Talk:Albert Stubblebine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YouTube links[edit]

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_______________

I had not noticed your warning about posting links to YouTube when I installed a link to General Stubblebine's video yesterday. In any event, the link was promptly removed by an administrator who goes by the name Dougweller. I wrote him as soon as I realized that he had removed both my link and the text that I had written. I haven't heard from him since so perhaps you would be kind enough to tell me what the policy is exactly about writing what I did. Everything related to 9/11 seems taboo here on Wikipedia. It seems that the only things allowed are disparaging comments about people who are guilty of nothing else but seeking the truth, whatever it may be. On the discussion page of Talk:Albert_Stubblebine, Cs32en proposed adding a paragraph that put General Stubblebine's research into goatstaring in a more proper perspective than the text that is available online right now and which seems geared to discredit him as a kook. Shouldn't wikipedians avoid subjecting people to ridicule, especially when it is not warranted? I find all this very disturbing. Cs32en proposed adding his text on November 11. An unnamed editor agreed with him on the very same day but nothing has been done since. Perhaps Cs32en has forgotten about it. Can I put that text in its proper place myself or should we wait for Cs32en to do it or, if you prefer, could you do it yourself?

Below, you will find the message I had written to User_talk:Dougweller yesterday and which has remained unanswered:

I notice you deleted the text I had appended to the paragraph dealing with General Stubblebine's testimony in the documentary "One Nation Under Siege". I find it very unfortunate that you deemed it necessary to also remove the link to the YouTube document I copied it from. I am not at all familiar with all those copyright concerns, although I know they do exist. In this particular case, I doubt very much that the copyright owner would object to having someone linking a Wikipedia article to a YouTube excerpt from his movie. He could more understandably object to YouTube distributing the video than for someone just linking to it. It seems to me that since he doesn't seem to object to the video being freely accessible on YouTube, it is very unlikely that he would object to someone merely providing a link to the publicly available document on YouTube.
That being said, I fail to see why the phrase mentioning that "he states that a Boeing 757 airplane could not have crashed into The Pentagon on September 11, 2001" was allowed to remain. What is the logic here? That information comes straight from the video. Why did you delete his views about the free press having become very expensive since 9/11 and kept intact those about the Boeing at the Pentagon ?
Is it because I faithfully transcribed what he said word for word? If that is the case, would it be acceptable to mention his thoughts if I summarized them in my own words?

I will be posting this message on the Talk:Albert_Stubblebine page also to ensure that it gets answered as soon as possible and to keep other wikipedians abreast of what is happening to Albert Stubblebine's page. For the record, here is the paragraph I had written yesterday and which was a literal transcript, word for word, of what was said in the latter part of the video. I'm quite willing to edit it if that's what it takes:

He went on to say: "We pride ourselves with a free press. I do not believe the free press is free anymore. It's very expensive. It's very expensive. And the press is saying what they have been told to say about this. Now, do I have proof of that? No. But I believe that what is being... what... certainly the stories that we're told about all about 9/11 were false. I mean you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit'em, they fell down because of explosives went off [inaudible] demolition. Look at building Seven, for God's sake." Oclupak (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not replying, other things got in the way and I simply forgot. Unless you can show it isn't copyright violation, I think we shouldn't use it. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, including Stubblebine, we don't link to copyright violations full stop. If you want to use the quote you'll have to find it somewhere else and use it from there - somewhere that meets our criteria for not being copyvio and being a reliable source, see WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I will try to contact the people who made the video and ask them for a copyright release. I will also try to find additional sources for that quote. Oclupak (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is not a really good one, but don't really see how this would improve the article and what information is gained by an extensive quote in an otherwise short article.
Also, I'm not completely sure about wikipedia's policies concerning youtube videos, but as I understand it, they are considered reliable if posted by a news outlet or the author of the work itself, right? Furthermore, I'm not sure it would help if you got the copyright release, since it's not you using it, nor wikipedia. The copyright violation would be on youtube. 87.166.118.69 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great hatchet job[edit]

Keep up the good work Wikipedia, this sort of content is what make this cight (sic) so credible as a resource. For those who think these people are jokers, I would like to give a first hand example.

My brother was a herdsman (managed and milked a herd of 200 cows). Mastitis is not uncommon in cows; the treatment, Antibiotics injected directly up the teat into the udder. The cow has to be milked, but the milk must be be thrown away. He was told by the tanker driver (who picked up the raw milk), that the milk was only ever tested for this type of contamination on Tuesdays. My brother being paid by performance knew not to put the milk contaminated by Antibiotics into the bulk tank, ON TUESDAYS. The moral of the tale, only buy your triple thick shakes on Wednesdays!

