Ted Gunderson former FBI chief/whistle blower poisoned ?

Daithi 1

You may or may not know that Ted Gunderson former FBI chief/whistle blower who spoke special agent In charge and head of the Los Angeles FBI. He was most famous for handling the Marilyn Monroe and John F. Kennedy cases died last July 31st of so called "cancer complications".

Ted Gunderson was born in Colorado Springs. He graduated from the University of Nebraska in 1950. Gunderson joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation in December 1951 under J. Edgar Hoover. He served in the Mobile, Knoxville, New York City, and Albuquerque offices. He held posts as an Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge in New Haven and Philadelphia. In 1973 he became the head of the Memphis FBI and then the head of the Dallas FBI in 1975.[5] Ted Gunderson was appointed the head of the Los Angeles FBI in 1977.[6] In 1979 he was one of a handful interviewed for the job of FBI director, which ultimately went to William H. Webster.[7]

Here is a 2 min video of Mr Gunderson speaking about chemtrails.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR6KVYJ73AU

It has since come to light that Ted Gunderson may have died from arsenic poisoning or the arsenic may caused the fatal "cancer complications".

Former head of FBI Los Angeles, Memphis, Dallas, poisoned with Arsenic says Dr Ed Lucidi who saw the body and treated Mr Gunderson who suffered bladder cancer and died as a result of its spread. Reportedly Mr Gunderson had a very large FBI dossier being a whistleblower against the agency and left out of moral considerations. He spoke to many around the country about his first hand information..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu77VlA41Sk

Jonny7

I watched the video

Dr Edgar Lucidi (the interviewee) believes in chem trails - the interviewer is bat**** crazy.

I'd wait for a formal autopsy from an independent source.

Arsenic poisoning is detectable and treatable, but I am guessing this 82 yr old Mr Gunderson was just about to blow the lid on Roswell, or 911 or change oil trading to petroeuros.

Daithi 1

you being a smartarse or wha ?

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

I watched the video

Dr Edgar Lucidi (the interviewee) believes in chem trails - the interviewer is bat**** crazy.

I'd wait for a formal autopsy from an independent source.

Arsenic poisoning is detectable and treatable, but I am guessing this 82 yr old Mr Gunderson was just about to blow the lid on Roswell, or 911 or change oil trading to petroeuros.

WTF? Are you saying a medical professional is not independent if he/she "believes in Chemtrails"?

Do you apply the same standards to people who "believes in God"?

Brown Bomber

Daithi, is Gunderson the guy who was connecting paedophile rings to Washington? The Boystown stuff, Jonny Gosch etc?

Daithi 1

Yes BB. Cheers for the reminder !! This stuff is fkn nutz..

Ted Gunderson / John DeCampTed & Senator John DeCamp Investigate a child pedophile ring out of Omaha, Nebraska involving Larry King, Boys Town, Washington DC and many high profile politicians etc. This documentary was scheduled to air on Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994, but was stopped by members of Congress. It exposes a network of religious leaders and politicans who routinely fly kids to Washington D.C. for sex orgies!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiVVvK1hf9g

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/boys_town_abuse-large.gif

**WARNING** This documentary contains graphic accounts of physical and sexual abuse against children. Viewer discretion is strongly advised.

This is the recently discovered longer, higher quality version of the "unaired" 1994 Yorkshire Television Investigative Documentary "Conspiracy Of Silence", concerning a network of pedophile rings in Nebraska and Washington D.C., that traded young children to the wealthy and political establishment in the United States for molestation, drug trafficking, and blackmail.

[

hooradiation

The second video in the OP doesn't seem to have any of the claims that are being made of it.

I've learned that Ted didn't like smart meters (or so we're told), the interviewer spends more time using emotive language ("death dumps?" and "murder metres") then saying anything useful.


But the interviewee did not perform the autopsy, only viewed it, the results of which I cannot find online.

But, lets see what we've got.
All he has to go on is that he believes that arsenic poisoning was the cause of the cancer (not that the arsenic itself killed him or that it caused 'cancer complications') because and I quote "seven or eight years ago ... I met him at a conference and his fingernails were black"

At no point does this man claim to have actually examined him him properly, nor did he actually do anything to help him. The high sulphur food isn't even the proper treatment for arsenic poising, it's chelation and maybe potassium supplements. Fucking homoeopathic nonsense.

There is little evidence for this poisoning claim.


Edit:
It's worth noting that Dr. Edgar A. Lucidi is a ophthalmologist (eye doctor) and, more importantly, a 'holistic physician" which explains why someone purporting to be a doctor would use such homoeopathic guff.

