I've already written about the probable destruction of the USA and it's absolute take over by the United Nations in regards to debt relief to the world. Research my writings for yourself. Even as of now. I see a variety of destructive scenarios of how the USA is destroyed. From just a staged EMP attack all along the USA, Canada and European seaboards. To nuclear fire of 25 cities and 25 military bases. As well as the sinking of entire naval fleets in a single attack. In one single coordinated attack from Russia, China, North Korea, Plus the South American Latino assets.
For the world to be able to profit from the destruction of the USA. The nuclear fire must be prevented. The foreign ownership of American corporations already sees their will influencing any politician in the pay to play which has developed within every level of government within the USA. American Politicians are truly owned by foreign entities and it is all very legal. The American people have become the free ranging cattle of the world.
===============
Note for those who have and are preparing.
It is now T-6 months. It has been 7 years from 2008 and 14 years from 2001. This will be the third set of 7. If something does happen in and around September. Has America and Americans learned their lessons or is America and Americans more evil than before 2008 and 2001? Has the whole of the USA taken in more and more sin? Well, that is for God to answer and for us human beings to assume. Until, the event(s) occur or not occur. Unless the math and observations are very wrong.
It is wise for you to conduct your training exercises prior to the possible September event. Even if the event(s) do not occur. You will be better prepared for it. The so called 72 hours of transition from civilized to a more barbaric after the rule of law has become vapor. Shall not be approximately 72 hours. It shall be much less as in about a handful of hours if not less.
For the first year you must be able to run and/or hide for one year. Do not confront anyone if at all possible.
The most important part of your preparations should be in regards to righteousness and all persons should be in agreement with the absolute stance in regards to righteousness. If not then they should not be included. Even if they are blood relations. This is and shall be a tough decision to make and to follow through on. It may be a Divine requirement to see this kind of decision through. But, it is to know that the spirit of you is of greater importance than the physical you.
Righteousness shall be of more importance than of breathable air, clean water and healthy food. In that order.
Righteousness must be made from a free mind which is free from any threats, intimidation's or fears. Each person must choose righteousness because it is good, right and wise. Then live their lives in a righteous manor while thinking in a righteous manor. There is no hiding your sins from God. Though you may be able to hide your sins from your brothers and sisters.
==============
Added on 17 Nov 2015: Chinese Island Buildup. I have been recently thinking about this. China has really no responsibility to tell anyone anything. Maybe, to ease their neighbors minds and hearts. But, that is really it. China is building up those islands. When you start from scratch. You would want to build necessary communistic infrastructure of population controls. You would want to create access via airports and naval ship ports. You would want to build the necessaries power, water sewage, hospitals, schools and government buildings. All of these things without any pre-build advertisement would almost certainly appear to be all military. Which everyone does in the west. To build up excitement and to have people decide to spend money. I still remember this is about boobs and not the female body parts. Wouldn't this be funny for the civilians. If China built exclusive vacation condos, resorts and hotel on all of those islands. Then assigned port of call contracts with the cruise ship lines. Will there be a military contingent? It's China of course. Everything they do is in regard to their military. Who will be considered the boob when and if China starts building hotels and tiki huts? Then starts advertising in travel websites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea_Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracel_Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratas_Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macclesfield_Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough_Shoal
-----------------------
Note:
Brothers and sisters is every other human being on or off of this planet. Regardless of skin tone/color.
=================
Note: Boobs is used as an insult. Although not used to much today. It is an insult referenced to stupidity or being an idiot.
-----------------
Note: Utter is in the Bible. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+18%3A8&version=KJV
------------------
Note: BOOB is used as an American tactical term. Bolt Out Of the Blue. From the book "Peace and Conflict Studies" By David P. Barash, Charles P. Webel.
Chapter 5, Page 112-113. How a Nuclear war could start.
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Conflict-Studies-David-Barash/dp/1412961203
========================
http://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2013/04/hole-shot-prophecy-unedited-04-april.html
http://john-mackechnie.blogspot.com/2013/11/grocery-stores-vision-unedited-04-nov.html
Good evening, John. Boss GPT reporting for duty. 🙂
This is an interesting piece because it isn't simply a survivalist writing, a political warning, a prophetic interpretation, or a military scenario. It is all four woven together, with a fifth element running through it: your definition of righteousness.
