It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

United States Major General Blows The Whistle On What They Really Found On Mars

page: 2
95
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Telos

Exciting reading then



that info might come from Remote Viewing

Brick wall !!!!!!!!!!


That actually was my conjecture (and also the writer of the article) since the source doesn't say where he gets his information from. There is no mention of RV from the military man.



+4 more 
posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: Telos

Well.. I am not sure how credible I find him..

Source




I stopped taking Wikipedia references as a source long ago. I'm not here to advocate his life work, nor the veracity of remote viewing.

Then you are using Wikipedia incorrectly.

Most Wikipedia articles have sources and references listed. To get an idea on the validity of the information included in a Wikipedia article, you need to peruse the sources that back up that information. Usually, the sources in Wikipedia articles include peer-reviewed scientific research and/or information that has been independently confirmed by multiple sources.

I'm not saying that is necessarily the case with this article about Stubblebine, but it is true about Wikipedia in general, and Wikipedia should not be so easily dismissed as an invalid source of information

The word of a single person, on the other hand, is much harder to confirm and corroborate. A person could just as easily be spinning tales (either consciously or subconsciously).

Edit to add:



edit on 10/2/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
BACK on subject...


What I do find interesting, is when you sit back, and take articles like this, and others directly from NASA (Water on Mars) being released in the last say, ten years?

Seems like we are getting a lot of "possibilities" in a shorter period of time.

Makes you wonder.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Great find OP!
The thing with this is everyone comes out of the wood work on ATS as soon as something interesting appears. They go out of their way to discredit, as stated " lame" subject matter.

Recently the owner of ATS made a thread directed towards the people who jump on the alien topic to try to debunk, criticize and make fun of the subject in general.
I suggest to those who target alien topics to make fun of, to read the post. You will see it as soon as you click the alien forum button.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
What a fascinating thread. My thanks to the OP. This news doesn't surprise me at all. We must remember and I will say it again, NASA who seems to like to control its information, has two sides, the public side and the secretive side. I think we all know the typical NASA response to what is perceived to be items of interest related to Mars, which have been discussed about many times. Recall the explanation for the Mars face? A trick of light and shadows we are told, or when it has to do with ufo's in space as sighted by astronauts, we are sometimes told space junk or pieces of ice. I am very open to the possibilities of some kind of past life and some evidence on Mars.

I also recently read a book by this author whom I had never heard of before. And after reading it, its quite clear, abundantly clear that U.S. Presidents have known/know a whole lot more about ufo's than they have let on, some much more than others, including Ronald Reagan who saw 2 ufo's, as well as George H.W. Bush who ran the CIA before becoming President. I highly recommend this book, and if interested check out Mr. Holcombes' website. Its got some very interesting conclusions. In short, we have not and are not being told the truth about ufo's, by the government, the military, the FAA and others.
edit on 02am31am5091 by data5091 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
So, the general visualized this while remote viewing. I am not convinced and not convinced on the validaty of remote viewing. I have visualized $10,000,000 in my bank account and looked and it wasn't there, wtf.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

I see things in clouds! Just the other day o bowl of alphabet soup told me "no!" Crazy universe.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: neveroddoreven99

We all do



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: eManym
So, the general visualized this while remote viewing. I am not convinced and not convinced on the validaty of remote viewing. I have visualized $10,000,000 in my bank account and looked and it wasn't there, wtf.


Once again, the general never said anything about RV. I repeat, that was my conjecture and that of the author of the article.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Please share wwith Me as well?! I am very interested in seeing those pix! Please U2U them to me as soon as you are able!???

I have some pix from the moon that were ridiculed here to death...Alas, such feeble minds that try to convince us that they are rocks, eh?! LMAO!!!



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
There probably are intelligent-made devices on Mars. Some were covered by sand and dirt eons ago, just like here on Earth. The others have not been covered, or eroded away. So you have some above ground and below ground. Our galaxy is filled with planets that contain items built by intelligence other than God. At least I hope so.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: Telos

Well.. I am not sure how credible I find him..

So he have not, in fact, been in the military since more than 30 years ago. How does that put him in the know?

The man is offering his opinion - an opinion that in MY opinion is uninformed and likely biased by his beliefs in basically anything alternative.


This is what I found about his bios:


Major General Albert (Bert) N. Stubblebine III (U.S. Army, Retired) graduated from The United States Military Academy (West Point) in 1952, and served in the US Army for 32 years. Starting his career as an Armor officer, he subsequently rose through the ranks to lead troops at every echelon of Army command, and held several senior posts in US Army Intelligence. His commands as a General Officer included the US Army Intelligence Center and School, the Army's Electronic Research and Development Command (ERADCOM) and the US Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). Whilst on active duty Stubblebine also redesigned the intelligence architecture of the United States Army, and restructured the Army Intelligence training curriculum. After his retirement from the Army in 1984 he served until 1990 as the Vice President for Intelligence Systems at BDM Corporation, a private defense sector contractor, and then acted as a part-time consultant to two government contractors; ERIM, and Space Applications Corporation (SAC). More recently, and along with his wife, the psychiatrist Rima Laibow, Stubblebine sat on the Board of Canadian Submarine Technologies Inc...