Jonny7

hooradiation wrote: »

The second video in the OP doesn't seem to have any of the claims that are being made of it.

I've learned that Ted didn't like smart meters (or so we're told), the interviewer spends more time using emotive language ("death dumps?" and "murder metres") then saying anything useful.


But the interviewee did not perform the autopsy, only viewed it, the results of which I cannot find online.

But, lets see what we've got.
All he has to go on is that he believes that arsenic poisoning was the cause of the cancer (not that the arsenic itself killed him or that it caused 'cancer complications') because and I quote "seven or eight years ago ... I met him at a conference and his fingernails were black"

At no point does this man claim to have actually examined him him properly, nor did he actually do anything to help him. The high sulphur food isn't even the proper treatment for arsenic poising, it's chelation and maybe potassium supplements. Fucking homoeopathic nonsense.

There is little evidence for this poisoning claim.


Edit:
It's worth noting that Dr. Edgar A. Lucidi is a ophthalmologist (eye doctor) and, more importantly, a 'holistic physician" which explains why someone purporting to be a doctor would use such homoeopathic guff.

But a man in a video I have never met or known before said it was poisoning so I am going to defend that standpoint regardless of what you say!

Daithi 1

Who said he was poisoned ?

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Who said he was poisoned ?

Well from your OP:

Former head of FBI Los Angeles, Memphis, Dallas, poisoned with Arsenic says Dr Ed Lucidi

So as an FBI head, what evidence did this guy provide for chemtrails or other such things that was more damning that the stuff normal people were claiming?
What about necessitated killing him years later after he spilled the beans?

Daithi 1

Obviously, I meant aside from the guy in the video.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

But a man in a video I have never met or known before said it was poisoning so I am going to defend that standpoint regardless of what you say!

That's a load of old bollox. Nobody is "defending" anything. If you think they are you aren't paying attention.

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Obviously, I meant aside from the guy in the video.

So then you don't believe the content of the articles and videos you posted?
If this is the case, why did you post it?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So as an FBI head, what evidence did this guy provide for chemtrails or other such things that was more damning that the stuff normal people were claiming?

Have you seen the Boystown documentary linked above?

King Mob wrote: »

What about necessitated killing him years later after he spilled the beans?

Do you deny that people like Gunderson, who went on speaking tours, gave interviews freely and wrote books all attempting to expose crimes of the federal government would likely be under surveillance? Or that his groups would be infilitrated?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So then you don't believe the content of the articles and videos you posted?
If this is the case, why did you post it?

What's the forum callled?
And what is the forums purpose?

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

So then you don't believe the content of the articles and videos you posted?
If this is the case, why did you post it?

I enjoy discussing stuff.

Why are you here ?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Have you seen the Boystown documentary linked above?

No I did not. Does it provide what I was asking for?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you deny that people like Gunderson, who went on speaking tours, gave interviews freely and wrote books all attempting to expose crimes of the federal government would likely be under surveillance? Or that his groups would be infilitrated?

Yes, I do deny it is likely.
It's possible but not likely.

And why exactly would they kill him after all of things above had already been done?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What's the forum callled?
And what is the forums purpose?

Not the fiction forum for one.

I enjoy discussing stuff.

Why are you here ?

So what is there to discuss if you don't actually think he was poisoned?

Daithi 1

I didn't say I don't believe it.

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I didn't say I don't believe it.

Ok, which is why I asked you straight out whether you did or not. You ignored the question so I made the best guess based on what you previously had said.
You say you're interested in discussion, but you don't seem to want to actually try to discuss anything.

So do you believe the narrative presented by the links and videos you posted or not?

If so, I've raised a few points you might be interested in discussing.

If not, then what was it you were trying to discuss in the first place?

If you are not holding any position, simply posting the links, then you are not interested in discussion.

Brown Bomber

I'm just going to throw this out there,

Gunderson had cancer, he was being treated at some Californian alternative medicine type institution for this. His overall condition worsened and he was sent/decided to go to a to a regular hospital for treatment. The alternative health crowd were pushing that is wasn't his cancer worsening but severe kidney problems. This may still be true, I have no idea. Alternative treatments are big business, Gunderson would be relatively well-known amongst the "medicine is a scam" people who would make up a relatively large proportion of the clients I would imagine. It would be bad PR to have Gunderson die of cancer there. So perhaps this Dr Ed guy is in some way affiliated with the alt health centre? And this is damage control/disinfo being put out to keep cancer sufferers signing up to their treatments???

