Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson Says Chemtrail Death Dumps Must Be Stopped

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by schuyler

 

Los Angeles, according to Wikipedia.

Ted Gunderson is the former chief of the Los Angeles FBI.

en.wikipedia.org...

You will find that Ted Gunderson's wiki page was modified (started) on 19 January 2011 at 05:34. This roughly the same week the Gunderson video was put on youtube.

I reckon that I could knock up a wiki page about me proving that I am Chief of Star Command at Luna Base Station 1 within 24hrs.

reply to post by Lansky


Well, technically, not an "article":

Better article writers ...

Is a blog. While he could use some 'spellcheck', the gist and points raised are actually (surprisingly) quite well stated.

Here, with spelling fixed, is the blog from the bloke at "Before It's News" ...for consideration. Because it's accurate:

It appears we are unable to squelch the Chemtrail Hoax, so I thought I would do some research of my own just to see if I could send it back to the can where it belongs. I don’t know who started it but there is an organization that appears to be behind it and other hoaxes. The company is called ‘Global Skywatch.’ They work on conspiracy theories and phony science. It appears this company with its group of so-called scientists and reporters grab just about any story they can for the sheer joy of sensationalism.

Personally, I have no problem with reporting things that are worthy of consideration, but sensationalism for the sake of notoriety is a little silly and for the gullible, quite scary. This Blog will not intentionally steer the reader in the wrong direction with silly things like Global Warming, or CIA cover-ups–etc, etc…I think the truth is much more exciting than a bunch of lies.

According to scientists around the world, the idea of changing contrails into chemtrails is bogus science. Numerous governments deny vehemently that they are involved in any such testing. According to Global Skywatch there was a release of Barium over some part of Louisiana, but that report turned out to be fraudulent, perhaps accidentally, but not before the story was picked up by the nut cases. They now use the erroneous report as gospel to confirm their findings of Chemtrails. Naturally, the United States Government denies any such testing and the EPA calls the chemtrail conspiracy a non-scientific hoax.

The Canadian Government calls it unsubstantiated by science. The FAA, NA&S Administration, NOAA, NASA and a host of other organizations, both here in America and abroad claim the chemtrail conspiracy is nothing but a hoax. Numerous organizations including the NACA have investigated the fallout from the so-called chemtrails since before 1958 and found no evidence of any chemicals other than the natural propulsion fuels emitted by the jet engines. I realize this article will not stop the conspiracy theorists from spreading their nonsense but at least I am willing to investigate before I believe their crap. I put chemtrails right up there with Y2K nonsense and Global Warming.

In addition, the chemtrail conspiracy would have to include every government and every scientific organization including hundreds of university research labs. In short, it would have to be a world wide conspiracy. Try not to fall for this nonsense.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I seriously question your mental stability with you always debunking everything. Lengthy rantings of disinformation and taking up valuable thread space. Are you getting paid for this?

There is a lot of information about these Chemtrails. The sky was not threaded like it has been the last few years. These are not Contrails as you put it. I have lived near airports and airforce bases before in the 1990's and can not recall the sky being so threaded with Chemtrails. I remember clear sky's around Tucson AZ where Davis Monthan Airbase, national guard air base and the airport in city. Now it is full of Chemtrail ribbons as is northern Nevada which wasn't back in 2003 like it is now.

Give us all a break weedwacker.

Originally posted by Komodo3
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

I seriously question your mental stability with you always debunking everything. Lengthy rantings of disinformation and taking up valuable thread space. Are you getting paid for this?

Please explain to me how Weed could disagree with you, without being accused of being a dis-info agent? Is that possible? Can anyone have an alternative view, without them being an agent?

You state as fact that Chemtrails exist... All these goof balls can come up with, is assumptions and opinions, based on loosely related facts. So you have some "scientists" claiming they exist... Show me proof... Not assumptions or stretching of certain facts to obtain a theory.... real facts!

There is a lot of information about these Chemtrails. The sky was not threaded like it has been the last few years. These are not Contrails as you put it. I have lived near airports and airforce bases before in the 1990's and can not recall the sky being so threaded with Chemtrails. I remember clear sky's around Tucson AZ where Davis Monthan Airbase, national guard air base and the airport in city. Now it is full of Chemtrail ribbons as is northern Nevada which wasn't back in 2003 like it is now.

Give us all a break weedwacker.

I love your approach .... Respond with insults and anger, to a poster that simply provided facts... Interesting..