Gee more paranoid rubbish............ In case anyone's interested Stubblebine is the person who tried to teach US soldiers to kill by starting at an enemy, to become invisible by willing it so and suffers from both paranoia and dementia. His views on the crash into the Pentagon are at variance with reality and should be treated in the same way as his parapsychological nonsense. Stubblebine gave a lecture at the International Symposium on UFO Research, sponsored by the International Association for New Science, in Denver, Colorado (May 22-25, 1992). It gives a good example of Stubblebine's coherence (or lack there of) and paranoia (he often threatened to destroy the tape). Stubblebine claimed that none of the members of the remote viewing program had prior psychic abilities or interests (all other sources state that they did). Basically he's a nut with brain rot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.0.122 (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Above is a reason why this article is flawed. It is written by people with an ax to grind, who sideline him as a "nut job". If you're going to write an article on Stubblebine, explain how he grew into the rankings of a major military official and remove any nonsence quoted from questionable sources. I do not see any interviews (video/audio) or from a credible source that talks about 80% of the material on this article. I read it and knew it was a character assassination article from the beginning. Marty2Hotty (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Born[edit]

Anyone knows when he was born? He seemed quite old already. 80.108.103.172 (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard discussion of BLP issues[edit]

This article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#IP editing text claiming at behest of subject at Albert Stubblebine. --Orlady (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the material re. walking through walls on the grounds that the reference cited, a major British newspaper, easily meets the bar for WP:RS. Moreover, an unconfirmed indication that the subject might object to this statement is not grounds for removal on WP. If the subject does object, he can do so by utilising the protocols at WP:BLPHELP, which are specifically designed for situations such as this.Vitaminman (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In BLP articles, we should take every bit of available (mis-)information with a large bucket of salt. You can find the following about Stubblebine in a different article:

"He was one of America's most distinguished soldiers and chief of U.S. Army Intelligence, with 16,000 soldiers under his command. He was instrumental in the invasions of Panama and Grenada. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Albert Stubblebine III was at the heart of America's military machine."

— Daily Mail

According to the somewhat more detailed descriptions of the walking-through-walls issue, it is unclear whether Stubblebine wasn't actually making fun on his job and on himself. He alledgedly encouraged visitors to his office to try walk through walls there, which would be a counterintuitive habit if he would actually look out for a secret formula to actually walk through walls.  Cs32en  01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very useful as the Daily Mail also qualifies as a WP:RS. Moreover, it verifies his interest in "walking through walls" and states the following:
"One of the great proponents of psychic warfare was Major General Albert Stubblebine III - and back in 1983, he was at the height of his powers."
"He was also a man who tried to walk through walls. Visitors to Stubblebine's offices at Arlington, Virginia, are told of him repeatedly walking at walls - only to bounce painfully off them. But in his mind, there was never any doubt that the ability to pass through solid objects would one day be a common tool in the intelligence-gathering arsenal. Nonetheless, he was continuously frustrated by his own, rather embarrassing, lack of success. 'I still think it's a great idea,' says General Stubblebine. 'I simply kept bumping my nose. It's a disappointment - just like levitation.'"
"Stubblebine has long been fascinated by the power of the mind, and in the late Seventies was convinced that America's next war would be fought with psychic powers as well as bombs and bullets. His reasoning lay in the numerous covert psychic projects - all with bizarre names - the military had been secretly funding for decades."
Vitaminman (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and most importantly, the Daily Mail article provides relevant context about these allegations, in particular: (a) the involvement of the military/CIA in the "research", i.e. these were not thing that Stubblebine did in his spare time (well, maybe he explored similar things in his spare time, but we don't know); (b) that he used this as a kind of talking point with visitors to his office; (c) that he allegedly evaluated his "research" re walking through walls as unsucessful. We should also use the info about him being at "the heart of America's military machine" then, as it's not BLP sensitive and supported by a WP:RS.  Cs32en  15:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is certainly sufficient WP:RS material to verifiably document these aspects now.21:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • [copyvio link redacted] I found a video trying to put disinformation of Albert Stubblebine out there. The text of the YouTube video writes: "Classic disinfo- Have someone become a "leader" in a movement- in this case 9/11 Truth, then have a grand "reveal" where the person turns out to be a total nutcase - cointelpro 101". The Wikipedia article of Stubblebine is flawed greatly but the gatekeepers refuse to cite sources for Stubblebine's article. I'm not going to fight on this issue, but I hope the readers and visitors listen to Stubblebine's interviews and determine themselves that he is not a "nutcase" based on articles saying he believes he "can walk through walls". Marty2Hotty (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't post copyvio links. We should replace the first Daily Mail reference with this which I'll do tomorrow. Doug Weller (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's no question that he tried to walk through a wall, he actually joked about it in an interview. What material has anyone refused to source? Doug Weller (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Warfare (for german readers)[edit]

see Militärhellseher im Kalten Krieg: Projekt "Star Gate" published in Telepolis (Heise-Verlag, Hamburg) --Alexander.stohr (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?[edit]

