Complaint To Broadcaster About Sean Plunket Calling Those In The Know About Chemtrails “Nutters” & For His Dissemination Of False Information

Sean Plunket, RadioLive host.

Sean Plunket, RadioLive host.

On Friday, November the 29th, Sean Plunket, who hosts the 9am – midday slot on Radio Live’s talkback show, asked listeners to phone in regarding “chemtrails,” in response to the Conservative Party’s, Colin Craig saying that he would not dismiss their existence.

Throughout the show, which included a call to Colin Craig,  Plunket evinced a lack of interest in delving into the issue rationally and exposed that he knew virtually zilch, referring to it as a “nutty Internet conspiracy” and to those who knew about it as “nutters.”

A variety of reasonably well-informed people phoned in –  and a mish-mash of the poorly-informed.  Hardly impartial to the subject matter, Plunket, a polarizing figure, like Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly,  seemed to be encouraging callers to deny chemtrails’ existence and on occasion exhibited disappointment when people dared to admit that they believed chemtrails were a real.  Not surprisingly, those who were convinced that the trails they saw lingering were merely vapour trails were treated with approval.  The fact that trails have been witnessed where the relative humidity is well below the 70%+ NASA state is required for vapour trails to exist was not mentioned.

In spite of Plunket’s closed-minded and condemnatory attitude towards the subject matter and “the chemtrail believers,” snippets of valid information did manage to make it onto the airwaves, including that aluminium was being sprayed and that the aerosols were causing health problems.   As far as I know, one of the most important facts was not mentioned.  While it was suggested that the aerosol trails were being sprayed in order to directly effect the population in some way, (as the UK Guardian revealed was done by the government in the UK), the fact that the vast majority of aerosols are being used for weather modification purposes, was not mentioned.

conspiracy-theorist-defenition-critical-thinker1I tried to call in to the show five times to address this matter, but only got a busy signal.  It may have been because I used the same line as Jim Reece, who phoned in to tell Sean Plunket he should do some research.  I did send him an email with information about chemtrails, but, not surprisingly, this wasn’t read out on air.

All-in-all Plunket’s show was misleading, an insult to people’s intelligence and his repeated unwarranted use of the word “nutters,” utterly disgraceful.  (Incidentally, listening to this show made an activist in North Canterbury literally throw up!)  Consequently, I submitted a formal complaint to the broadcaster via the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) website on November the 30th, on grounds that the show presented inaccurate information, and that it was denigrating.

In response to the statement on the BSA site: ‘If the standards committee upholds my complaint I would like the following as a remedy for the breach of broadcast standards,’ I replied: ‘I would like Mr Plunket to apologise for referring to those who know about chemtrails as nutters and advise the public during a radio show in the near future that he has since established that chemtrails are real.’

This is my complaint in full.  I encourage others who were similarly offended by his show to write to the broadcaster also:

I wish to make a formal complaint regarding the RadioLive talkback show Sean Plunket hosted on the issue of “chemtrails” on November the 29th, 2013.

Firstly, I will address the matter of accuracy, as it was evident Mr Plunket had no idea what he was talking about, as he indicated to his audience repeatedly during the show that chemtrails were not real.

1. COMPLAINT MADE ON THE GROUNDS THAT SEAN PLUNKET PROVIDED INFORMATION THAT WAS INACCURATE AND FALSE

I hereby present information, which is on the public record, which proves that “chemtrails,” which are also known as ‘aerosols’ and ‘persistent contrails,’ are real.

A good example which proves that “chemtrails” are real and sprayed on unwitting populations by governments comes from declassified documents, the contents of which were reported by the BBC, ITV and the UK Guardian. RadioLive can find these online.

It was revealed that for years the UK’s Ministry of Defence sprayed millions of UK citizens from planes, disseminating huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide into their atmosphere.  The BBC program, Inside Out, aired a program on 6th November, 2006 on this topic and showed that scientists from Porton Down had used the UK as a vast outdoor laboratory.  From 1950 to the late-1970s, Porton Down scientists had clandestinely sprayed zinc cadmium sulphide over populated areas of the UK, in spite of the fact that cadmium was known to be dangerous to human health.   See ‘Cadmium Poisoning’ at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_poisoning

The zinc cadmium sulphide trials had previously been exposed in the April 2002 UK Guardian article, Millions were in germ war tests. Refer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience   Also, broadcast by ITV West in late 2004, the documentary, ‘Top Secrets Revealed’ had in Part 1 exposed  zinc cadmium sulphide was sprayed over an unwitting public in parts of the UK.  Refer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ydm8rgF18I&feature=gv

This is particularly important evidence for it proves that unwitting citizens were sprayed with a harmful compound by governments on a large scale, yet this was concealed from the public for decades. This demonstrates that chemtrails being used to negatively effect peoples’ health is not a wild conspiracy theory as Mr Plunket would have his audience believe.

