Chemtrail - Former FBI Chief Says "Chemtrail Death Dumps Must Be Stopped"

infomaster

Former FBI Chief, Ted L. Gunderson, makes a statement regarding the chemtrail "death dumps", otherwise know as air crap, on January 12, 2011.

This is a crime : a crime against humanity, a crime against America, a crime against the citizens of this great country. The must be stopped. WHAT IS WRONG WITH CONGRESS? This has an affect on their population, and their people, and their friends, and their relatives, and themselves. What's wrong with them?

http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2011/01/chemtrail-former-fbi-chief-says.html

Monty Burnz

infomaster wrote: »

Former FBI Chief, Ted L. Gunderson, makes a statement regarding the chemtrail "death dumps", otherwise know as air crap, on January 12, 2011.

See, this is the kind of disinformation that totally discredits those putting forward a CT. This guy was not the former 'chief' of the FBI. It took me about 15 seconds to find that out.

Monty Burnz

He can also scan you for brain implants and stop others controlling your brain with radio waves or somesuch, according to this ad.

Yitzhak Rabin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

See, this is the kind of disinformation that totally discredits those putting forward a CT. This guy was not the former 'chief' of the FBI. It took me about 15 seconds to find that out.

He was Chief of the Los Angeles FBI. That was his official title. I don't think that necessarily means anything he says has merit, but its dishonest to say he wasn't an FBI chief.

Richard tea

yekahs wrote: »

He was Chief of the Los Angeles FBI. That was his official title. I don't think that necessarily means anything he says has merit, but its dishonest to say he wasn't an FBI chief.

Thanks for pointing that out Yekahs, I was ready to give up on this thread when monty mentioned that he was not an FBI chief. I guess it proves that we should all do our own research:)

Monty Burnz

yekahs wrote: »

He was Chief of the Los Angeles FBI. That was his official title. I don't think that necessarily means anything he says has merit, but its dishonest to say he wasn't an FBI chief.

'An' FBI chief is quite different to 'the FBI' chief though, isn't it? It's like saying, "former CIE Boss Joe Murphy had these interesting insights into organising public transport". If you find out that he was a boss, but he was boss in the canteen, it's a bit of a misrepresentation. There must be hundreds of 'chiefs' at that level in the US.

I've tried to find out a little more about the guy - it seems the information that he was the chief of the FBI in LA stems from this news article. I wonder do we have any other sources? Can you prove that that was his official title?

I also came across this list of 'ranks' in the FBI (although it seems they are not really ranks in the military sense):

Director
Deputy Director
Assistant Director
Section Chief
Division Chief
Special Agent In Charge
Supervisory Special Agent
Special Agent

Edit: According to this CV, if it's legit, he was "1977-79 Senior Special Agent-in-Charge, Los Angeles, California".

stoneill

Somewhere in the US Secret Service:
Agent Chuck "I know, lets get all those gooks and pinkos in one foul swoop"
Agent Brad "How's that Chuck?"
Agent Chuck "We dump mind altering mood swinging libido crushing chemicals out the back of commercial airlines"
Agent Brad "Chuck, you're a genius"

My name is URL

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2008/04/barbara_coe_sonny_bono_and_the.php

studiorat

stoneill wrote: »

Somewhere in the US Secret Service:
Agent Chuck "I know, lets get all those gooks and pinkos in one foul swoop"
Agent Brad "How's that Chuck?"
Agent Chuck "We dump mind altering mood swinging libido crushing chemicals out the back of commercial airlines"
Agent Brad "so eh? how do we stop ourselves from breathing it too??"
Shut up Chuck!!

fixed

studiorat

My name is URL wrote: »

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2008/04/barbara_coe_sonny_bono_and_the.php

We're going to have some with Mr. Gunderson for sure...

tricky D

yekahs wrote: »

He was Chief of the Los Angeles FBI. That was his official title. I don't think that necessarily means anything he says has merit, but its dishonest to say he wasn't an FBI chief.

Hmmm, Los Angeles. He's probably getting smog and chemtrails mixed up.

Yitzhak Rabin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

'An' FBI chief is quite different to 'the FBI' chief though, isn't it? It's like saying, "former CIE Boss Joe Murphy had these interesting insights into organising public transport". If you find out that he was a boss, but he was boss in the canteen, it's a bit of a misrepresentation. There must be hundreds of 'chiefs' at that level in the US.

