December 4, 1999
Ark, Laura, Frank
(Unless otherwise designated, all questions asked by Laura.)
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Laopinnah.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: We have a number of issues to deal with this evening; the first one is the subject of Flight 990. There have been a number of scenarios suggested by the media and other sources on the internet. One of them says that the autopilot was disengaged BEFORE the plane began to dive. Is this the case?
A: No. Plane was disturbed from flight path by windburst, therefore, autopilot was disengaged in order to better combat problem.
Q: There has been a big controversy going on. One of the contributors to this controversy was Ed Dames who, on the Art Bell show, claimed that his organization "remote viewed" the situation and that there had been a fight in the cockpit. This claim was made, I believe, before the flight data recorders were retrieved. So, this was a scenario that the media picked up. Then, after one of the recorders was found, for a short while, this idea was popular, because it seemed to explain the crazy behavior of the aircraft. But then the voice recorder was found, and there was no real evidence to support the "fight" scenario, but there was a sort of prayerful exclamation heard, being made by the co-pilot who was, apparently alone in the cockpit when the activity began. Then, the pilot returned and there were sounds of desperate activity and so forth, so the next scenario proposed was that the co-pilot had decided to commit suicide in a big way. As a result of this Ed Dames episode on Art Bell, followed by the NTSB and FBI trying to fit the clues to Dames' scenario, there is now the suggestion making the rounds of the internet rumor mongers that Ed Dames is in the employ of the "powers that be," and that he deliberately planted this story so that they could then come along and validate it to give him more credibility so that he would be in place to plant more and greater rumors and stories of the disinformation variety. Is that the case? Did Ed Dames and his group accurately remote view the cockpit of Flight 990?
A: No. Ed was hoping for a "hit."
Q: So, Ed Dames is NOT in the employ of the "Powers that be?"
A: No.
Q: Was the co-pilot suicidal?
A: No.
Q: So, what he said was the equivalent of "Oh my God!" or something?
A: Close.
Q: Now, I have another correspondent who was on a beach about a hundred miles west of the crash site. This individual was with a companion and they both saw an orange glow in the direction of the crash at approximately the time of the event. This orange glow was, in her opinion, anomalous, and quickly disappeared. Was what was seen by my correspondent an effect of this plane crash?
A: Possibly linked, but not likely.
Q: Well, the question now comes about the nature of the "windburst." You previously said about this that "mysteries are subjective." Did you mean to imply that we could have or should have followed up with questions about the windburst itself?
A: No, these things happen. Sometimes a fault in autopilot analog computer causes system to fail to adjust properly, thus causing an attitude aberration in wingtips. Planes can dive suddenly and inexplicably. Refer to April 1979, Flint Michigan, TWA flight nonstop from New York to Minneapolis. Quick pilot reaction saved that one, but it was close, very close! Included same "g-force" anomalies, i.e. passengers floating out of their seats, etc. Suggest you look this up on internet. Aircraft manufacturers jealously protect their "turf." 1999 incident involved Boeing 767, 1979 incident was a 727. At root is the fact that Boeing is feeling Airbus Industries Inc. nipping at its heels. It is all that 3rd density STS love of money stuff, you know!
Q: (A) Well, about this windburst, was there some dimensional phenomenon or trans-density window as we have suggested on our site? (L) Was it an ordinary windburst? I think I have heard that it is impossible to have a windburst at that altitude.
A: Not "ordinary," but not trans-density, or dimensional. It was a Jet stream "eddy."
Q: So, there were no rays, beams, microwaves, trans-density or dimensional windows, weird, anomalous, conspiratorial event going on here?
A: No, no, no, no, no!
Q: It was just a terrible tragedy. The pilots fought as hard as they could to save the plane, but were unable to do so, and the bottom line is a lot of people died?
A: Yes, but as is common in all-out emergencies, the human factor was not "perfect." Pilots were working at cross purposes, but not intentionally! Look up the data on the 1979 case and point this out to the conspiracy thirsty correspondents!
Q: Next item on the agenda: the loss of the new Mars probe. As of the latest I heard, it had still not "called home." Is the Mars probe lost?
A: Not lost, just partly dysfunctional.
Q: Why is it dysfunctional? Or partly dysfunctional?