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm just going to throw this out there,

Gunderson had cancer, he was being treated at some Californian alternative medicine type institution for this. His overall condition worsened and he was sent/decided to go to a to a regular hospital for treatment. The alternative health crowd were pushing that is wasn't his cancer worsening but severe kidney problems. This may still be true, I have no idea. Alternative treatments are big business, Gunderson would be relatively well-known amongst the "medicine is a scam" people who would make up a relatively large proportion of the clients I would imagine. It would be bad PR to have Gunderson die of cancer there. So perhaps this Dr Ed guy is in some way affiliated with the alt health centre? And this is damage control/disinfo being put out to keep cancer sufferers signing up to their treatments???

Why must it be a sinister plot? Why can't it be a case of the Dr in the interview simply reaching a wrong conclusion based on his own biases and faulty reasoning?

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm just going to throw this out there,

Gunderson had cancer, he was being treated at some Californian alternative medicine type institution for this. His overall condition worsened and he was sent/decided to go to a to a regular hospital for treatment. The alternative health crowd were pushing that is wasn't his cancer worsening but severe kidney problems. This may still be true, I have no idea. Alternative treatments are big business, Gunderson would be relatively well-known amongst the "medicine is a scam" people who would make up a relatively large proportion of the clients I would imagine. It would be bad PR to have Gunderson die of cancer there. So perhaps this Dr Ed guy is in some way affiliated with the alt health centre? And this is damage control/disinfo being put out to keep cancer sufferers signing up to their treatments???

I don't think they would need to perform damage control.

Despite a total lack of evidence for the treatments being effective people still use them because they've got cancer (or whatever) and they're scared and desperate.
It wouldn't really matter if Ted Gunderson or anyone had been on these treatments and had died, if you're staring death in the face and the doctors are telling you there's not much hope and some person claims that their brand of snake oil will save your life then you'll probably jump at the chance.

Their stock and trade is our innate fear of death, no amount of bad PR is going to trump that powerful response.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Why must it be a sinister plot? Why can't it be a case of the Dr in the interview simply reaching a wrong conclusion based on his own biases and faulty reasoning?

Who said it must be a sinister plot?

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

I don't think they would need to perform damage control.

Despite a total lack of evidence for the treatments being effective people still use them because they've got cancer (or whatever) and they're scared and desperate.
It wouldn't really matter if Ted Gunderson or anyone had been on these treatments and had died, if you're staring death in the face and the doctors are telling you there's not much hope and some person claims that their brand of snake oil will save your life then you'll probably jump at the chance.

Their stock and trade is our innate fear of death, no amount of bad PR is going to trump that powerful response.

In other words you think people who use alternative mediciine treatments are idiots, it is hopeless and the facts are irrelevant to them?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No I did not. Does it provide what I was asking for?

It provides any excellent crash course in the topics that Gunderson involved himself in that conceivably people would wish to remain silenced at all costs.

Would it be too much to ask that you familiarise yourself a little with the topic before "debunking"?

Instead of asking questions all the time why don't you find some the answers yourself?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who said it must be a sinister plot?

You did?
Why else were you suggesting the more unlikely of explanations?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It provides any excellent crash course in the topics that Gunderson involved himself in that conceivably people would wish to remain silenced at all costs.

That is not an answer to either of my questions.
Regardless, how come he was allowed to say all these things, and then be "silenced" after he had said them?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Would it be too much to ask that you familiarise yourself a little with the topic before "debunking"?

Instead of asking questions all the time why don't you find some the answers yourself?

So again, in the interests of promoting discussion you are complaining about me trying to engage in discussion...

I haven't attempted to debunk anything as I'm not sure there is anything to debunk, since both you and the OP are reluctant to actually state an opinion about whether or not you buy the claims in the video and article.
Hence why I am asking several basic questions.

So maybe instead of jumping down my throat, why not answer a few of them?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In other words you think people who use alternative mediciine treatments are idiots, it is hopeless and the facts are irrelevant to them?

That's clearly not what he said, but your parody of what he said certainly makes it easier for you to avoid his point.

It's more than a fact that people go to alternative medicine when they feel that actual medicine cannot do anything for them, among many other reasons.
It's a fact that many alternative health companies target these people relentlessly.
It's a fact that people will still use alternative treatments regardless of the scientific evidence presented to them, regardless of the silliness of the claims of the "treatment", regardless of how many times the guy selling it to them has been done for fraud.
There's numerous examples of all of these.

