Hufschmid's main page

Don't be a Useful Idiot

Do some research before you promote a theory

11 Dec 2005
updated 24 Dec 2006

What is the truth about chemtrails? Did Apollo astronauts land on the moon? How about the theory that the airplanes that hit the towers were holograms, or blue screen illusions? Is the official story of the Holocaust correct? What about the theory that mini nuclear bombs brought down the WTC towers?

Which conspiracy is true? Which is a hoax? If you are not careful, you may promote propaganda simply due to your of ignorance and arrogance. And you may dismiss the true conspiracy.


The US Government has been caught using the public in experiments. For example, they sprayed bacteria in the San Francisco area, and they used both citizens and soldiers in tests with atomic bombs, LSD, and radioactive materials.

The government admits some experiments here:

The numerous and bizarre experiments cause many people to assume the military is still conducting experiments on us. This is a valid concern, but we cannot jump to the conclusion that every airplane that leaves a persistent trail is spraying us with a mysterious substance.

Sheepherders gather sheeple

The mysterious sicknesses on cruise ships could be the result of their testing of new bacteria. However, but if you trust Clifford Carnicom or other "experts" on chemtrails, you will be looking high in the sky, not at the cruise ships.

These "experts" seem to be sheepherders who lure Gullible Goyim into a "goy pen" where they are fed deceptive information.

Mike Ruppert tells us that the CIA is the primary group behind the importation of drugs in America. The people who trust Rupert are foolishly investigating the employees of the CIA, and they will never figure out how the CIA employees, such as Valerie Plame, are getting drugs into the country and distributing them.

I suspect that Mike Rupert is a Zionist agent, and that the drug trade is primarily coming from the Rothschilds, the Zionists, and their associates.

The people who trust Mike Ruppert are fooled into looking at the wrong group of people. The people who promote the chemtrail theory also seem to be sending people into the wrong direction. If some group is spraying us with something, I would suspect that:

  • The spray would come from military and private planes, not commercial jets.

  • They would spray at low altitudes in order to target specific areas, not at 30,000 feet, which would make it impossible to predict where the substance would finally end up. 

  • The best way to spray us would be to use very quiet, dark drones, and fly them in the evening or early morning. This eliminates the human pilots who might talk, and it reduces the chance that somebody takes photos of the planes.

  • If they are spraying at 30,000 feet, they are not spraying biological items on people.

  • The spray would be invisible.

    There have been experiments in weather control for decades, but the chemtrail "experts" don't seem interested in differentiating between valid experiments and diabolical chemtrails.

    Some people respond that they are spraying at 30,000 feet because they are trying to change the ionosphere for some sort of HAARP related project. (They claim HAARP is a mysterious weapon.) But where is the evidence for such an accusation?

    Some people complain that the airplanes make grid patterns in the sky, but take a look at all the airports in the world, and explain how airplanes can get from one airport to another without occasionally creating grids, parallel lines, and other patterns.

    Don't forget that military pilots must practice. If one of them were to fly in ovals or other patterns, dozens of fools would panic that he is spraying the city with chemtrails.

    Nobody can agree on what these chemtrails are because nobody has any evidence for their accusations. People are just looking into the sky and making wild assumptions.

    The UFO theories also come from people who see something mysterious in the sky, and then jump to the conclusion that it is a spacecraft from another solar system.

    I think the chemtrail issue is another trap. The exhaust of a jet will persist for hours if the air in that location of the atmosphere is saturated with water vapor. This is why clouds can persist for long periods of times.

    Don't be a fool; don't talk about chemtrails unless you actually have some evidence for your theories.

    Fishing for Useful Idiots

    How can you tell the truth from a trap? For example, which is the truth, and which is a trap:

    A) Apollo astronauts landed on the moon.

    B) Apollo astronauts faked the moon landing.

    I say that Apollo was a fake, and I have evidence to back up my accusation:

    Long before I looked into Apollo, other people were exposing the moon hoax, such as Ralph René, Bart Sibrel, and Bill Kaysing.

    Nobody has been able to disprove any of us.

    I say that anybody who believes he official story of the Apollo moon landing is a Useful Idiot who is helping to cover up these crimes.

    If my Apollo accusations are flawed, why doesn't somebody come forward and show me where my mistakes are? Why doesn't somebody expose me as a fool?

    My brother told me that a physics professor he personally knows will put me in my place by showing me the flaws in my Apollo accusations. That was in 2004. Hey, Mr. Physics Professor... I'm still waiting! When are you going to do it?

    A lot of people tell me I am wrong about Apollo, but without proof, you are a fool to criticize me.
    What about the Holocaust? Was it real, or has it been grossly exaggerated? 

    I say it has been so grossly exaggerated and so distorted that the Jews are committing a crime by promoting it. 

    Nobody has been able to disprove anything I wrote about the Holocaust. All they have done so far is whisper quietly, "Pssst, Hufschmid is an anti-Semite."

    Nobody would resort to whispering insults if they had evidence of my mistakes.

    Their inability to find flaws in my documents, book, and video is simply evidence that I have not made any mistakes, or at least none worth complaining about.
    Scott Ritter appears to have been caught in a trap set with young girls as bait. Read about Ritter here:

    If you are incapable of figuring out who to listen to, and who to be suspicious of, you may end up dangling on one of their fishing lines.

    Of course, unlike Ritter -- who was arrested -- you may never realize that you have been caught because you will not be arrested for promoting nonsense. Instead, you will be praised and encouraged.

    "Suckers Anonymous"

    A man who visits my website eventually come to the conclusion that he was a sucker for believing in Bigfoot, chemtrails, and UFOs. He wrote about it here:

    The airplanes were
    Holograms or Blue Screen illusions?

    Some people claim that the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers were not real airplanes. Rather, they were holograms or illusions created by the television news crews.

    They base these theories on the fact that when we zoom in on the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center we can clearly see that the airplane changes shape from one frame to the next.

    Below are three sequential frames of video that I took of an airplane moving slowly along an airport runway. The video images are actually much larger; I zoomed in on the flag on the airplane.

    Notice that the letters are jagged, and the shape changes from one frame to the next. Also, notice that the stripes on the flag change from one frame to the next. Is this airplane a hologram? Was the video edited? No!

    This distortion occurs in video images with all objects in motion. And the distortion would be worse if the plane had been moving at high speed.

    I think the people who are pushing these theories are setting traps for us. 

    Imagine if you were to be fooled into believing their nonsense. Imagine yourself proudly announcing that close examination of the video proves that the airplanes were holograms or edited airplanes because the airplanes were changing shape from one frame to the next.

    The criminals would then be able to attack you as a conceited fool who talks about subjects he knows nothing about.


    Don't get caught in their Hologram Trap

    Please look into this issue of interlaced video before you give us an analysis of a video image.

    The following web site has a good photo of how a car in motion is blurred by interlaced video, while the background is clearly visible:

    This next web site has lots of photos and descriptions:

    And finally, here is a web site with animated images to show you how a ball in motion appears differently on different types of video systems: