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

Originally posted by thektotheg
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

So, let me get this straight...

If the head of NASA came out and said that there were alien craft flying through our skies/galaxy, he deserves no more merit than any other person in the world?

That makes so much sense. Thanks.

Yes, that's correct. Believing an unsupported claim of the head of NASA because he's the head of NASA is a logical fallacy called the appeal to authority. Achievement is no reason to believe a claim, only evidence makes a claim valid.

Originally posted by Stewie
It is funny how these threads progress. A hard hitting piece of information, a credible clue that chemtrails are in fact real, is presented. The debunkers are slammed.

I don't see how this is a credible clue in any way, nor that this is a hard hitting piece of information. In fact, his statement wreaks of confusion and is devoid of evidence. His statement is not particularly challenging to a skeptic.

Maybe i'm wrong about UFO's, maybe there are no ET's wondering the skies at night abducting innocent poeple, but i just don't get chemtrials. Why on earth would be the point of killing yourself in the process of shrinking the population or do TPTB and very rich have some kind of protection against it.

I don't think i could believe in such nonsence.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Okay, to YOU it is not a credible claim. Then let it go.
Standoff.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


It is something, however, to consider. If you do, in fact, make it to such a high level position, it would seem your critical thinking skills are well developed.

Now as to your intention .... that's another story altogether.

All I'm trying to say is just because it's regarded as a logical fallacy, doesn't mean it's not an intuitive factor to take into consideration. In fact doing so based solely on the fact that it's regarded as a logical fallacy, would seem unwise and fallacious.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by smurfy

 

Yes....I pointed out back on Page 1, referring to the "information on location" that Ted Gunderson provided.

Throws his crediblity in the dumpster.....

Had a look at your post Weed, do you mean that refuelling tankers are unmarked or what? or that the man is blind as well.

How do Chemtrails target certain species of birds or fish?

All the reports of birds and fish dieing "en-masse" from around the globe seem to be of the same species per event

Originally posted by unityemissions
It is something, however, to consider. If you do, in fact, make it to such a high level position, it would seem your critical thinking skills are well developed.

Now as to your intention .... that's another story altogether.

All I'm trying to say is just because it's regarded as a logical fallacy, doesn't mean it's not an intuitive factor to take into consideration.

Well, if you find the claim appealing enough then by all means investigate it to find out if the evidence is there to confirm it. If you believe it without confirming the evidence then you are indeed operating on fallacious thinking.

I don't necessarily believe that achieving a high level position is an indication of good critical thinking skills. Ed Mitchell is a great example: a frequently cited astronaut who believes many weird things, including but not limited to, his belief that a psychic in Canada remotely healed him of cancer.

reply to post by Stewie


Exactly. Some folks simply don't want to know things, especially the truth. It's too scary. They'll make the burden so impossibly high based on wherever the new information comes, that they could likely be given a guided tour of a chemtrail mixing plant; watch planes filled with the junk take off and begin spraying; and then laugh to themselves in the gift shop about how silly everyone that works there is for thinking it's true. haha. Skeptics are the real conspiracy. I've officially lost interest in this thread, though. Not your fault OP, I think you did a fine job. You can only take so much fervent denial though. Cheers.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


You know, as much as it seems I may be disagreeing with my earlier post, I fully agree with you.

It truly can go either way, and that's what I was trying to convey.

I would also like to mention that just because someone may be incorrect towards certain assumptions, doesn't mean he doesn't have a high level of reasoning capabilities.

There's simply too much for any one person to fully grasp in our limited time on this rock. I think it reasonable to assume that practically everyone has at least one false assumption in their beliefs, including you and I !!!

BTW, STAR FOR YOU!!

Originally posted by unityemissions
I would also like to mention that just because someone may be incorrect towards certain assumptions, doesn't mean he doesn't have a high level of reasoning capabilities.

I agree with you 100%. There are some incredibly intelligent people in the world that believe some weird things for bad reasons.

There's simply too much for any one person to fully grasp in our limited time on this rock. I think it reasonable to assume that practically everyone has at least one false assumption in their beliefs, including you and I !!!

Again, I agree 100%. I have believed some weird things in the past and probably still do. I'm trying more and more to believe true things for the right reasons and avoid fallacious thinking (such as the appeal to authority). Whatever it takes to get to the real truth

reply to post by thektotheg

Contrails have been around for a very long time.

Yeah...and I've been flying airplanes for a LONG time. I happen to know a few things about contrails, aviation and meteorology.

The controversy over chemtrails, on the other hand, has not.

And, do you know why? (It's called the "Internet"....and a few numbskulls who went off half-cocked, and their misinformation and total lack of science education got spread around by OTHERS with similar handicaps of rational thinking).

There is yet ONE MORE aspect to this timing as well.....two-pronged: The increase in the numbers of airplanes and flights AND, same time, a change in engine technology that tended to make contrails MORE persistent and :fluffier: looking, as well.

The HIGH-bypass turbofan engine. (Look it up).

While I'm sure your credentials and qualifications as pertains to the subject are top notch....

