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

Originally posted by firepilot

Even the chemtrailers may enjoy watching that video, of KC-135 operations in Alaska. How is it relevant? Well besides being pretty cool footage, that plane needs more than 5000 ft to get off the ground, which was the runway length in Ft Sill (army artillery base) that Gunderson claims is a chemtrail base.

Face it, he just made that up...

edit on 22-1-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

How many Ft Sills are there, is it also civilian? it says here 8,599ft runway, singular. Could a fuel Hercules not do the 5000ft anyway?

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by smurfy

How many Ft Sills are there, is it also civilian?

There is one Ft Sill, its in Oklahoma, and right next to the city of Lawton. Its not a dual use airport, however the Lawton airport is only 5 miles away.

www.airnav.com...

One could also fly right over the top of it Ft Sill too at 2500 ft above the runway surface, since that is only how high the military control tower airspace extends. Flying through the artillery range is a whole another matter however.

reply to post by firepilot
Your link appears to be out of date,

www.airnav.com... this one even carries an illustration of the runway.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by firepilot

 

Your link appears to be out of date,

www.airnav.com... this one even carries an illustration of the runway.

No, you are looking at the Lawton municipal airport- KLAW, not Ft Sill. There are not military aircraft of any kind based at Lawton airport.

Henry Post Army Airfield is located on Ft Sill. its KFSI.

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by firepilot

 

Your link appears to be out of date,

www.airnav.com... this one even carries an illustration of the runway.

No, you are looking at the Lawton municipal airport- KLAW, not Ft Sill. There are not military aircraft of any kind based at Lawton airport.

Henry Post Army Airfield is located on Ft Sill. its KFSI.

edit on 22-1-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

I already know that, It is called Lawton-Fort Sill regional. You also know that, but still you didn't say. TG just said Fort Sill, and unmarked airplanes.

Well one can judge that when he says his chemplanes are at Ft Sill, he means the army installation, not a nearby public airport which has Ft Sill in the name, since Ft Sill borders lawton. And if anyone thinks that he actually meant the Lawton public airport, well anyone could go out there and photography airplanes there. They will not see anything like that though. Someone in this thread already mentioned living on Ft Sill and there was absolutely nothing there but helicopters

And besides, there is an active C-17, C-5 and KC-135 base, called Altus AFB, about 60 miles or so west.

He could have at least said the old Clinton Sherman AFB which while still closed, has a really long runway from the B-52 days, and KC-135s do touch and gos there for practice.

reply to post by smurfy


No....LOOK at the airport codes!

"KLAW" is the civlian airport...you keep looking at that one.

"KFSI" is the military airport...with the 5,000 foot runway (helicopters don't need long runways...).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by smurfy

 

No....LOOK at the airport codes!

I think he figured it out In any case, Gunderson doesnt know what he is talking about. I just wonder whether someone is telling him all this, trying to at least piggyback on someone more well known. Gunderson doesnt exactly have much credibility anymore, but he has more than Prince, who is a chemmie too

Originally posted by firepilot
Well one can judge that when he says his chemplanes are at Ft Sill, he means the army installation, not a nearby public airport which has Ft Sill in the name, since Ft Sill borders lawton. And if anyone thinks that he actually meant the Lawton public airport, well anyone could go out there and photography airplanes there. They will not see anything like that though. Someone in this thread already mentioned living on Ft Sill and there was absolutely nothing there but helicopters

And besides, there is an active C-17, C-5 and KC-135 base, called Altus AFB, about 60 miles or so west.

He could have at least said the old Clinton Sherman AFB which while still closed, has a really long runway from the B-52 days, and KC-135s do touch and gos there for practice.

edit on 22-1-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

"They will not see anything like that though." Like what?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by smurfy

 

No....LOOK at the airport codes!

"KLAW" is the civlian airport...you keep looking at that one.

"KFSI" is the military airport...with the 5,000 foot runway (helicopters don't need long runways...).

