Montalk, could you help out and show the parallels and incongruencies between Icke and the Cs?  Maybe Icke does present the theory as OPs being something less than they are.  That could lend fuel to egos that seek to think themselves better than others.  I've read what you quoted and it's kind of iffy.  Is there other Icke work specific to this that presents it with a better foundation?

From what I understand of Icke's latest book, he views all life as software programs and all reality as holographic. When the C's were asked whether holographic beings existed among the general population, they said such being were extremely rare, but commented that aren't we all holographic in a sense? So it depends on the "level" of holographic-ness that you have in mind. If all reality is a hologram, what do you call those 3D works of art made with lasers? Holograms, but a hologram within a higher order hologram. The question is what "level" Icke has in mind when referring to these Red Dress entities. Are they equally holographic as everyone else, but just lacking consciousness? Or are they additionally holographic like MIB projections?

Regarding OPs, they are physical like everyone else. Fourth density projections, whether reptilians trying to appear human or temporarily popping into 3D for a blood feast, or grays becoming fully physical for whatever reason, as far as I know these are temporary projections. The MIB accounts in the Mothmen Prophecies tended to involve very brief appearances, some with mention of energy running low. The C's explained that 4D STS entities require lots of energy to project fully into our 3D reality, and we know from the efficiency and dodgy nature of 4D STS that they are energy starved. That's where I find Icke's mention of reptilians appearing at human sacrifices to be more plausible, since the lifeforce energy concentrations are enough to power their full manifestation in the physical.

So I currently do not believe that 10%-50% of the population are any more holographic than the rest, rather that they are simply missing some of the nonphysical components or layers that make up a complete self-aware individual. Bringers of the Dawn mentioned the idea of holographic inserts, saying that event sequences can be artificially generated and inserted into our reality, but that these have an odd vibe if you interact with them.

If I had to make an educated guess, I would say that the energy-intensive holographic projections are a specialized applications that allow for direct-causal-tangible interaction without regard for freewill, while the other stuff like remotely manipulating a vacant human or doing cut-n-paste jobs into the linear timeline is a more indirect-acausal-subjective attempt at manipulation requiring less energy. The OP phenomenon would fit more into the latter category, and I am guessing that Icke's "Red Dress" beings are the same thing, though it gets confusing with his referring to everything but Infinite Love being a holographic illusion.

That is helpful information, thanks. The question is whether being stunted at a stage of development fully explains the OP phenomenon, or whether the OP phenomenon naturally comes with stunted stages of development. For instance, lacking the higher chakras would result in certain behavioral circuits not developing. Or, you could say that being stunted from further imprints or circuits creates the appearance of lacking the higher chakras. It would appear impossible to determine either way were it not for the other characteristics like the uniform flat vibe, the lack of depth to the eyes, the lack of life script or synchronicity or divine intervention in their lives, nor does strictly a behavioral dysfunction explain the hive-mind or energy-sucking component. But if the configuration of their brain hardware is a consequence of something more fundamental and metaphysical, then that would explain things more completely and consistently.

Now adding in Tom's research, Laura's research and David's research we can come up with a pretty good picture of this aspect of the theory.  Tom provides a physical grounding to the theory by offering actual physical examples of what these entities could be.  Such an example would be a holographic insert.  Laura provides a more socio-interactive slant and shows how they operate and are used against other people.  David seems to provide a more philosophical view of how they relate to the illusionary matrix and our exit strategy out of it.

Additional thoughts?

1) First there are the software programs whose only consciousness is the DNA/RNA receiving instructions from the Matrix. They are constructs of mind, not consciousness. All energy/consciousness is Infinite Oneness, but not all expressions of this are at the same level of awareness. The 'human' interactive software programs are sophisticated robots following a 'life' program dictated by the Matrix and their free will is basically zilch. I'm sure you must have met many. They appear to be the same as everyone else in the way they look, but the best special effects studios can now put digital 'people' into advertisements and you can't see the join. There is a television presenter in Britain who is famous for being enormous and she appeared in a commercial with a far slimmer body to sell a food product. You could not see the join and anyone who didn't know what she really looked like would believe the body in the ad was hers. This is why we have to be extremely wary about 'Bin Laden' videos that suddenly come to light at just the right time from the agenda's point of view. Producing a fake Bin Laden saying fake words is a cinch to the state-of-the-art special effects houses. The same principle applies with these 'Red Dress' programs, as I will call them. They are bodies without consciousness, interactive software programs. The lifeless look in their eyes is one way of picking them out, as is the lack of energy coming from them. They resonate to a different frequency to conscious awareness and again you can symbolise them as the horses on the carousel with no one on board. These interactive software programs can malfunction, go off message, and 'hack' into other programs - as with the Agent Smith character in the Matrix movies. A lot of that is going on, too.

