Subject: Stew Webb FBI informant
Date: Mon, October 9, 2006 9:26 am
I'm wondering how you conclude so firmly that Stew Webb is working for the FBI. He
describes offering information to the FBI as a whistleblower, in which case he would
need to be given informant status as he described. That doesn't mean he is or isn't
spying or spreading disinfo for them.
You also make assumptions about his actions with Ted Gunderson... if he was stealing
research materials from Ted there are multiple motives for his doing so... and you
have concluded that it's a particular motive seemingly based on the word of
Gunderson. If someone wanted to get documents about secret government operations
they wouldn't just ask for them - they'd have to grab them clandestinely. Gunderson
and Webb accuse each other of being government moles, yet there doesn't seem to be
significant independent corroboration of either's claims.
Both seem mentally
off-balance from audio/video I've encountered of them, which could just be a result
of all they've been through.
I'd like to see you be more thorough in exploring the issue before you make
authoritative conclusions. It reminds me of how some people claim to "know" the
Bush family and think they're wonderful people, not realizing that the Bushes have
multiple personality features and lead double lives. The people who see the amiable
persona of an Illuminati personage just can't believe info about the person that
contradicts the side of them that they've personally encountered.
Wow, I remember you used to send me e-mails that struck me as intelligent. What happened?
OK, let's review:
1.You're "wondering" how I conclude that Webb is working for the FBI?
I didn't say that Webb was working for the FBI - as in 'paid' employee.
What I wrote is that Webb revealed his STATUS as an INFORMANT for the FBI in the video he made. In that limited sense, I could say that he's "working" for them. Webb has REPEATEDLY DENIED being an FBI informant and that's why his verbal trip up on the tape was significant. Since the NEW FBI is dominated by NWO minions who are assisting in the fascist takeover of America, it shouldn't come as a surprise to you that these people would want to assist in discrediting and smearing Ted Gunderson because of his former high position with the bureau. Ted doesn't just talk about Satanism and kidnapping kids in his lectures. He talks about the government's COMPLICITY and involvement in child kidnapping, child slavery, kiddie porn, suppressing info on widespread satanic activity, bombings of the World Trade Center, the Murrah Building in Oklahoma, etc., which are HUGELY aided, abetted, AND covered up by the NEW FBI.
Webb can't have it both ways. He can't deny being an FBI informant and then admit it on his own tape. Now that doesn't surprise me about Stew Webb because Webb LIES with the same ease and frequency that you and I breathe in and out.
2. In your second paragraph, your foolishness becomes more apparent. I'll have to break it down into subsections.
A) My "assumptions" about Webb's "actions" with Ted:
Here, you not only imply that Webb may not be guilty of stealing Ted's boxes, but IF he did do it, then you have the effrontery to flat out offer justifications for Webb's thievery.
Is this the famous Jed Shlackman "multiple motives" Theory of Justified Stealing?
Your words: "If someone wanted to get documents about secret government operations they wouldn't just ask for them - they'd have to grab them clandestinely."
Since when did we conclude that Ted Gunderson's personal files and property stored in his home are now to be considered "secret government operations"? When did that transformation occur? I must have missed it. Can you enlighten me there?
B) ".. and you have concluded that it's a particular motive seemingly based on the word of
What on EARTH are you talking about?
What "word" of Gunderson?
What did I "conclude"?
What is wrong with you?
I present FIRST HAND WITNESS testimony that Webb had robbed Ted Gunderson. How much more DIRECT can it get!
Where does the "conclusion" part come in?
You infer that I'm offering up THEORIES about Webb's robbery of Ted's home, but I'm giving you straight-out facts from:
1. a WITNESS (Anna May Newman) inside the apartment on the night of the theft,
2. from a SECOND WITNESS (Pam Schuffert) who describes Webb's phone conversation with her WHILE he's robbing Ted's home, and
3. the missing boxes discovered the next morning by Anna May Newman.
C) "Both seem mentally
off-balance from audio/video I've encountered of them, which could just be a result
of all they've been through"
Now you've gone too far. How dare you accuse Ted Gunderson of being "mentally off-balance." No one who has seen Ted Gunderson in person, at lectures, or on video tape or even talked with him over the phone would ever DREAM of characterizing his words, his demeanor, or his conduct as "mentally off-balance"- NO ONE. Only a fool or a Ted Gunderson hater would utter such despicable words. You, my friend, deserve to have your front teeth relocated to where your uvula is dangling.