A: Rocky surface, mis-alignment of antennae, slight damage to communications package. may still be retrievable if technicians can locate proper backup software inlet.
Q: So, that is the advice to try to save the mission?
A: Yes.
Q: Anything else?
A: No.
Q: So, there is no conspiracy there, either?
A: It is just as dangerous and just as useless to "see" conspiracy in everything s it is to "see" conspiracy in nothing. We tire of conspiracy "buffs." They are nutty, and serve as perfect false sponsors to those who really DO seek to conduct widespread mental/psychic manipulations and control.
Q: Okay, that leads into the next question about the excessive contrail activity.
(F) I read the articles about the contrails. There did not seem to be any way of verifying anything that was said. Essentially, you were left with the claims of this or that person, few of whom were trained observers, or who were taking all the factors into consideration.
(L) Well, we noticed them a lot in the spring of 1998 when we had all the floods and fires later. They are THERE!
(F) Yes, but the claims are that contrails were appearing in clear skies, at which point the sky became overcast as a result of these contrails, when the two may not have been related at all. Then, people were noticing cob webs or "angel hair" type stuff falling on the ground.
(L) I agree that a lot of it is unverifiable and I haven't seen any hard proof myself, either; but they ARE there! LOTS of these jets flying about. An exceedingly LOT of flying! And, not only that, other things have been reported and photographed; strange streaks and lines in the sky, dark and light both - as though some sort of cosmic structure is bleeding through!
(F) Yes, but you have to wonder about these people. I mean, the stuff about the radar anomalies was clearly an example of ignorance of both radar and weather. Oh, yes, big spheres appear on the radar, but those have been appearing forever! They are nothing but cumulo-nimbus blow-ups - what is called a meso-cyclone, and is very common. The only reason they are getting excited about it is because there is all this communication, all these satellite and radar link-ups, and now the average person gets to see what weathermen have been seeing all along! More coverage and communication just makes it seem like it is something new. People need knowledge about this! Sure, there is stuff going on out there, but people seem to be seeing boogy men behind absolutely everything that happens! And this is because they have no knowledge about these things. Why are these people going off the deep end about these half-baked ideas without bothering to get expert opinions, or even a number of opinions? Why do they promulgate all this nonsense to everybody else as though THEY are experts, with nothing to balance the observations in the way of competent analysis? Meso-cyclones, eruptions of cumulo-nimbus super cells are, by their very nature, perfectly circular because of the cyclonic up-draft!
(L) But, the fact still remains, in my opinion, that there are a LOT, LOT, LOT of planes flying above us in the past few years! Whether they are dumping anything on our heads, or what, there are an extreme number of planes flying in these upper level criss-cross patterns. Now, whether they are just playing war-games, or they are spy planes, they are doing SOMETHING! What is the reason for all of this upper level flying that results in these criss-crossed contrails that everybody is seeing?
A: A lot of it is "training maneuver"oriented.
Q: Why are they training so many pilots? What are they preparing for?
A: Military budgets must be justified, you know. Review "Military-Industrial Complex 101."
Q: So, this is just training flight, justification of budget, and nothing more than that?
A: Well, we would not say "not anything more to it than that," but, when you say "M-IC," you have said a lot!
Q: Are you implying that there is a build-up of the Military-Industrial Complex for a reason?
A: To preserve status quo during "peacetime." This peace business is not very profitable, you know.
Q: Does that suggest that they are building up to set off a war so they can make more money?
A: Maybe if indeed, and if the populous can be hoodwinked. But, fortunately, the public is less hoodwinkable. Maybe the real enemy is "out there, " rather than "over there." Was it not always?
Q: Does any of this increased aircraft activity have anything to do with the increased awareness and activities of aliens in and around our planet?
A: As always. But, this awareness is factionalized and compartmentalized.
Q: This brings us to the question from one of our readers: is there anything to this so-called "Gulf War Syndrome?"
A: Of course.
Q: What is the real cause of the "Gulf War Syndrome?"
A: Medications used supposedly to counteract effects of serin; nerve agent.
Q: So, a medication was given to these people to counteract a possible threat to live, and the medication itself was a threat to life?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, on a similar subject: what I hear from various correspondents on the net, there are a lot of folks who have "emerging" Montauk memories. These folks are "waking up" and it is now "kitschy" to be a "Montauk Survivor." It's like a sub-culture... can it be possible that this many people...