Get real. The OP said former FBI chief, not as you misquoted him former chief of the FBI.

Your comparison is silly to say the least. If you wanted to compare it to a bus service, then you should have said that it is the equivalent of a US federal bus service, of which he was head of the municipality of LA.

In fairness chief of the LA field office, a city with a population of 17.8 million people is not too shabby, and comparing it to the canteen manager in busáras is pointless.

Edit: According to this CV, if it's legit, he was "1977-79 Senior Special Agent-in-Charge, Los Angeles, California".

I hope for his sake its not real. He spells narcotics as narcodics, and instead of special-agent in charge in one place he writes special-again in charge. But judging by some of the stuff he is saying, he is a bit of a looper, so who knows, maybe this is his CV.

Yitzhak Rabin

Less of the p*sstaking lads

studiorat

http://www.tedgunderson.com/

Monty Burnz

yekahs wrote: »

Get real. The OP said former FBI chief, not as you misquoted him former chief of the FBI.

The point is that a casual reader reads "former FBI chief" and if they don't investigate, they will assume he was chief of the whole organisation, rather than possibly being nominal head of some section in one branch, or whatever the truth is.

And we still don't have particularly good evidence that he even was a 'chief', other than a sinlge reference in an article (and where did the writer get the info from?) . We have a CV that says 'Senior Agent in Charge', which looks like he was half-way up the chain, more or less.

yekahs wrote: »

I hope for his sake its not real. He spells narcotics as narcodics, and instead of special-agent in charge in one place he writes special-again in charge. But judging by some of the stuff he is saying, he is a bit of a looper, so who knows, maybe this is his CV.

Fair point

My name is URL

studiorat wrote: »

http://www.tedgunderson.com/

His real site is funnier.. look at the header. Talk about appealing to authority!

studiorat

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/gumediabig.htm

I love his ads very tinfoil hat...

joebucks

Does anyone know what role Gunderson's had in the making of the Conspiracy of Silence documentary?? He has it advertised on his page..Docu was filmed by ITV but was pulled off the schedule at the last minute..

Worth a watch iregardless of Gunderson's possible involvement.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2588535720058527688#

studiorat

Gunderson isn't in it from what I remember. I watched it a while ago before he or de Camp came up on my radar.

However I've stumbled across a few things in the meantime which could suggest that the information in that video is covering up for someone else, and perhaps was false information fed to the TV crew. I'm still trying to make sense of it, if it does come to anything I'll open a new thread.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

Gunderson isn't in it from what I remember. I watched it a while ago before he or de Camp came up on my radar.

However I've stumbled across a few things in the meantime which could suggest that the information in that video is covering up for someone else, and perhaps was false information fed to the TV crew. I'm still trying to make sense of it, if it does come to anything I'll open a new thread.

Let me guess the Catholic Church right?

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Let me guess the Catholic Church right?

Naturally, though the commentator began using the book of revelations as proof for something else and lost me there and then.

Still, if de Camp was correct, then they were getting the children from somewhere. And Ratzinger who met with de Camp around the time, knew something was going on since he encouraged him to keep going after them, obviously he (Rtzngr) couldn't or (wouldn't) do anything.

That's of course if what de Camp says is true. One particular interview with him does suggest to me he may be lying. Anyway I digress...

joebucks

studiorat wrote: »

Naturally, though the commentator began using the book of revelations as proof for something else and lost me there and then.

Still, if de Camp was correct, then they were getting the children from somewhere. And Ratzinger who met with de Camp around the time, knew something was going on since he encouraged him to keep going after them, obviously he (Rtzngr) couldn't or (wouldn't) do anything.

That's of course if what de Camp says is true. One particular interview with him does suggest to me he may be lying. Anyway I digress...

I am not convinced that everything in that documentary is correct, I am just trying to figure out what Gundersons role in the making of it is as he is trying to align himself with the work of De Camp. The Franklin Case is a bonafide conspiracy and I am thinking that Gunderson is trying to get people to associate him with such cases to give his views on other conspiracies credence. Or given Gundersons role in FBI does he have insider knowledge about this case and alleged coverup?
Are Gundersons claims about the chemtrails valid?