Kristen Meghan, former US Air Force whistle-blower?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ross Marsden said:
Getting your soil, water or hair tested is a step on from taking photos or video of condensation trails and publishing them in a chemtrails forum. But the testing of one's environment or body makes it really personal. Person is now deeply invested on an organic level. It does not matter that the test shows nothing unusual, just as the photos, videos are not of anything untoward. Having made this commitment, this very personal investment, the new believer will be so much harder to convince that chemtrails are a meme and that there is no atmospheric geoengineering program going on.
"I have tested my soil, my water, my body. I know it's there; I know they're doing it (to me)."
I think this is what is behind the fresh push for testing stuff.
Click to expand...
(speculation) or mayhaps she is trying to get some actual evidence to present to Metabunk et al who keep asking for evidence.
 
Jay Reynolds said:
Yes, Kristen, I have done the (49 CFR Part 172, Subpart H) HAZWOPERS training just the same as you. Considering she has taken the class as have most over-the road-truck drivers, we are all one big happy family.
Click to expand...

They are fond of listing their credentials, as if it grants them immunity from substantiating their claims.

1a.png


Well I never heard of Simon Atkins so I Googled him...

Simon Atkins has, at different times, called himself a planetary risk economist, a planetary threat adviser and an energy medicine doctor. He's the CEO of Advanced Forecasting Corporation, a climate change hazard and planetary risk consulting think-tank.

In early 2013, presumably with the help of his think-tank, he used solar cycles to calculate there was a 75% chance some "sort of cosmic/solar/earth planetary event" would occur. A huge surge of electromagnetic energy, originating from a multidimensional source beyond the sun, would create a high electromagnetic event somewhere between Iceland, St. Louis and the Canary Islands. In turn, this would result in a 35 ft wall of water crossing the Atlantic at 200mph heading towards the eastern United States.

Another account of the same prediction describes him using genetic algorithms, neural network black box's, clairvoyance and remote sensing, to predict that electromagnetic ionic interference would pull a 'light wave' into the north Atlantic, causing some kind of ocean event, possibly related to an earthquake or volcano.

He's on record as saying that after March 2014, the Fukushima disaster will make "life in the USA change a lot". He's also made the bold assertion that "We are now in a 'Post-Radiation' world, and Fukushima is easily the biggest environmental disaster that has ever happened."

2.png


He has a diverse education, B.Sc. in Atmospheric Sciences from Cornell University and an iMBA from the Helsinki School of Economics.

He received his "PhD" from the Clayton College of Natural Health in biometeoelectromagnetics™. Biometeoelectromagnetics™ is the study of how planetary magnetics causes shifts in climate and our health. Apparently he first received the degree, then invented the field of study, and then trademarked the name. The details are confusing.

The non-accredited Clayton College of Natural Health has a long write up in Quackwatch. Most interesting is that soon after the state of Alabama decided to clean up its act by forcing schools to be accredited through agencies endorsed by U.S. Office of Education, the Clayton College of Natural Health closed its doors. No longer could $1,735 get you a doctorate of naturopathy. All that remained was a class action suit as some 5000 enrolled students attempted to recoup their prepaid tuition fees.

In 2010, Simon Atkins completed a second degree through a correspondence course. He was awarded a Doctor of Science in Alternative Medicine from the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, Calcutta. Considered a torchlight for leading a healthy and happy life, the Doctor of Science in Alternative Medicines Course costs $900... paid in advance... no refunds.

Is this 'atmospheric scientist' Kristen Meghan's new science adviser?


http://skyaia.com/connecting/meet-simon/
http://www.glgresearch.com/Council-Member/Simon-Atkins-30189.html
http://about.me/drsimonatkins
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Nonrecorg/clayton.html
http://www.altmeduniversity.com/
http://www.altmedworld.net/alternative-medicine-doctorate-course.htm
http://www.transients.info/2013/05/earth-change-event-predicted-in.html
http://www.transients.info/2013/12/radiation-cloud-to-hit-us-west-coast.html
http://freeman.theanomalieschannel.com/G2-Files-Advance-Forecasting.mp3
 
Last edited:
Trigger Hippie said:
They are fond of listing their credentials, as if it grants them immunity from substantiating their claims.



