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

reply to post by LogicalThinker88


I believe this is the video you were referring to in your post?



The YouTube description...

This declassified Porton Down film, which is Crown Copyright, shows a Valetta aircraft making a number of passes in front of the camera - all the time spraying the Biological Warfare simulant - Zinc Cadmium sulphide. These particular experiments were conducted during March 1958, and were conducted to determine the characteristics of an aircraft mounted Zinc Cadmium sulphide dispenser. The resulting information was then used in Porton Down's later public area BW experiments, some of which (the Large Area Coverage or LAC) contaminated vast swathes of the UK. A BW simulant is a supposedly harmless substance which mimics the physical properties of a real BW agent, in this case, size (between 1-5 microns). BW simulants are used in BW experiments in which, for safety reasons, a real BW agent could not be used.

A similar procedure was adopted for the 1963/64 Norwich Trials. An aircraft, this time a Devon, sprayed the BW simulant Zinc Cadmium sulphide, at a rate of 2-3 lbs per mile, as it flew along a 62 nm track across Norfolk - at a distance of 24 miles upwind of the city of Norwich. When the massive aerosol cloud reached its target area, Porton Down scientists conducted clandestine sampling of the air at a large number of locations, across the city and surrounding countryside.

reply to post by wcitizen


Glad to see more and more older officials breaking their silence, including death bed confessions/disclosures.

Please....note, and this is for ALL who look up, see contrails being made by commercial jets at over 30,000 feet altitude.

THAT video is clearly different!! It is undeniable that such experiments occurred, decades ago. In that era, the potential harmfulness of the cadmium material on Human health was unknown. It was thought to be benign. The UK MoD were attempting to protect their populace from any potential cold-war era attacks, mounted by the Eastern Block (USSR) by studying how an airborne release of some biological agents may disperse. The material they used (again, thinking it was harmless) was designed to be track-able...else, there was no way to determine the distribution and form a model of how an attack might occur.

Of course, it was "secret" because...if you think it through logically.....number one, you don't want our potential enemy aware of your defensive knowledge and posture and, number two, any data you collect from a defensive outlook could also be flipped around and applied on offense as well!!

In any event, looking into the entirety of those experiments, the airborne release was only a small component. Other ground-based releases occurred.

Point being....IF you intend to "target" something on the surface by releasing it into the environment....it does absolutely no good when "released" at a tremendous altitude.

So: For all of the hoax "chem-trail" claims of "biological agents", and the like, implied as "targeting" the population below, you can see it's utter nonsense. You should, logically, realize this inherently.

Therefore, these "claims" of "death dumps" by Ted Gunderson should be assessed with more scrutiny ----(in any case, he somewhat debunked himself, with the mention of having personally "witnessed" the alleged activity, then naming airports that are easily checked, and shown to be completely different than asserted. One site doesn't even have a runway long enough to support the types of aircraft alleged!).

We are left with only one possibility, and that is (and already announced, and mentioned as being considered as a worst-case scenario) the so-called "Geo-engineering" concept.

Many, many different schemes have been proposed, and put into public discussion to assess their feasibility. NO doubt, even some limited tests and experiments (similar to the biological weapon dispersant tests of the cold war) have been conducted. Again, to assess feasibility.

BTW....the likely most technologically successful would be one that NASA has actually mentioned, as in discussion....it would use rockets of some sort...NOT airplanes! The lofting of sufficient mass is going to be accomplished with rocketry, AND they also can go much higher. Airplanes are limited to the stratosphere...most large airplanes can barely reach 40,000 feet, and then only when they are down to minimum weights. Meaning, you can't effectively carry much payload. Also, there is still plenty of volatility in the atmosphere, at those altitudes...wind currents, etc.

Above those heights, beyond the reach of airplanes, is the ionosphere. Very little air, and thus anything "spread" out there would tend to be more stable, and thus more effective.

In that vein....IF it comes to a need (we are nowhere near that point, yet) the intent of this discussion and theorizing is to establish a technology that can be utilized...and, again, this would only be in dire consequences, if an uncontrollable Global Climate Change event were undeniable. We would have nothing to lose, then, in attempting it.

Intelligent people know, however, that merely "tinkering" to "see what will happen" is foolish.

Meanwhile, the continued hoaxing machine will chug along, because there will always be ignorance of aviation technology, and meteorological science, in the world...and the ill-informed gullible are easy targets for plucking.......

reply to post by weedwhacker


Here is a little something you might find interesting..

chemtrails.foroactivo.com...

