mug with water. This experiment will be potentially harder to reproduce. Just heat water for 3 to 5 minutes. If u open the door and the water is perfectly still and w/ out steam then take a long stick and move it. It will volcano erupt out of the glass. Obviously You need to utilize caution.

Now explain the physics of both of those experiments ! Woah- huu -boy !

I am not surprised that no one took up the challenge to investigate the proprietary fuel additives. The answer is available with some keen research as the study of fuel improvers (back in time to go forward) is related to contrail issues. The science here stops right where it gets interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MonkeeSage
Claim: World’s First: Passive Radar Signal Confirms visual UFO-Sighting
Replies
23
Views
959
MyMatesBrainwashed
MyMatesBrainwashed
S
Claim: Sighted UFO dripped molten metal onto ground on December 16th in Wickham, UK
Replies
38
Views
3K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
BoulderRiver
Brazilian UFO Flap of 1986 - "Night of Lights" / "Official UFO Night"
Replies
14
Views
2K
Gaspa
Gaspa
fizzBuzz
Invisibility cloaked jet?
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
Mendel
Mendel
B
Diana W. Pasulka - aliens & religion & other dimensions (JRE podcast #2091)
4 5 6
Replies
220
Views
21K
jdog
J

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top