Plus, chemtrails were used by the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam War to induce rain along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. This rainmaking story was on the front page of the New York Times in 1972 and on TV on the History Channel.

The IPCC & Geoengineering

One of the those who called into the show, Jim Reece, referred to the fact that the IPCC (in its fifth assessment) refers to geoengineering.  Geoengineering includes the spraying of chemtrails, which is officially called Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering.  Refer 7-4 of the report: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter07.pdf  While this report states that this technology has not been implemented or tested to combat so-called climate change, evidence from around the globe suggests strongly otherwise.

The fact that the IPCC is discussing using this technology is cause for concern and it provides evidence to show that chemtrails are real.

Furthermore, some politicians overseas have spoken out about chemtrails.  Rep. Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced the Space Preservation Act of 2001 – HR 2977, which called for the elimination of ‘exotic weaponry’ from space, including weather-modifying weapons such as ‘chemtrails.’  While this Act was amended and the term ‘chemtrails’ removed, the original which shows this technology exists remains on the Congressional Record.

Also, a Swedish Green Party politician called Pernilla Hagberg said chemtrails were real and toxic in late-October last year and a former Premier of British Columbia, Bill Vander Zalm, is currently educating people about chemtrails/geoengineering and has asked municipalities to pass a resolution that if there is any program related to climate change, and if anything is sprayed in the air,  it is done with public consent.

Award-winning TV weatherman, Scott Stevens, who has the website Weatherwars.Info, is believed to have been the first civilian to discover the primary use for the large masses of chemtrails being seen globally.  He states that they are used for weather engineering purposes and he explains how they are used on his website.

The history of interest in weather-related technologies, including chemtrails, is evident when a list of related patents is examined. Pertinently, the Stratospheric Welsbach patent refers to the use of particles of the oxides of metals, including aluminium oxide in the stratosphere for the stated goal of reducing global warming, while the HAARP patent, devised in part for modifying the weather, states that barium be put into the atmosphere. Aluminium and barium have been found in New Zealand rainwater repeatedly over recent years and one can view the lab results on the Northland NZ Chemtrails Watch website.

During the droughts in Northland in 2010 and 2013, as well as lab analyses confirming the presence of aluminium and barium in the rainwater in Whangarei, Northland, I and others who live locally, photographed masses of aerosols in the sky that lingered and were seen to form a white haze in the sky. Pertinently, top geoengineers admit a known consequence of saturating the atmosphere with particulates is drought, because when there are too many condensation nuclei in the air, the moisture can not form into droplets big enough to fall as rain. Please refer: Geoengineering Causing Drought And Fueling Fires July 5, 2013, http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineering-robbing-rain-and-fueling-fires/

A woman phoned in near the end of the show and told Mr Plunket he should be more open-minded.  He replied, amongst other things, that she should not believe in chemtrails.  I think it was highly inappropriate for him to tell a caller what she should think, given that he had done little or no research on the topic.

2. COMPLAINT MADE ON GROUNDS THAT SEAN PLUNKET USED DENIGRATING REMARKS

During his radio show on the morning of November the 29th, 2013, Mr Plunket  could not hold an informed discussion on the topic of chemtrails and resorted to name calling.  He smeared the reputations of those who know and speak openly about chemtrail/aerosol technology by stating repeatedly that those who believed in chemtrails were “nutters.”

I personally found being called a nutter insulting, hurtful and denigrating and believe that this kind of tactic is uncalled for in a civilized society, particularly on a popular talk show such as this, which influences public opinion.

Myself and other anti-geoengineering activists, who are educating the public about this technology, already find it hard enough getting some members of the public to open their minds and consider that the lingering trails sprayed by aircraft which spread out and create a milky haze in the sky, are something other than vapour trails.  Needless to state, radio shows which encourage condemnation of those who are well-informed, do not help.

I would appreciate your attention to the contents herein.

