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: 6
95
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

But he got his information from remote viewing, not images from NASA so I dunno how credible we can take this guy. There was one poster here who did nothing but post threads about structures on Mars and while a few were interesting the majority were indeed rocks.
So the General's proof is from his psychic experiments, meh.

I do not understand why 'Remote Viewing' is being hammered here. I know the techniques and also know they work as one that has used them. Where is the imagination? Its just another tool to be used with curiosity and grace to understand our being (purpose) in this time/space.
edit on 2-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I do not understand why 'Remote Viewing' is being hammered here. I know the techniques and also know they work as one that has used them. Where is the imagination? Its just another tool to be used with curiosity and grace to understand our being in this time/space.

Unfortunately, as uncanny as it may be sometimes in gathering information, it has a fundamental flaw in not being so accurate that it can be used all by itself for intel. It always has to be confirmed by conventional sources, and in a situation where getting verification is difficult if not impossible, its value goes way, way down.

Sure, it's fun to play with, but would you rely solely on a remote viewer to tell you the location of your missing baby? Probably not.
edit on 2-10-2015 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: opethPA

So you stopped taking Wikipedia as a valid source but are okay with using people's opinions as a valid source..

How does that work?


If that "people" is you of course it wouldn't work. But if that "people" is a Major General of US army with such distinctive career, of course that makes a big difference. Now do you have anything to elaborate on the thread or you're going to analyze my take on Wikipedia?


I get it so you take the opinion of a person that tried training people to walk through walls who claims crazy things about Mars as fact without any proof but wont take anything else that calls that person insane as proof.


I take the opinion of someone with a position as a Major General in the US army who worked on projects that allowed him to have a special insight on the mater over the words of a common person on ATS or an editable entry on Wikipedia. And it makes me laugh how can one not see the logic in that.

Now I can understand you like to "attack" the source and make fun of wall walking (while the lunatic general continued to be employed by US army for many more years after, earning more and more titles and positions) but that doesn't really hurt his reputation. As I said, he continued to be part of US army and employed by defense contractors even after he was retired.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   


I take the opinion of someone with a position as a Major General in the US army who worked on projects that allowed him to have a special insight on the mater over the words of a common person on ATS or an editable entry on Wikipedia. And it makes me laugh how can one not see the logic in that.

Now I can understand you like to "attack" the source and make fun of wall walking (while the lunatic general continued to be employed by US army for many more years after, earning more and more titles and positions) but that doesn't really hurt his reputation. As I said, he continued to be part of US army and employed by defense contractors even after he was retired.

100% agreed
edit on 2-10-2015 by Choppz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: schuyler
I'm confused. So we have a general, and by virtue of him being a general he is deemed credible (and information suggesting otherwise is deemed NOT credible) who says there is stuff of interest on Mars, but we don't know what the evidence is, so we're speculating that it came from remote viewing. Does that sum this up, or is there more to it that I'm not seeing?


I believe retired military have a right to the title for life just as ex presidents do. it looks to me like he has been in impressive empty since his retirement also.


That really isn't an answer. I never said he should not be called general.


held several senior posts in US Army Intelligence

Clearly he has more than just a General title to recommend his being in on secure knowledge. His wife is a psychiatrist I doubt she would be with him if here were a nut.


This despite the fact that we are all quite willing to declare "military intelligence" and oxymoron in other contexts. And his wife is a psychiatrist and that brings what to the table? Ted Bundy was a psychology major.

And none of this answers the basic question. What, exactly, do we have? The evidence here is Remote Viewing? Is that it? As far as I can tell, and why I asked the question, we have here a general who says he has seen stuff on Mars via Remote Viewing.

Is there anything else going on here or is that precisely what we have?

edit on 10/2/2015 by schuyler because: trying to get the quotes straight



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

I do not understand why 'Remote Viewing' is being hammered here. I know the techniques and also know they work as one that has used them. Where is the imagination? Its just another tool to be used with curiosity and grace to understand our being (purpose) in this time/space.


And I bet, most of them who are commenting and making jokes about RV don't even have an idea of what is about, how is applied, how was implemented, what was the success rate that made CIA and the army invest heavily and create special departments who dealt only with "psychic espionage" as did their counterparts soviets, who were the geniuses behind etc. Not for anything I suggested Ingo Swan and his book previously. You can do that much to make people be interested in a subject. If they prefer to joke and play around without knowing what one thing is about then is a waste of time arguing.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
I do not understand why 'Remote Viewing' is being hammered here. I know the techniques and also know they work as one that has used them. Where is the imagination? Its just another tool to be used with curiosity and grace to understand our being in this time/space.

Unfortunately, as uncanny as it may be sometimes in gathering information, it has a fundamental flaw in not being so accurate that it can be used all by itself for intel. It always has to be confirmed by conventional sources, and in a situation where getting verification is difficult if not impossible, its value goes way, way down.

Sure, it's fun to play with, but would you rely solely on a remote viewer to tell you the location of your missing baby? Probably not.

Information is information and no better or worse than 'crime tip lines'. Its a personal experience that is designed for the individual utilizing it. Crime solving (no idea). I don't play with it as is not a game. I wouldn't need someone else to do this for me; I am confident enough in my own expertise.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Telos
Oh look . we have a judge and jury on what is funny and allowed. Brian Oleary has some more vids on Youtube. If a person puts together the credible sources for this subject, they all kind of say the same thing, I want to know more about the beings. There have been some great pics found lately on Mars.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: TechniXcality

Read this and tell me whether you would consider me as a credible witness.