You will need to translate it,but when you do you will find this interesting. Just a tease for you. This talks about Russia and concrete used to stop snowfall in Moscow. I won't say anymore you will need to see for yourself very interesting.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Thank you for taking the time to post this explanation. I've been looking and looking for the counter-argument to this for a very long time and haven't been able to find it. In fact, LogicalThinker and I just discussed this very thing in U2U, so I really appreciate being able to give it focus and some clarity.

What about some of the other chemicals mentioned in regard to the UK testing on its piopulace? Prior to maybe this particular plane and video, and in the time frame prior to the cold war? Bunk?

Also, would it be fair to concede that technological advances in flight possibly have led to dispersal at greater altitudes? Maybe not necessarily for the theories that relate to genocide or germicidal/biological weapon testing or intent but say to the more benevolent theories like shielding or weather control?

Tater tots.

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

The point initially was to enlarge on what TG had said, I already knew there were two airports with Ft Sill in the name, and neither are correctly known as Ft Sill. One is Lawton Fort Sill, 8599 ft the other is Henry post Army, Air field (Fort Sill) 5000 ft, so in fact you were just a vague as TG, even when I was being specific about a name. He also said big 'planes. A C130 hercules could do the job on both runways, maybe other 'planes could also. Until TG is more specific as to what type of 'plane, we can't really contradict him as yet.

Actually yes we can. Someone that lives in Ft Sill posted in the thread that there was nothing but helicopters based there. There certainly is not some secret C-130 unit there. We have no corroborating evidence of it either other than him saying something.

And with a payload, the C-130 does not even reach contrailing altitudes either.

It seems that you would just believe whatever he says until proven otherwise, when there is frankly not any evidence for his statements. There is no evidence of any kind of similar aircraft at Ft Sill, or Lawton for that mattter. No evidence for unmarked bomber type chemplanes at the Lincoln airport either.

Are you going to believe in his statements about 30,000 guillotines being stored at military bases too, until thats disproven? It doesnt hurt to be skeptical of wild claims and make them give the proof, rather than believing until proven wrong.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I have no idea what the cement was for, but seeing that its Russia, I wouldn't be surprised if vodka was involved in that decision making process.

Someone either in this thread or another mentioned the number of flights per day in the U.S. This is the best I could find. Seems things were tracked differently prior to 2002. If anyone has the numbers from say the 1940s or even the 1950s to today, that would help parts of this discussion.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e56413c3aa1c.png[/atsimg]

Doesn't appear to be a huge increase over approximately a decade, Nothing to really draw any conclusions from.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Well, that's passenger traffic. Not flights, per se.

Airlines compile such data in several versions...it's something that the "geniuses" use in their marketing departments, for various purposes....stuff well outside of my arena and pay grade.

Some of what data they collect has to be public (as at BTS) and other is proprietary, for competitive reasons.

I'll see what I can dig up....still, though, you have to consider not only U.S. Domestic, but U.S. International flights (which may be biased out of some statistics, depending on what they're using it for) and also foreign carriers that operate in and out of hte USA.

See, it gets a bit complicated, yes??

In any case, the "chem-trail" hysteria is said to have started sometime in the late 1990s...and, coincidentally, so did the Internet!!!

Finally, a good look at the types of airplanes needs to be made. The "fleet mix" as it can be called....to compare engine technologies on specific airplane types. In the late 1990s, and shortly into 2000, still were lots of low-bypass turbofan jets, like the Boeing 727, and older 737 (dash 200s)....plus, a whole slew of DC-9s. Talking USA here. Delta and Northwest (now merged, BTW) each had huge DC-9 fleets. The MD-80 series (stretched DC-9, really) has the smae core engine, but a bit more bypass flow....so, it will produce contrails more often than the older P&W JT-9s on the older jets.

Finally, consider the increase in the newer 737s (the dash 300, and up) that came about in late 1980s. Next,the Airbus A320 series, in use by many, many airlines as well. BOTH have engines that will make more contrails than the older jets....

_______________________________________________________

BTW...that was quick...try this link, see what you think:

www.boeingcapital.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Found a roll-your-own data tool (www.bts.gov...) on the same site (BTS) and was able to pull all domestic and international passenger and cargo, scheduled and nonscheduled, maintenance, and system departures in the U.S. from 1996-2010 by month (can't do it by year). I think I got it all. Ha.

The fairly large variations (peaks and valleys) make it hard to tell at a glance how much it's increased overall. It looks like cargo either wasn't tracked consistently or took a gigantic leap (we're talking from 800 flights a day to 38,000 flights a day), so my guess is that the tracking or maybe data loss was at issue there.