A: No.
Q: Well, what is it that these people are remembering? As I understand it, they are very sincere and are convinced that they have these "Montauk experiment" memories.
A: Some do, but most, no.
Q: Well, the ones who don't, are they lying deliberately, or are they being deceived with screen memories from abductions; have they received some sort of programming to make them believe this; or are they just being caught up in a sort of hysteria that is "catching" and gets them attention?
A: The latter is closest.
Q: Is there any way a person can discover who, among them, is telling the truth? Is there any clue to validate what any of them are saying?
A: Is it not obvious? Check thoroughly into their background using recollections of independent third parties. If the supposed "Montaukee" was known to have never have lived anywhere near Montauk, then it would seem unlikely they were ever there.
Q: Now, according to some information posted on the Millennium Group site, there are some photographs that seem to indicate that there IS something anomalous in orbit around the Sun... maybe a new "planet, " or something. Is there a new object in our solar system in a close orbit around the sun?
A: Maybe.
Q: There is conjecture that this object appeared around the time of the passage of the Hale Bopp comet. Is that the case?
A: No.
Q: Is this object that is possibly in orbit around the sun, is it a natural or artificial construction?
A: Latter.
Q Who constructed it?
A: Orion STS.
Q: What is it?
A: HQ.
Q: The Orion Headquarters?
A: For your star system.
Q: Okay, you said "maybe" to this being a "new object." When did it arrive, or when was it placed there?
A: You measure "time" linearly.
Q: Can we give it a "linear" definition, or does it come and go through some sort of portal in terms of time, in a cyclical way, or a variable and selective way?
A: Yes, but it arrived at that coordinate 26730 years ago, sort of.
Q: What is its orbit, or distance from the Sun?
A: 31,230,000 miles.
Q: How large is this object?
A: 1005.6 kilometers diameter.
Q: What is the general configuration or shape of it? (A) A sphere, a ball, a disc, a cylinder?
A: Partial sphere, hexagonal.
Q: (A) Is it in a circular orbit or an elliptical orbit?
A: Circular. Rotation is altered by guidance system, gravitationally powered.
Q: What is its angle to the plane of the ecliptic?
A: 21 degrees.
Q: Okay, you said that it is "headquarters," so that answers what it does. And, it did not arrive with Hale Bopp. Just off to the side, was there REALLY a Hale Bopp companion - this rumor just won't die!?
A: No.
Q: Now, what do these Orions DO in this object? I mean, isn't it a little warm so close to the sun? I know. That's a stupid question. Space is cold.
A: Yes, and study magnetism for answers.
Q: Do Orions LIVE in this object?
A: Close.
Q: Do they use it as a transfer portal?
A: Yes.
Q: So, it is a doorway, so to speak?
A: Doorway as are many.
Q: How many of these objects are in our solar system?
A: Two.
Q: Where is the other one?
A: Outside, on the fringe of the solar system.
Q: Is the government, or some faction or department, aware of this object?
A: Yes.
Q: Anything else you can tell us about this object?
A: No need.
[Break to look at photographs.]
Q: Now, in terms of the photographs of this object, it looks sort of like two cylindrical objects with a dome or energy flow arc at the top. Could you tell us what we were seeing.
A: The object.
Q: Was it two part?
A: No.
Q: What was this arc looking part? Part of the spherical part?
A: Your visual perspective.
Q: Are the two cylindrical parts aspects of the hexagonal shape extending down from a spherical cap?
A: Close.
Q: Now, related in a general sort of way, there is Ong's Hat, Emory Cranston, and the Incunabula Papers. Supposedly they are like a "democratic time travel" group. There are claims that they were raided some years back, several of them were killed, and there is quite a story behind this group. Is Ong's Hat what it claims to be?
A: No.
Q: Is Ong's Hat a cover for some sort of covert government operation?
A: No.
Q: IS Ong's Hat a group of people who are actually experimenting with time travel?
A: Close.
Q: Are they experimenting with physical time travel, or time travel via consciousness?
A: Both, but with limited success.
Q: Were they actually raided by the "powers that be," and were some of them killed as is claimed in the story?
A: Yes.
Q: Who is Emory Cranston? I have heard it is a pseudonym...
A: Pseudoscientist.