Why would you take a pilots word for it? Heck, you can just search the internet and connect any theory to a conspiracy... Its getting pathetic!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Seagle

 

Once again, an indication that "chemtrailers" simply fail to understand the distinction between cloud-"seeding" and large jet airplanes, at cruise altitudes, and their contrails!

In that video you can see the one airplane is a single-engine turbo-prop (By first guess was a de Haviland DHC-3 "Otter", but it isn't....I'm guessing next Brittan-Normal, will hunt for images....update, was easy!! Went to YouTube video link, and it told me!! "PilatusPC-6". Since I'm not familar with every little single-engine turboprop built from all over the world....

... looked it up for you. But, the pilatus was in the back of my mind....they have another single, that I am more familar with. Faster, sexier and prettier-looking):

They also sometimes call it by its nick, the "Porter".

Read about its performance specs:

en.wikipedia.org...



I expect the "chase plane" with the camera is the same type. (yes, it is, according to the YT description). IF you can grab a screenshot of the altimeter, would be helpful. (The video lingers on the VVI....vertical velocity indicator...which is useless, and frustrating, since the altimeter is right nearby).

Anyway, to continue JUST on what they're doing in Thailand:

After filling up the plane with cloud-seeding chemicals, a small plane from Thailand's rain-making force takes of to gain an altitude of 5,000 feet (1,525 meters) chasing some small clouds.
www.thaipro.com...

(Airplane photos in that article I DO know instantly...Beechcraft [now "Raytheon"] King Air 200s). The King Air is a nice "corporate" type twin turbo prop, pressurized cabin, and capable of high cruise altitudes....BUT, for the purposes of cloud "seeding", will be conducted down low where the water is still liquid, not frozen, in order to make rain.

edit on 17 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Once again, an indication that "chemtrailers" simply fail to understand the distinction between cloud-"seeding" and large jet airplanes, at cruise altitudes, and their contrails!

Please show me where I have ever declared that large jet aircraft at cruising altitude are responsible for Chemtrails? The only people who seem to want to turn every Chemtrail thread into a discussion about commercial airliners are yourself and firepilot. It may come as a surprise to you but the majority of people are concerned about the 'Chemicals' being sprayed and couldn't really give a rats ass whether it is coming out of an A380 or remote control plane from toyworld. The issue is the chemicals.

With that in mind, if you don't want to read other peoples posts maybe should at least read your own. Let me refresh your memory -

After filling up the plane with cloud-seeding chemicals, a small plane from Thailand's rain-making force takes of to gain an altitude of 5,000 feet (1,525 meters) chasing some small clouds.

So what side of the argument are you on? You deny Chemtrails exist and then give an example of a cloud seeding operation which clearly states ' After filling up the PLANE with cloud seeding CHEMICALS.

Now before you jump on the high horse just let me say that I do not need a lesson from you in cloud seeding, I am well versed in the various methods and chemicals that are used. I also know that many of these operations, which are rife around the world, leave visible Chemtrails. Surely you are not going to make the same ridiculous claim as Firepilot who thinks that it is impossible for a small plane to carry enough chemicals to create such large Chemtrails. That is completely false information and he clearly does not understand chemistry.

For the record, between 1996-98 the Thai Government was using the US based Weather Modification Inc to carry out cloud seeding. In 1999 the king of Thailand files the first of 52 patents relating to cloud seeding based on the ideas he stole from WMi. His method now takes it further because he does not necessarily need existing cloud anymore. this method involves multiple planes dumping various chemicals simultaneously from three different altitudes. He already has contracts in a many countries and this method leaves massive Chemtrails whether you want to believe it or not.

this thread seems to have become, like most threads, full of lengthy egotistical rants and personal attacks.

I like the fact ATS covers topics of relevance in the universe, unlike mass media, I think it's such a shame that instead of proof, experiences, theories and intelligent conversation, so many seem to have overtaken the thread on a personal points scoring basis, and as ususal, the sheer volume of uninteresting, tittle tattle (being nice about it), has made the thread kind of avoidable.

Presumably for some, this might be their aim, they don't agree to something so are determined at ruining any conversation about it.

I would like to know more facts about chemtrails and if there really is a true chemical basis to the fact there are vast swathes of sky, inconsistently covered in chemtrail cirrus.

