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

The tittle says it all. The following material does too, although not as much as we'd want to. However the claim coming from someone as credible as Major General Albert Stubblebine who was also the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), and one of America’s most distinguished soldiers and chief of U.S. Army Intelligence, with 16,000 soldiers under his command is not something that can be dismissed or ignored easily or denied by skeptics. Especially when it's along the lines with this other statement:

The time to pull the curtain back on this subject is long overdue. We have statements from the most credible sources – those in a position to know – about a fascinating phenomenon, the nature of which is yet to be determined made by John Podesta who was Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton and Counselor to Barack Obama.

Or by Dr. Brian O’Leary, Former NASA astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor who said: There is abundant evidence that we are being contacted, that civilizations have been contacting us for a very long time.. For this statement I'm going to provide a short video so for now let's get back in the thread.

According to A. Stubblebine, there are constructions on the surface of the Mars as there are underground. There are machines on the surface of the Mars as there are underground. At one point in his statement he says:

“There are structures on the surface of Mars. I will tell you for the record that there are structures underneath the surface of Mars that cannot be seen by the Voyager cameras that went by in 1976. I will also tell you that there are machines on the surface of Mars and there are machines under the surface of Mars that you can look at, you can find out in detail, you can see what they are, where they are, who they are and a lot of detail about them

So when he says WHO, I don't know if he refers to beings or machines. To make it clear, in his statement the general doesn't mention anything where he gets his sources from but the author makes a supposition that part of that info might come from Remote Viewing because the general apparently played a major key role in the Stargate project which was a remote viewing program.

www.collective-evolution.com...

Here is the short video from Dr. Brian O'Leary



Also for skeptics or members who have no prior knowledge on the remote viewing, there is an extensive thread created by IsaacKoi with abundant information in the matter. You can check that out here: Remote viewing & UFOs : Stargate, Galactic Federation + the Aviary (CIA index + 92,010 PDF pages)
page: 1

OMFG nice find and very nice video!

I think this world need a wake up call in a big way.
We need to understand the universe around us, and make peace with it.

a reply to: Telos

Although I feel a little teased by that video, I am still very Intrigued!! Thanx for the share! Now to find the thread that someone a little while back had that feature an image from a rover on Mars, (?) that had in it what apperared to be machine of sorts!!! If I remember correctly, it looked to be some sort of a transport machine. Like our Automobiles in a way...
Great Thread!!! ...

I have found things in mars images for a long time, and shown them to people by printing them on paper, and not telling them the images are from mars, and they always identify the object in the image for exactly what it is.

When you tell someone to look at this image on mars, especially online, that is when they call it a rock, or mind tricks. It's pretty darn funny.
I have also seen things that are in fact illusions and matrixing. It just takes time to study an image and let everything filter in and then it's easier to know fact from illusion.
If this is all true, then it isn't much of a surprise to me. I never bought the "face on mars" boondoggle where they tried selling the idea that different lighting angles and camera angles could mash out a face and turn it into a smeared mesa with hardly any features anymore.. Just because of higher resolution..That is the biggest joke I ever saw anyone buy into. And even a bigger joke seeing it sold.

When I remote view I see women, usually not wearing anything. I know I am just weird.

Sigh...got any blurry pictures to share?

originally posted by: Xeven
When I remote view I see women, usually not wearing anything. I know I am just weird.

Sigh...got any blurry pictures to share?

"Thanks" for making this lame comment in such a thread. I would have applaud if it was funny but along with the repulsive feeling for the stupidity that contains, I also feel the need to point out that the thread is so much not for funny things.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I have found things in mars images for a long time, and shown them to people by printing them on paper, and not telling them the images are from mars, and they always identify the object in the image for exactly what it is.

Could you do the same here, i'm curious to what you have found, and what exactly it is.