Alright, this seems to be the sticking point I think.

I think what Icke is presenting here is actual 4d holograms like the Men In Black.  If they are actual human bodies then they may be of the sort that have been completely taken over from a very young age as not to have their own consciousness.  A human body will gain consciousness after about 4 years of random data input.  This is how the first AI was made.  They just fed it random data input for several years.  After that they asked it a question and it found the answer in a way that no normal programmed computer would.  So, here's what I see as possibilities.

1.  Actual holographic inserts from 4d technology.
2.  Human bodies that may have been engineered in a vat to keep out random data input - then inserted with programs and released
3.  Human bodies that were abducted from near birth so no consciousness of their own was created - then programmed and released

These are highly possible.  I've experienced some of the lower levels of the higher technology in use and this stuff would be simple to do.

Maybe this is what Icke is meaning and not being specific about.  Without specifics and explanation, then it can be construed as some type of "sub-human" classification system.

First, I wanted to address belief and it's opposite disbelief.  On the other board I frequent, I see these words used all too often.  I personally see these as self-created mental boxes used to keep the mind comfortable instead of embracing infinity.  I neither believe nor disbelieve anything.  If I believed something then anything that didn't fit would have to be rejected.  If I disbelieved something then any proof to the contrary would need to be rejected.  That mode of thinking is too boxified for me.

I prefer to deal with possibility and probability.  In an infinite existence possibility is taken care of as everything would be possible.  So I'm left with probability.  So I look at a theory, such as OPs, and guage the probability against the reality that I can perceive.  I lend the same weight to any other theory.  As the theory fits with more pieces of objective reality then it's probability increases.  Given that my perceptive abilities are limited, I can never lend a full 100% to any theory.  Hence, I operate with no belief/disbelief systems.  All are merely probabilities of possibilities.  Many people I've been in contact with are not comfortable with the ambiguity.  They require strict rules and laws.  For me, I am not comfortable with strict rules and laws but need ambiguity and openendedness.

Next, I would like to add the definition of the theory of OPs as given by the Cs.  That way, there is no ambiguity of the theory and my position can be understood.  Then discussion can involve where the theory may not fit with objective reality.

An OP is fully human and has the 3 lower energy centers.  The 5 main centers, as given by the Cs (and still in theory land), are as follows.

1.  Basal (moving)
2.  Lower Emotional
3.  Lower Intellectual
4.  Higher Emotional
5.  Higher Intellectual

The Cs further state that there can be more centers as necessary but those are the main operating ones.

An OP has the 3 lower ones.  As the individual proceeds to learn more about the emotions and intellect they grown the density of the centers.  As some point, completely dictated by the individual's motivation and will to learn within the objective reality framework they find themselves in, they will start to get glimpes of the higher centers.  Once that initial glimpse is seen then it's the snowball effect.  And soon they will be solidifing the higher centers and connecting all the centers to each other.  How "fast" this is done is up to the individual.

Ok, back to my stance whenever the subject came up over in the Cass group.  People would come in and be like "what if I'm an OP", "how can I tell", blah blah blah.  I would always say, "Who Cares?".  If you are an OP and you are in here seeking higher spiritual lessons then by god you are doing much better than I probably did.  Then I would say, "If I'm an OP then I would seek to grow my higher centers as quickly as possible".  I would seek to be around the non-OPs.  As they say in the business world, fake it until you make it.  If I knew for sure I was an OP I would imitate and integrate and learn as much as possible.  What a jump on 3d lessons I would have.  Can't find the quote but Jesus once said, "Be better than I".  Well, it's said he made it to 5d in about 1,000 incarnations.  So, name that "tune", in 500 incarnations!  There's nothing stopping you.  Surpass me in 4d.  And I'll just sit there in awe of how quickly you made it, and rejoice.

A quick backtrack to the "sub-human" thing of it, I'll provide an example.  Let's say there's an entity in 4d that's just about to transition to 5d.  Would they think of me as a "sub-entity" because they are farther along?  Should I feel as any less of a god-unit because they are where they are?  The only difference is I was birthed later in the expanded present moment.  They just had more opportunity to learn the lessons.  The same potential exists for each of us.

Anyway, that's my expanded dissertation concerning the theory of OPs as I see it personally.

Edit to add...

Ok, I need a slap.  I need to connect this with David Icke.  I'm going on the theory presented by the Cs.  I'm wondering which came first, Icke's theory or the channeling of the Cs.

Montalk, could you help out and show the parallels and incongruencies between Icke and the Cs?  Maybe Icke does present the theory as OPs being something less than they are.  That could lend fuel to egos that seek to think themselves better than others.  I've read what you quoted and it's kind of iffy.  Is there other Icke work specific to this that presents it with a better foundation?

