1. StratMatt777

    StratMatt777 Member



    Ted Gunderson: "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."


    The Air National Guard station at Lincoln, Nebraska is the 155th Air Refueling Wing made up of KC-135 REFUELING aircraft that you can see on google maps.
    They DO have the standard Air Force refueler markings.

    His second assertion, "the other planes are out of Fort Sill, OK" is IMPOSSIBLE because the runway is only 5,000' long.
    Certainly he is claiming that the KC-135s he saw in Lincoln Nebraska are the same "unmarked bomber type" operating out of Fort Sill (since you couldn't do this fictional spraying with anything smaller)...

    [​IMG]

    Here's where his claim falls apart.
    Any jet like a KC-135 (or whatever else chemtrail believers think is "spraying chem") requires AT LEAST 7,000 of runway to take off (usually more like 8,000) and requires 10,000' when fully loaded with fuel.

    Fort Sill's only runway is only 5,000' long!

    So his story is a verifiable lie. It's just that simple.

    Until January the Army operated these little Shorts C-23 20 seat turboprops out of there since you can't operate anything bigger.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=u.s. army c-23&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=elRAU4H6Lcnw2gWDgoFI&ved=0CEAQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=582

    Note that a large fleet of C-23s is visible on google maps at Fort Sill.

    Wikipedia says that Ted Gunderson guy died of cancer at 82.
    Did it really take 30 years of Ted Gunderson leaking top secrets before they "quickly" killed him off at the "premature youthful" age of 82?

    Something does not add up.

    Since the short runway length makes his assertion a verifiable falsehood let's look at something else...

    Here is a video of Ted Gunderson on Geraldo Rivera in the 1980s talking about Satanic cults sacrificing babies. If you skip to 2:46 you will see his eyes go right-left-right-left, which (according to the science of eye accessing cues) is evidence that he is accessing his conceptual mind (creating something that doesn't exist- creating a lie) and then pulling that new concept into the part of his mind that tells it in real time. Also he is blinking A LOT- and something in the body language just seems inauthentic to me.


    My gut feeling based on his "shiftiness" is that he's making up these crazy satanic child sacrifice ritural stories up on the fly.
    I don't know when or why (or if?) this guy started making stuff up (or if he is telling half the truth?)- but I can only assume that it was for notoriety. I don't know.
    I do know that you can't operate a KC-135, KC-10, B-52 or any other military jet other than the C-17 off of a 5,000' runway.

    What do you guys think?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2014
    • Like Like x 5
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Considering that Gunderson retired from the FBI in 1979 (or 80?), and by 1995 was publicly making statements about government agencies being in league with Satanists, his status as an "insider" with regard to a chemtrails program is questionable at best. And it does make one wonder why he would wait until just before his death in 2011 to get on that bandwagon.

    I see that conspiracy theorists have been at work on his Wikipedia page, for example giving the cause of death as arsenic poisoning (with a link to "know the lies" as a reference).
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. StratMatt777

    StratMatt777 Member

    Also, in that "death dumps" video Ted is standing in front of obvious CONtrails, which they included in the video intentionally as though it were evidence of "chemtrails". That blatant demonstration of ignorance of science hurts that video also

    I'm sure that the reason they use that stupid "know the lies" site as the reference is due soley to the video that is hosted on that page.

    So while that site is a total joke, the evidence to actually consider is the video interview of the guy who was supposedly a friend of his.
    A lawyer would probably call that hearsay, but if the things that he is saying are truly what Ted Gunderson told him then it would be a witness account (not sure-I'm not a lawyer)? Of course, if Ted had gotten senile or delusional the guy in the video could be accurately relaying what Ted Told him.
    To be clear (for lurkers in the future), I am in no way intending to disrespect Ted Gunderson when he is not here to defend himself...

    All I am doing is following the evidence to debunk "chemtrails".
    I am doing this investigation because I am gathering material to make a youtube video to debunk "chemtrails" because:
    1. I think it is sad that there are all these people on youtube who are paranoid delusional and afraid of things that do not exist.
    2. The threats against airliners (documented on this site) are terrifying and worrisome.

