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

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Actually the trails I see in the sky last for like 7 hours?

Persistent contrails can last for hours to days, and spread over thousands of square kilometers, becoming indistinguishable from naturally occurring cirrus clouds.

science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

So why do you say they are chemtrails when contrails do exactly what you say you saw?

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit


"All I'm saying is, we need to pay close attention to who we're listening to exactly. Otherwise we're no better than people who believe what the government and news agencies say is close to gospel. "

I just wanted to say that I really like these two sentences. Very good point and important information to live by =)

Thank you =)

reply to post by Zaphod58


you forgot aluminium oxide - one of the most common abrasives in use

plus - someone whith her alledged " expetrise " would know all that

reply to post by FyreByrd


Alright people; my post was facetious at best; sarcasm as worst. As you go further in the atmosphere, temperatures drop. I was being overly facetious in my reply. Even the side of science is subject to this apparently.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by network dude

 

And you also prove my point by conceding that just because they can happen, but you don't have sufficient 'evidence' in your eyes; does not mean that it's not happening either. It is a very real possibility.

Right. I agree. They "could" be happening.

The big problem is, what we see in the sky is explained by simple science. Contrails act like clouds. They might dissipate quickly, or they might last for 7 hours. Knowing that, how on earth could anyone claim to know they are anything other than contrails?

As has been said here many times, the chemicals that would most likely be sprayed would not be seen, and they certainly wouldn't' be sprayed at 30,000 feet. Nobody would have any idea where they might land. And if the idea is to block out the sun, EPIC FAIL in my area at least. blue skies most of the time.

So we are left with the theory that "they" "might" be spraying "something".

Evidence is required to move past the "might" part of that statement. A spray plane, a mid air sample, those are the only things I can think of that would convince anyone that chemtrails are more than a paranoid delusion.

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by network dude

 

And you also prove my point by conceding that just because they can happen, but you don't have sufficient 'evidence' in your eyes; does not mean that it's not happening either. It is a very real possibility.

Right. I agree. They "could" be happening.

The big problem is, what we see in the sky is explained by simple science. Contrails act like clouds. They might dissipate quickly, or they might last for 7 hours. Knowing that, how on earth could anyone claim to know they are anything other than contrails?

As has been said here many times, the chemicals that would most likely be sprayed would not be seen, and they certainly wouldn't' be sprayed at 30,000 feet. Nobody would have any idea where they might land. And if the idea is to block out the sun, EPIC FAIL in my area at least. blue skies most of the time.

So we are left with the theory that "they" "might" be spraying "something".

Evidence is required to move past the "might" part of that statement. A spray plane, a mid air sample, those are the only things I can think of that would convince anyone that chemtrails are more than a paranoid delusion.

If 'they might be spraying something' is the best chemtrail-believers can come up with, i can think of a million other things 'they' might be doing. Satellites -might- be beaming frequencies to the earth that make people docile. I can go out at night with a telescope, make pictures of 'suspicious satellites' and claim that those are the satellites that are beaming us.

People never look up at the sky, in general, so when i point out that a lot of satellites are visible at night, and then go on to claim that this was never the case before, then some people might believe this. Before you know it we'll see skywatchers starting to photograph satellites as evidence of 'them' beaming us. Then i claim that every time i see a satellite, i feel a bit sick and uncomfortable, start looking up weird patents, etc. and well.. that's basically how the whole chemtrail hoax sticks together.. it's just a as laughable as my satellite theory.

Just because you can come up with a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it's actually happening. If you think it IS happening, then at least i'd like to see some evidence. So far i've seen none.

another perspective....

As vast and unbelievable as the idea that our own military could be poisoning us may seem....it doesn't require much in the way of conspiracy The automatic compartmentalization of military organizations, means that just a few at the top, can accomplish their ends by segmenting into tasks that normal good people will dutifully carry out. Fortunately, many of these puzzle piece folks are speaking out about what they know, and the picture is becoming apparent to just about everyone who pays attention, and questions their own experiences with seeming contradictions. What evidence do we have that Government has changed it's ways, since the days of the Tuskeegee Experiment, which continued for more than 40 years? Because they said so?

reply to post by Enderdog

What evidence do we have that Government has changed it's ways, since the days of the Tuskeegee Experiment, which continued for more than 40 years? Because they said so?

And what evidence is there that the government is actually spraying anything?

reply to post by Enderdog


This tends to come up quite often. No one is saying they wouldn't, it's just that there's no evidence that they are.

Originally posted by Enderdog
another perspective....

As vast and unbelievable as the idea that our own military could be poisoning us may seem....it doesn't require much in the way of conspiracy The automatic compartmentalization of military organizations, means that just a few at the top, can accomplish their ends by segmenting into tasks that normal good people will dutifully carry out. Fortunately, many of these puzzle piece folks are speaking out about what they know, and the picture is becoming apparent to just about everyone who pays attention, and questions their own experiences with seeming contradictions. What evidence do we have that Government has changed it's ways, since the days of the Tuskeegee Experiment, which continued for more than 40 years? Because they said so?

Ok so they have all this secrecy going on, with compartmentalization and whatnot, then they stick a whole bunch of chemicals in thousands of planes and spray those chemicals in giant persisting 'chemtrails' that everyone can see?

It gets even better: those chemtrails look and behave exactly like normal contrails do under the right circumstances.. and they have managed to create the chemicals in such a way that they can't be detected and seem to have no effect whatsoever. Now that's a clever scheme!

