It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 21
278
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by mbkennel
reply to post by wcitizen
 



So, what are "They" getting out of this?

Who is spending the money to do this special "whatever"? What is this "aircrap"? What's the purpose, what's the evidence?


You expect me to have all the answers? I don't. I believe in chemtrails, I know they are happening. It's an international black ops and I guess the funding is coming from various governments and 'elites'.

What is the purpose? There could be several. Since those perpetrating these crimes haven't made a public statement, the reasons why they are doing this are impossible to confirm.

What's the evidence? There is plenty available on the web, but you don't honestly expect me to spend my time doing YOUR research for you, now do you?
edit on 17-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)


what are "They" getting out of this?

buddy, have you considered that if it were easy to figure out, we'd be psychos as well?




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Helmkat
 


No, they don't. NO one has yet to show me a video of a commercial jet leaving a horizon to horizon chemtrail.
A still image will NOT do. It needs to be a video of a visible commercial jet leaving horizon to horizon chemtrails.
ALSO, you fools need to understand military secrecy and need to know. There are plenty of video showing the WW2 bombers leaving chemtrails next to ones leaving nothing. Did it even cross your mind that a fleet of bombers would not go into enemy territory without having some sort of defense against RADAR???!?!?! Geee ...spraying # out of the aircraft is EXACTLY how they defend against radar.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Total junk argument based on no knowledge of the real situation or the facts.


Just wanted to follow up with you. I've reviewed the site and there is no indication that this was a part of a reliable scientific study. The findings are consistent with Firepilots indication that filters were tested and not the air samples. If this were an open air sample, the area would be uninhabitable by human beings.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Helmkat
 


No, they don't. NO one has yet to show me a video of a commercial jet leaving a horizon to horizon chemtrail.
A still image will NOT do. It needs to be a video of a visible commercial jet leaving horizon to horizon chemtrails.
ALSO, you fools need to understand military secrecy and need to know. There are plenty of video showing the WW2 bombers leaving chemtrails next to ones leaving nothing. Did it even cross your mind that a fleet of bombers would not go into enemy territory without having some sort of defense against RADAR???!?!?! Geee ...spraying # out of the aircraft is EXACTLY how they defend against radar.


Oh geez, you get better and better with every post. Now chemtrails existed in WW2 huh? And bombers were chemtrailing Germany also? Wow, just wow. Not even anyone else claims we were chemtrailing germany, and besides, they carried everything they could in fuel and bombs, not with some system of spray gear too.

And no, things are not sprayed against radar. Where do you come up with that nonsense?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
All I know is that some years there was a white stringy (web-like) substance that fell from the sky and draped my neighborhood. Now, as far as I can tell, this is not a natural phenomenon. I have not heard or read about a natural phenomenon that creates this situation.A sample was collected, but never analyzed because the sample disappeared.

Now I know that cloud seeding takes place here and the way it is done is the aerosol is released ahead of a system to act as a catalyst but what I don't know is if that's what this substance was. The skies were clear with just a little haze.

What was the substance that we collected?. I learned about the possible compounds in this substance but what exactly was in the sample I had? Too bad I'll never know.

I do believe there is substance to chemical trail theories but I'm not sure of the purpose of it. The bird and fish die off would go a longs ways to explain some of this especially if TPTB wished to first get the public used to seeing these trails and then years after switch to another substance that looks visually similar but have different effects. That would fit, but i don't thinks it fits perfectly.

Any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Sometimes people amaze me. I cannot see where the argument sits when the UK's ministry of defence admitted to spraying chemicals on the public. They sprayed in Swindon, London and Southampton to name a few. They sprayed dangerous bacteria such as E. Coli, BACILLUS GLOBGGI, and ZINC CADMIUM SULPHIDE, all part of germ warfare testing.

It only came to light due to the tenacity of Mr. Norman Baker MP that this horrific and deadly spraying of our people.

When asked if such experiments were being perpetrated once again against an unsuspecting population, Sue Ellison, spokesperson for Porton Down Government laboratory replied:

“IT IS NOT OUR POLICY TO DISCUSS ONGOING RESEARCH”.

More than 100 covert operations took place between 1940 - 1979. The official MOD report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.

