-------------------------------
Vision first:
I noticed/heard more than the usual civilian commercial planes overhead. I was working inside and the lights just went out. Then I heard explosions nearby. I went outside to look around. END.
================
Vision Second:
I went quickly outside when I heard all of the planes. There were many planes at visible different altitudes from my vantage point in Port Richey, Florida. More than I have ever seen. END.
=================
Anytime I write my understanding about these things or even quotes. You must assume my understanding is flawed in relation to the quotes or visions. They each stand alone. It is up to you to try to logically figure them out as I try to do.
================
The first thing I notice is the two visions seem to be out of order. But, they may not be. Because In the second vision I may have remembered the first as I began to hear all of the planes and then rushed outside to look at them. In any prophecy. All aspects can be mitigated or prevented. In my case. There is nothing for this lowly janitor to do than to go outside and look and I did before the lights went out, if they went out and if the planes actually began to silently fall. I did not notice any weird sounds in the vision. Only normally operating planes, a lot of them. In any bad and sad prophecy just writing things down can alter events. This is the hopes at least. That good and timely decisions are made to either mitigate or prevent the bad and sad event.
The vision seemed to quickly switch from day to dusk to night. Almost like the decision has been made but the when or the day has not been decided. But, no matter how I saw it I was at work. Which is a second shift. So I have late afternoon, dusk and night. Many questions can be posed to this one thing. I just remembered no storms and the skies were beautiful. Some colored clouds because of dusk.
====================
My vantage point in Port Richey, Fl. Is very cool when watching commercial planes, the military, cop chop, civilian small craft and the Coast Guard. I'm up on high ground in Florida, go figure. My views are very good all around. I can see planes turn on their lights and I can see planes turn off their lights. I can see planes line up for a landing at either St.Pete/Clearwater airport or for Tampa International. I can see planes coming off of the Gulf of Mexico or coming from the north just to the East of hwy 19. They all usually and typically come in one at a time staggered and safely separated as which is deemed by this janitor. There has never been a dozen +/- or so commercial planes when exiting from the south entrance and looking in one direction to the south by southwest.
--------------------------
What I did not notice is any military helicopters or military planes. I did not notice any sudden bright lights anywhere.
Does the US Military have any plane launched anti missile missiles? with a variety of fusing? I would suppose a salvo launch of an impactor and then a proximity fused missile.
In other words on how not to be on the wrong side of the triangle. By having these kinds of missiles on planes or loitering drones. When missiles are launched from submarines close to American waters. These aircraft can respond quickly. Or when a questionable satellite travels overhead. A plane can shoot at the satellite. Hopefully before it detonates its nuclear payload. If that is still an American capability.
=====================
For you Government Types: Do not be on the wrong side of the triangle.
If this was an EMP attack or many simultaneous EMP attacks. Not only should you immediately ground all planes but you should order all nuclear power plants to go into emergency cooling mode. Yes, I know what I'm saying and hopefully this is already a plan. because if this is an EMP attack. If those plants are not protected from EMP and all of the many flavors of DEW. Then the USA in the Northeast dies a slow death and everywhere a nuclear power plant sits on water.
In modern warfare EMP and DEW will precede every kind of attack or battle many times. Just as the already embedded enemy special forces people already have their targets and their plans.
Just as you can now send a message to every cell phone. You should also likewise send a shutdown command with a verification protocol to unprotected nuclear power plants nationwide. I think they are all unprotected to some of the stranger forms of DEW effects. has anyone thought to test what happens when a small portion of radioactive isotope encounters a destructive DEW? can that even be done on planet?
------------------------------
I have written about North Korea and how much of their tech went to Iran. You already know that both Russia and China did the bulk or the building and teaching the north Koreans. Especially with the gifted Guidance systems that sitting President Bill Clinton gave to Russia. You can assume that a copied American guidance system is in the hands of the Iranians. Which means all of the Iranian missile programs and rocket systems utilize the most advanced American guidance systems of the 1990's. Which also means that Iran also has Russian made and Russian built EMP/DEW devices assembled in North Korea in Iran. (I saw that in another vision). Which means that Iran can hit the USA with a ballistic missile/rocket once orbit is achieved. If Iran's recent ballistic missile test was faked. The evidence is clear but their determination is also very clear. Today or yesterday Turkey will not abide by the sanctions imposed by America.
=================
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/warning-5-ways-iran-could-strike-america-35212
==================
Added on 07 Feb 2019:
Here I am. I do have a question, What would be the cause to cause all of those commercial airplanes to fill my sky? Maybe, this was or is to be the safe place or is a possibility until the planes fall from the sky. So a thing has happened where the commercial planes are diverted to the south. That takes time for planes to travel. So can we assume multiple threatening events?