Well I never heard of Simon Atkins so I Googled him...

Simon Atkins has, at different times, called himself a planetary risk economist, a planetary threat adviser and an energy medicine doctor. He's the CEO of Advanced Forecasting Corporation, a climate change hazard and planetary risk consulting think-tank.




http://skyaia.com/connecting/meet-simon/
http://www.glgresearch.com/Council-Member/Simon-Atkins-30189.html
http://about.me/drsimonatkins
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Nonrecorg/clayton.html
http://www.altmeduniversity.com/
http://www.altmedworld.net/alternative-medicine-doctorate-course.htm
http://www.transients.info/2013/05/earth-change-event-predicted-in.html
http://www.transients.info/2013/12/radiation-cloud-to-hit-us-west-coast.html
http://freeman.theanomalieschannel.com/G2-Files-Advance-Forecasting.mp3
Click to expand...
External Quote:
The world has gone insane, clearly. People simply react to whatever is put before them. But this is only apparent if you're watching. The degree of insanity we're witnessing has broken all previous boundaries yet it continues to be portrayed as "normal".

The interesting phenomenon to watch is when personal worlds collide with this manipulated mainstream narrative. That's where the synthesis takes place that creates the next levels of so-called normality as people subconsciously integrate the swill being introduced into their own lives and hence project it into the society at large.

It's carefully steered and controlled beyond the comprehension of those they're puppeteering.

These phenomena are quite something to behold and it's clearly more disturbing by the day. We have to take it in small doses or it will take us down with it, which is no doubt their intention. Infect, weaken and control – at every possible level is their mantra.
well he got this part right. http://www.transients.info/2014/02/transcending-negative.html
 
Balance said:
I also didn't pick up on this before (which btw does support Mick West's suggestion of her request to email her directly - she may just be offering advice of where to send the samples - however, listen closely to what she's additionally advising) the part edited out of the other video begins...(emphasis is mine)
External Quote:
..and by emailing me, I can give you some information about what I'm about to tell you....I cannot publicly tell you where to send them because we've been blackballed by labs who refuse to run our samples...and the problem that is occuring is that people are sending in rain samples to labs that don't realise how low the limit of detection needs to be....so if you email me, I can tell you where to send in your samples
Click to expand...

From her Twitter account.

https://twitter.com/KristenMeghan

upload_2014-2-7_10-35-12.png
 
David Fraser said:
Interesting. But surely she knows that the samples for rainwater and drinking water are prepared in different ways so you are not measuring like for like.

Still its a hefty claim that labs will half ass rainwater samples. Obviously labs are not concerned about losing their accreditation or reputation.
Click to expand...
She probably means (as mentioned elsewhere) that they might use a test with a higher minimum detectible level. Which would make sense, because the natural range of these elements is expected to be higher in rainfall than in drinking water.
 
Belfrey said:
She probably means (as mentioned elsewhere) that they might use a test with a higher minimum detectible level. Which would make sense, because the natural range of these elements is expected to be higher in rainfall than in drinking water.
Click to expand...

Surely it can be anything from zero up?
 
Trigger Hippie said:
He has a diverse education, B.Sc. in Atmospheric Sciences from Cornell University and an iMBA from the Helsinki School of Economics.

He received his "PhD" from the Clayton College of Natural Health in biometeoelectromagnetics™. Biometeoelectromagnetics™ is the study of how planetary magnetics causes shifts in climate and our health. He apparently received the degree, invented the field, then trademarked the name. The details are confusing.

The non-accredited Clayton College of Natural Health has a long write up in Quackwatch. Most interesting is that soon after the state of Alabama decided to clean up its act by forcing schools to be accredited through agencies endorsed by U.S. Office of Education, the Clayton College of Natural Health closed its doors. No longer could $1,735 get you a doctorate of naturopathy. All that remained was a class action suit as some 5000 enrolled students attempted to recoup their prepaid tuition fees.