    I'm a pilot so I do understand condensation, saturation, sublimation, cloud formation and meteorology and weather in general...
    Of course I know for a fact that all contrails are in fact contrails and that there is no evidence (or reasonable doubt) to suspect anything otherwise.

    With that said, my intent is to be completely unbiased in my youtube video (unlike "chemtrail" believers) and that requires that I consider all the evidence that is available. For my youtube video to FULLY debunk the hoax of chemtrails I have to address this Ted Gunderson video.

    We all understand how condensation from jet exhaust becomes, essentially, lines cirrus clouds.
    So we know that "chemtrails" are fiction.
    With that reality being my admitted "bias"- I need to find the evidence to prove that there is something suspect with Ted's video.

    For the lurkers who are mad about what I am speculating about Ted, I will say that , of course, theoretically speaking, if Ted is telling the truth I will be unable to find evidence to debunk him (other than the fact that all contrails are contrails and there is no reason to question it).

    Since I called out the error of the 5,000' runway he cited I suppose I've already debunked him.

    I think that the next step is for me to delve more into psychology and learn how to recognize delusional behavior or lie telling.
    I say this because when I watch Ted I have this "sense" (subconscious body language/voice inflection lie detector?) that what he is saying is insincere- or more accurately: it seems rushed and disconnected in some way - aka paranoid.

    Any thoughts on how to make my video be a full and complete debunk of the "chemtrail" hoax- to include debunking Ted Gunderson?
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2014
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Maybe leave the psychology part out of it...there's already a large crowd that will tell you they 'know' the people at sandy hook or the Boston marathon were acting. Psychology is a rocky area to try to use as solid proof.
    But the runway bit seems legit. I'm sure there's plenty more on this site that can also help you in your quest.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    • Like Like x 1
  6. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    When a chemtrail conspiracy theorist says "They know" or they have "undeniable proof" it can mean quite a few things, usually a mishmash of allegations pulled from the usual chemmie bucket of "facts", such as HAARP, HR2977, Weisbach Patent, Michael J. Murphy's movies, random Youtube videos and such. The minimum runway length for both the KC-10 and KC-135 is 7,000 feet, and you sure are not taking off that with any sort of weight, much less a gross weight that would result from the fuel tanks being full. 10,000 feet is more the norm.

    Some interesting facts about Ted Gunderson:

    http://www.process.org/discept/2012/07/31/ted-gunderson-death-of-a-public-paranoid/

    Gunderson’s personnel file reveals a pre-FBI academic record with no background in either Criminology or Law. A graduate with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the University of Nebraska, his advisor described Gunderson as “somewhat lazy” during the prerequisite Bureau background interviews, though an assistant professor assured the FBI that Ted was “by no means” lazy… He simply “did not excel”. Ted was an “average” student, “321st out of a class of 478”



    Gunderson claimed to have personally verified that the U.S. Government knew in advance of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, yet allowed it to happen. He claimed among other things:



    - Children were being bused to the infamous extraterrestrial holding facility of Area 51 where they have been brain-washed and sold into sexual slavery



    - that US Military has 30,000 guillotines stored on base
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. StratMatt777

    StratMatt777 Member

    I've found that usually they are using evidence of isolated cloud seeding to magically "prove" that airliner contrails and "chemtrails".

    Funny, 7,000' and 10,000' were the same numbers I used in my youtube comment- I was totally guessing on those numbers.