Isn't there a school of shamanism or something that says the infinite soul can 'see' the first 13 years of life before it incarnates?  It seems to me that if we were gonna put an age number on an averaged-out turning point, that might be a good one.  Perhaps that has something to do with it.  Perhaps if it ain't really anchored in there by 13, it starts to checkout slowly (or not so slowly).  Like it "fulfilled" the 13 year deal...  Hmm.

I had a teacher in college who said that 13 seemed to be the key age for a lot of people. He said that people who "go bad" seem to do it invariably when they hit 13 years old.

onionworld wrote:

I'm sorry, I can see now that you used those first two sentences as sort of like how reporters use a lead in newspaper articles. They use the first couple of sentences to get people's attention but it doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with the rest of the article. In this case, your first two sentences led me astray and led me to come to the wrong conclusions regarding your post. I'm sorry for that.

No problem, onionworld.  Thank you for clearing it up. 

Just so it's understood, I have no issue with going off topic or jumping levels as long as there's a clear cut path so everyone can be on the same page.  This is something I have to be aware of for myself.  I find that if there's a higher level lesson that relates to a lower level discussion, I add that in without a clear path or connection to the subject.  Such things can be frustrating and I certainly don't want to frustrate anyone.  So I have to be aware and offer that clear transition so that everyone is able to see where I'm coming from.  As the old cass group would call it, external consideration.

I understand, I really appreciate your contributions, thank you.

I'm sorry, I can see now that you used those first two sentences as sort of like how reporters use a lead in newspaper articles. They use the first couple of sentences to get people's attention but it doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with the rest of the article. In this case, your first two sentences led me astray and led me to come to the wrong conclusions regarding your post. I'm sorry for that.

No problem, onionworld.  Thank you for clearing it up. 

Just so it's understood, I have no issue with going off topic or jumping levels as long as there's a clear cut path so everyone can be on the same page.  This is something I have to be aware of for myself.  I find that if there's a higher level lesson that relates to a lower level discussion, I add that in without a clear path or connection to the subject.  Such things can be frustrating and I certainly don't want to frustrate anyone.  So I have to be aware and offer that clear transition so that everyone is able to see where I'm coming from.  As the old cass group would call it, external consideration.

It's War!  Adults are like the soldiers that have been on the front lines for months or longer.  They have that 1,000 yard stare.  Operate in fully automatic mode.  And suppress their personalities.

My own thoughts are that the soul goes into a coma after awhile.  It turns dark.  The childhood spark is gone.  The human disconnects and starts to show the signs of a soldier in the battlefield.  It replaces the soul with the ego.  The ego can be fed quite easily.  Where as the soul is more difficult to feed in our society.  Once that spark has went out it takes a lot to respark it.  It looks like so many have just given up and go on autopilot.

The definition of organic portal as given by the Cs was a human body that was ready for graduating animal souls.  They also stated that it's currently balanced;  3 billion souled and 3 billion OPs.  The OPs could possibly be inhabited by animal souls. 

The other thing is that if the OP theory is correct, these are humans.  Humans have massive brain capacity and all the wiring for emotions.  They are in no way "sub-human" as they are by definition human.  And any advanced intelligence will attract soul matter and create a soul imprint.  The more seeking and learning the denser the soul imprint will become.  The denser the imprint the more ability to attract more soul matter.  It's a snowball effect.

However, given the extreme pervasive negativity in society, I can see how it would be difficult to use this soul energy for positive purposes.  Most likely it would be used to seek additional power to compensate for the feelings of disempowerment.  Society is a constant attacking mechanism.  The ego is the response to this mechanism.  Any higher energy aquired by an individual may be used to compensate for the energy taken from it throughout it's childhood.  In other words, it would seek to become the predator instead of the prey.

Edit to add...

I can't directly comment on Icke's words.  To be completely honest I don't like reading his work.  It's like when I tried to read IT by Stephen King.  It's just way too wordy for my taste.  Get to the friggin point.  It's an evil clown that lives in the sewer and feeds on fear.  But yea, I don't think I'll ever read any large amount of Icke's work.  I don't find it necessary.  Give me the basics and I'll test them in real-life in real-time and use my own mind to fill in the blanks.

I'm sorry, I can see now that you used those first two sentences as sort of like how reporters use a lead in newspaper articles. They use the first couple of sentences to get people's attention but it doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with the rest of the article. In this case, your first two sentences led me astray and led me to come to the wrong conclusions regarding your post. I'm sorry for that.

So I get the item and I go back to the register again. He scans it, and then he scanned the water bottle I brought with me. "Oh, no, this is mine," I said, "It's a refilled bottle I brought with me." He looked like a deer stunned by headlights for a second, then he went back to acting all cool and robotic and unresponsive. "No wonder it was so crazy" I said. NO RESPONSE. Just a blank look. A slight shrug:
Hear no evil, see no evil, blah blah blah. All with no words. I swear the hive minds at this place know I'm coming from a mile away. It's funny at this point. So with my head slightly spinning, I said "Thanks so much." and left. As soon as I was outside, I muttered "And go f*** yourself" under my breath. I'm a bit of a hothead
that way...I really don't like being f***** with, especially under such stupid circumstances.