D) "Gunderson and Webb accuse each other of being government moles, yet there doesn't seem to be significant independent corroboration of either's claims."
Oh really? I suppose that Webb's slip of the tongue on his video about being an FBI informant doesn't count in that regard?
What do you think that a character assassin and smear artist like Webb does in order to discredit the reputation and reliability of ex-FBI Los Angeles bureau chief Ted Gunderson? Wouldn't Webb accuse Ted of being a covert agent or a "mole" who's really working for "them" from the get go?
Webb, like every disinformation spreader, will REVERSE the truth about his role and that of his target. Webb has done this from the very beginning.
Webb is a NOBODY. He has never accomplish ANYTHING of merit in his entire life. He's a poorly educated, former construction worker, who has a long reputation of booze, drugs, and violent behavior. He's been arrested on numerous occasions and has served time in prison, including 10 months in a prison psychiatric ward.
Webb comes on to Ted in 1996 when Ted was running for political office and tells him that he's a great admirer and wants to support him. OK, Webb now fronts himself as Ted's buddy. He has "lots of information", he claims, about his father in law, Millman, who is suppose to be a biggie in the Illuminati. He got inside dirt on all kinds of people he claims, so Ted takes him at his word and figures that he's an informer who can provide useful information. When Webb needed a place to live for "four days" in 1999, Ted lets him stay at his home. Webb winds up mooching off Ted for seven months until Ted finally told him to leave. Before leaving, though, Webb was going to steal everything that he possibly could from Ted's home and thus the above mentioned robbery of Ted's condo in July 2000, the one that you claim allows for "multiple motives".
E) "I'd like to see you be more thorough in exploring the issue before you make
You want me to be more "thorough" before I make such "authoritative conclusions", do you? Let's see if this is "thorough" enough for you.
Let's say the same circumstances occurred to you, Jed, in YOUR home. Let's say your mother lived with you, for example, and you had someone who you thought was a friend (and you thought was grateful to you for providing him with free board for 7 months), who robs you of at least 35 boxes of your most important files, books, research notes, etc.
It's completely transparent to you and to your mother that your so-called "friend" took the boxes, BECAUSE HE WAS THE ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE APARTMENT ON THE NIGHT of the theft. Your mother wakes up in the morning and discovers that all of these boxes that your "friend" had been stacking in the hall the previous night (late at night) are now GONE. Is it really that hard to "conclude" who took them?
So you come back from your long country-wide speaking tour some weeks later and make an inventory of what was taken. You figure about 35 boxes are missing, but you can't be completely sure because you have over 250 boxes of research material accumulated over the course of 40 or more years. You go to the police with your list and you name your "friend" as the prime suspect in what amounts to at least $16,000 worth of stolen property. That's grand larceny. The police asks you to go along to your "friend's" home while they search it so you can identify any of your property. None of your boxes are found in your "friend's" home. Does that surprise you? Is your "friend' now free of guilt or suspicion in the theft because they didn't find your boxes in his possession?
Someone else, writing on your behalf, states in one or two articles on the internet that you were robbed of 35 boxes and the NUMBER ONE suspect you had named to the police is your former "friend" who has now acquired his own web site, and now does a lot of public talks, radio interviews, and makes video tapes in which he accuses YOU of being a liar, a "mole", a con artist , etc.! Wouldn't that shock you? That he would simply turn the tables on you and accuse YOU of the very dishonest things that HE HAS DONE TO YOU! Do you think you would be a bit upset and angry at that point?
Fast forward 5 years and you get an e-mail from a lady who says that she had a phone conversation with your former "friend" on the night he was robbing you of your property. He was talking to her on his cell phone WHILE HE WAS COMMITING THE ROBBERY OF YOUR HOME. She said that she didn't come forward earlier because she had been hoodwinked and DECEIVED by your former "friend" into believing the lies he was spreading about you. But she now recognizes him for the low down liar that he is and wants to come clean with her information about the incriminating phone conversation. She says she'll take a lie detector test, sign an affidavit for the DA, or whatever else you want to help you prosecute this guy. You then call the police department and tell them that you have a first hand witness to testify to this guy's guilt in robbing you. The police tell you that they can't do anything NOW, because the "statute of limitations" has "expired".