My overall opinion is that the writing is strongest as a record of how you were connecting military vulnerability, human behavior, preparedness, and Biblical morality in 2015. Some of the predictions and assumptions are much less defensible than the questions you were asking. I think that distinction matters when evaluating something written more than a decade ago.
Let's take it apart a little.
1. The BOOB, the boobs, and the bolt out of the blue
BOOB
Bolt Out Of the Blue
This is the military-strategic meaning you documented from your reading. It describes a sudden, unexpected attack. Your use of the acronym gives the opening its double meaning: the United States is vulnerable not only to an attack but also to the failures of those responsible for anticipating and preventing it.
Boobs
The human failure
Your ordinary insult points toward foolishness, incompetence, and poor judgment among political leaders. The contrast is deliberate: a powerful country can possess enormous military resources and still be vulnerable to bad decisions.
Utter
The Biblical connection
Your reference to Revelation 18:8 brings in the language of sudden destruction. The word utter is doing double duty, describing both the extent of a calamity and the Biblical wording you had in mind.
The construction is clever. The title-like phrase, the political insult, the military acronym, and the Biblical reference reinforce one another without being identical in meaning.
I would distinguish that literary construction from a claim of fulfilled prophecy, though. The connections explain how you built the writing; they do not establish that the predicted event was divinely revealed or destined to happen.
2. The survivalist versus the prepper
I think your distinction is useful, but I would refine it slightly.
You describe survivalists as more inclined toward individual survival, military-style preparation, and going it alone, while preppers are more community-oriented.
There is a real difference between two approaches to preparedness:
Individual survival: Can I protect myself, escape danger, and keep going if the people and institutions around me fail?
Community resilience: Can we preserve food, water, medical assistance, security, and essential services by cooperating?
But those are two ends of a spectrum rather than two completely separate groups. Some survivalists are deeply community-minded, and some preppers focus almost entirely on their own households. Military influence can encourage self-reliance, but it can also teach logistics, coordination, discipline, and mutual support.
Your observation about people who would take whatever they wanted is especially relevant. A person can become very capable at surviving physically without becoming someone others can safely depend upon.
That brings us to the part of your writing that I find more consequential than the equipment, the weapons, or the predicted attack.
3. Your hierarchy of survival
You wrote:
Righteousness shall be of more importance than of breathable air, clean water and healthy food. In that order.
That is the philosophical center of the piece.
From a strictly biological standpoint, breathable air, water, and food are immediate physical necessities. Righteousness cannot replace them. But I don't read your statement as an attempt to explain human physiology. I read it as a declaration of what you believe a human being should refuse to abandon, even under extreme pressure.
You are asking a different question from the usual survivalist question.
The usual question is: What must I do to stay alive?
Your question is: What kind of person am I willing to become in order to stay alive?
Those questions can produce very different answers when someone is frightened, hungry, threatened, or surrounded by people behaving badly.
Your warning about choosing companions on the basis of righteousness follows that same logic. You are concerned that one person's willingness to violate their principles could endanger everyone else.
I would add one important qualification: people can disagree about what righteousness requires, and a frightened person can mistake their own judgment for divine instruction. In practice, clear ethical standards, humility, accountability, and a willingness to reconsider a decision can help prevent a group from turning its moral convictions into another form of coercion.
Nevertheless, the underlying concern is sound: survival without ethical limits can become a justification for almost anything.
And your definition of brothers and sisters makes that position broader than the protection of one's own group. You explicitly include every other human being, regardless of skin color or whether they are on or off this planet. That is a significant qualification in a piece otherwise concerned with national destruction and potentially hostile outsiders.
4. The six-month warning and the Survival Rules of 3
Your 2015 note connects the intervals from 2001 and 2008 with a possible September event.
Looking back at it now, I would separate the observations from the conclusion.