Sure, it could have been an honest mistake, but I've had problems with this same
guy before, and he never knows how to do anything, he never makes any gesture
of even mild interest in customer satisfaction to save his own hide, or even appears to know exactly where he is or what he is doing. It's really like a robot with limited function, like "huh, wha? I know how to type these numbers, scan things...I scan I scan I scan whatever comes in front of my eyes eyes eyes eyes
bluuuuurp bleeeeep bliiiiiip ftzzzztttttt!!!!! I know nothing! I know nothing!

God. It grates on one, it does, it does.

By the way....wasnt' there an original Organic Portals thread somewhere with alot of our experiences. I did a search, and I didn't see it. Perhaps I missed it?

onionworld wrote:

Definitions from http://dictionary.reference.com

It was an analogy.  The subject of the analogy wasn't war.  It was about the parallels of the visible human toll of a soldier compared to that of your average adult.  I was using a lower level situation to show parallels to a higher level situation.  My post was not concerned with the lower level definition of war.  The subject of the post wasn't even about war.

Screw what he said, and the dictionary too.  You might have just used it as an analogy, but it IS a war.  And I disagree that you need 2 sides on offensive for a war.  We should just scrap the shallow 3d-oriented dictionary here and just say that war is something along the lines of :

"a sustained series of attacks by one or more parties in attempt to reach a particular goal or goals".

Reference.com can kiss my entire arse.  Quacks like a duck.

I am  raising my own three children and still learning we dont follow anyones advise there but just learn by our mistakes, plenty of love and time, lots of nature and tell em to question things.

Thanks for the info then.

Just about to send you an e-mail...

We may be talking symantics here but: war is defined as "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."

What you've described is an attack. Defined as "To make an attack; launch an assault"

In order for it be a war (according to the definition), at least two parties have to be involved in fighting against each other.

Definitions from http://dictionary.reference.com

It was an analogy.  The subject of the analogy wasn't war.  It was about the parallels of the visible human toll of a soldier compared to that of your average adult.  I was using a lower level situation to show parallels to a higher level situation.  My post was not concerned with the lower level definition of war.  The subject of the post wasn't even about war.

You took the first two sentences out of context of the post (and the thread).  You then kept the idea at the physical level and presented additional facts to show that we aren't engaged in a physical war unless we are fighting the system.  Then added an Icke quote to back it up.  This has several markings of going way out of the way to be confrontational.

This has the effect of derailing the subject of your own thread.  It got me to jump tracks and talk about war when I was talking about OPs.

I then asked you to further clarify and you give a definition of war.  I'm wondering why you took an obvious analogy out of context and concentrated on it in order to disagree with it.

Beyond that, I agree with your later post that it's all a game to help us ascend.  Even the Cs said that "they" already lost but just couldn't see it because of wishful thinking.  But that's not the level we are talking about (or even the subject).  This is something else I've noticed quite frequently when talking on metaphysical boards.  I've done it myself.  I call it level jumping.  No matter what discussion we have I could always jump to the highest level and say we are all One and totally derail the discussion.  Although my intentions may be the best when doing that, it doesn't do the learning process any good.  I also noticed that people have used this "level jumping" puposedly to derail a thread or to make their ego feel superior to another.

Not saying that's what you are doing at all.  I'm not sure why you jumped multiple levels here and changed the subject.  You took my analogy and jumped to a lower level to show we aren't engaged in war and then you jumped to a level above it later on to show that "everything is ok".  Both instances can be considered correct in their respective context.  But we aren't talking about that.  We are talking about OPs.  I'm not asking for a definition of war.  I'm asking why you took my analogy out of context.

Interesting information in that quote Barefoot.  Do you have any links to more information from that source, and other similar ones?  Particually in regards to raising chilren, which I will have a sigificant interest in.

All the RAW stuff came from his book Prometheus rising which is a very interesting read. There is a free PDF version http://www.solharvest.com/cclosers/RAWi … etheus.pdf

I am  raising my own three children and still learning we dont follow anyones advise there but just learn by our mistakes, plenty of love and time, lots of nature and tell em to question things.

Interesting stuff Barefoot Doc, but the parts of that theory that assume any sort of Darwinianism are pure rubbish.

I'm with you on Darwinianism
The model presented by RAW/Leary seems to be a  more detailed breakdown of mind states for spiritual growth and  many "OP" types  i have observed seem to be stuck in survival, anal/emotional or the intellectual/semantic imprint using the this model.

I like this quote from RAW