In 2010, Simon Atkins completed a second degree through a correspondence course. He was awarded a Doctor of Science in Alternative Medicine from the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, Calcutta. Considered a torchlight for leading a healthy and happy life, the Doctor of Science in Alternative Medicines Course costs $900... paid in advance... no refunds.
Click to expand...
Excellent vetting . . . just goes to show everyone needs to investigate the education and experience of any expert in the public domain . . .
 
I am not familiar with EPA drinking water standards but the constituents to monitor are very extensive . . . http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#List

To do definitive testing for all potential contaminates in one sample would be very complex and possibly expensive . . . there must be screening procedures which streamline the process . . .
 
cloudspotter said:
Surely it can be anything from zero up?
Click to expand...
Sure, but for example in drinking water the EPA recommendation is to not exceed 50-200 ug/L aluminum (for aesthetic reasons, not a health requirement). That whole range is below what could be considered a normal average amount for rainwater. So if a lab is testing rainwater they might use a less-stringent method that can't reliably measure the lower concentrations.
 
Belfrey said:
Sure, but for example in drinking water the EPA recommendation is to not exceed 50-200 ug/L aluminum (for aesthetic reasons, not a health requirement). That whole range is below what could be considered a normal average amount for rainwater. So if a lab is testing rainwater they might use a less-stringent method that can't reliably measure the lower concentrations.
Click to expand...

@David Fraser ? Are they different tests?
 
TEEJ said:
Currently on her Facebook.

View attachment 5965

https://www.facebook.com/Sugarfreesanity
Click to expand...


It is interesting whenever I see people shill for geoengineeringwatch or globalskywatch (Same company), since they used to have a public 'business model' page (it is no longer visable to the public now) which said that "We would like to offer a business model to all chemtrail activists that would enable them to profit or even build a business while dedicated a portion of all profits to the geoengineering-awareness movement" and their 'how to' page tells people to refer people to their websites.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/conspiracy-web-sites-have-paid-shills.1081/#post-84907
 
https://www.facebook.com/Sugarfrees...comment_id=6928863&offset=0&total_comments=20

External Quote:
Kristen MeghanI deleted Jeff, I don't care if someone is a pilot, it doesn't make them an SME in my field. I like how he admit military chaff but said it has a mission...well newsflash chaff is the spraying of alluminum and silica. Silica causes silacosis and cancer, while alluminum causes cns and respiratory issues. So how completely ignorant does it sound to say it's ok that we spray chaff but climate engineering is just a BS lie. Smh lol
Chaff contains silica?
 
Hama Neggs said:
https://www.facebook.com/Sugarfrees...comment_id=6928863&offset=0&total_comments=20

External Quote:
Kristen MeghanI deleted Jeff, I don't care if someone is a pilot, it doesn't make them an SME in my field. I like how he admit military chaff but said it has a mission...well newsflash chaff is the spraying of alluminum and silica. Silica causes silacosis and cancer, while alluminum causes cns and respiratory issues. So how completely ignorant does it sound to say it's ok that we spray chaff but climate engineering is just a BS lie. Smh lol
Chaff contains silica?
Click to expand...
There appears to be trace amounts of silica . . . This is what is known about the environmental effects of Chaff . . . http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/env_as...onmental_effects_of_radio_frequency_chaff.pdf

This paper indicated that Chaff may have a crystalline silica core . . . http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-121022-061.pdf
 
Last edited:
Kristen sure seems to be shilling for geoengineeringwatch.


External Quote:
Kristen Meghan
February 1
So as you know people are saying the snow is fake or plastic. It's not fake in that sense, rather that it's not due to natural occurance. Storms are engineered and weather is modified. Here is an article from this past spring. Remember the most accurate data about geoengineering can be found atwww.geoengineeringwatch.org
She puts Metabunk down because Mick has no "credentials". What credentials can she cite supporting Dane's site?
 
Last edited:
Hama Neggs said:
She puts Metabunk down because Mick has no "credentials". What credentials can she cite supporting Dane's site?
Click to expand...

This issue of credentials is a recurring theme. In the following conversation Kristen is asked to provide evidence. She doesn't, but instead claims her profession is 'pure science'. She seems to be using credentials as a cloak of legitimacy not realizing that true legitimacy is in the evidence.

Where's the beef!