    Wow! Nutjob! That pretty much does it for me! Thanks!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Seeker

    Seeker New Member

  9. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    How about starting with the fact that Ted Gunderson was never CHIEF of the FBI? That might give you some indication of the general veracity of those claims about him.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Seeker

    Seeker New Member

    I'm saw their use of the term 'FBI Chief' to refer to his very high ranking position of Senior SAC (organisational chart below). I note they did not say the CHIEF of the FBI, which would be the Chief of Staff. In any case, does their choice of name to reference him as a very high ranking officer detract from the veracity of their claims? I was hoping more for any real evidence to support or debunk this rather spurious claim.

    http://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/fbi-headquarters/org_chart/organizational_chart
     
  11. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    So you think the term "FBI Chief" means something other than "Chief of the FBI"? Have it your way, but that is only the beginning of the massive distortions of fact in conspiracy theorists' claims about Gunderson. How about the word "poisoned" in that title? They will go on to even go so far as to imply that his autopsy showed he was poisoned, but they seem to have no actual copy of any autopsy to back that up. Sorry to be blunt, but these stories about Gunderson are just ridiculous. He retired WAY before most chemtrail believers say the 'program' started, so how could he have been in any position to know anything about it? All he does is repeat the usual chemtrail believer claims, with some obviously false imbellishments, as shown by the runway issue.

    PS: Intellihub is known for promoting ridiculous claims like that the sun is rising in the wrong place.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  12. Seeker

    Seeker New Member


    I simply didn't want to get caught up in their correct or incorrect reference of his position within the FBI but to focus on debunking his claim that chemtrails are real and on the claim that he was poisoned. M Bornong was very kind and has pointed me to a very useful thread that dealt with the topic.

    I am new on here...so please be gentle with me.
     
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Gunderson was Los Angeles Bureau chief in 1977, and retired in 1979. By the 1990s he was fully involved in the conspiracy scene,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Gunderson

    None of his claims regarding "Chemtrails" were backed with evidence, and many were factually incorrect, as explained in the initial posts above.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    He died of cancer. Arsenic has been linked to cancer (among other things), but that's from years of exposure, usually environmental (drinking water, rice, or occupational exposure), not from poisoning.

    If he were actually poisoned, he would have died like this:
    You could argue that, if you really wanted to hide an assassination, making it look like prolonged environmental exposure could work, but consider the immense expenditure of manpower it would require to contaminate this man's water, home, or food for years, without affecting anyone around him. Compare to the identical results accomplished fire-and-forget by a syringe of infected blood.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    As I said, they often claim that he was "poisoned", and even that his autopsy shows that. But... they SHOW NO AUTOPSY. Why don't you just look at the evidence they present? Their braying FAR surpasses their evidence.

    PS: You want debunking of the "chemtrails are real" claim? Have you read here: contrailscience.com
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 3
  16. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

  17. StratMatt777

    StratMatt777 Member

    The runway is only 8,599 feet long.
    A transport category-based cargo aircraft such as a KC-135 (Boeing 707) or KC-10 (Douglas DC-10) requires a full 10,000 foot runway if it is going to be taking off fully-loaded with payload/cargo.

    The Army flew Shorts C-23 Sherpas out of that airfield- these are commuter-size twin turboprop aircraft which don't require much runway.

    There is a video of Ted in the 1980s on Geraldo Rivera's talk show making up stories about "Satanists abducting thousands of children from the streets every day and sacrificing them in satanic rituals."... there is a part where Geraldo asks him a question and Ted starts making stuff up. How do I know?
    Because of something called eye-accessing cues. When people access different parts of their mind their eyes will go up and to the right or up and to the left. When someone is creating lies in their mind and then telling them as though they are recalling a fact the eyes go from left to right repeatedly as they access the two different parts of their mind.
    This is called "dragging a lie".
    Check it out at 2:46:
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  18. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    I don't question whether Gunderson made stuff up or not. I say it's pretty obvious that he did.
    However, people who take Gunderson seriously might say that he was referring to Lawton-Fort Sill instead, not Henry Post Army Airfield.

    Gunderson's claimed that "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..." means that the large bomber like planes are based at Lincoln and either Lawton-Fort Sill or Henry Post.

    The problem with his statement is that Lawton-Fort Sill is not owned and run by the US military, and does not have any based military aircrafts like Lincoln does: http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=LAW&AptSecNum=2

    Lawton-Fort Sill is also used a lot by charter flights, and hiding/operating "unmarked large bomber planes" on an airport classified as a civil airport would not exactly go unnoticed by most people.