Yes, in fact...they are. As I noted up above. Does 23+ years flying airliners count at all? Along with many years in previous flying experiences.

More of your ramblings about perceptions and "truths" would be more useful if applied to finding actual EVIDENCE to support these "chemtrail" claims...as has been suggested numerous times.

IF any such activity were being undertaken on such a massive scale, as claimed.....it would NOT be "hidden"....the activities of providing the materials...manufacturing them, transporting to airports for "loading" and the servicing of the airplanes...a great deal of infrastructure would be required.

THEN, there is the problem of the airplanes specifically "configured" (per "chemtrailers" claims)....AND the pilots. We're talking a lot of manpower, and man-hours...along with the normal Human routines of eating and sleeping....required rest rules would still apply, as well as duty time limits. This is true in civilian flying, as well as in the military.

Finally, these fanciful "chemtrail" claims indicate a terrible ignorance on the part of the believers....about airplanes, and operational concerns (such as weights, fuel/endurance requirements, balance (CG), etc).

When pressed, the "chemtrail" believers hand-wave it away......they seem ot have nothing but "magical" thinking. Speaking of your attempt to impugn MY logic.......I happen to know more about the complexities that would be involved, to know why it is NOT plausible, as described in "chemtrail" literature.

Of course, the biggest lack of logic and reason and critical thinking? The altitudes of the so-called "chemtrail release" and "spray". In the regions were large jets typically cruise.....above 25,000 feet up to (rarely) 42,000 feet. MOST are in the 30,000 to 39,000 range, typically in the United States.

Stuff "sprayed" up that high is NOT going to "fall" back down very quickly....if at all. AND, is generally affected by the prevalent high winds, often, at those altitudes.

As for clouds (and contrails, which ARE a type of cloud)....people just don't realize how they behave...because they move so slowly, to Human perception. SO, time-lapse photography is useful for illustration:



See any clouds "drop down" to the ground, during that brief clip???

More:





Nature....and clouds....in action. Sometimes the contrails that are formed as a direct result of our airplane technology will contribute....other times, Mother Nature is perfectly capable of making her own.....

reply to post by wcitizen


Kind of misleading. He is not the former head of the FBI itself, but was in charge of the FBI - Los Angeles office. While I agree that if the info is accurate, people will go out of there way to villify this guy, however, his history does raise some questions about his mental capacity.

Wiki page

Post-FBI Investigations and CareerAfter retiring from the FBI, Gunderson set up a private investigation firm, Ted L. Gunderson and Associates, in Santa Monica. In 1980, he became a defense investigator for Green Beret Doctor Jeffrey R. MacDonald, who had been convicted of the 1970 murders of his pregnant wife and two daughters. Gunderson obtained affidavits from Helena Stoeckley confessing to her involvement in the murders.[4] Gunderson is also co-author with Roger McGovern of How to Locate Anyone Anywhere Without Leaving Home.[5]

Since his retirement, Gunderson has publicly claimed that several high profile deaths or crimes have been committed by prolific satanic cults, also often claiming involvment by high level government officials. Cases where he has made such claims include the death of Sonny Bono, the Oklahoma City bombing and the Jeffrey MacDonald case[6]

He entered the FBI in 1950, and retired from it and started his own Investigation business. He became a defense attrorney in 1980.

Here is a link to his own website:

Home - Ted Gunderson



My question is what type of chemical is being used? If it causes deaths, it would be noticed in my opinion. Not all Doctors, Poilice Investigators etc are going to be on the Government payroll to perpetrate a crime of this magnitude and it not get out.

To me it seems a bit farfetched. I would like to find some more info about this guys evidence and proof before buying into the claim.

Major S&F OP ! too many here believe that chem trails are nonsense and they are not . Thank you you for posting this.
Let me add a short vid that Skywatcher2011 posted on another thread.

I'll ask again!.........Ted Gunderson mentions that birds and fishes are being killed en-masse.......how do chemtrails target just red winged blackbirds in Arkansas and no other species of bird in that area?

Originally posted by mikellmikell
8 planes to chemtrail the whole world??? Oh well humorus read anyway

He didn't say that it was just 8 planes. He said there are 8 planes that he knows of and has seen that dump this crap across our country.

reply to post by Argyll


Well, I would say this is quite the stretch, but: perhaps certain species have certain genetic susceptibilities, and these are most affected by these certain chemicals which may or may not be sprayed.

The likelihood of this?? Not so good at all, imo, but still within the realm of possibility.

What may be more likely?! : the man is doing the best he can, in his older age, to make sense of what he perceives to be a reality.

That being that chemtrails are real, and that they are affecting wildlife around the globe, as well as humans.1

Not to say either of these are for sure real or not, but just giving my $.02c ......


oh also: please don't misquote this post!!! I can forsee it easily be misconstrued! take it all in, please

reply to post by Argyll


It's not outrageous to think that certain chemicals affect certain species of birds, fish and other animals differently.

Chemicals DO affect certain species differently, what's so hard to believe about that?

Dogs are deathly allergic to chocolate, yet us humans can eat as much chocolate as we want.

Stop me if i'm speaking crazy...