And for those interested, you can find a declassified MOD report regarding one of the projects that took place in 1977.

nightferry.files.wordpress.com...

Even more declassified documents admitting to chemical spraying here:

www.nr23.net...

Including a Crown copyrighted, declassified video of Valetta aircraft making a number of passes in front of the camera - all the time spraying the Biological Warfare simulant - Zinc Cadmium sulphide.




edit on 17-1-2011 by LogicalThinker88 because: More information


Also an interesting letter from DERA stating that they cannot rule out the need to make further, larger tests. Dated 1999.

www.nr23.net...
edit on 17-1-2011 by LogicalThinker88 because: More information



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 




This is huge, for all the debunkers that say there is no knowledgable truth to chemtrails and the government involvement


No it isn't.

This is an argument from authority.



i say come and debunk this man that has his fill of the shill game that we live in.


The burden of proof lies on those making the claim. If someone claims there are chemtrails they better offer some evidence more than co-opting the unexplained deaths of some animals. I've yet to see any compelling evidence, scientific or otherwise, suggesting that the government or some sinister conspiracy out side of it is spraying deadly chemicals with the intention of killing people. In fact I've seen no good evidence of chemtrails at all.... again let me reiterate that no one has to debunk them, the burden of proof is on the believers.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Helmkat
 


No, they don't. NO one has yet to show me a video of a commercial jet leaving a horizon to horizon chemtrail.
A still image will NOT do. It needs to be a video of a visible commercial jet leaving horizon to horizon chemtrails.
ALSO, you fools need to understand military secrecy and need to know. There are plenty of video showing the WW2 bombers leaving chemtrails next to ones leaving nothing. Did it even cross your mind that a fleet of bombers would not go into enemy territory without having some sort of defense against RADAR???!?!?! Geee ...spraying # out of the aircraft is EXACTLY how they defend against radar.


I live on the flight paths to and from O'hare. Given the correct conditions (especially in the winter) I see them all the time. Not chemtrails though, they leave contrails.

Those B-17's are not leaving contrails as a means to defeat radar, the notion is plainly impossible. You see, chaff has to be cut to a particular size to reflect the radar beams at the frequency of the radar, it is dropped in responce to being painted by radar, not as a general "paint the whole sky" from the time we leave till the time we land. The chaff then blooms into bright spots on a radar because the chaff is more reflective then the planes that dropped it. However if the chaff that is dropped is not cut correctly it does nothing.

You see I served in the USN, I was an Operations Specialist, I've worked first hand with radars, chaff etc. I am also an aviation enthusiast. I would encourage you to spend more time studying the subject before making such grandiouse claims, they do not paint you in a good light.

Oh and CAPITAL LETTERS DON'T MAKE YOU MORE RIGHT.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by firepilot
 


Where do you come up with your nonsense ??

Get a clue. You know nothing.

en.wikipedia.org...


(edited out your foul language)

EXACTLY. YOU DO NOT SPRAY CHAFF. You fell right into it, predictable.

If you knew what it was, you would know it is not something sprayed like a powder or liquid. It is released to try to fool radar guided missiles, and the aluminum is in bundles of long strips, meant to fool radars of certain wavelengths. This whole delusion of yours, that it it can make up some kind of chemtrail, is silly. And BTW, radar typically does not pick up particles of anything, and there are specific reasons why.

Where did you get this idea that chaff is sprayed? Oh yeah, from chemtrail sites...



edit on 17-1-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 


Are you the CT Busters guy?
... Now what about (Nano-Bio-Ai) STOP! I can know what you are thinking(mass RV) some will say that anything sprayed that could be living from that altitude would die(UV,cold,etc.)... but what was it that NASA just discovered and what about those Bacteria that can survive in the sulfur and extreme heat
...

Now to really "EMP your mind"... Humans have lost control of the AI-Matrix... never really had control


Mr Nano-x



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

EXACTLY. YOU DO NOT SPRAY CHAFF. You fell right into it, predictable.