Is there some way of hiding posts from certain posters so the thread isn't swallowed up by nonsense?

reply to post by smurfy


the information you provided is talking about the possible use of this. Even if some testing has been done, is this the answer to what chemtrails are? I cannot seem to get my head wrapped around what is believed about these things. 10 people have 10 different theories, and they all seem very far fetched.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

I believe there is a way, but the mods would have to enforce it. For example, the thread could have the instructions that "this thread is not to debate the existence of chemtrails, but what is likely being sprayed and why."
Or, conversely, "this thread is about the problem of naturally occurring and persistent contrails, not to be hijacked by chemtrail believers."
Seems that would solve a lot.

OK. So it looks like the word "chief" is a journalistic vernacular, not an official title and that Gunderson retired from the FBI in 1979, 32 years ago, which is longer than his career was (1951-1979). My issue (and I suppose it's a fairly minor one) is that using the phrase "Former FBI Chief" and similar phrases is an appeal to authority that isn't there. I started work in my profession a couple of years before he retired and now I've been retired going on 7 years myself. When I look back at my colleagues I still know a few people, but they are my contemporaries who will all be retired within the next few years. If I happen to make it 32 years retired the people who started in my profession after I retired will mostly be retired themselves and a third generation, many of whom were born after I retired, will be in charge, none of whom will remember me or know what I did when I was active.

So the point is that though I thank him for his service, I doubt if he has any meaninful ties to his agency, and there is nothing to indicate that his last position was anything other than a typical field office bureaucratic supervisor. Although he appears to have advanced normally in his career, it was not exceptional. Plus you cannot place him at the 'scene of the crime' at all. Even Bob Lazar has that distinction. Using his former profession to build him up in the eyes of potential converts is, I think, a disservice. He's just an old eccentric guy indulging in some public paranoia.

reply to post by Stewie


something like that could work, or a personal 'hide poster' button...there isn't the time to read it all for most people.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by smurfy

 

the information you provided is talking about the possible use of this. Even if some testing has been done, is this the answer to what chemtrails are? I cannot seem to get my head wrapped around what is believed about these things. 10 people have 10 different theories, and they all seem very far fetched.

Hi Net',
It's more important understanding why those proposals have been made, serious money is thrown at these think tanks. If global warming is an issue for instance, then there is a need to increase cloud cover, that's what the proposals are about. In many ways there is nothing novel about what to use, only the method of application. They have their roots in climatological warfare proposed after WW2 and vast sums of money was spent on that scenario, and yes people objected then. The difference at that time was the same kind of method would have been used to actually increase radiation at the ground, but by applying dark dust for instance, to the ground itself to decrease the earth's albedo, (making it darker) in designated areas to destabilise an enemy. You can study this link to a historical page dealing with all that,

www.aip.org...

I'm not about telling you how or what to think, that's entirely up to you, and there is a lot of "stuff" out there. You have to go and look at it and make up your own mind, and don't let yourself be persuaded by anyone. As to your question, if those proposals were used, then that is what would happen.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by smurfy

 

the information you provided is talking about the possible use of this. Even if some testing has been done, is this the answer to what chemtrails are? I cannot seem to get my head wrapped around what is believed about these things. 10 people have 10 different theories, and they all seem very far fetched.

Not only that, but some of those different chemtrailers will debunk each other. Some say its military, some say it the airline, and then some put up small general aviation airplanes. Some say its to kill off people, some say its to prevent global warming, Some say its releasing metals, some day its viruses, bacteria and assorted types of chemgoo. Some say there is a vast fleet of secret airplanes, some say its airliner, some say its military, or its the Reptilians.

Anyone can actually build their own chemtrail belief. Its all faith based, if it was all based on facts and evidence, you would not have so many competing ideas in the chemtrail religion

reply to post by firepilot


Don't be ignorant.
It's NOT all faith based. In fact NONE of it is faith based.

Faith = Believing without seeing

I see Chemtrails all the time. : P

Sorry your brain is too small to comprehend why and how it can be done.

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by firepilot

 

Don't be ignorant.
It's NOT all faith based. In fact NONE of it is faith based.

Faith = Believing without seeing

I see Chemtrails all the time. : P

Sorry your brain is too small to comprehend why and how it can be done.

Ahh, there are are in fine form again. Its never a real thread without insults from you, thats more of a sign of a small mind. Didnt the mods take action against you in this thread earlier over your behavior and language that you use?

I am not the ignorant one, werent you accusing others of having "B.S. knowledge". Thats telling when knowledge to you is BS.