Uh, no.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Information is information and no better or worse than 'crime tip lines'. Its a personal experience that is designed for the individual utilizing it. Crime solving (no idea). I don't play with it as is not a game. I wouldn't need someone else to do this for me; I am confident enough in my own expertise.

What do you see on Mars that can be verified by conventional sources?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Telos
They don't know what it is; and those that prefer to access Wikipedia for the easy "RV for dummies" explanation and are content enough with that cursory definition (Wikipedia is for Dummies). There are many applications for this technique. Naysayers have either no imagination or are IN FEAR of it.


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



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Information is information and no better or worse than 'crime tip lines'. Its a personal experience that is designed for the individual utilizing it. Crime solving (no idea). I don't play with it as is not a game. I wouldn't need someone else to do this for me; I am confident enough in my own expertise.

What do you see on Mars that can be verified by conventional sources?

You mean put the rovers in areas on Mars where there is actual evidence of geometric structures built with intelligent design (not erosion).
edit on 2-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: TechniXcality


sublimecraft: Read this and tell me whether you would consider me as a credible witness.


schuyler: Uh, no.

You do not know what you are missing schuyler: "How Does One Make Oneself Believe" (religion/faith/theology forum) is a FUN READ; very bright commentary and great wisdom interspersed with light hearted humor/levity.
edit on 2-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Telos
They don't know what it is; and prefer to access Wikipedia for the easy "RV for dummies" explanation and are content enough with that cursory definition. There are many applications for this technique. Naysayers have either no imagination or are IN FEAR of it.



One indisputable fact is that the CIA and the military abandoned remote viewing years ago after determining that it didn't work.

That's really not the basic issue here. RV might or might not have some validity as far as I'm concerned. The point in question here is whether Stubblebine accurately remote viewed machinery on Mars and this a repeatable and verifiable process as he claims.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Telos
They don't know what it is; and prefer to access Wikipedia for the easy "RV for dummies" explanation and are content enough with that cursory definition. There are many applications for this technique. Naysayers have either no imagination or are IN FEAR of it.



One indisputable fact is that the CIA and the military abandoned remote viewing years ago after determining that it didn't work.

That's really not the basic issue here. RV might or might not have some validity as far as I'm concerned. The point in question here is whether Stubblebine accurately remote viewed machinery on Mars and this a repeatable and verifiable process as he claims.


Ahh, you mean...kinda like how the NSA abandoned the Total Information Awareness program? Huh. Umm, sure



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Telos
They don't know what it is; and prefer to access Wikipedia for the easy "RV for dummies" explanation and are content enough with that cursory definition. There are many applications for this technique. Naysayers have either no imagination or are IN FEAR of it.



One indisputable fact is that the CIA and the military abandoned remote viewing years ago after determining that it didn't work.
That's really not the basic issue here. RV might or might not have some validity as far as I'm concerned. The point in question here is whether Stubblebine accurately remote viewed machinery on Mars and this a repeatable and verifiable process as he claims.

It is a personal experience designed for itself by itself. Whether this experience applies to yours is mute. You do not remote view and do not understand what this technique entails; its process, or how the discovery of the information sought after is obtained. It is never repeatable as is a unique experience by one individual. Same target information given to a group of individuals; the most accurate was given the accolades. I am surprised this project was funded in the first place (some validity had to exist to finance it).
edit on 2-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Telos
They don't know what it is; and prefer to access Wikipedia for the easy "RV for dummies" explanation and are content enough with that cursory definition. There are many applications for this technique. Naysayers have either no imagination or are IN FEAR of it.



One indisputable fact is that the CIA and the military abandoned remote viewing years ago after determining that it didn't work.
That's really not the basic issue here. RV might or might not have some validity as far as I'm concerned. The point in question here is whether Stubblebine accurately remote viewed machinery on Mars and this a repeatable and verifiable process as he claims.

It is never repeatable as is a unique experience by one individual.


Well, in my restrictive paradigm
there is either machinery on Mars or there isn't. If remote viewing it is a unique experience that can't be repeated then it can't be proof of what's there.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Telos
They don't know what it is; and prefer to access Wikipedia for the easy "RV for dummies" explanation and are content enough with that cursory definition. There are many applications for this technique. Naysayers have either no imagination or are IN FEAR of it.



One indisputable fact is that the CIA and the military abandoned remote viewing years ago after determining that it didn't work.
That's really not the basic issue here. RV might or might not have some validity as far as I'm concerned. The point in question here is whether Stubblebine accurately remote viewed machinery on Mars and this a repeatable and verifiable process as he claims.

It is never repeatable as is a unique experience by one individual.


Well, in my restrictive paradigm
there is either machinery on Mars or there isn't. If remote viewing it is a unique experience that can't be repeated then it can't be proof of what's there.


We have rovers there; why not point them in the direction of Cydonia and check out "That Face" and surrounding compounds? Put something to bed or to rest finally. Remote viewing is just another random tool for information gathering is all. I see no harm or foul.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
So it seems that MikeSingh was really on to something after all.

Hopefully physical evidence will be presented in our lifetime, otherwise it is still a matter of faith... and hope.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

maybe this has been done already...maybe many things have been done already.
i think we know only a small fraction of what is going on.
i think many answers are already known, whether we are told or not is anyones guess.

or...
maybe we have been told many times, but because we are so grounded in our belief that nothing strange ever really happens..not really,that we laugh it off and call the messengers freaks.


edit on 2-10-2015 by autopat51 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
95
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join