Honest question. What is a chaff delivery tube? See here: blockyourid.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Based on this section of the publication you posted:

"An airplane blows out one or more chaff tubes for training purpose, with the ultimate goal in mind of confusing enemy radar and in preventing a successful missile strike"

It appears to be an open tube full of chaff that is forcefully ejected, allowing the chaf to spread through the air as it falls behind the aircraft, or a kind of exhaust tube built into the plane that is "blown out" pneumatically to create a cloud of chaf behind the plane.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by amodedoma
 


You know... funny you should bring up Mr Lazar the bazar(I mean this in a loving way)
... when was the last time you really seen him any where???
Still
...

Mr L was really a figment of his own mind... He elected to have his "Brain put in a Vat" and connect to the AI Matrix by way of also connecting to us all... Nano-Bio-Smart-Dust... the true clear connect... "Allegedly" of course


Sometimes you will see something your Bio-Brain can not comprehend (Compute), then it will become invisible to your eyes like it was never there


Yes! this is still about Chem-Trails

Mr
-X
edit on 17-1-2011 by CONSPIRACYWARRIOR because: I had to show Mr L ment Mr Lazar... secret authentic conspiracy wording




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

Originally posted by firepilot

EXACTLY. YOU DO NOT SPRAY CHAFF. You fell right into it, predictable.


Honest question. What is a chaff delivery tube? See here: blockyourid.com...


Its an unusual terminology for it, it looks like when they are using the term chaff delivery tube, that they are talking about an actual single bundle of chaff strips. One bundle will have lots of tightly packed strips meant to make a bigger radar target than the airplane itself. And like how an above poster mentioned, they have to be of a certain length to really have an effect, because it has to generate a kind of radar return that could confuse another radar into thinking that chaff cloud is the airplane.

Whenever someone talks about chaff being sprayed, or calls it an aerosol, liquid or powder, they are not correct. Powders and particles do not typically show up on radar, and radars are not going to confuse a bunch of particles for an airplane.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Illuminizard
 


Thanks. Yeah, I read that and it still wasn't crystal. Sounded to me like the chaff was in these "tubes" but that there might be other kinds of tubes...i.e. exhaust tubes? I dunno. Guess the term "being sprayed" is just bothering me.

I kept looking and found this too: www.tpub.com... yet now I'm not really clear about what module cavity means.or where the hell these chaff tubes come out of the plane. Sheesh.

reply to post by firepilot
 


Thanks. How does this appear to come out of the plane? Do you know?


edit on 1/17/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


The term "spray" is used but not in the sence of a "spray bottle" as far as Chaff is concerned. Chaff is generally launched (ships, ground based systems) or dropped (airborne). From ground/sea based systems there are a series of "launchers" the generally just look like tubes. They launch the chaff canister into the sky which then explodes at a certain height, the chaff spreads out quickly and as the chaff is launched the launch vehicle makes aggressive manuvers to get out of the way. The whole point is for the chaff to quickly spread out, give the missle a big juicy target and the real target gets away. However some missles will go through the cloud and pick up a new target (or the old one).

From aircraft chaff launchers generally look like a bunch of little holes in the belly of the of aircraft. The planes ECM systems will pick up that they are being painted by a missle radar and then then chaff launcher systems will launch the chaff cut for the correct frequency. The planes other ecm systems will also create electronic noise to help defeat the missle.

This is why Stealth tech is so huge. A stealth plane does not need a huge fleet of jammers to do its job. Conventional aircraft, say a F-16 needs all kinds of onboard jammers and chaff and other ecm purposed planes to keep our pilots safe.

The notion that B-17 and B-24 contrails are some kind of ecm/chaff dispersing system is not possible based on volume alone, imagine how much chaff you would have to carry to paint the sky!



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Illuminizard
 


Thanks. Yeah, I read that and it still wasn't crystal. Sounded to me like the chaff was in these "tubes" but that there might be other kinds of tubes...i.e. exhaust tubes? I dunno. Guess the term "being sprayed" is just bothering me.

I kept looking and found this too: www.tpub.com... yet now I'm not really clear about what module cavity means.or where the hell these chaff tubes come out of the plane. Sheesh.

reply to post by firepilot
 


Thanks. How does this appear to come out of the plane? Do you know?


edit on 1/17/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


I think most fighter planes have built in dispenser units, and then maybe some, especially older types, may need a pod or pylon for it. I believe F-16s can carry 60 bundles, but that varies on the particular model of F-16.