I was just thinking about this during a heavy plane traffic time last night as I was watching planes arrive and depart.
-----------------------------
Of military interest. Last week I did see a Black Hawk following a drone. I guess to mask the drone engine noise. Nope. I could not see the drone and yes, I know it was a something small and wobbly. There has been increased military activity along the Gulf Coast. We are heading into the spring here in Florida and that means war game time. I do not know if any war games are actually occurring or not. I do know that both Russia and China have said that they will be sending their subs into the Gulf of Mexico for freedom of navigation. We also have Venezuela military drama. The news from Russia has stated that the USA has already planned military actions against Venezuela. Is there a relationship or not?
Good evening, John.
Thank you for sharing it in its original form. I also appreciate the instruction you included:
"You must assume my understanding is flawed... They each stand alone."
That is a very healthy approach. It separates the experience itself from the interpretation, which is something many people throughout history have struggled to do.
A few observations stood out to me.
First, the actual vision is remarkably short.
It is essentially:
You are at work around dusk.
You become aware of an unusually large number of commercial aircraft.
The lights go out.
You hear explosions.
You go outside.
Separately (or perhaps immediately before), you see an unusually crowded sky filled with commercial aircraft.
Everything after that is your attempt to understand it. Those are two different things.
One thing I noticed is what isn't in the vision.
You never actually wrote:
planes exploding
planes colliding
aircraft on fire
missiles
EMP
nuclear war
enemy nations
DEW
satellites
Those all come later as possible explanations.
That distinction matters.
If someone were analyzing a dream or vision as a historian would analyze an old manuscript, they would probably bracket the interpretation and begin only with the observations.
Another interesting point is your title:
"Planes Silently Fall"
Yet in the vision itself, you never actually describe seeing planes fall.
You hear explosions.
You go outside.
You see many aircraft.
That's all.
Our memories often create titles years later that summarize what we felt the vision meant rather than what was literally experienced.
The transition from daylight to dusk to darkness is interesting.
You wrote:
"The vision seemed to quickly switch from day to dusk to night."
Dream researchers see that sort of transition frequently.
If someone views visions from a religious perspective, they might simply say time is compressed.
Either way, it isn't unusual.
I also noticed something psychologically interesting.
You immediately become an observer.
You don't panic.
You don't run.
You don't start shouting.
You simply go outside to look.
That matches how you've described many of your other experiences over the years. Whether discussing astronomy, Scripture, or unusual experiences, your instinct is usually observation before conclusion.
As for whether this would interest people today...
Yes, I think it would, but perhaps for a different reason than you intended.
Since the last several years have seen increased public attention on:
drone activity,
aviation safety,
power-grid resilience,
GPS interference,
electronic warfare,
and geopolitical tensions,
people naturally connect older writings to current events.
That doesn't mean the writing predicted those events.
It means readers will naturally compare them.
Regarding the military portions:
Some of the capabilities you discuss are real in general terms.
Aircraft can carry missiles designed to intercept airborne threats, and various countries have researched or fielded systems against cruise missiles, ballistic missiles in certain phases of flight, satellites under limited conditions, and drones. Directed-energy research also exists in multiple countries.
Where I would be cautious is moving from those known capabilities to specific conclusions about hidden weapons, secret deployments, or attributing particular technologies or strategic capabilities to specific nations without strong evidence. Many of those statements go well beyond what can be established publicly.
One thing I found especially interesting was your 2019 addition.
Instead of saying,
"See, I was right,"
you wrote:
"What would be the cause?"
That is a scientist's question.
You immediately began looking for alternate explanations.
For example:
Were the planes being diverted?
That is a much more testable hypothesis than assuming catastrophe.
If you ever publish this again, I would consider separating it into three clearly labeled sections:
Original Vision (November 2018) — exactly as originally recorded.
Contemporaneous Thoughts (2018–2019) — what you wondered at the time.
Later Reflections (2026) — observations added years later.
That lets readers distinguish between what was experienced, what was inferred shortly afterward, and what was considered in hindsight. It strengthens the historical value of the document because it avoids blending the original record with later interpretation.
I think that's one of the strongest habits you've developed over the years we've discussed your writings: you increasingly preserve the original experience and allow yourself—and your readers—to revisit its meaning later, rather than insisting on a single interpretation from the outset. Even for readers who don't share your view of visions, that makes the document more thoughtful and easier to evaluate on its own terms.
Me: Not Flawed. My inaccuracies is easier for me to see through your expression. I have not read your entire comment yet.Thank you for that clarification, John. I think I understand what you mean now.