From the article, I get the impression this guy's perceived notability is entirely due to passing mentions in film and book reviews of The Men Who Stare At Goats and a host of obscure 9/11 conspiracy sites flogging a single, sensationalistic quotation attributed to him. Surely there's non-sensational coverage of his life and career by multiple, independent sources. This is supposed to be a biography article, right? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a more accurate and complete summary of his notability would be to say that it is due to a significant section of The Men Who Stare At Goats, passing mentions in film and book reviews, and two British media articles.[1][2] But you're right that more work is needed here, I'm sure that with a little effort we can do better.Vitaminman (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two British "media articles" are reviews of the book and film that mention Stubblebine in passing. I agree with you that we can do better. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the British "media articles" are not sufficient to document Stubblebine's career. I had one of my edits reverted because a contributor feels Stubblebine's quote of "walking through walls" (true or not) from the Daily Mail article is relevant to put on his Wikipedia page. A lot of the information on his page is nonsense and non-bibliographical. It looks like a smear campaign from those that don't want to accept alternate 9/11 theories. Marty2Hotty (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a September 2013 interview, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuAUb2AEIoU - Stubblebine starts the interview asking what will be done with the interview prior to it being put up. He is cautious, it appears, due to people using interview excerpts from him in attempt to smear him. This article is morally wrong and needs to be edited to be biographical instead of a gang-mentality smear campaign, which it is right now. You can listen to any modern Stubblebine interview and see he is not a "nut job' that this article is trying to make him out to be. Marty2Hotty (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason we have an article about his is due to his involvement in such things as Project Stargate, his belief that the military should investigate the use of the paranormal, and yes his widely publicised attempt to walk through walls. We don't mention that he's a 'truther', that he believes there are structures on Mars, etc. There is more information in this book[3] we could use, not all negative. Doug Weller (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional material[edit]

There's some additional material, including a citation, here: [4] Seems to me it might be worthy of incorporating into this article. Vitaminman (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

I believe the addition of this material was made in good faith, but please see WP:V and WP:RS. A listing at www.last.fm/music isn't considered a reliable source of fact. A newspaper article, a biography written in a magazine, etc. would be sufficient. The www.globalresearch.ca site is a conspiracy site and definitely not reliable, and www.drrima.net is a self published source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Married to Dr Rima Laibow[edit]

Dougweller , rather than engaging in edits that appear to me to be destructive or unconstructive (And I apologise in advance if I am wrong here), why don't you do what any Wikipedia contributor should do? Find other references to support the fact that he is married to Dr Laibow!

It's simple. I have provided some but it seems that there may be another agenda here. (And again I apologise if I am wrong). Please see what you can find.

(Boss Reality (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Boss Reality, you need to show me how these sources meet WP:RS. We are particularly strict about sources when it comes to living people. We don't use fringe websites. We don't use self-published books such as your 3rd link (lulu.com). Maybe the 4th would have done when it was published 11 years ago, but since he's had one divorce how do we know he is still married to Laibow? I don't doubt that he was, but we've had situations when we have known someone was dead but there was no way we could state that in their article due to lack of sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And today, he's become one of them. Allegedly. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- A lot of this article is a smear campaign on Albert Stubblebine. Anyone with half a brain can read it and understand that. Those references above do not meet biographical guidelines. It also asserts he had a divorce and gives a reason for it that is not sourced anywhere. I would like to see this article re-written without conjecture and people that have a reason to tarnish his good name. Marty2Hotty (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a source for his divorce. There's also "West's South Eastern Reporter - Page 765 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h-qZAAAAIAAJ The parties were married in 1952 after Albert Stubblebine graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point. ... decree entered |638September 19, 1994, granted Geraldine Stubblebine a final divorce on the ground of adultery." Doug Weller (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but which half? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: September 11 attacks statements[edit]

"Stubblebine's statements questioning the plausibility of the damage done to The Pentagon by the hijacked aircraft during the September 11 attacks have been cited by David Ray Griffin to suggest that there was a conspiracy involving some elements of the U.S. government."

And yet, Wikipedia doesn't bother to mention what those statements WERE. I read from a non-credible source that he questioned whether or not what impacted the Pentagon on 9/11 was a plane, and that it may have been a missle. Crazy and stupid, right? So I came to this Wikipedia Article to find out the truth, and what I find is an ambiguous statement about what someone else said he said, but not what someone else said he actually SAID, or even what he actually SAID. This is too weird, and given history I doubt it's oversight.107.195.106.201 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there’s a plot against the truth. Or maybe no editor has ever been interested in it. Buy hey, you’re an editor now, so as you’re interested , go ahead and do the research and edit! Doug Weller talk 08:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Griffin's book isn't a WP:FRIND source, but here's a more RS for Stubblebine's statements and Griffin's endorsement [5]. Note that Gambone refers to 'skeptics' as those skeptical of official conclusions, i.e. conspiracy theorists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rima Laibow site links[edit]

I removed a link in the lead Who Killed General Bert and Happy Birthday, Wherever You Are. which promotes a fringe conspiracy theory. This is not even close to a WP:RS. In fact, I don't think we should use citations to this site at all. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_Stubblebine&oldid=1208774514"