Well
I am not convinced, sorry
I mean sorry, hope it's true but I am not convinced
Seen way to much of this stuff that I have become a sceptic

Let's hope that more information is released soon

I wonder what it means, what will it change

It's reasonably valid information from a reasonable source

Thanks for the info

a reply to: Mianeye

I would love to but all my stuff is on my computer which is not going to be back in my possession for a few weeks more, I am stuck with a piece of junk AMD 3200 which is slower than slow and causes my language to be riddled with TOC violations constantly.
When I get it back I'll send them your way. One shows mechanical wreckage including a perfect electric motor with wires hanging out, and a shaft and cooling vents in symmetrical alignment just like any other. Lots of other things too.

A saw horse with "A" frame design, all kinds of things.. Thats what people identified in those images when they thought they were just images from earth., Or rather, not told they were from mars. Another showed a perfect wood screw with counter sunk head.
All from rover images. Why a wood screw would be there isn't for me to argue, since it seemed to be discarded and unused, haha

a reply to: Telos

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

Stubblebine was convinced of the reality of a wide variety of psychic phenomena. He required that all of his battalion commanders learn how to bend spoons in the manner of celebrity psychic Uri Geller, and he himself attempted several psychic feats, in addition to walking through walls, such as levitation and dispersing distant clouds with his mind.

After some controversy involving the experiments with psychic phenomena, including alleged security violations from uncleared civilian psychics working in Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs), Stubblebine took "early retirement" from the Army in 1984.

Source

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.

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: Xeven
When I remote view I see women, usually not wearing anything. I know I am just weird.

Sigh...got any blurry pictures to share?

"Thanks" for making this lame comment in such a thread. I would have applaud if it was funny but along with the repulsive feeling for the stupidity that contains, I also feel the need to point out that the thread is so much not for funny things.

I don't believe remote viewing is real. It was a humorous attempt at denying ignorance from my perspective. I love all the stuff we discuss here, so don't take it personally =). I would if I were you, find it to be nothing more than humorous attempt at expressing my disbelief in Remote Viewing.

I think the entire concept of remote viewing is "lame" for instance, but rather than use such rude language I attempted to use humor to express how silly such a thought is. This thread subject matter is what is lame if you want to cut to the chase =).

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: Telos

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


en.wikipedia.org...

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.

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: Telos

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


en.wikipedia.org...

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.

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?

a reply to: Telos

Exciting reading then

that info might come from Remote Viewing

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

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: Telos

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


en.wikipedia.org...

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.

Your entire first paragraph is advocating his life work though.

However the claim coming from someone as credible as Major General Albert Stubblebine who was also the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM),

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.

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?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


I think i know what "Wood screw" you are talking about.

Here is the debunk.


As to your other observations, take your time and when ready make a thread.

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: Telos

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


en.wikipedia.org...

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.

That is an odd stance. It is an encyclopedia. It is not supposed to be the only place you gather information to get an informed opinion. It is supposed the starting point.

See, the really cool thing about Wikipedia is that the good articles are sourced - unlike in traditional encyclopedias. You can go look up there reference used there. It is really easy and really awesome.

If you happen come across an article without sources, then you KNOW that have to be cautious. Again, unlike in traditional encyclopedias.


Oh, yeah, and in this case it is just so much more convenient. Since the article itself gives 12 sources I can site just the article, leaving most satisfied, and anyone else can go look at the named sources.


It really IS awesome!

originally posted by: DupontDeux

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: Telos

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


en.wikipedia.org...

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.

That is an odd stance. It is an encyclopedia. It is not supposed to be the only place you gather information to get an informed opinion. It is supposed the starting point.

See, the really cool thing about Wikipedia is that the good articles are sourced - unlike traditional encyclopedias. You can go look up there reference used there. It is really easy and rally awesome.

If you happen come across an article without sources, then you KNOW that have to be cautious. Again, unlike traditional encyclopedia.


Oh, yeah, and in this case it is just so much more convenient. Since the article itself gives 12 sources I can site just the article, leaving most satisfied, and anyone else can go look at the named sources.


It really IS awesome!

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