    "They" (meaning the US Military) would of course need an airport where they have full control and full privacy to operate. Henry Post is indeed owned by the military, but on the other hand it does not have any based aircrafts at all. I read that they have turned the airfield into a museum and not particularly private.

    And the runway is way too short.

    So yeah, Gunderson's claims are at best very unspecific and vague, and in the end nothing but his words.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Gundersen

    Gundersen Active Member

    I don't trust anybody with that surname anyway.
     
    • Funny Funny x 7
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    me either!! :D

    So basically the guy (or his supporters) were using his FBI link as an Argument from authority, even though, like Kristen Meghan, the supposed authority was not related to what they were commenting on.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  21. LouV

    LouV Member

    While I agree on the major part (that Gunderson didn't have credible evidence and relied on argument from authority), like Josh Heuer above, I'd rather avoid psychological analysis based on videos ; too tricky.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. StratMatt777

    StratMatt777 Member

    Good point. It is very subjective.
    It would be better to use the video of him talking about "death dumps" while he is being filmed with a contrail being left in the background and calling it a "chemtrail".

    A couple years ago I watched one of his presentations on youtube to see how genuine we was... he has a conspiracy theory for everything. He even says that the FBI supplied the bomb for the 1993 WTC bombing to the people who planted it, but that it was supposed to be a fake bomb- but to the surprise of the guys who planted it- it was real. LOL

    The conspiracy people accept this stuff as fact because it confirms their "fear of authority" paradigm which was likely developed in childhood in a chaotic household.
    The preceding statement is an accurate objective statement based on reading numerous psychology books and from my own personal experience of being gullible to conspiracy theories 12 years ago when I was a kid (and growing up around a raging alcoholic and having the experience to see that the psychology books are correct).

    Disclaimer for webmaster: The psychological analysis above in no way is insulting or making fun of people who have the psychological tendency to believe in conspiracy theories as described.
    I even pointed out that I thought like them from 2001 to 2002 due to the same psychological causes. Fortunately, with increased awareness of psychology and interest in reality and fact-checking it is extremely easy to correct these psychological "miss-calibrations" in one day of study.
    "Chemtrail" believers are not permanently flawed or defective. They just have a current level of awareness that is not calibrated with reality.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2014
    • Like Like x 3
  23. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member


    I agreed (and had a bit of emotional connection) with your entire post, but I copied and posted that sentence, because it stood out.

    As a truth.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Daryl Revok

    Daryl Revok New Member

    In my opinion, this guy was on the payroll of the people he was supposedly "outing". When you put people out there making complete and total asses of themselves, when someone DOES come along with any relevant facts, they can be immediately dismissed as a "kook" or "conspiracy theorist". Alex Jones is notorious for this...he will expound very valid and rational libertarian values and solutions in one sentence, then put on joker face paint and threaten to cut peoples heads off in the next. It's a very effective form of "pre-emptive" propaganda..I call it throwing the baby out with the bathwater effect...let me know what you guys think.
     
  25. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    I have indulged in that conspiracy theory myself, a theory that various wealthy interest groups will promote crazy conspiracy theories in order to pre-emptively discredit valid opposition by poisoning the well. I have been admonished to provide evidence of such theories if I am to speculate about them here. It's a conspiracy theory to explain conspiracy theories but I've not got solid evidence that something like Alex Jones' crazy False Flag conspiracy theories are actually themselves False Flags meant to divert attention from investigating some incident more deeply. It is just as easily the case that the 'theories' are organic and the folks that are in control of the media are happy to give the crazy a megaphone.

    I've seen plenty of Truthers mad at other Truthers because they think the other Truthers' theories are too crazy and must be some fake theory meant to make Truthers look bad. Fact is, an unsupported theory is just that and can come from anywhere and speculating doesn't do any good for anything. That's why this site demands that you drill down to claims of fact.
     
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Would be helpful if you could cite a specific part or statement in that article, to illustrate your point?

    Thanks.

    (PS.....just to "zero-in").
     