4.png
 
George B said:
Past testimony in congress indicates military use in some areas is significant historically and Chaff has been used experimentally by the Forrest Service for example . . . I will cite my sources later . . .
Click to expand...
No need to cite sources, but what would the forest service use it for?
 
I like the sound of these credentials. Apparently it gives you telepathic powers to determine another persons career and belief system from just a few typed words or utterances.
I kan haz kreeedenshualz?
 
Balance said:
I like the sound of these credentials. Apparently it gives you telepathic powers to determine another persons career and belief system from just a few typed words or utterances.
I kan haz kreeedenshualz?
Click to expand...
People within the conspiracy movements often fall prey to marginal authority because they either do not take the time to research experts' credentials or simply take people's word as if all individuals who think the way they do are honest . . . another issue is: experts who they agree with, who are shown to have issues with their credentials or experience, are often criticized by traditional authority and thus hailed as rebels or at the least have been targeted because they are whistleblowers and dangerous to those in power . . . Unfortunately, for many though some of their experts have been debunked it is not persuasive and sometimes makes true believers even more confident they were right all along . . .
 
Last edited:
She's knocking the credentials of the Executive Director of the Genetic Literacy Project which is actually comprised of a large team of writers and advisors representing a wide range of expertise? A writer with an interest in genetic research is not credentialed to head an organization whose stated goal is "to promote public awareness of genetics and science literacy"? And her claim to fame is taking some samples and making noise over improperly cleaned parts that were previously discovered by OSHA which had already launched an investigation in the shop of origin? Wow.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/our-team/
 
cloudspotter said:
@David Fraser ? Are they different tests?
Click to expand...

Yeah as Belfrey says there are a whole array of types of analysis and they have their own detection limits e.g. ICP-MS has a theoretical limit of 0.001 ug/l for Al but for ICP-OES it is 20 ug/l. While detection of elements will be made at levels lower than the detection limit, down to zero, no confidence can be placed on the result except to say there is some.

My concern is asking the sample to be treated as drinking water. A rainwater sample is usually filtered down to 0.45 um. This separates the soluble and insoluble fractions. Essentially you should be left with the stuff dissolved in the rain, nit held in suspension. This is important when one talks of toxicity, which is a function of solubility in metals. Generally an insoluble metal compound has extremely low toxicity, if any.

However drinking water samples are not filtered and are acidified prior to analysis, as are all water samples. This dissolves all the suspended compounds. Now this is what you want as you are going to drink the stuff so you want to know everything in it.

Now fair enough treating a rainwater sample in this way will show you the totals amounts if elements but it is wrong to then relate those levels to toxicity, even if you drink rainwater. The toxic fraction the the soluble part and when collected for drinking water the solids will settle. Again when toxicity is mentioned to plants mainly we are looking at the soluble parts. Kristen Meghan should understand this.
 
George B said:
People within the conspiracy movements often fall prey to marginal authority because they either do not take the time to research experts' credentials or simply take people's word as if all individuals who think the way they do are honest . . . another issue is: experts who they agree with, who are shown to have issues with their credentials or experience, are often criticized by traditional authority and thus hailed as rebels or at the least have been targeted because they are whistleblowers and dangerous to those in power . . . Unfortunately, for many though some of their experts have been debunked it is not persuasive and sometimes makes true believers even more confident they were right all along . . .
Click to expand...

They also frequently exaggerate their own credentials, as I find it hard to believe I personally have run into 3 conspiracy theorists who are mensa members.
 
Hama Neggs said:
Seems it does contain silica, but how much chaff is actually used in peace time? I'm guessing very little.
Click to expand...
If the British military I would guess none at all, they are tight like. Off topic but when I joined up I was assigned a Sterling SMG as my personal weapon http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_submachine_gun However the MOD were so tight they rarely bought blank 9mm rounds, so when on exercise one had the embarrassing task of shouting "Bang Bang" or if on full auto "Nananananana" or "Brrrrrr"
 
David Fraser said:
Yeah as Belfrey says there are a whole array of types of analysis and they have their own detection limits e.g. ICP-MS has a theoretical limit of 0.001 ug/l for Al but for ICP-OES it is 20 ug/l. While detection of elements will be made at levels lower than the detection limit, down to zero, no confidence can be placed on the result except to say there is some.