Yours sincerely,

Clare Swinney

Related:

Colin Craig on Chemtrails On RadioLive To Sean Plunket On November 29th

This entry was posted in Activism, Radio. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Complaint To Broadcaster About Sean Plunket Calling Those In The Know About Chemtrails “Nutters” & For His Dissemination Of False Information

  1. Nik says:

    It’s basic bully stuff Clare; main stream media is being increasingly ignored anyhow, people rather knowing nothing than the anti-conspiracy main stream pocket liners.

    • People like Plunket think they are anti-conspiracy, but then they make it apparent that they believe in the most wacky conspiracies of them all, such as the fable about the man in the cave, who was on dialysis, controlling the 19 men with box cutters, pulling off the biggest attack on US soil, that led to WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC Building 7 falling at virtually free fall speed on 9/11.
      An international team of scientists established that military grade nano-thermite was used to bring down the buildings. This nanothermite was traced back to the Lawrence Livermore Lab, not a cave in Afghanistan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM3DkC1skY0
      Plunket also seems to believe that Oswald was responsible for shooting JFK.
      Here is a recent interview with Jim Marrs, author of Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy for those interested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJONVIGwAnE

      • Study: Conspiracy theorists’ sane; people fooled by government, crazy, hostile
        by Dr Kevin Barrett, 2013.

        Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

        The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

        The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

        Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

        Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

        In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.

        Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”

        Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

        In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.

        DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.

        Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.

        In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.

        The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:

        “If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”

        But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones.

        No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.

  2. James says:

    This Sean Plunket idiot wouldn’t know crap from clay. I mean, doesn’t he ever look up at the sky? I get so frustrated with people like him who label others with a critical mind as a “conspiracy theorist,” so they are to be totally ignored! If you go back 5-600 years, people believed the world was flat, and if any one at that time said the world was round, they would have been called crazy! The truth will always be the truth!

    • Thank-you for sharing your views James. It is ironic that Plunket uses the “conspiracy theory” label, isn’t it, given that it came into practice as a result of what Dr Kevin Barrett calls “a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination, which is another conspiracy Plunket is in denial about.

  3. Annamae says:

    This Plunket jerk even attacked Mary Byrne on the anti-fluoride issue. He didn’t let her get an EDUCATED word in – cut her off and spoke loudly over her. Clare, I saw this article above (conspiracy theorists sane) and thought it was actually pretty cool. Salute to those that do their own research and can think for themselves – that is MY definition of conspiracy theorist, and I don’t take it as an insult anymore. It’s a compliment now.

    • Hi Annamae, thanks for letting us know about this. BTW He asked David Cunliffe about fluoride this week, Cunliffe wants it in the water unfortunately and the only justification Cunliffe could provide for wanting fluoride in the water came from his own teeth! How unscientific.

  4. The following complaint was submitted by Marian Sutherland of North Canterbury to RadioLive regarding the November the 29th, 2013 radio show hosted by Sean Plunket:

    I wish to make a formal complaint to Mr Plunket re: the specified talkback show when he interviewed Colin Craig, and discussed (made fun of) the issue of Geoengineering/ Chemtrails.

    Standard 7 was breached when Mr Plunket discriminated against, ridiculed and denigrated Mr Craig for even so much as entertaining the reality of chemtrails. He treated callers who said chemtrails were real, in the same fashion.

    Standard 5: Mr Plunket was grossly lax and inaccurate when he misled listeners as to the veracity of this issue, by failing to bring forth any facts at all, and dismissing it as a ” nutty conspiracy theory.”

    Some facts are: US Rep Dennis Kucinich introduced HR 2977, Space Preservation Act of 2001. The text of the Bill at that time defined Chemtrails as an “exotic weapon.”
    This link to the UK Parliament proves that Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering is real, and being discussed as a valid technology.
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf

    It is grossly inaccurate and misleading for Mr Plunket to lead listeners to believe that chemtrails/geoengineering is a “nutty conspiracy theory” when it is a very real and serious subject that affects us all, and was “on the table” at the latest IPCC Conference. https://ipcc.ch
    Professors David Keith and Ken Caldeira are leading proponents of this technology being used for Solar Radiation Management.

    I would hope that Sean Plunket makes a public apology on Radio Live, for his breaches of your standards, and that he admits that geoengineering of the atmosphere via chemical aerosol spraying,chemtrails, is a valid technology.
    Therefore he should not have ridiculed Colin Craig for saying that he did not know enough to say “yes” or “no”,and he should have treated callers with more respect, if they said they believed chemtrails were real.

    ( I know they’re real, as I have plenty of documented photographic evidence taken over the past six years in New Zealand.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s