For roughly 5 years, this bum has been bad mouthing you all over the internet and on the radio, repeating that "he never stole anything from anybody in his entire life" and that YOU were the liar and the fabricator of these "stories' in order to smear HIS reputation? Now you have a first hand witness ready to testify against him and put him in jail where he belongs, but the police tell you, "sorry, statute of limitations".
OK, at least you're going to get the documentation up on the net that will prove to anyone's satisfaction that this bum is lying, exaggerating, and falsifying EVERYTHING that he has ever said about you. You have tons of evidence which proves that this guy is lying with every breath he takes. It's not really hard to do when your former "friend" is such a car wreck that he can't help but regularly trip over his own feet and run afoul of himself so often, that his conduct is more of a burlesque routine than something to be viewed as sober.
For starters, you place the signed statements of your crime scene witness One, crime scene witness Two, and video cameraman witness Three that have signed affidavits that your "friend's" denial of your property theft and his denial of being an FBI informant, are untrue. Second, you post the word for word transcript of his video statements admitting that he's an FBI informant on the net for those who don't have the video itself (which you also offer for sale if anyone wants to see it for themselves). Third, you repost statements and "evidence" that your former "friend" has posted on his web site, where he claims this is "proof" of your guilt in this heinous crime or that dastardly deed.
His "evidence" is laughable. It's more than laughable, it's ludicrous. It's moronic and even imbecilic. You ask yourself after reading it, "who in their right mind would take this guy seriously?" So you figure that if you juxtaposition your REAL evidence and documentation next to the childish and lunatic "evidence" offered by your former "friend", that anyone reading it could immediately see what a NUTSCASE your "friend" actually is and how absurd it is to place him on an equal footing with you, a person who has an enviable record of lifetime accomplishments (and accolades right up to Presidential commendations).
Yet, you are surprised to receive an e-mail one day from a person who has contacted you before. This person actually DOES feel sympathetic towards your former "friend's" 'multiple motives' for robbing you. Let's call him "Ned Schlackjaw" for convenience.
Ned tells you that he not only finds your former "friend's" 'multiple motives' for robbing you understandable and perhaps even justifiable, but that he takes umbrage with your "conclusion" that you should attempt to hold the high moral ground as the victim of this theft since, after all, your "friend'" has accused YOU equally of being a liar, a thief, and a mole. So since it's basically a "wash" as far as cross accusations goes, judgment should be withheld as to WHO is REALLY the guilty party!
After that brilliant bit of logic, Ned goes on to tell you three or four other equally brilliant observations about your rickety self defense posturing that doesn't sit well with his sense of propriety, to say nothing of your questionable state of mental stability (or should it be "instability"?). .
To round out the tongue lashing, Ned leaves you off with a real chestnut of an anecdote about how some people just can't seem to distinguish between the PR Bush image and the multiple personality satanics behind the masks. Now that's what I call discernment and cutting-edge insight! Kind of leaves you practically paralyzed to come up with a response, doesn't it?
Subject: Re: Stew Webb FBI informant
From: "Jed Shlackman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, October 10, 2006 2:18 pm
thanks for your detailed reply. I don't dispute that Webb stole boxes of
materials from Gunderson's home... I also don't condone it... though in
Webb's paranoid mind he may have felt justified doing it to obtain every
scrap of info and documents that Gunderson possessed, to use for his own
purposes of fulfilling his grandiose dreams of becoming a top"whistleblower." For all I know the 2 had a falling out over how they might
collaborate and Webb spitefully decided to steal all the research... I can't
know what they think, only what they say and do, based in part on testimony
Meanwhile, I've heard Gunderson admit to being involved in weapons deals
with "Tim Osman" and praising J. Edgar Hoover... not things that inspire my
trust in him. Intuitively I don't get a healthy vibe from either one of
them... and I see how Webb & Henneghan borrow from folks like Sorcha Faal
and Wayne Madsen, so it seems they do like to take other people's work to
make themselves seem to have intel scoops... Since there are 2 different
contexts in which the phrase FBI informant seems to be used, I can see why
Webb would admit to being an informant in one instance and then deny it when
being accused of being an FBI spy/asset. He of course often accuses others
of being CIA or FBI informants in the latter sense. It's become a pastime
lately for alternative journalists and whistlblowers to allege that others
are spies and disinfo assets, and until there is tangible evidence it seems
better to stick to facts and let those facts sit there for people to piece
together if they are inclined. People's energies and intentions are being
sidetracked by trying to draw conclusions about things that they could
choose to just allow to be.