Now if the US military employees nut cases and crazies then that's another story. But from what I read I couldn't find anyone more credible. If I had to doubt his credibility based on my personal conviction on a subject, whether I believe or not on that subject then I think we have to change the definition of what constitutes credibility and a credible source. Because in my opinion our skepticism and the need to be rational (which in its own way can be a need to deny what we can't fathom or that scares us) is making us question everything with a preconceived sense of what we want to hear. And if it is different from what we want, then is questionable or not credible. Remember Philip J. Corso, Paul Hellyer, Nick Pope etc. All were in the know position, held high military and defense security clearance and yet whatever they claim is still seen as not true. Which makes me say out lout:

"Put 10 tons of proof in front of people. If they’re not ready to accept an idea, they will not accept the proof. No amount of evidence will suffice to prove anything...

I'm not saying that we have to close our eyes and minds and accept everything we hear or that is being told to us. That would be going into the other extreme. But at the same time I cannot dismiss every single source only because I find it hard to believe (which most likely is due to a social conditioning) and doesn't fit into my believe system. Neither one is healthy.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: chiefsmom
BACK on subject...


What I do find interesting, is when you sit back, and take articles like this, and others directly from NASA (Water on Mars) being released in the last say, ten years?

Seems like we are getting a lot of "possibilities" in a shorter period of time.

Makes you wonder.


This is because, Technology is better, we have more probes out there to get data and NASA has some competition and don't want India or other country to steal their thunder!



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Telos

It looks like he also believes 911 was an inside job and supposedly the general from The Men Who Stare at Goats was based on him.

Interesting guy nonetheless



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Telos

It looks like he also believes 911 was an inside job...


And so do way to many of us. So do most of the threads in the this board in the regard of 9/11



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: Xeven


I don't believe remote viewing is real... This thread subject matter is what is lame if you want to cut to the chase =).


I don't really care what you believe sir. I personally have done extensive reading on RV so our viewpoints in the matter are so different. I was just repulsed by your kiddish comment and the following behavior. You're not obligated to comment on a lame thread. If you don't share the same belief you can just skip to the next thread and try to be funny somewhere else. At least have some respect for the time and effort people put into creating a thread, despite your agreement or not on the subject.


I am sorry you felt repulsed by my comments. Was just posting my opinion on the validity/credibility of the information you posted. I enjoy this stuff though so don't think I dislike what you posted. It is entertaining. I just had an opinion on it. The entire purpose of this site is to discuss these matters and that is all I was doing. My attempt at sarcastic humor was not meant to repulse you. So please keep posting interesting and fringe stuff! It is why I come here,

I was actually hoping you might provide some additional information or evidence that might change my mind on the subject.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Telos
We're so off the topic and I don't understand why you keep on pushing it. I said I don't take Wikipedia as a source because that was what you provided and because is a page where everyone can go and make an entry. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia per say. Is a bunch of entries by people with no credentials and sometimes even without an education. Now obviously I don't want to trash wiki because is not the scope of the thread so can we please move over to what the thread is about?

Thanks



What do you mean, I keep pushing the subject? I had made no prior posts about the subject. I had not not even touched upon the subject. I did not go off topic - that was you mate.

But yes, back to the topic at hand:

While you may not want to go into the 'veracity of remote viewing', I think we have to. The thread is based on the credibility of Stubblebine. Therefore it is relevant to discuss Stubblebine's background and how high sets the bar for proof; does he rely on anectodal evidence and gut feelings or is he as close-minded as they come?

His background; what he has done, what he swears to, to which military or NASA backchannels he has access, has EVERYTHING to do with his credibility.

At least when it comes to subject of what 'they' really found on Mars.


To the fact that he has been an 'outsider' for three decades, that he leans heavily towards the paranormal, the demand of his commanders being able to "bend spoons like Uri Geller", the fact that he obviously was less than loved by the high brass - the ones in the know - leads me to think that contrary to what is written in the OP he is INDEED someone who can be dismissed by the skeptics:

He does not seem to have any special way of knowing "what they really found", he does not seem to think hard evidence is needed before making up his mind. He does not fit the bill of someone who cannot be dismissed by the skeptics.

edit on 2-10-2015 by DupontDeux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven

I am sorry you felt repulsed by my comments. Was just posting my opinion on the validity/credibility of the information you posted. I enjoy this stuff though so don't think I dislike what you posted. It is entertaining. I just had an opinion on it. The entire purpose of this site is to discuss these matters and that is all I was doing. My attempt at sarcastic humor was not meant to repulse you. So please keep posting interesting and fringe stuff! It is why I come here,

I was actually hoping you might provide some additional information or evidence that might change my mind on the subject.


I'm glad I could help in making your day a bit better and entertain you. At the same time I feel bad for you that have such a life that you need to come to ATS for fun. And FYI, Fringe and unusual is part of Alien Forum which in a larger scale is part of ATS which if you didn't know, is a Conspiracy Board. So maybe you shouldn't be here and find a way to subscribe to Skeptic Magazine. I am told, there is plenty of stuff for fun there too.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux

While you may not want to go into the 'veracity of remote viewing', I think we have to. The thread is based on the credibility of Stubblebine. Therefore it is relevant to discuss Stubblebine's background and how high sets the bar for proof; does he rely on anectodal evidence and gut feelings or is he as close-minded as they come?




I'm focusing only on that part because you missed an entire post I did on your comment previously. Please check above.

And for the veracity, this is the third time I'm mentioning: The military man didn't say where he got his source from. It was my CONJECTURE and that of the writer of the article.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
im always a skpetic with an open mind. but i know.. yes i know.. for sure.. 100% certain.. that you didnt just post a 1minute video in the op.

seriously.. 5 minutes minimum if ur really trying to make a topic. plus the dude doesnt say anything we already dont know in the 1st minute so im wondering.. why should i take time now to go and research this guy to see if he's legit. when chances are he's just another regurgitator of the works of manly p hall and general hermeticism?



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join