Originally posted by Enderdog
another perspective....

As vast and unbelievable as the idea that our own military could be poisoning us may seem....it doesn't require much in the way of conspiracy The automatic compartmentalization of military organizations, means that just a few at the top, can accomplish their ends by segmenting into tasks that normal good people will dutifully carry out. Fortunately, many of these puzzle piece folks are speaking out about what they know, and the picture is becoming apparent to just about everyone who pays attention, and questions their own experiences with seeming contradictions. What evidence do we have that Government has changed it's ways, since the days of the Tuskeegee Experiment, which continued for more than 40 years? Because they said so?

Great points. Certainly answers the question: "Would something like this be within the realm of possibility?" - A big "yes, most definitely" to that.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE


Great points. Certainly answers the question: "Would something like this be within the realm of possibility?" - A big "yes, most definitely" to that.

Please explain how that equates to "they are spraying us all day, every day."

Be careful how you chose your words.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

Fortunately, many of these puzzle piece folks are speaking out about what they know, and the picture is becoming apparent to just about everyone who pays attention, and questions their own experiences with seeming contradictions.

But too often, the "folks...speaking out about what they know..." don't know what they are talking about. When you mistake a cloud for a "chemtrail" for example, which happens all the time, then they don't know about clouds. The OP's video, and subsequent posts showing what the "whistleblower" actually has to do directly with "chemtrails" (she believes, but is not a "chemtrail" whistleblower) is another example of what believers do not actually know.
"...become apparent to just about everyone who pays attention..." usually means the obverse of your (supposed by me) intent. It becomes apparent by the simple mistakes made by believers, that "chemtrails" persist but contrails dissipate quickly, for example, shows the believer didn't pay attention to science class. It's apparent by the people who did that the claims are wrong.
"...seeming contradictions..." How are they able to connect these "contradictions" when they begin with a set of errors? If they see contradictions, then perhaps they should research more critically to find an answer, and not just believe what they were told at a "chemtrail" website.
It is apparent too often they don't research outside "chemtrail" theory. Heck, if they just read the Cirrus Cloud page at Wikipedia with understanding, they would realize how wrong about things they are.

Originally posted by The X
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

Great find, thanks for posting it, and to those people arguing with the people who have made their minds up nothing is going on contrary to the ongoing dearth of information before their eyes on a continuing basis.
For them to maintain their state of self imposed ignorance even after an air force specialist who would have been privy to the chemicals coming on base has stepped forward and given witness testimony that chemtrails are real.
Only serves to prove one thing, their testimony in any aspect of what is going on in the skies cannot be trusted, they don't have the mental ability to decide something that lies beyond the scope of what they think is "acceptable", as being truth.
Deliberately ignorant, for whatever reason, remember, don't argue with an idiot they will only get you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Thanks for your contribution. Your sentiments certainly apply to many on this thread. I like the last sentence especially.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


To agree with this from the poster shows you did not read the entire thread or are choosing belief over knowledge.
The person in the video admits she is nothing more than a "chemtrail" believer, not a whistleblower about them.
When a person makes that admission, but others still claim otherwise to hold onto their belief, then you are not denying ignorance, you are embracing it.

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

To agree with this from the poster shows you did not read the entire thread or are choosing belief over knowledge.
The person in the video admits she is nothing more than a "chemtrail" believer, not a whistleblower about them.
When a person makes that admission, but others still claim otherwise to hold onto their belief, then you are not denying ignorance, you are embracing it.

Anyone on here is free to express their opinions, since this is an anonymous website no one will qualify as an expert, please don't confuse opinions with fact, and trying to make yourself "right" and/or others "wrong" is a classic egoic thought pattern and by definition dysfunctional. That is just an observation and not a judgement - and judgements are also egoic thought patterns and by definition dysfunctional.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

Anyone on here is free to express their opinions, since this is an anonymous website no one will qualify as an expert, please don't confuse opinions with fact, and trying to make yourself "right" and/or others "wrong" is a classic egoic thought pattern and by definition dysfunctional.

I am pretty sure that most people who debunk chemtrails have never said they were experts, but what they can do is provide links to scientific research that has been done by experts.

Now the question is can chemtrail believers do the same?

You know the best way to change that is to show proof that that their wrong and your right, but be sure your evidence can trump theirs or guess what they were right and you were wrong...

And I almost forgot the biggest thing whatever evidence you bring needs to be something other than the same chemtrail proof that has been debunked already.

But that is entirely up to you...

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


What, are you saying that her own admission to being a Chemtrail believer but not a whistleblower is just her opinion and you are free to disagree and hold the opinion that she is a whistleblower after all?

I want some of what you've been taking

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

What, are you saying that her own admission to being a Chemtrail believer but not a whistleblower is just her opinion and you are free to disagree and hold the opinion that she is a whistleblower after all?

I want some of what you've been taking

You couldn't handle what I'm taking..........its called awareness.

She is a whistleblower..........if you choose not to see that, that is your opinion to hold and I respect that.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

She is a whistleblower..........if you choose not to see that, that is your opinion to hold and I respect that.

She is a whistle blower about OSHA breaches at military bases - except they are all public knowledge anyway (that's not opinion - that's FACT as noted elsewhere in this thread), so her "revelations" are not particularly interesting except to people who misrepresent them - are you one of those?

She is also on record as saying she does not know anything about "chemtrails" - also not my opinion.