I try to focus on looking at information from
multiple sources and consider that people have varying beliefs, agendas, and
allegiances, and I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. My
opinion presently is that you have made firm conclusions about matters for
which the available info that you've presented doesn't necessarily lead to
all the conclusions you've drawn. I respect your prerogative to print those
on your site and don't intend to try to insult you or call you an agent of
some disinfo campaign as a result of my difference in opinion. You have
gone to great lengths and hyperbole to make Gunderson sound like a saint,
and that in itself makes me wonder if there are things that you don't want
to become aware of or recognize about him... I think I'll leave it at that
for now since I'd be better off going in the streets holding up signs to
inform the public with website addresses like yours than debating whether or
not a couple of whistleblowers are 2-faced.
Not bad, a definite improvement from your previous note. A bit more introspection this time around, combined with a keener interest in recognizing Webb's ultimate purpose as a character assassin and disinformationist. In fact, I think your comments, to some extent at least, help to make my case for me.
The comment/speculation you make in your first paragraph about whether Webb and Ted may have had a "falling out" and over their implied "collaboration" reveals something about how you view Webb. It tells me that Webb's "Whistle blower" BS has been successful in leaving you with the impression that Webb and Gunderson are somehow on an equal footing with each other. The implication being that Webb does what Ted does, and vice versa. Webb uses gigabytes of text at his web site in trying to create the impression that he's some sort of "whistle blower", or investigator, or sleuth who breaks headline cases wide open and is responsible for jailing big name Illuminati kingpins. But that impression is a stage prop made of paper mache. As you've noted, Webb is a chameleon; he takes from others and claims it as his own. He's also not a "whistle blower."
I find it odd that he and Barbara Hartwell, both smear artists under mind control programming in my view, embraced the use of that term to describe themselves, at just about the same time. The correct definition of the term "whistle blower" is someone who is an employee of a corporation or government agency, for example, who goes public with information about internal corruption or illegal activity that involves their employer. Webb doesn't fit that description, nor does Barbara Hartwell. As far as I know, Webb has essentially done manual labor jobs for most of his life, at least when he actually had a job. I read one police report about Webb that described his occupation as a "construction worker." Hartwell too, has been unemployed for at least a decade. Why do they call themselves "whistle blowers?" Is it possible that Tavistock or the CIA are lurking in the background here?
Webb is more commonly referred to as an IDIOT by people who have had a close association with him and it's absurd to suggest that Ted might have ever considered "collaborating" with an idiot. When Webb was living with Ted, the best that could be said of his "job" was that of an occasional assistant. He was lazy and almost never did any household chores that would normally be expected of a freeloader. Webb may have been a gofer at times for Ted, but never a "collaborator." Ted wouldn't and couldn't depend on or trust Stew Webb to do anything that was crucial or important because he knew Webb's "problems" better than most. Webb was a largely useless individual who provided unintentional comic relief more than anything else.
In your second paragraph, you say that Ted got your suspicion up because he "admitted" to being involved in weapons deals with Tim Osman. Ted Gunderson himselfwas the person who came out with the story in January and February of 2002 concerning his meeting with "Tim Osman" at a Sherman Oaks, California hotel in 1986, along with Michael Riconosciuto and another American using the name "Ralph Olberg" (who was actually representing the state department). It's posted on Ted's web site, http://www.tedgunderson.com/Articles/US%20Armed%20and%20Promoted%20Terrorist.htm
Ted didn't realize that "Tim Osman" was actually Osama bin Laden until a few years later when he questioned Michael Riconosciuto about it. After 9/11, Ted wanted to get out the story about his meeting with "Osman." Just to keep the record straight, Ted (retired FBI bureau chief) was asked by a person who worked for the federal government to set up the 1986 meeting with Olberg and Osman , who was there on behalf of the so-called Afghan resistance fighters who were fighting the Russians at the time in Afghanistan. You need to remember that.