Q: Do you mean he really knows what he is doing, or he just has a good clue as to what he is doing?
A: Latter.
Q: Is there any benefit to us to pursue this "Ong's Hat" clue?
A: Not really.
Q: Okay, Philip K. Dick wrote this book called V.A.L.I.S., meaning Vast Active Living Intelligence or Information System. Some of his information was strikingly similar to the information we have received through this source. He obviously wasn't prepared for this in the same way that Don Elkins was not prepared for the Ra Material, and it caused a lot of problems in his life. Was Philip Dick channelling something like a Sixth Density source?
A: Not much of the time, but in part.
Q: Was he being abducted by aliens?
A: Interaction.
Q: Did he actually live in another universe...
A: No.
Q: He didn't live in another branch of the universe where Germany won the war and everything was horrible?
A: No.
Q: Why did he have these memories of having lived in another time and then...
A: Genius is next to insanity.
Q: So, he was a genius in his ideas, but they unbalanced him?
A: Close.
Q: He claims to have had a couple of experiences very similar to some I have had; and in these experiences he claims to have actually seen the underlying reality matrix... he saw the universe as it really is, in its nature of flowing lights and colors and so forth, as it reformed, so to speak... was he seeing 4th density?
A: Close.
Q: We have been discussing the possibility of Rigel going supernova as has been suggested in the past, and the arrival of the optical effects being conducive to DNA changes in human beings. Is this, in fact, possible or probable?
A: Yes.
Q: Are the optical effects of the supernova the same as The Wave?
A: Do not get ahead of yourself. The Wave will be apparent when it arrives.
Q: Is this wave different from the optical effects of the supernova?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this wave related to the supernova in some way?
A: No.
Q: Are only those who have a certain frequency going to transition to 4th density, or is it that the whole planet is going to transition and folks don't really have a choice in the matter?
A: Complex issues, suggest you accept dualities rather than uniformities.
Q: Well, what I am trying to get at is: will those who transition to 4th density, for all intents and purposes, disappear to those who remain at third density?
A: We have discussed options before, for your perusal.
Q: Well, I have read them, and have posted them, but some folks don't quite understand. They want to understand if people will experience this as a sort of "Rapture" event where people just disappear?
A: But the definitive answer they seek is predicated upon uniformity of experience based upon the typical 3rd density linear time model.
Q: Another question along this line: one reader noted that the last time the "Wave" arrived, there were 6 billion people on the planet. And now, it is supposed to be coming again, and we are again in that ballpark in terms of population. So, the question is: is this sort of like a marker for the Wave, sort of like a critical mass?
A: Numbers don't mark. Psychic aural fields of energy mark.
Q: I have two last questions: at one point you said to note the "struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines." Now, of course, I made the remark about usurpation of a throne, but later I realized that we don't really know what the pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines really are. They don't necessarily have to do with a secular position, they could be a function. What are the pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines?
A: Control.
Q: Control of what? People?
A: Close.
Q: Control of the reality in some sense?
A: Not as close.
Q: Control as in STS domination?
A: Yes.
Q: Are there any other pre-ordained activities?
A: Need there be?
Q: Okay, "struggle out of sequence." Loss of control? The royal bloodlines lose control?
A: Only when energies build prior to completion of cycle.
Q: What sign am I looking for? Struggle out of sequence... a rebellion that breaks out... a particular cycle to these events... a period of time?
A: You need to review.
Q: I want to clarify the issue of Jesus' wives. The first time we asked, you said that Jesus was not married, but had three children with three Roman women. The second time we asked, you said he had a wife, Anatylenia, and had three children with this one woman. My question is: did he have six children, three with one woman, and one each with three other women?
A: No.
Q: He had a wife and not the three Roman women?
A: No.
Q: Did he have a wife?
A: Three women, all were wives, in the "Biblical sense."
Q: Now, Anatylenia was one of these Roman women?
A: Yes.
Q: Who were here parents? What was her patronym?
A: Sermalain and Galleinia.
Q: There were three children, one from each woman?
A: Yes.
Q: Male and female children?
A: Yes.
Q: How many of these children were male?
A: Two.
Q: Two boys and one girl.
Q: What was the name of the boys?
A: No, not for tonight's session. Low energy now. So, goodnight.