I mean Large planes like anything that could remotely be "chemplanes" at the Lawton airport. The biggest aircraft would most likely be the American Eagle Embraer regional jets that fly in 5 times a day. But..if anyone thinks there is a chance of these nefarious chemplanes being there, they should certainly go look for themselves.

double post

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by smurfy

 

No....LOOK at the airport codes!

"KLAW" is the civlian airport...you keep looking at that one.

"KFSI" is the military airport...with the 5,000 foot runway (helicopters don't need long runways...).

Wrong weed, I already knew a difference, never mind the call signs. Read my posts....rather, don't bother.

Originally posted by firepilot
I mean Large planes like anything that could remotely be "chemplanes" at the Lawton airport. The biggest aircraft would most likely be the American Eagle Embraer regional jets that fly in 5 times a day. But..if anyone thinks there is a chance of these nefarious chemplanes being there, they should certainly go look for themselves.

I don't disagree that people who can, should go and recce for themselves, already said that.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by firepilot
I mean Large planes like anything that could remotely be "chemplanes" at the Lawton airport. The biggest aircraft would most likely be the American Eagle Embraer regional jets that fly in 5 times a day. But..if anyone thinks there is a chance of these nefarious chemplanes being there, they should certainly go look for themselves.

I don't disagree that people who can, should go and recce for themselves, already said that.

I have long told chemtrail believers to go look around at airports, go look at flight maps, anything especially that involves actually being around airplanes and stepping away from the conspiracy sites.

reply to post by firepilot


And I tell you that being a pilot gives you zero credibility as an authority on Chemtrails because you have shown time and again that you know about as much about science as a chimney sweep does about an electric heater.

Originally posted by Seagle
reply to post by firepilot

 

And I tell you that being a pilot gives you zero credibility as an authority on Chemtrails because you have shown time and again that you know about as much about science as a chimney sweep does about an electric heater.

Ahhhh there we go again! What would it be without your mature and insightful comments. You are welcome to tell us exactly what I have said in regards to science, that is factually incorrect and where you were right.. Good luck....

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by smurfy

 

No....LOOK at the airport codes!

I think he figured it out

In any case, Gunderson doesnt know what he is talking about. I just wonder whether someone is telling him all this, trying to at least piggyback on someone more well known. Gunderson doesnt exactly have much credibility anymore, but he has more than Prince, who is a chemmie too

I don't think there's a hidden agenda to Gunderson. I think he's like many of you on this board and in this post who perceive something to be a problem and want to be vocal about it. He might be trying to reclaim some fame within the community, but he's not important enough to be fed misleading information. I can't recall exactly, but I don't think he mentions much of his FBI past in his videos, specifically the one in the OP. The 'trailers tag the video as "FBI Chief", "Former FBI director", etc and let it explode beyond what it really is (just another human being shouting into a camera on youtube...). As for his credibility, his biggest claim to fame was the Satanic cult witchhunt back in the 80's. Anyone who remembers that will also remember the unveiling of the unethical and immoral tactics used to obtain the "confessions" that led to the whole conspiracy theory. Of course, most theorists will claim that it was all a big cover-up, but that is in itself another double standard due to the fact that the mainstream media and associates, who were supposedly uncovering the events, were the ones responsible for creating the myth. Just like Mr. Gunderson would be dismissed and ignored due to his former government employment had he chosen to express a disbelief in chemtrails.

reply to post by firepilot


It would be nice if just once you would practice what you preach and offer facts backed by evidence not your baseless 'I'm a pilot' opinion. Both you and Wheedwhacker do not deny the existence of Cloud Seeding or that it involves chemicals which are usually dispersed from a plane. We know the main chemicals that are used as seeding agents and there is no doubt that these chemicals leave a trail which looks like a contrail when they are dispersed. Therefore, you both agree that Chemtrails do exist but you think it is on a very small scale, correct?

So lets deal with your 'opinions' on Cloud Seeding with simple facts which are very easily verified as it is information available in the public domain in the form of official Budget Papers, Published Science Papers, and information provided freely by the companies and organisations involved.