It's not because these people are idiots, and hooradiation clearly did not claim that, it's because they are emotional and not thinking critically.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

That's clearly not what he said, but your parody of what he said certainly makes it easier for you to avoid his point.

It's more than a fact that people go to alternative medicine when they feel that actual medicine cannot do anything for them, among many other reasons.
It's a fact that many alternative health companies target these people relentlessly.
It's a fact that people will still use alternative treatments regardless of the scientific evidence presented to them, regardless of the silliness of the claims of the "treatment", regardless of how many times the guy selling it to them has been done for fraud.
There's numerous examples of all of these.

It's not because these people are idiots, and hooradiation clearly did not claim that, it's because they are emotional and not thinking critically.

Are those the same people who got their swine flu jabs as advised by the Respectable GP's who got their instructions from those renowned Pharmaceutical sponsored scientists ?? ... Don't make me laugh

At least in the alternative circuit you know what you getting into, as in the mainstream medicine you get screwed by real Doctors ... that's worse

There is a perfectly fine road straight through the middle

steelcityblues

Why is King Mob still allowed to post here?

I have read his stuff for years, and can't remember him ever given credence to any theory presented here - even the ones that are more rooted in real politic.

Instead he prefers to use a barrage someone of wannabe defense lawyer like questions, and make the OP feel stupid, instead of respectfully disagreeing.

Well done 'King' for trolling on another interesting topic.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

You did?
Why else were you suggesting the more unlikely of explanations?

Tell me, when someone says:

Originally Posted by Brown Bomber
I'm just going to throw this out there,

What does it mean to you?

King Mob wrote: »

That is not an answer to either of my questions.
Regardless, how come he was allowed to say all these things, and then be "silenced" after he had said them?

Well considering you've just aid that it isn't likely that he was under surveillance how exactly would they know what he was going to say?

King Mob wrote: »

So again, in the interests of promoting discussion you are complaining about me trying to engage in discussion...

No. I am suggesting to you that you have an obligation to yourself to familiarise yourself with the information provided before you actually draw your conclusions

If relevant links are provided - and they were - then you should pay attention to them. That is if you want to understand.

King Mob wrote: »

I haven't attempted to debunk anything as I'm not sure there is anything to debunk, since both you and the OP are reluctant to actually state an opinion about whether or not you buy the claims in the video and article.
Hence why I am asking several basic questions.

I fail to understand why you can't grasp the fact that you can involve yourself in a discussion and be open to different possibilities. The topic is not Daithi or my opinions on whether he was poisoned it is the claim by the Dr who knew him.

Joshua Jones

steelcityblues wrote: »

Why is King Mob still allowed to post here?

I have read his stuff for years, and can't remember him ever given credence to any theory presented here - even the ones that are more rooted in real politic.

Instead he prefers to use a barrage someone of wannabe defense lawyer like questions, and make the OP feel stupid, instead of respectfully disagreeing.

Well done 'King' for trolling on another interesting topic.

From my POV skeppies don't care about the issues only having a debate/arguement. I guess they see CT's as a good trawling ground since by their very definition are hard to prove. It does get tedious though.

And lets not even start on why they spend so much time argueing with people they believe to be "nutjobs"......

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In other words you think people who use alternative mediciine treatments are idiots, it is hopeless and the facts are irrelevant to them?

No, i said they were desperate, and desperation makes fools of us all.

In fact, there's no real reason for you to make this post unless you're trying to create a nice wee strawman to argue against.
Play those games with someone else, I'm not interested.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Tell me, when someone says:

What does it mean to you?

That they are providing a possible explanation.

I was asking why you provided such a explanation rather than a more likely one.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well considering you've just aid that it isn't likely that he was under surveillance how exactly would they know what he was going to say?

So question still stands then: why would bother to have him killed after the damage is done?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. I am suggesting to you that you have an obligation to yourself to familiarise yourself with the information provided before you actually draw your conclusions

If relevant links are provided - and they were - then you should pay attention to them. That is if you want to understand.

Great, and I asked a single line sentence about the topic and said videos.
You however were so concerned about preserving discussion you refused to answer those questions and gave out to me for asking them.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I fail to understand why you can't grasp the fact that you can involve yourself in a discussion and be open to different possibilities. The topic is not Daithi or my opinions on whether he was poisoned it is the claim by the Dr who knew him.

Ah right, so asking for what your opinion about the content you post is not discussion....?

Joshua Jones

Joshua Jones wrote: »

From my POV skeppies don't care about the issues only having a debate/arguement. I guess they see CT's as a good trawling ground since by their very definition are hard to prove. It does get tedious though.