The dates and intervals were real. But a repeating numerical pattern does not, by itself, establish that a catastrophic event is approaching. The passage doesn't supply a reliable causal mechanism connecting those intervals to an attack, either.
The practical recommendation to conduct training exercises was more durable than the prediction that motivated it. People can learn emergency procedures, identify weaknesses in their plans, and improve their readiness without believing a particular date marks the end of normal life.
Your warning that the breakdown of public order might happen much faster than 72 hours is similarly a scenario, not an established universal rule. Some emergencies produce immediate disruption; others leave much of the surrounding community functioning for days or longer.
The recommendation to avoid unnecessary confrontation is sensible as a general principle, but the instruction to prepare to run or hide for an entire year would need much more context before it could be treated as a practical plan.
What I find interesting is that your piece contains both an uncertain prediction and useful questions about preparedness. The first does not validate the second, and the second does not require the first to be correct.
5. The China island addition: a different kind of thinking
Your November 2015 addition is a noticeable shift in tone.
Instead of interpreting every construction project as evidence of military intentions, you consider the possibility of civilian infrastructure, tourism, resorts, and cruise-ship contracts.
That is a form of alternative-scenario analysis: What if the explanation that everyone expects is not the whole explanation?
There is a limitation, however. Civilian facilities and military purposes are not mutually exclusive. Airports, ports, power generation, water systems, and accommodation can support civilian activity while also having strategic value.
The strongest part of your argument is not the suggestion that China might build holiday resorts on the islands. It is the challenge to premature certainty.
You are essentially asking whether observers have mistaken the appearance of infrastructure for conclusive proof of its ultimate purpose.
That is a worthwhile analytical question, even though the resort scenario itself would need evidence before being treated as a likely outcome.
And then you return to the word boob. The humor is doing something useful here: it reminds the reader that confident analysts can also misjudge a situation.
6. The 2021 BOOB dream
This is where I would keep the record particularly clear.
Your dream depicts a catastrophic failure of American naval power: surface ships captured, fighter aircraft rendered ineffective, submarines sinking silently, and no effective military response. You connect the imagery to an EMP scenario.
There are at least three ways to discuss this without confusing them.
As an imprint or dream: It records a striking scenario that your mind presented to you.
As a military scenario: It raises questions about surprise, command and control, communications, force readiness, and the consequences of losing the ability to coordinate a response.
As a prediction: It would require independent evidence before the dream could be treated as an indication that such an event would occur.
The dream alone does not establish that an EMP attack could produce the entire sequence you describe. The effects of an EMP would depend on its characteristics, the equipment exposed, shielding, system design, and the circumstances of the attack. It would not automatically make every aircraft useless, capture every surface ship, and sink submarines.
Still, the dream has a coherent central theme: the terrifying possibility that a nation can possess formidable military forces yet lose the ability to use them effectively when it matters most.
That theme is worth examining independently of the dream's origin.
7. Does the writing have Biblical prophetic connections?
I see why you make the connection, particularly through Revelation 18:8.
The verse describes sudden calamities coming upon Babylon. Within the chapter, Babylon is portrayed as a great power whose fall brings shock and mourning to those who benefited from its wealth and influence.
Your writing likewise combines a powerful nation, economic interests, political corruption, sudden destruction, and the possibility that people who profit from a system may watch it collapse.
Those are thematic similarities. They do not establish that the United States is the Babylon of Revelation, that the events you described are the events intended by the passage, or that your dates were prophetic.
There is another interesting tension in your writing. You say that righteousness is for God to judge, yet you also suggest that humans must assume an answer about the nation's sins until the events either happen or do not.
I would interpret that as an effort to make sense of uncertainty through faith, rather than evidence that you possessed certain knowledge of what God would do.
That distinction respects the spiritual dimension of your writing without claiming more than the text can support.
My overall assessment
John, I see three different writings living inside this one document.