Was it the same knowledge that led you to talk about WMI having aircraft fleet that cost hundreds of millions of dollars? No, cloud seeding is not big business. I would be surprised if there were more than 10 of these small planes being used over the wintertime in the US, and the ones used are either for snowpack enhancement, or fog dispersal at a place like SLC.

- Weather Modification Inc has a fleet of 35 planes. They also modify and sell planes and equipment for Cloud seeding to other companies as well as provide training on how to do it. Add to the cost of the fleet the equipment, modifications, staff, property, operating licenses and expenses and I would suggest that is a not an industry you get into without a significant capital outlay.
- In 2001 there were 66 official cloud seeding operations running across 10 states in the US. Today, most States are involved because it has been tied into reserve water allocation. The minimum number of planes required is four and that is a small operation. The Thai government who are proud of their program and so tell the truth average over 5500 cloud seeding flights per year just in Thailand using anywhere from 7-14 planes in an operation.
-There are so many companies and organisation now involved that the industry has multiple associations lobbying government. A small industry does not have group associations.

- Not a big business? Honestly, what planet do you live on. 'Climate Change' is a global business which makes weather modification seem a necessary evil. Over 50 countries around the world have now signed on to 3-5 year contracts and they didn't have much of a choice. You seem to just accept that Cloud Seeding is as normal as the sun coming up and nothing to worry about. The general public doesn't realise Cloud seeding has been happening for over 50 years and involves among other things dumping massive amounts of pure carbon dioxide and salt directly into into the atmosphere. There is a very good argument that it is the primary cause of 'climate change'. At the very least it has tainted the results of any study that is conducted on the effects or existence of climate change.
- Geo-Sciences now take up by far the biggest portion of the US science budget across the board.

In the US, most states are now involved in weather modification programs which they are forced into by 'regional advisory groups' that control the allocation of water reserves. If you are not cloud seeding you don't have the right to the water. The average cost is around $1.10 per acre per year (go and check budget papers) e.g Wyoming paid over $8mil for an initial trial. On top of this there are the insurance companies spending massive amounts of money attempting to surpress hail and other severe weather events. Why, because risk management is cheaper than having to pay out massive insurance claims.

Billion-dollar weather disasters, 1980 to 2005. Of the 67 weather-related disasters indicated, 55 occurred during or after 1990. Total costs for the 67 events have been estimated at more than $500 billion based on an inflation/wealth index

Back to your 'opinions'

And no, it has not come a long way since the 1970s, most of it is done the same way it was back then, with small planes going into storms, trying to help make precipitation. Planes can not go out into blue sky, release silver iodide or dry ice and then magically there is now weather. They can not make weather, they are trying to help get a little more precip out of existing weather

Wrong, the methods and understanding have come a long way since 1970's. The question you need to ask is why did the US go and spend two years (96-98) training the Thai army on a new methods and then allow the King of Thailand to patent the process as his own (1999)? Then you might start to understand what it is really about. In any case, whether they can create significant rain clouds in clear skies I agree is debatable but they can certainly generate cloud cover and they can certainly influence the direction of rain clouds and in essence steal rain destined for one region to give to another.

If you think cloud seeding would create large trails across the sky, you still have no idea about what you are talking about. First of all, they are most always INSIDE PRECIPITATING CLOUDS, not blue sky.. And no, neither dry ice or silver iodide make large trails, because the amounts used are so small.

That is absolute nonsense and really doesn't deserve a response. How can you possibly argue that a contrail exists as the result of nothing more than condensed water vapour but then in the same breath deny that it is impossible to create a similar or bigger trails via chemical reactions? You seem to think it would require millions of litres of substance which just shows you do not understand what you are talking about. Think about how a small plane can write a huge advertising message on demand across Blue sky which lasts for hours do you really think that is a 'contrail' or is it magic? Better yet, what about smoke, can it not fill an area much larger than the size of the fuel it burns?

Finally the University Corporation of Atmospheric Research run many operations one being a yearly program for Morgalenes (punta arenas) which sits directly under the hole in the ozone layer - A calendar of their programs is readily available. Here is a perfect example of how you create cloud cover -