At a quick glance, the average increase over the 14 years looks to be about 18%. But here again there are lots of valleys in there. I'm going to stick it in a spreadsheet when I get a chance. Interesting stuff in and of itself. It's not as if it's doubled or tripled. If anyone wants the file, U2U me.

As for the chemtrail theories exponentially growing with the advent of the internet...well that seems logical. We can't totally infer from that that people weren't thinking they were seeing them or talking about them before the internet. The internet might just as well have brought together all those who were too, with some margin in there to cover what you're probably alluding to, where people see or read about something for the first time and get on board.

As for the Boeing/Airbus page discussing the future of air travel, it is of course in their interest to see it increase, and this is probably reflected in their forecasts and projections. I'm not so sure their "steady increase" assertion is true based on what I've seen in the BTS data or that the blue line on the one chart accurately reflects what the BTS data shows for 2000-2010. I may change that opinion when I format it by year. Interesting stuff about plane size and butts in seat as it relates to congestion. Definitely a lot for air and ground control as well as manufacturers to think about. I'm sure Boeing/Airbus would love to see it trend away whatever sized planes they have the most of out there now. Here's hoping whatever their new products are and whatever choices are made do alleviate the congestion and resulting pollution, whatever it is.

P.S. Any thoughts on my questions in my post prior to the one about air traffic increases? Thanks.

Originally posted by firepilot
Actually yes we can. Someone that lives in Ft Sill posted in the thread that there was nothing but helicopters based there. There certainly is not some secret C-130 unit there. We have no corroborating evidence of it either other than him saying something.

And with a payload, the C-130 does not even reach contrailing altitudes either.

It seems that you would just believe whatever he says until proven otherwise, when there is frankly not any evidence for his statements. There is no evidence of any kind of similar aircraft at Ft Sill, or Lawton for that mattter. No evidence for unmarked bomber type chemplanes at the Lincoln airport either.

Are you going to believe in his statements about 30,000 guillotines being stored at military bases too, until thats disproven? It doesnt hurt to be skeptical of wild claims and make them give the proof, rather than believing until proven wrong.

edit on 23-1-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

What exactly do I believe?? you are rambling and being presumptious again, "No secret C130's", "nothing but helicopters" "no evidence of other than him saying something" which him is it? you have two hims to deal with. So you want contradict hearsay with hearsay? What I have done is point out that a large aircraft can land and takeoff, within the parameters of both airports, especially STOL aircraft, or even aircraft that are not designed STOL aircraft, but that have that capability in practice. Not sure where you are going with the baldy contrail statement either, height is abitrary, payload or no payload. As for proof regards this thread, I have already said TG has to be more specific. Then, and only then, can we move this thread forward.

reply to post by ZombieJesus


Thanks for proving mine.

Im new to this site and hope im posting in the right place...I felt compelled to bring to the attention of as many people as possible my strong belief, and forgive me if its already been suggested before now, Ive not seen it anywhere. It has to do with the FEMA camps and my curiosity in how the government planned to get us all rounded up and contained without one hell of a fight from the people who know they are only going to be slaughtered there. Then I remembered an article i read a few yrs. ago that answered my question. It at the same time gave me answers to my questions concerning Chemtrails. I dont have a link to the actual article. (in fact there are several now.) But, it will only take you 10 min. to research Scopolamine - The Zombie-Drug and you may come to the same conclusions as I have. Chemtrails being the delivery mechanism. Id like to know what you think.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Does 23+ years flying airliners count at all? Along with many years in previous flying experiences.

No.

Because as per Traditional Drummer, you're inviting us to believe you on the basis of an 'appeal to authority' - and one which we can't even verify! Can anyone say 'Logically Fallacious'?

Better luck next time in convincing everyone that you know all there is to know about the sky above our heads.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Does 23+ years flying airliners count at all? Along with many years in previous flying experiences.

No.

Because as per Traditional Drummer, you're inviting us to believe you on the basis of an 'appeal to authority' - and one which we can't even verify! Can anyone say 'Logically Fallacious'?

Better luck next time in convincing everyone that you know all there is to know about the sky above our heads.

its not so much of a appeal to authority he uses, just that so many things that chemtrailers get alarmed at, are so easily explainable with even a little bit of knowledge of aviation or weather. I, and Weedwhacker, are continually correcting chemtrailers on a variety of misconceptions

Because as per Traditional Drummer, you're inviting us to believe you on the basis of an 'appeal to authority' - and one which we can't even verify! Can anyone say 'Logically Fallacious'?