  28. Matthew

    Matthew New Member

    The first paragraph basically states that "law enforcement" (the FBI) had advanced knowledge of the bombing. The rest of the article dances around how they "messed up" by not stopping the bombing or replacing the bomb with harmless powder, as they said they would do. It also states that the informant secretly recorded conversations with the FBI. That would be worthy of further examination, it seems.
     
  29. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    OK, and thanks. It seems we have diverged from the actual topic(?)

    "Ted Gunderson, Chemtrails and Death Dumps" is the title.
     
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They did not know there was going to be a bombing at the WTC, just possible some nonspecific threat.

    This is off topic though. If there's something to debunk, start a new thread.
     
  31. StratMatt777

    StratMatt777 Member

    If you listen to an Alex Jones broadcast you will notice that when he takes a commercial break from scaring people about the imminent demise of the U.S./world he will advertise emergency food supplies or water filters to the people he just spent 20 minutes programming with the idea that the world is about to fall apart.

    I feel like entertaining the idea that these Alex Jones types are intentionally spreading disinformation (such as "cointel pro" or whatever flavor of conspiracy theory is deemed most likely by the believer) is yet another form of conspiracy theory involving the exact same psychological vehicles that "chemtrail" believers use when they call me a "troll" or "government shill"... referring specifically to the psychological duo of: "otherization" (which is like a religious person calling someone "heathen" or "of the devil") and confirmation bias.

    Here is the best Alex Jones video!
     
  32. StratMatt777

    StratMatt777 Member

    I have seen what you are referring to... ultimately, I think that it comes down to this: Does the government (or whoever) REALLY even care if 10,000 or 20,000 people believe in a particular conspiracy theory?
    Do they really care enough to spend money and manpower to try and discredit a conspiracy theory?

    Keep in mind that when these Alex Jones listeners tell their friends about their favorite conspiracy theory, even their friends and family think they are disconnected from reality, so, they would get the same result if they told their concerns to their political representative.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2014
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This is not a 9/11 thread. Please stay on topic.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  34. Eric Protest

    Eric Protest New Member

    Interesting Thread , Ted fooled me some years ago , until i found out he was going deep in research but never got into the Jesuits and Vatican Knighthoods hich was suspicious for someone who acted if he was sincere and out to assist the people in general. That he had to be an agent soon became clear. But still his message about the Death Dumps is quite correct , if this continues like it does then in a certain amount of years our soil and water will be polluted with Aluminium and other metals which are destructive for plant growth
    http://www.spirituallysmart.com/gunderson_decamp.html
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
    • Funny Funny x 5
  35. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    If what continues? There are no 'death dumps', if you have evidence there are we'd be very interested.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  36. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    No, and if you'd read the thread you'd see why this is false.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    Too late, Aluminium makes up 8 percent of the Earth's crust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This thread is about Ted Gunderson's claims, not chemtrails in general. Please say on topic.
     
  39. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    AND....in the post#1 (aka, "the OP") it clearly refutes Ted Gunderson's claims. Because of the need for very long runways for any "heavily laden" airplane to be able to take-off. (Contrary to the airports that Mr. Gunderson claimed were being used).

    I surmise that many non-pilots simply don't comprehend this very, very basic aspect of aviation science.

    Put simply?: The heavier the 'load', and thus the heavier the over-all weight OF a specific aircraft? The longer the runway needed.

    Because, well Isaac Newton understood the math, over 300 years ago (before airplanes, of course). 'F = MA'. (This 'translates' to: Force = Mass times Acceleration).
    SO...a VERY heavy airplane, laden with so-called "chemicals", will accelerate much more slowly than one that is not as heavy. THUS, a longer runway is needed, as a result.


    Mass (or, "weight") when it is increased requires greater force to be accelerated. Rather basic science principle, many seem to forget.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014
    • Like Like x 3
  40. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    of course high powered engines will improve this a bit, for the same M more F = more A, but the basic premise still holds.
    If a 747 needs a longer runway than is available at a certain airport, then you can't use it. I think pilots do tend to like a little margin for error / safety factor as well, so you really want a runway LONGER than you actually need in case you have to abort the takeoff.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1