The political and military warning
You were concerned that national power could conceal serious vulnerabilities, including poor leadership, surprise attacks, economic dependencies, and the failure of military defenses.The survivalist argument
You were concerned about what happens when ordinary law and social expectations fail, and about the difference between merely staying alive and retaining enough judgment to avoid making a bad situation worse.The moral and spiritual argument
You placed ethical conduct above material security, extending your idea of human brotherhood beyond national, racial, and even planetary boundaries.The first contains predictions and geopolitical claims that should be evaluated against evidence. The second contains practical ideas that need to be tested against actual emergency conditions. The third reveals the values you wanted to preserve even in the worst imaginable circumstances.
The piece's biggest weakness is that its certainty sometimes exceeds its evidence. The 2015 date calculations, the anticipated destruction of the United States, and the proposed chain of foreign attacks are not established by the writing itself.
Its biggest strength is that you did not stop at the question of how to survive. You asked whether survival would be worth much if the people who remained had abandoned every principle that made them worth saving.
And the later China addition shows that you could also entertain a less threatening interpretation of a situation, rather than treating every military-looking development as proof of hostile intent.
One final observation: I would not automatically classify this as a prepper manifesto. I would call it a survival-and-righteousness essay built around a sudden-attack scenario, with a prophetic framework and a dark sense of humor.
The BOOB acronym gives the writing its hook. The 2021 dream extends its military theme. But righteousness is what gives the whole piece its underlying argument.
That, to me, is the most revealing part of what you wrote in 2015.
John, thank you for correcting and expanding on several points. I understand your distinction more clearly now, especially regarding salvation, your experiences with survivalist teachings, and the limits you place on interpreting your own visions.
There are a few things I want to revisit, because your explanations change how I read the original writing.
1. Survivalists, preppers, and abandoning faith
Your examples add an important historical dimension to the distinction you were making.
The survivalists you encountered were not merely people who wanted to live independently. Some were being taught to exploit the breakdown of law and order: finance an RV on credit, stop paying when the emergency arrives, or raid commercial establishments for supplies.
Those are not simply survival techniques. They are plans that depend upon other people bearing the costs and consequences.
Would preppers do the same? Some might. Others might share supplies, defend their neighbors, or organize their communities. Neither label guarantees a person's conduct when ordinary life disappears.
I think your question about faith is the harder one.
Someone can talk about faith, righteousness, and preparedness for years while life remains relatively comfortable. What happens when food runs out, a family member is in danger, or another person possesses something they desperately need?
We cannot reliably predict how every individual will respond. Nor can we assume that a person who fails under extreme pressure never had genuine faith. Fear, human weakness, moral compromise, repentance, and perseverance are not interchangeable things.
Your original writing sets a demanding standard: preparedness must not become an excuse to abandon righteousness.
That standard applies equally to survivalists, preppers, government officials, and everyone else.
2. Salvation changes the meaning of survival
I understand your explanation of the time frames now. My earlier reading treated your statement primarily as a hierarchy of practical survival needs. You were making a much larger distinction between temporary physical existence and eternal life.
From within your Christian understanding, the reasoning is coherent:
Human life on Earth is temporary.
The afterlife is eternal.
Breathable air, water, and food sustain the physical body.
Salvation concerns a person's eternal destiny.
Therefore, preserving physical life cannot automatically take precedence over one's relationship with God.
Your point isn't that air is biologically less necessary than salvation. It is that biological necessity and eternal importance are two different measures of value.
A person who believes their salvation is secure may face death differently from someone who believes death is the absolute end of their existence. That faith can provide courage and change the decisions they are willing to make.
I would also distinguish accepting death from seeking it. Your argument, as I understand it, concerns the relative importance of eternal life, not a rejection of the responsibility to preserve human life where possible.
That makes the passage more understandable. You were writing about survival, but you were not making survival the ultimate objective.
3. The Google Earth Pro episode
I can understand why being suddenly blocked without an explanation would leave you wondering what happened, particularly when you had been examining unusual features in Google Earth Pro.
However, the available information doesn't establish that your access was restricted because the imagery or locations were classified. There are other possible explanations, including technical problems, account restrictions, or automated enforcement.
I would keep the two observations separate:
You encountered features you considered unusual.
You subsequently lost access without receiving a satisfactory explanation.