Osman was looking for more sophisticated weapons to be used against the Russians. Ted asked Michael Riconosciuto to attend because Riconosciuto is a very bright guy who has lots of talent in modifying high tech military equipment to serve a specific purpose. Riconosciuto proposed that he could modify a shoulder held missile launcher that could specifically target Russian helicopters, but could not be used against American helicopters. Ted put the participants of this meeting in touch with Sir Dennis Kendall, a former member of the British parliament and a person who served as a double agent during World War II. Sir Kendall had the sort of "contacts" that were sought in this instance. And that was the limit of Ted's involvement. I'm sure that Ted didn't view his conduct as illicit or improper, and certainly not criminal. The US government was supporting the Afghan rebels at the time against the Russians.
If you're going to hold it against Ted for "praising" J. Edgar Hoover, then I'd say casting judgment in hindsight comes easy to you, as in Monday morning quarterbacking. Ted joined the FBI soon after graduating from college. He joined the FBI on December 10, 1951 and retired on March 30, 1979. During that era, Hoover was not viewed by the public nor by FBI employees as the dark horse that he would later be characterized as in the press. I'm not an apologist for J. Edgar Hoover, but I think it's only fair to recognize that Hoover was with the Bureau from its inception and had a reputation for "getting" his man, whether that was FBI Most Wanted gangster John Dillinger of the 30's or rounding up American Nazi Bundt collaborators at the outbreak of World War II. People were proud to be working for Hoover. Hoover was viewed as a hero by most Americans. Hoover ran a highly competent federal law enforcement organization that - at the time- was seen as the least corruptible in the country. Sure, we now know that Hoover kept secret files on his political enemies or those whom he viewed with suspicion, but what person who acquires such a position of power doesn't engage in strategies that will insure his continued command of that power? If you've ever seen the movie made in the early 1950's about the FBI which starred Jimmy Stewart, you'll get a fair idea of how the public saw J. Edgar Hoover during that period in America's history.
I don't think it's odd that Ted would feel pride about receiving commendations from J. Edgar Hoover, founding director of the FBI, nor is it consistent with Ted's character that he would now disavow his respectful memories of Hoover, having worked for him for so many years; simply because it's politically fashionable to do.
I'll wind up by saying that I'm glad that you're not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. If you want to examine the 'facts' concerning Ted Gunderson life, then take the time to determine what the real facts are and not allow yourself to be convinced by the ludicrous and asinine allegations offered up by Stew Webb and his ilk. I've uploaded only a small fraction of the incriminating documentation that I possess concerning Stew Webb. Wait until you see his arrest and police records, very interesting reading there.
I find it's slightly disingenuous on your part when you claim that the dozen or so recent articles that I uploaded illustrating Webb's mendacity to be unconvincing and 'overblown' in your estimation. I have a feeling that you didn't actually read most of them, or if you did, you didn't read them very carefully. Anyone who reads those articles in a neutral frame of mind is not going to agree with your assertion that my "authoritative conclusions" about Webb -and Ted- are exaggerated.
I also reject your characterization of my defense of Ted Gunderson as hyperbole. Hyperbole is an exaggeration or a warping of the truth to unjustifiably elevate someone's reputation, or deeds, in the interest of promoting them. I have done neither. I have taken the time to try and undo the damage that a reckless drug and alcohol abuser by the name of Stew Webb has done to the name and reputation of Ted Gunderson, a decent and honorable man who has tried to help the American public wake up to the dangers of the New World Order and our government's complicity in their fascist agenda. .
Subject: Article on Webb/Gunderson discussion
Date: Sat, October 21, 2006 3:01 am
I don't mind you printing our exchange about Webb & Gunderson unedited, but I would
like you to use a non-misleading title for your item as well as to spell my last
name correctly. Saying I was championing Webb is misleading as far as I'm
concerned. There's plenty of information of value from Webb and his present
associates - and we can explore it with a recognition of the distribution source and
any character defects we perceive in him, just as we can do with any other source.