End of Session
Ark, Laura, Frank
(Unless otherwise designated, all questions asked by Laura.)
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Laopinnah.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: We have a number of issues to deal with this evening; the first one is the subject of Flight 990. There have been a number of scenarios suggested by the media and other sources on the internet. One of them says that the autopilot was disengaged BEFORE the plane began to dive. Is this the case?
A: No. Plane was disturbed from flight path by windburst, therefore, autopilot was disengaged in order to better combat problem.
Q: There has been a big controversy going on. One of the contributors to this controversy was Ed Dames who, on the Art Bell show, claimed that his organization "remote viewed" the situation and that there had been a fight in the cockpit. This claim was made, I believe, before the flight data recorders were retrieved. So, this was a scenario that the media picked up. Then, after one of the recorders was found, for a short while, this idea was popular, because it seemed to explain the crazy behavior of the aircraft. But then the voice recorder was found, and there was no real evidence to support the "fight" scenario, but there was a sort of prayerful exclamation heard, being made by the co-pilot who was, apparently alone in the cockpit when the activity began. Then, the pilot returned and there were sounds of desperate activity and so forth, so the next scenario proposed was that the co-pilot had decided to commit suicide in a big way. As a result of this Ed Dames episode on Art Bell, followed by the NTSB and FBI trying to fit the clues to Dames' scenario, there is now the suggestion making the rounds of the internet rumor mongers that Ed Dames is in the employ of the "powers that be," and that he deliberately planted this story so that they could then come along and validate it to give him more credibility so that he would be in place to plant more and greater rumors and stories of the disinformation variety. Is that the case? Did Ed Dames and his group accurately remote view the cockpit of Flight 990?
A: No. Ed was hoping for a "hit."
Q: So, Ed Dames is NOT in the employ of the "Powers that be?"
A: No.
Q: Was the co-pilot suicidal?
A: No.
Q: So, what he said was the equivalent of "Oh my God!" or something?
A: Close.
Q: Now, I have another correspondent who was on a beach about a hundred miles west of the crash site. This individual was with a companion and they both saw an orange glow in the direction of the crash at approximately the time of the event. This orange glow was, in her opinion, anomalous, and quickly disappeared. Was what was seen by my correspondent an effect of this plane crash?
A: Possibly linked, but not likely.
Q: Well, the question now comes about the nature of the "windburst." You previously said about this that "mysteries are subjective." Did you mean to imply that we could have or should have followed up with questions about the windburst itself?
A: No, these things happen. Sometimes a fault in autopilot analog computer causes system to fail to adjust properly, thus causing an attitude aberration in wingtips. Planes can dive suddenly and inexplicably. Refer to April 1979, Flint Michigan, TWA flight nonstop from New York to Minneapolis. Quick pilot reaction saved that one, but it was close, very close! Included same "g-force" anomalies, i.e. passengers floating out of their seats, etc. Suggest you look this up on internet. Aircraft manufacturers jealously protect their "turf." 1999 incident involved Boeing 767, 1979 incident was a 727. At root is the fact that Boeing is feeling Airbus Industries Inc. nipping at its heels. It is all that 3rd density STS love of money stuff, you know!
Q: (A) Well, about this windburst, was there some dimensional phenomenon or trans-density window as we have suggested on our site? (L) Was it an ordinary windburst? I think I have heard that it is impossible to have a windburst at that altitude.
A: Not "ordinary," but not trans-density, or dimensional. It was a Jet stream "eddy."
Q: So, there were no rays, beams, microwaves, trans-density or dimensional windows, weird, anomalous, conspiratorial event going on here?
A: No, no, no, no, no!
Q: It was just a terrible tragedy. The pilots fought as hard as they could to save the plane, but were unable to do so, and the bottom line is a lot of people died?
A: Yes, but as is common in all-out emergencies, the human factor was not "perfect." Pilots were working at cross purposes, but not intentionally! Look up the data on the 1979 case and point this out to the conspiracy thirsty correspondents!
Q: Next item on the agenda: the loss of the new Mars probe. As of the latest I heard, it had still not "called home." Is the Mars probe lost?
A: Not lost, just partly dysfunctional.
Q: Why is it dysfunctional? Or partly dysfunctional?