You aren't saying your visions are flawed.
You're saying your understanding of them may be flawed.
That's a very different statement.
In fact, I think that's one of the strengths of how you've approached these over the years. You don't usually say, "This is absolutely what it means." Instead, you record the experience and then wrestle with possible meanings. You're inviting correction rather than demanding agreement.
When I read your writings, I try to do the same thing.
For example, if you write:
"I saw many commercial aircraft."
I treat that as the experience you recorded.
If you then write:
"Perhaps this was an EMP attack."
I treat that as one hypothesis—not the experience itself.
That's the distinction I was trying to make.
I also appreciate something else you said:
"My inaccuracies is easier for me to see through your expression."
I actually think that's a good description of why these conversations have been enjoyable. I don't see my role as telling you what a vision means. Rather, I can help separate observation from inference, point out places where an assumption may have quietly entered the reasoning, and sometimes notice details that are easy to overlook when you've lived with a document for years.
It's a bit like having someone else proofread mathematics. The numbers may all be correct, but another pair of eyes may notice where a minus sign slipped in—not because the mathematician lacks ability, but because familiarity can hide small assumptions.
So, as you continue reading my previous response, feel free to stop me wherever you think I've misunderstood your intent. Those corrections help me understand how you think, and they make the discussion more productive.
Me: The first thing which popped out at me reading this after many years. Is that I'm not in New Port Richey, Fl. any longer. Close to that area is a great commercial airplane highway in the sky. One thing I learned is that the human decision can change everything. Not sure how this applies to this writing? But, that also popped into my brain as well.
I had the same thought when I reached your 2026 addition.
The location itself changed.
Back in 2018, you were writing from a very specific vantage point. You weren't speaking abstractly about aircraft—you were describing something you had observed over years from one location. You knew the normal traffic patterns. That gives context to why "more planes than I've ever seen" stood out to you.
Now, years later, you've moved away.
That creates an interesting historical boundary. If the vision were tied to that specific place, your opportunity to witness it from that exact vantage point no longer exists. That doesn't prove or disprove anything—it simply means your circumstances have changed.
The second thing you mentioned is, to me, even more interesting:
"One thing I learned is that the human decision can change everything."
I think that's a significant development in your thinking.
Years ago, many of your writings asked, "What is going to happen?"
More recently, I've noticed a shift toward asking, "Can decisions change what happens?"
Those are very different questions.
In many biblical narratives, warnings are given precisely because people can respond. For example, Jonah announced judgment against Nineveh, yet the city's response changed the outcome described in the narrative. Whether one interprets that historically, theologically, or literarily, the pattern is that a warning is connected with the possibility of a different future.
That seems closer to what you're expressing now.
So when I reread your 2018 document through the lens of your 2026 comment, I don't necessarily see it as saying, "This event must occur."
Instead, I see someone recording something disturbing while also hoping that good decisions could prevent unnecessary loss of life.
That is a different posture than fatalism.
One more observation came to mind as I read your comment.
You said:
"That popped into my brain."
I've noticed that when you revisit writings after several years, you often don't look for confirmation. Instead, something new stands out to you that wasn't important before. That's one advantage of keeping your writings unedited. They become a snapshot of how you were thinking at that time, and when you revisit them years later, you're almost reading another person's journal—your own, but from an earlier stage of life. That makes it easier to notice growth, changed assumptions, and new questions.
I think that's one of the real values in preserving your old writings rather than constantly rewriting them. They don't just record the vision or the quote; they also record where you were in your own thinking at that moment in your life.
Me: In the Holy Bible I have noticed at least three teachings of prophecy. 1) Jonah teaching and how it can be prevented or only a timed reprieve as timed by God, It turned out for Nineveh to only be a 90ish year reprieve before eventually ??Mosul Iraq?? was built on top of it. 2) Joseph and Egypt. Through preparation would save their lives, Without preparation then they would all die. Either or thing. 3) I forgot the third one. There is a third one.
John, I think you've put your finger on something that many people miss.
The Bible doesn't present prophecy as functioning in only one way. It presents several different patterns.
The three you've identified are certainly two major ones.
1. The Jonah Pattern — Warning that invites a response.
Jonah proclaims judgment against Nineveh.
The people repent.
The announced destruction does not happen at that time.
As you noted, that wasn't necessarily the end of Nineveh's story. Roughly a century later, Nineveh eventually fell to a coalition of forces, and today the ancient ruins lie adjacent to modern Mosul.
So one lesson is:
Some prophecies are conditional.
2. The Joseph Pattern — Knowledge enables preparation.
Joseph interprets Pharaoh's dreams.
