Ex-military bio-enviromental engineer Kristan Meghan blows whistle on Air Force chemtrails

OK, this is a hot topic, for me to do this right, let me compile, and gather the evidence, and i will make a thread to better illustrate. for now, i will stop,

And for your barium post, i saw it can be naturally radioactive, but these are levels that exceed our normal amount. and aluminum oxide, also naturally occurring, still at very high levels. But, this is why i love ATS, i will present it to you guys, it deserves its own thread.

reply to post by mactheaxe

OK, this is a hot topic, for me to do this right, let me compile, and gather the evidence, and i will make a thread to better illustrate. for now, i will stop,

Just wondering here, does some of this evidence come from Cliff Carnicom, or Scott Stevens?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


not that i am currently aware of. I dont have "documents". i have found where it sticks together. the oh wtf moment....atleast to me. i am working on it as we speak,

www.chemtrails911.com...

Here is some info on the effects on life to humans and animals
from barium

reply to post by mactheaxe


you have evidence - wow - i will get the popcorn , but befoe i do this " evidence " is not going to be the same regurgitated excrement - is t ?

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Its official experts giving their opinions, Its evidence based off of what dots we are lining up.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by stars15k


Semantics. I never really talked about her other than saying she seemed credible. For not being a "chemtrail" whistle-blower she sure talks a lot about it. I don't need a whistle-blower to tell me that people mistaking Geo-engineering and other things as "chemtrails". Although, "chemtrails" would be an appropriate term for the real events. Unidentified Contrail-like Vapors.

You adamant deniers are a little close minded and drill on one specific flaw....one one specific believer.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


BS I have answered that question many times. Mis-identification and misinterpretation people have know idea what they are doing so they insert conjecture. They are not spraying anything they think is harmful (could be I don't know that) for the purpose of Geo-engineering. Basing an argument on a definition changing does not work when what is being identified in unknown to the viewer.

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
Her official position was GS-12, that requires a BS degree or higher.

I believe that all chemtrail belief requires a BS degree, does it not?

Or does BS stand for something else here?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by mactheaxe
Im sorry you feel that way, im not spreading disinformation, im spreading the truth.

If you're spreading truth, then post some scientific data, tests, evidence, scientists names to support the truth. You have to have some sort of factual, scientific evidence. Otherwise, there's nothing truthful about this subject.

Right now, you're only spreading what you think is the truth in your mind. Not what has actual scientific basis in the real world.


And please don't ignore my post about Barium just above Chad's that you skipped over.

I'm glad you made this point and congrats on wording it that way too. Very well put and right to the heart of the matter.

There seems to be a WILD disconnect between Evidence and Opinion in so much of what is being presented these days for others to accept as factual. Chemtrails ..and this thread..stand as one of the better examples, doesn't it?

There is no shortage of opinion of this, that or the other ..and who knows? We could be wrong and the supporters could be right. Without evidence, no one ever will know either ...since I've yet to see anything whatsoever to prove "Geo Engineering" has ever moved beyond the cloud seeding and similar approaches known to be used in China today and in the U.S. back into the 70's, at least.

Seeding and Geo Engineering being so different in concept and impact as to belong in totally separate areas of discussion, IMO. Like...One as known science (with debatable efficacy) and the other as Skunk Works material for conjecture, at best.

I'm with you, Chadwickus and others. Less opinion and just a PINCH of true evidence worthy of the term would be excellent to start if Chemtrails are ever to be taken as more than theory without basis, IMO.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


The basic premise of your OP is flawed. Megan wrote, all by herself, this on contrailscience;

My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers

metabunk.org...

she repeated it several times too, just to make it clear.

Oops!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I appreciate your opinions, I will find as much as i can and show.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

You were quoted as saying "several hundreds if not thousands". You were asked several times to post those names. Now, you don't even want to post one single name of a scientist. You have no scientists. Zero. Just like there's no scientific evidence. Zero.

By all means feel free to make up your mind and draw undeniably deceitful conclusions about the things I've said.. Yes, I am sure there are hundreds of scientists who research chemtrails. Do I care to play your game of lets-see-how-many-sources-i-can-discredit? Not at all.

Deceitful conclusions

Who s deceiving who?

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

we could examine the list of possible reasons put forward for the existence of chemtrails, I will think of some reasons, please share yours, and we will compile a list.

Its been done many times,


Funniest one is to stop people from praying

reply to post by seabhac-rua


An analogy to end all,

Although my key board might need replacing and my nose is burning from all the Coka Cola that sprayed out of it on my keyboard

reply to post by mactheaxe

im not spreading disinformation, im spreading the truth.

Why is it so funny then





My guts hurt, the truth should be serious and not so hilarious.

reply to post by InhaleExhale


Do your research, i didnt say scientists. i said engineers, architectural engineers, structural engineers, they question 911. Go to 4'45. there is a list of those questioning it.

watch the video. the list is in the video

Originally posted by mactheaxe
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

Do your research, i didnt say scientists. i said engineers, architectural engineers, structural engineers, they question 911. Go to 4'45. there is a list of those questioning it.

watch the video. the list is in the video

Thanks I will do,


However, WTF

What are you replying to, is it even the right thread?

Originally posted by mactheaxe
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

Do your research, i didnt say scientists. i said engineers, architectural engineers, structural engineers, they question 911. Go to 4'45. there is a list of those questioning it.

watch the video. the list is in the video

WOA Thunder! One conspiracy at a time. We still haven't proven that chemtrails exist beyond the minds of people who fear clouds. Once you can say, with proof. what a chemtrail is made up of and why it's there, we can move on with who we can blame and all.

As of right now, the best proof anyone can come up with is ...here, look at these patents, and contrails only last for X minutes. neither of which prove anything as the second one is just wrong.

I wish all the energy that folks spend trying to convince others of chemtrails was spent trying to fix or flucked up economy. Deflection indeed.

reply to post by network dude

WOA Thunder! One conspiracy at a time. We still haven't proven that chemtrails exist beyond the minds of people who fear clouds.

That alone made my rainy day a bit easier...Thanks.