My concern is asking the sample to be treated as drinking water. A rainwater sample is usually filtered down to 0.45 um. This separates the soluble and insoluble fractions. Essentially you should be left with the stuff dissolved in the rain, nit held in suspension. This is important when one talks of toxicity, which is a function of solubility in metals. Generally an insoluble metal compound has extremely low toxicity, if any.

However drinking water samples are not filtered and are acidified prior to analysis, as are all water samples. This dissolves all the suspended compounds. Now this is what you want as you are going to drink the stuff so you want to know everything in it.

Now fair enough treating a rainwater sample in this way will show you the totals amounts if elements but it is wrong to then relate those levels to toxicity, even if you drink rainwater. The toxic fraction the the soluble part and when collected for drinking water the solids will settle. Again when toxicity is mentioned to plants mainly we are looking at the soluble parts. Kristen Meghan should understand this.
Click to expand...

Sounds rather confusing to me but you seem to be saying rain water if tested like drinking water may contain more contaminates because it will not be filtered to remove un-dissolved solids which would happen if it were tested as rainwater . . . is that correct? And can this be why Meghan has recommended one should request tests for drinking water as opposed to rain water? So the un-dissolved solids will get tested?
 
George B said:
Sounds rather confusing to me but you seem to be saying rain water if tested like drinking water may contain more contaminates because it will not be filtered to remove un-dissolved solids which would happen if it were tested as rainwater . . . is that correct? And can this be why Meghan has recommended one should request tests for drinking water as opposed to rain water? So the un-dissolved solids will get tested?
Click to expand...

Yes that's correct. However my issue is that they then claim toxic levels which is incorrect. It is mainly the soluble part of rainwater that exhibits toxicity. To be frank given that Aluminium Oxide is insoluble one would think they would be more interested in isolating that.
 
David Fraser said:
Yes that's correct. However my issue is that they then claim toxic levels which is incorrect. It is mainly the soluble part of rainwater that exhibits toxicity. To be frank given that Aluminium Oxide is insoluble one would think they would be more interested in isolating that.
Click to expand...
But if you test the sample as "drinking water" would or would you not get the Aluminum from the Aluminum Oxide tested because they acid treat the water sample ?? Seems one (as you say) would have a greater chance of getting toxic levels of metals . . . because of the acid treatment . . .
 
George B said:
But if you test the sample as "drinking water" would or would you not get the Aluminum from the Aluminum Oxide tested because they acid treat the water sample ?? Seems one (as you say) would have a greater chance of getting toxic levels of metals . . . because of the acid treatment . . .
Click to expand...
If it is filtered the Aluminium Oxide would be in the filtrate so you could test for its presence there. But without wanting to go off topic you have highlighted why rainwater testing is pointless. The tests show the amount of elemental Al in the water but not in what form i.e. it is not broken down into its species. Is it an oxide, hydroxide, silicate or sulphate? That is the important question.
 
David Fraser said:
If it is filtered the Aluminium Oxide would be in the filtrate so you could test for its presence there. But without wanting to go off topic you have highlighted why rainwater testing is pointless. The tests show the amount of elemental Al in the water but not in what form i.e. it is not broken down into its species. Is it an oxide, hydroxide, silicate or sulphate? That is the important question.
Click to expand...
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?
 
George B said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NorCal Dave
Claim: Nazca Mummy Maria Was a Living Non-Human Creature
Replies
5
Views
6K
Mendel
Mendel
Charlie Wiser
Elizondo's Methodology for Verifying Sources
Replies
34
Views
4K
yoshy
Y
curtispenner
Naomi Wolf testimony at European Parliament accusing EU Commission president Ursla Von de Leyen of covering up Pfizer crimes
Replies
9
Views
1K
curtispenner
curtispenner
NorCal Dave
Claim: New HD video Shows Bigfoot
Replies
20
Views
6K
PublicStranger
PublicStranger
NorCal Dave
Claim: The CIA Blocked the Transfer of Meta-materials From Crashed UFOs
Replies
13
Views
5K
Gary C
Gary C

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top