A: Rocky surface, mis-alignment of antennae, slight damage to communications package. may still be retrievable if technicians can locate proper backup software inlet.
Q: So, that is the advice to try to save the mission?
A: Yes.
Q: Anything else?
A: No.
Q: So, there is no conspiracy there, either?
A: It is just as dangerous and just as useless to "see" conspiracy in everything s it is to "see" conspiracy in nothing. We tire of conspiracy "buffs." They are nutty, and serve as perfect false sponsors to those who really DO seek to conduct widespread mental/psychic manipulations and control.
Q: Okay, that leads into the next question about the excessive contrail activity.
(F) I read the articles about the contrails. There did not seem to be any way of verifying anything that was said. Essentially, you were left with the claims of this or that person, few of whom were trained observers, or who were taking all the factors into consideration.
(L) Well, we noticed them a lot in the spring of 1998 when we had all the floods and fires later. They are THERE!
(F) Yes, but the claims are that contrails were appearing in clear skies, at which point the sky became overcast as a result of these contrails, when the two may not have been related at all. Then, people were noticing cob webs or "angel hair" type stuff falling on the ground.
(L) I agree that a lot of it is unverifiable and I haven't seen any hard proof myself, either; but they ARE there! LOTS of these jets flying about. An exceedingly LOT of flying! And, not only that, other things have been reported and photographed; strange streaks and lines in the sky, dark and light both - as though some sort of cosmic structure is bleeding through!
(F) Yes, but you have to wonder about these people. I mean, the stuff about the radar anomalies was clearly an example of ignorance of both radar and weather. Oh, yes, big spheres appear on the radar, but those have been appearing forever! They are nothing but cumulo-nimbus blow-ups - what is called a meso-cyclone, and is very common. The only reason they are getting excited about it is because there is all this communication, all these satellite and radar link-ups, and now the average person gets to see what weathermen have been seeing all along! More coverage and communication just makes it seem like it is something new. People need knowledge about this! Sure, there is stuff going on out there, but people seem to be seeing boogy men behind absolutely everything that happens! And this is because they have no knowledge about these things. Why are these people going off the deep end about these half-baked ideas without bothering to get expert opinions, or even a number of opinions? Why do they promulgate all this nonsense to everybody else as though THEY are experts, with nothing to balance the observations in the way of competent analysis? Meso-cyclones, eruptions of cumulo-nimbus super cells are, by their very nature, perfectly circular because of the cyclonic up-draft!
(L) But, the fact still remains, in my opinion, that there are a LOT, LOT, LOT of planes flying above us in the past few years! Whether they are dumping anything on our heads, or what, there are an extreme number of planes flying in these upper level criss-cross patterns. Now, whether they are just playing war-games, or they are spy planes, they are doing SOMETHING! What is the reason for all of this upper level flying that results in these criss-crossed contrails that everybody is seeing?
A: A lot of it is "training maneuver"oriented.
Q: Why are they training so many pilots? What are they preparing for?
A: Military budgets must be justified, you know. Review "Military-Industrial Complex 101."
Q: So, this is just training flight, justification of budget, and nothing more than that?
A: Well, we would not say "not anything more to it than that," but, when you say "M-IC," you have said a lot!
Q: Are you implying that there is a build-up of the Military-Industrial Complex for a reason?
A: To preserve status quo during "peacetime." This peace business is not very profitable, you know.
Q: Does that suggest that they are building up to set off a war so they can make more money?
A: Maybe if indeed, and if the populous can be hoodwinked. But, fortunately, the public is less hoodwinkable. Maybe the real enemy is "out there, " rather than "over there." Was it not always?
Q: Does any of this increased aircraft activity have anything to do with the increased awareness and activities of aliens in and around our planet?
A: As always. But, this awareness is factionalized and compartmentalized.
Q: This brings us to the question from one of our readers: is there anything to this so-called "Gulf War Syndrome?"
A: Of course.
Q: What is the real cause of the "Gulf War Syndrome?"
A: Medications used supposedly to counteract effects of serin; nerve agent.
Q: So, a medication was given to these people to counteract a possible threat to live, and the medication itself was a threat to life?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, on a similar subject: what I hear from various correspondents on the net, there are a lot of folks who have "emerging" Montauk memories. These folks are "waking up" and it is now "kitschy" to be a "Montauk Survivor." It's like a sub-culture... can it be possible that this many people...