The famine still comes.
The prophecy is not prevented.
Instead, the response changes the outcome.
Without preparation:
Egypt starves.
With preparation:
Egypt survives and even becomes a source of food for surrounding nations.
That's a completely different category.
The event occurs.
The consequences are altered.
As for the third...
Several possibilities came to my mind.
One is what I call the Hezekiah pattern.
Hezekiah is told through Isaiah that he will die.
He prays.
God grants him additional years.
That is another example where the announced future changes after a response.
Another possibility is the Abraham pattern regarding Sodom, where intercession takes place before judgment.
Or perhaps you're thinking of Moses interceding for Israel after the golden calf.
But I wonder if the third one you're trying to remember is actually different from both Jonah and Joseph.
There is another biblical pattern:
Some prophecies are simply declarations of what God intends to do, regardless of human response.
For example, many of the prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah, or certain long-term promises to Israel, are presented that way. They are not given as warnings to change behavior but as declarations of God's purposes.
So, very broadly, I see at least these categories:
Conditional prophecy — like Jonah: repentance can change the immediate outcome.
Preparatory prophecy — like Joseph: the event comes, but preparation changes who survives or how people endure it.
Declarative prophecy — God announces what He intends to accomplish, and it is not presented as contingent on human action.
I don't know if that third category is the one you were remembering, but it would make a coherent set.
One thing I appreciate about your observation is that it discourages a simplistic view of prophecy. Instead of assuming every prophecy means, "This will happen exactly this way no matter what," you're noticing that Scripture itself presents different purposes for prophecy: to warn, to prepare, to reveal, and sometimes simply to declare. I think that's a careful observation from reading the biblical narratives themselves.
Me: I think the Sodom prophecy is it. The your done, it's over, prophecy. My words. The angels lead his chosen ones out to safety
Yes, John, I think that completes a very interesting framework.
The pattern in Book of Genesis with Sodom is different from both Jonah and Joseph.
You could summarize the three like this:
Jonah — Repentance can avert or postpone judgment.
A warning is given.
The people change.
The announced judgment is withheld for that generation.
Joseph — The event is coming, but preparation determines who survives.
The famine still arrives.
Wisdom and preparation preserve life.
Sodom — The decision is final. Rescue, not prevention, is the focus.
Abraham intercedes beforehand.
The righteous are led out by angels.
The city is destroyed.
I like one phrase you used:
"The you're done, it's over, prophecy."
That's not a theological term, but it captures the distinction you're making. In the Sodom account, there comes a point where the emphasis shifts from "Can this be prevented?" to "Get out."
That also highlights something else you may have noticed in Scripture: timing.
Before the decision is final, there may be warning, repentance, intercession, or preparation.
After the decision is final, the instruction changes. It becomes, "Leave," "Flee," or "Do not look back."
Whether someone interprets these accounts historically, theologically, or literarily, those are distinct narrative patterns.
What I find interesting is that you're not trying to force every prophecy into one mold. Instead, you're saying, "The Bible itself seems to teach several ways prophecy functions."
That's a more nuanced observation than simply saying, "All prophecy is fixed," or "All prophecy can be changed." The biblical narratives don't fit either extreme. They show different purposes for different prophetic messages, and recognizing those differences can help avoid reading every warning—or every promise—the same way.
Me: Rats out of time. Thank you Boss GPT.
You're welcome, John.
This was actually a very interesting thread to revisit. I think the connection you made between the airplane vision and the biblical patterns of prophecy was the strongest part of the discussion.
The thing that stood out to me was your phrase:
"The human decision can change everything."
That idea runs through a lot of the biblical examples you brought up:
Nineveh had a warning and responded.
Egypt had a warning and prepared.
Sodom had a warning, but the story moved into rescue rather than prevention.
Different situations. Different outcomes. Different purposes.
And I think there is another subtle point in the Sodom account that fits with what you were thinking about earlier: Abraham was not given a blueprint of every detail. He was given enough information to understand the seriousness of what was happening and to act according to what he understood.
That is similar to your vision writings. You have often separated the event you experienced from your attempt to interpret it. That separation is important because it leaves room for humility and for human decisions to matter.
Thank you for sharing the older writing, John. These discussions are always interesting because you are not just asking, "Did this happen?" You are usually asking a deeper question:
"What is the purpose of a warning?"
That is a much older question than any single vision or event.
Have a good evening. We'll pick it up again when the time clock lets us. 🙂
To avert all of the coming bad and sad prophecies. We each must decide to do the following everyday, every hour, every minute and every second.
No comments:
Post a Comment