You are championing Gunderson, it appears, and that's fine... I just don't see how
I'm seen speaking about Webb in a manner similar to how you speak of Gunderson.
You'd also be wise to request permission or give advance notice to your contacts
about printing their letters online... people often speak differently in private
communications than in ones they consider open to the public since different
audiences require different content or styles of communication. You just attempt to
offer a wealth of information to your site's visitors and that doesn't include
following protocols or carefully analyzing everything... some of the stuff you
publish can later be seen to have been misguided or bunk of some sort, especially
some of the channeled and dowsed materials. It's interesting stuff to read and
explore but if you want to attack the credibility of conspiracy news sources you
have to admit that you end up publishing stuff that lacks credibility too. You
don't need to be right about everything... you just offer a great service to help
people find info they'd have a hard time locating elsewhere, much of it very
valuable for understanding the world and our existence as well as practical
I titled our exchange as I did because of the tenure of your words in your initial e-mail to me. They were supportive and defending towards Webb, while at the same time, challenging to myself and critical (and derogatory) towards Ted Gunderson.
You've been coming to my site for a long time now. It's not news to you that I defend Ted Gunderson against his slanderers. You knew what you were doing when you sent me your e-mail. You wanted to challenge me about Webb and Gunderson, and I responded to your comments.
I'm sure you're familiar with the saying about avoiding the kitchen if you can't take the heat.
Your disavowal of Webb came AFTER I challenged and criticized your assertions. I titled the exchange based on the words of your first letter to me, not your response, which included a certain degree of back peddling. Anyone who reads our exchange can read everything you had to say, including your disavowal of justification for Webb's thievery (which in your first e-mail, you implied approval of).
Concerning the publishing of Letters sent to me, I have a notification posted at the top of the Home page and at the top of the Current News page.
It says " (Want to Contact the Editor? First read this )" with a link to this page:
Did you read the info posted there? It address the issues that you raise in this letter; namely, what's private and what's not when sending me e-mail. After reading it, you will see that your challenges about Webb and Gunderson do not fall in the "private" category.
I had another guy who sent me a very nasty e-mail recently because I published his letter and his name/e-mail address after sending me a highly derogatory letter lambasting Dr Jeffrey MacDonald and my support of his innocence. He had his "facts" very confused, but didn't like that I straightened him out on them. To him or you, or to anyone who wants to send a letter which attacks or challenges the reputation of people I'm trying to defend here, then be prepared to see your letter, your name, and your e-mail address in print. Otherwise, don't send me the challenging e-mails.
It's terribly easy to use Ted Gunderson or Jeffrey MacDonald as a punching bag as long as the accuser can do so from the shadows (I'm not suggesting that this applies to you).
I defend MacDonald because he's innocent. He's serving three life sentences for the murders of his family which he did NOT commit, but rather were committed by members of a local drug/satanic cult who were known to (and working with) the Army CID who framed MacDonald as the patsy.
Liars like Webb or Hartwell were viscously slandering Ted Gunderson in print, in radio interviews, and on the web at least a full yearbefore Ted said anything at all in response to them, and even then Ted was generous to a fault. Ted's character assassins-in all cases- INITIATED the slander campaigns against him. You would have never read a word from me or Ted about Webb or Hartwell or any of Ted's slanderers had it not been for THEIR desire and THEIR full bore effort to smear and discredit his name and reputation. It is not in Ted's character or mine to INITIATE an attack against anyone. In all cases, I have DEFENDED Ted Gunderson against fabricated non-truths and gross misrepresentation of fact .
I can see that your impression of Webb remains high, despite ny assurances that you're backing a One Eyed Jack. So be it, I won't invest any more time on this subject with you. .
By the way, the name of "Ned Schlackjaw" was applied in the interest of spoof which I assumed was obvious to both my readers and yourself.
In consideration to your kindly remarks towards me, I will break my own rule and re-title our exchange to read " Jed Schlackman & the Right Honorable Stewart Anthony Webb". Hope that makes you feel more comfortable about it.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.