A: No.
Q: Well, what is it that these people are remembering? As I understand it, they are very sincere and are convinced that they have these "Montauk experiment" memories.
A: Some do, but most, no.
Q: Well, the ones who don't, are they lying deliberately, or are they being deceived with screen memories from abductions; have they received some sort of programming to make them believe this; or are they just being caught up in a sort of hysteria that is "catching" and gets them attention?
A: The latter is closest.
Q: Is there any way a person can discover who, among them, is telling the truth? Is there any clue to validate what any of them are saying?
A: Is it not obvious? Check thoroughly into their background using recollections of independent third parties. If the supposed "Montaukee" was known to have never have lived anywhere near Montauk, then it would seem unlikely they were ever there.
Q: Now, according to some information posted on the Millennium Group site, there are some photographs that seem to indicate that there IS something anomalous in orbit around the Sun... maybe a new "planet, " or something. Is there a new object in our solar system in a close orbit around the sun?
A: Maybe.
Q: There is conjecture that this object appeared around the time of the passage of the Hale Bopp comet. Is that the case?
A: No.
Q: Is this object that is possibly in orbit around the sun, is it a natural or artificial construction?
A: Latter.
Q Who constructed it?
A: Orion STS.
Q: What is it?
A: HQ.
Q: The Orion Headquarters?
A: For your star system.
Q: Okay, you said "maybe" to this being a "new object." When did it arrive, or when was it placed there?
A: You measure "time" linearly.
Q: Can we give it a "linear" definition, or does it come and go through some sort of portal in terms of time, in a cyclical way, or a variable and selective way?
A: Yes, but it arrived at that coordinate 26730 years ago, sort of.
Q: What is its orbit, or distance from the Sun?
A: 31,230,000 miles.
Q: How large is this object?
A: 1005.6 kilometers diameter.
Q: What is the general configuration or shape of it? (A) A sphere, a ball, a disc, a cylinder?
A: Partial sphere, hexagonal.
Q: (A) Is it in a circular orbit or an elliptical orbit?
A: Circular. Rotation is altered by guidance system, gravitationally powered.
Q: What is its angle to the plane of the ecliptic?
A: 21 degrees.
Q: Okay, you said that it is "headquarters," so that answers what it does. And, it did not arrive with Hale Bopp. Just off to the side, was there REALLY a Hale Bopp companion - this rumor just won't die!?
A: No.
Q: Now, what do these Orions DO in this object? I mean, isn't it a little warm so close to the sun? I know. That's a stupid question. Space is cold.
A: Yes, and study magnetism for answers.
Q: Do Orions LIVE in this object?
A: Close.
Q: Do they use it as a transfer portal?
A: Yes.
Q: So, it is a doorway, so to speak?
A: Doorway as are many.
Q: How many of these objects are in our solar system?
A: Two.
Q: Where is the other one?
A: Outside, on the fringe of the solar system.
Q: Is the government, or some faction or department, aware of this object?
A: Yes.
Q: Anything else you can tell us about this object?
A: No need.
[Break to look at photographs.]
Q: Now, in terms of the photographs of this object, it looks sort of like two cylindrical objects with a dome or energy flow arc at the top. Could you tell us what we were seeing.
A: The object.
Q: Was it two part?
A: No.
Q: What was this arc looking part? Part of the spherical part?
A: Your visual perspective.
Q: Are the two cylindrical parts aspects of the hexagonal shape extending down from a spherical cap?
A: Close.
Q: Now, related in a general sort of way, there is Ong's Hat, Emory Cranston, and the Incunabula Papers. Supposedly they are like a "democratic time travel" group. There are claims that they were raided some years back, several of them were killed, and there is quite a story behind this group. Is Ong's Hat what it claims to be?
A: No.
Q: Is Ong's Hat a cover for some sort of covert government operation?
A: No.
Q: IS Ong's Hat a group of people who are actually experimenting with time travel?
A: Close.
Q: Are they experimenting with physical time travel, or time travel via consciousness?
A: Both, but with limited success.
Q: Were they actually raided by the "powers that be," and were some of them killed as is claimed in the story?
A: Yes.
Q: Who is Emory Cranston? I have heard it is a pseudonym...
A: Pseudoscientist.