You are correct, its not something you spray. I have been trying to correct that misconception for years on here, and it still get repeated, as a certain person did above. How chemtrailesr jumped on aircraft having chaff radar countermeasures as evidence of chemtrails, is baffling to say the least.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


The term "spray" is used but not in the sence of a "spray bottle" as far as Chaff is concerned. Chaff is generally launched (ships, ground based systems) or dropped (airborne). From ground/sea based systems there are a series of "launchers" the generally just look like tubes. They launch the chaff canister into the sky which then explodes at a certain height, the chaff spreads out quickly and as the chaff is launched the launch vehicle makes aggressive manuvers to get out of the way. The whole point is for the chaff to quickly spread out, give the missle a big juicy target and the real target gets away. However some missles will go through the cloud and pick up a new target (or the old one).

From aircraft chaff launchers generally look like a bunch of little holes in the belly of the of aircraft. The planes ECM systems will pick up that they are being painted by a missle radar and then then chaff launcher systems will launch the chaff cut for the correct frequency. The planes other ecm systems will also create electronic noise to help defeat the missle.

This is why Stealth tech is so huge. A stealth plane does not need a huge fleet of jammers to do its job. Conventional aircraft, say a F-16 needs all kinds of onboard jammers and chaff and other ecm purposed planes to keep our pilots safe.

The notion that B-17 and B-24 contrails are some kind of ecm/chaff dispersing system is not possible based on volume alone, imagine how much chaff you would have to carry to paint the sky!

You spelled missle wrong
... but never the less... you are a smart one



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Is this a joke? (Is "Ted Gunderson" of sound mind??)

This "world-wide" activity as he claims --- ( Oh, BTW....that "aircrap" website? Links to more similar nonsense...lake that woman in Northern California. Has a LOT of photos of normal everyday contrails, though...
) --- he claims ALL of it is done by just a mere handful of airplnes??:


Joke?
You mean like putting words in someone's mouth and taking their statements out of context?



I happen to know of two of the locations where the airplanes are that dump this crap on us. Four of the planes are out of the Air National Guard in Lincoln, Nebraska. And, the other planes are out of Fort Sill, Oklahoma. I personally have observed the planes that were standing still in Nebraska – Lincoln, Nebraska – at the Air National Guard. They have no markings on them. They are huge, bomber-like airplanes with no markings.


I'm failing to see the part where he says that these two locations are the only ones supplying the whole world.


Originally posted by weedwhacker

Well, let's do a little sleuthing......and go visit Lincoln and Ft. Sill...(I've been to Lincoln many times, through its airport...).

OK....just got back from visiting the 155th Air Refueling Wing (ARW) at Lincoln:

www.155arw.ang.af.mil...

("Refueling" means "tankers". Not much of a "secret", nor a "conspiracy"...)


Sleuthing? Going somewhere and looking at plainly displayed things is sleuthing?
The game Clue must be a plunge down the Rabbit-Hole then.

Yeah, visiting a military installation of any kind doesn't really make you an expert on them. Not even a resident member of the Air Force would know all of the activities that go on at any particular base, due to compartmentalization.

No one said Refueling was some kind of secret conspiracy word. Gunderson didn't confirm or deny that the place was a refueling base, in fact he didn't mention it at all. I can only wonder why you are trying to post-associate such a line of reasoning with Gunderson.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
The ANG Wing is based right there at the commercial airport that serves the city of Lincoln!! In plain view, for all to see.

Is Ted Gunderson simply incredibly ignorant of the nature of the airplanes he saw???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In Oklahoma resides the 137the Air Refueling WIng of the Oklahoma ANG.
edit on 16 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Of course the planes are out in the open. No one said they were hidden, including Gunderson. I can only wonder why you are making a big deal out of the planes being out in the open like you made some kind of point.

You don't really have any place to call another person ignorant. Especially since your argument is basically nothing but dishonestly putting words in someone's mouth, and acting like you've proved a point when really you've done no such thing.

I have my own doubts about his statement that the planes had no markings, but at least I'll be sticking to what he actually said if/when I address it.




top topics



 
278
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join