And yes, you called me closed minded for not believing that Ft Sill could not host these chemtrail planes as Gunderson alleges. You never really did explain how then, if the runway is too short at Ft Sill for these aircraft and that is a matter of physics, then how is "closed minded" to say that they cant. Because that runway most certainly is too short, and anyone of you could have looked that up online.

Face it, you all got taken by Gunderson. You all fell for whatever he said, when normally you accuse others of being government disinfo agents, when this guy actually was previously from the government, was an agent, and said some outlandish statements.

And yes, it is entirely a religion like belief system. You actually do not know what you see, you feel that you do, you feel you are being sprayed. You and other chemtrailers can not wrap your heads about the idea that the air is cold and thin, that aircraft fly at different altitudes and enter different conditions. If there was so much proof, chemtrailers would not be embarrasing themselves anytime they make a statement about aviation

wow every one is still fighting over chemtrails being real or not? this thread has totaly been derailed and been thrown off topic!no matter what proof or argument anyone brings forth they will not persuade weed and his crew ! we all know they are real and trying to convince the debunkers is a complete waste of time and energy, its all ready been proven there is a patent for chemtrails plus what i see with my own eyes , and all the eyewitnesses , then the FBI man in the op actually came to ats , but did he make it here no, he was banned and his thread was 404d, lets just end this debate war now, its pointless!
we need too take this thread into a new direction, of getting to the bottom of this chemtrail nightmare , and not just online, we need to start calling people in your area demand answers! seek the truth , not argue with people like weedwacker.

Is anyone going to read my post on page 21?? There is 100% Proof in various official document form, that chemtrails are REAL and have been used before for testing.

reply to post by wcitizen


At least someone who worked for government can put some credence in the chemtrail claims......what in the world ARE they spraying anyways?

Originally posted by schuyler
OK. So it looks like the word "chief" is a journalistic vernacular, not an official title and that Gunderson retired from the FBI in 1979, 32 years ago, which is longer than his career was (1951-1979). My issue (and I suppose it's a fairly minor one) is that using the phrase "Former FBI Chief" and similar phrases is an appeal to authority that isn't there. I started work in my profession a couple of years before he retired and now I've been retired going on 7 years myself. When I look back at my colleagues I still know a few people, but they are my contemporaries who will all be retired within the next few years. If I happen to make it 32 years retired the people who started in my profession after I retired will mostly be retired themselves and a third generation, many of whom were born after I retired, will be in charge, none of whom will remember me or know what I did when I was active.

So the point is that though I thank him for his service, I doubt if he has any meaninful ties to his agency, and there is nothing to indicate that his last position was anything other than a typical field office bureaucratic supervisor. Although he appears to have advanced normally in his career, it was not exceptional. Plus you cannot place him at the 'scene of the crime' at all. Even Bob Lazar has that distinction. Using his former profession to build him up in the eyes of potential converts is, I think, a disservice. He's just an old eccentric guy indulging in some public paranoia.

Thank you. That's what I originally came to this thread to say, but I became lost in analyzing the perceived evidence.

Originally posted by punctual
reply to post by wcitizen

 

At least someone who worked for government can put some credence in the chemtrail claims......what in the world ARE they spraying anyways?

Yes, at least they have a much better idea of how things work and have more clout.

As to what they are spraying - if you do a search for a documentary called almost exactly that:

"What in the World are they Spraying?" you'll find it on youtube. It's worth watching.

Originally posted by matrix12
wow every one is still fighting over chemtrails being real or not? this thread has totaly been derailed and been thrown off topic!no matter what proof or argument anyone brings forth they will not persuade weed and his crew ! we all know they are real and trying to convince the debunkers is a complete waste of time and energy, its all ready been proven there is a patent for chemtrails plus what i see with my own eyes , and all the eyewitnesses , then the FBI man in the op actually came to ats , but did he make it here no, he was banned and his thread was 404d, lets just end this debate war now, its pointless!
we need too take this thread into a new direction, of getting to the bottom of this chemtrail nightmare , and not just online, we need to start calling people in your area demand answers! seek the truth , not argue with people like weedwacker.

I agree with that. I'm coming to the point that I will only post a link, or POI that I have learned of, which is directed to someone who I think is earnest one way or another. In the case here there are no straightforward answers, and a lot of ambiguity but there is history, as in the link I gave in reply to Netforce of uses of aerosols and their applications. So you are also right that people, including myself, should be more observant of what is going on above. I have some thoughts on that, which I don't want to comment on as yet. As for the Batman and robin teams, not much can be done about that.