Q: Do you mean he really knows what he is doing, or he just has a good clue as to what he is doing?
A: Latter.
Q: Is there any benefit to us to pursue this "Ong's Hat" clue?
A: Not really.
Q: Okay, Philip K. Dick wrote this book called V.A.L.I.S., meaning Vast Active Living Intelligence or Information System. Some of his information was strikingly similar to the information we have received through this source. He obviously wasn't prepared for this in the same way that Don Elkins was not prepared for the Ra Material, and it caused a lot of problems in his life. Was Philip Dick channelling something like a Sixth Density source?
A: Not much of the time, but in part.
Q: Was he being abducted by aliens?
A: Interaction.
Q: Did he actually live in another universe...
A: No.
Q: He didn't live in another branch of the universe where Germany won the war and everything was horrible?
A: No.
Q: Why did he have these memories of having lived in another time and then...
A: Genius is next to insanity.
Q: So, he was a genius in his ideas, but they unbalanced him?
A: Close.
Q: He claims to have had a couple of experiences very similar to some I have had; and in these experiences he claims to have actually seen the underlying reality matrix... he saw the universe as it really is, in its nature of flowing lights and colors and so forth, as it reformed, so to speak... was he seeing 4th density?
A: Close.
Q: We have been discussing the possibility of Rigel going supernova as has been suggested in the past, and the arrival of the optical effects being conducive to DNA changes in human beings. Is this, in fact, possible or probable?
A: Yes.
Q: Are the optical effects of the supernova the same as The Wave?
A: Do not get ahead of yourself. The Wave will be apparent when it arrives.
Q: Is this wave different from the optical effects of the supernova?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this wave related to the supernova in some way?
A: No.
Q: Are only those who have a certain frequency going to transition to 4th density, or is it that the whole planet is going to transition and folks don't really have a choice in the matter?
A: Complex issues, suggest you accept dualities rather than uniformities.
Q: Well, what I am trying to get at is: will those who transition to 4th density, for all intents and purposes, disappear to those who remain at third density?
A: We have discussed options before, for your perusal.
Q: Well, I have read them, and have posted them, but some folks don't quite understand. They want to understand if people will experience this as a sort of "Rapture" event where people just disappear?
A: But the definitive answer they seek is predicated upon uniformity of experience based upon the typical 3rd density linear time model.
Q: Another question along this line: one reader noted that the last time the "Wave" arrived, there were 6 billion people on the planet. And now, it is supposed to be coming again, and we are again in that ballpark in terms of population. So, the question is: is this sort of like a marker for the Wave, sort of like a critical mass?
A: Numbers don't mark. Psychic aural fields of energy mark.
Q: I have two last questions: at one point you said to note the "struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines." Now, of course, I made the remark about usurpation of a throne, but later I realized that we don't really know what the pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines really are. They don't necessarily have to do with a secular position, they could be a function. What are the pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines?
A: Control.
Q: Control of what? People?
A: Close.
Q: Control of the reality in some sense?
A: Not as close.
Q: Control as in STS domination?
A: Yes.
Q: Are there any other pre-ordained activities?
A: Need there be?
Q: Okay, "struggle out of sequence." Loss of control? The royal bloodlines lose control?
A: Only when energies build prior to completion of cycle.
Q: What sign am I looking for? Struggle out of sequence... a rebellion that breaks out... a particular cycle to these events... a period of time?
A: You need to review.
Q: I want to clarify the issue of Jesus' wives. The first time we asked, you said that Jesus was not married, but had three children with three Roman women. The second time we asked, you said he had a wife, Anatylenia, and had three children with this one woman. My question is: did he have six children, three with one woman, and one each with three other women?
A: No.
Q: He had a wife and not the three Roman women?
A: No.
Q: Did he have a wife?
A: Three women, all were wives, in the "Biblical sense."
Q: Now, Anatylenia was one of these Roman women?
A: Yes.
Q: Who were here parents? What was her patronym?
A: Sermalain and Galleinia.
Q: There were three children, one from each woman?
A: Yes.
Q: Male and female children?
A: Yes.
Q: How many of these children were male?
A: Two.
Q: Two boys and one girl.
Q: What was the name of the boys?
A: No, not for tonight's session. Low energy now. So, goodnight.
End of Session