In my opinion, this is an interesting response. I haven't seen evidence yet that has not been extremely biased, improperly gathered, or speculative. The original post of this thread implies speculation that Ted Gunderson is associated well enough with the US federal government to hold a credible opinion regarding chemtrails. All of the information presented in this thread is by your definition, with the exception of credible information cited as scientific source data, logical fallacy.

The debate can't work that way. You either accept the fact that some variables are assumed to be true and focus on the topic, or you accept the fact that your belief system is contradictory to itself.

Originally posted by Illuminizard

Because as per Traditional Drummer, you're inviting us to believe you on the basis of an 'appeal to authority' - and one which we can't even verify! Can anyone say 'Logically Fallacious'?

In my opinion, this is an interesting response. I haven't seen evidence yet that has not been extremely biased, improperly gathered, or speculative. The original post of this thread implies speculation that Ted Gunderson is associated well enough with the US federal government to hold a credible opinion regarding chemtrails. All of the information presented in this thread is by your definition, with the exception of credible information cited as scientific source data, logical fallacy.

The debate can't work that way. You either accept the fact that some variables are assumed to be true and focus on the topic, or you accept the fact that your belief system is contradictory to itself.

That should apply to all parties, and quite frankly it's not. And perhaps you should ask if someone has a belief system in the first place, or are they just trying to wean out something that makes sense. I do recall you making a post about finding Barium in water, I find that strange. Barium is the metal and it reacts in water and air to make another form. So you are obfuscating, just as Pilot likes to do if he thinks someone is gull enough to lap up his every word, just leave a little bit out, here and there.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Illuminizard

Because as per Traditional Drummer, you're inviting us to believe you on the basis of an 'appeal to authority' - and one which we can't even verify! Can anyone say 'Logically Fallacious'?

In my opinion, this is an interesting response. I haven't seen evidence yet that has not been extremely biased, improperly gathered, or speculative. The original post of this thread implies speculation that Ted Gunderson is associated well enough with the US federal government to hold a credible opinion regarding chemtrails. All of the information presented in this thread is by your definition, with the exception of credible information cited as scientific source data, logical fallacy.

The debate can't work that way. You either accept the fact that some variables are assumed to be true and focus on the topic, or you accept the fact that your belief system is contradictory to itself.

That should apply to all parties, and quite frankly it's not. And perhaps you should ask if someone has a belief system in the first place, or are they just trying to wean out something that makes sense. I do recall you making a post about finding Barium in water, I find that strange. Barium is the metal and it reacts in water and air to make another form. So you are obfuscating, just as Pilot likes to do if he thinks someone is gull enough to lap up his every word, just leave a little bit out, here and there.

I do not obfuscate, I actually post exactly what I mean and deal with specifics.

And yes, you are correct, if someone found a piece of pure barium metal sitting in water, that would be strange. And your reasoning is sound as to why it would be strange, and would also be debunk those would would make such a claim that they did. Most likely, it would have been Barium sulfate, because that is water soluable too, and used in lots of applications down at ground level

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Illuminizard

Because as per Traditional Drummer, you're inviting us to believe you on the basis of an 'appeal to authority' - and one which we can't even verify! Can anyone say 'Logically Fallacious'?

In my opinion, this is an interesting response. I haven't seen evidence yet that has not been extremely biased, improperly gathered, or speculative. The original post of this thread implies speculation that Ted Gunderson is associated well enough with the US federal government to hold a credible opinion regarding chemtrails. All of the information presented in this thread is by your definition, with the exception of credible information cited as scientific source data, logical fallacy.

The debate can't work that way. You either accept the fact that some variables are assumed to be true and focus on the topic, or you accept the fact that your belief system is contradictory to itself.

That should apply to all parties, and quite frankly it's not. And perhaps you should ask if someone has a belief system in the first place, or are they just trying to wean out something that makes sense. I do recall you making a post about finding Barium in water, I find that strange. Barium is the metal and it reacts in water and air to make another form. So you are obfuscating, just as Pilot likes to do if he thinks someone is gull enough to lap up his every word, just leave a little bit out, here and there.

I do not obfuscate, I actually post exactly what I mean and deal with specifics.

And yes, you are correct, if someone found a piece of pure barium metal sitting in water, that would be strange. And your reasoning is sound as to why it would be strange, and would also be debunk those would would make such a claim that they did. Most likely, it would have been Barium sulfate, because that is water soluable too, and used in lots of applications down at ground level

People who make claim to their expertise and then remark something like that in the same breath, while actually trying to debunk someone else's ideas on things, debunk themselves don't you think?