And lets not even start on why they spend so much time argueing with people they believe to be "nutjobs"......

Well one, you're ascribing beliefs to me that i do not hold, or have ever expressed.
Two, you seem to be guilty of the very thing you're complain about.
And three you're making a personal attack against me rather than engage in the discussion.

And yet, somehow my few questions are trolling....

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

That they are providing a possible explanation.

I was asking why you provided such a explanation rather than a more likely one.

Well no, you said: why does there always have to be a sinister conspiracy?

A flight of fancy perhaps but food for thought nonetheless.

King Mob wrote: »

So question still stands then: why would bother to have him killed after the damage is done?

Only two viable options IMO 1) Revenge. Someone that he'd shone a light on didn't want him to die a natural death or 2) Maybe it had become known that he was sitting on some explosive information that he'd been afraid to release until he was already facing death. With 1 being considerably more likely IMO

King Mob wrote: »

Great, and I asked a single line sentence about the topic and said videos.

The point remains. If you want to know why someone would want him dead either for revenge or to silence him there is no better way to familiarise yourself with one of the most controversial issues that he highlighted than to watch that film.

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

No, i said they were desperate, and desperation makes fools of us all.

In fact, there's no real reason for you to make this post unless you're trying to create a nice wee strawman to argue against.
Play those games with someone else, I'm not interested.

Who's desperate? Most people that use alternative medicine do so for chronic illness.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well no, you said: why does there always have to be a sinister conspiracy?

A flight of fancy perhaps but food for thought nonetheless.

Well you see that was a turn of phrase and was not actually saying that you always believe it to be sinister in every case all the time. I would have thought that was clear, but I shall be more careful next time.

However you then say:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Only two viable options IMO 1) Revenge. Someone that he'd shone a light on didn't want him to die a natural death or 2) Maybe it had become known that he was sitting on some explosive information that he'd been afraid to release until he was already facing death. With 1 being considerably more likely IMO

And both of these are sinister.
Why isn't the idea I suggested viable?

And this is beside the point that both of these points still do not make sense.
In 1) a revenge killing would only make his death legitimatise what he was saying. Furthermore the person he allegedly shone a light on would then surely be under more scrutiny because they'd be implicated in a murder.
The damage was done there was no point in revenge which would only do more damage.

And in 2) wouldn't trying to kill him, especially in a slow noticeable way as the doctor in the video accuses, just make him face death all the sooner and make whatever fictional bombshell you're inventing come out sooner?
And if they knew he knew that, why allow him to blab for so long?

And if he did know something, why didn't he say?
He clearly had no fear of being taken out as that did not stop him from spilling all the stuff which you think was more likely to have gotten him killed.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The point remains. If you want to know why someone would want him dead either for revenge or to silence him there is no better way to familiarise yourself with one of the most controversial issues that he highlighted than to watch that film.

Which is why I asked a very simple question about whether his claims were any different to the thousands of others who make the same.
You know, trying to familiarise myself with what he's saying....

Daithi 1

hooradiation wrote: »

No, i said they were desperate, and desperation makes fools of us all.

In fact, there's no real reason for you to make this post unless you're trying to create a nice wee strawman to argue against.
Play those games with someone else, I'm not interested.

King Mob is well interested tho, on the other hand. Couldn't wait to sink his teeth in...

Game on !

humanji

I've had to infract two users for insulting posts and I'm very close to infracting the rest of you for dragging the thread off-topic and ranting at each other. Stick to the topic and if your post is even slightly antagonistic, don't post it!

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who's desperate? Most people that use alternative medicine do so for chronic illness.

You've...kinda answered your own question there.

Setting aside we were originally talking about cancer, people who are suffering from chronic illnesses are just as susceptible to indulging in the fantasy of an alternative to medicine holding the cure for their illness as someone who would be facing, say, cancer.

Unsurprisingly, Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always been the bedrock on which there snake oil salesmen have made their money.

But this is all somewhat of an aside, my original point was that the Doctor who claimed he was poisoned didn't perform the autopsy, wasn't treating Mr Gunderson correctly for the condition be 'diagnosed' him with and spends most of the video talking about various theories he holds a belief in rather than the apparent poisoning of a man he calls a friend.

Speculatively, I'd guess this hypothesis has it's basis in the fact it'd be rather inconvenient for the image of Mr Gunderson as someone they saw as fighting the good fight against 'shadowy and powerful elites' dying from something as mundane as old age and cancer.