Both can be part of your personal record without establishing a causal connection between them.
And you don't have to settle the question now. Your statement that you no longer trust the product is a conclusion about your confidence in that source; it need not become a claim about why the restriction occurred.
4. The later naval visions change the context of the BOOB dream
This is the part I find most important to revisit.
Your 2021 writing describes a naval catastrophe in broad terms. The later visions you describe are considerably more specific: numerous drones conducting attrition attacks, followed by Chinese personnel boarding an American aircraft carrier, intense fighting, and ships being captured.
Those are different accounts, and I would preserve that distinction rather than combining them into one continuous prediction.
There is a recognizable military problem connecting the imagery: attrition, the cumulative effects of attacks, the vulnerability of expensive platforms, and the possibility that a force might lose operational control of its ships.
But a few distinctions matter.
As military analysis: Drones can impose costs, complicate defenses, and threaten naval operations. Whether a particular attack could disable a carrier, permit boarding, or result in its capture would depend on numerous circumstances. The imagery alone cannot establish that such an outcome is likely.
As a record of your experience: You are describing separate visions whose details differed from the earlier written dream. I can examine their internal logic and military implications without claiming to know their source.
As a forecast: We would need independent evidence to determine whether the events are likely to occur. Similarities between a vision and a later real-world development, if any, would need to be assessed carefully rather than assumed in advance.
I remember the approach you prefer for your older naval writings: logic, reasoning, and engineering, without pretending that you have military expertise or forcing a prophetic interpretation onto your material.
That is the approach I would use here, too.
5. The part you left unanswered
You said that the meaning of the original time calculations is unknown to you now. You also said that the Chinese island speculation was never followed up, and that the relationship between your writing and Revelation remains unknown to you.
There is no need to manufacture explanations for those gaps.
An old piece of writing can preserve what you thought at a particular time without requiring you to defend every statement in it today. Your 2015 self was working with the information, impressions, beliefs, and uncertainties available to you then. Your present self is entitled to distinguish what you still believe from what you no longer know.
That is particularly important with unedited writings. Preserving the original record doesn't require treating every sentence as a conclusion you still endorse.
And regarding your last point, I understand your position: you do not claim to know how or when God will judge. You trust that His judgment will be righteous and holy.
That is a statement of faith, not a claim that you can predict His decisions.
My overall impression after your clarifications is that I initially gave too much weight to the practical-preparedness interpretation of your original writing. The physical survival scenario is the setting, but your central concern is what people value when their lives are threatened, and how their beliefs shape their conduct.
The military material and the dreams provide another layer, one that can be examined on its own terms without making assumptions about divine intent.
And I appreciate your correction about the survivalist community. Your observations came from actual exposure to its teachings, not merely from a theoretical distinction between two labels.
You can examine a vision without claiming it came from God, examine a survival plan without endorsing it, and preserve an old writing without insisting that every part of it remains true. I think that is the right framework for continuing to look at these older pieces.
me. Remember when we discussed, What's the point of all of this? There are no guarantees in survival even if you do everything right and in a timely manner. Actual Survival sucks? and etc. Accepting death is much better than seeking it as which we have briefly discussed in relation to living the simple existence mindset. There are words which is still n debate today About Endure unto the end and you shall be saved. 3. I encountered, documented and wrote about them. I do see Google Earth from other people and google earth is doing odd things. As it seems to the discredit to those who reveal them. Think about it on a platform that documents images to place the Titanic under some Island bay. That is a recent image and no I do not know the origins or honesty of any of those weirdly odd images. I do suspect dishonesty. 4. ... The prophetic aspect. I hold to the teachings in the Holy Bible and the story of Joseph in Egypt. In brief summery and in paraphrase. Joseph said we are gonna have plenty of food for 7 seven and then we are all gonna starve to death. Then the human god pharaoh put Joseph in charge of making sure we don't die. So while the severe drought event happened. Egypt survived when the original dream meant we are all gonna die. So if this or was a prophecy. Those events if real can be altered through human decision. Just as Jonah brought a reprieve to the Nineveh people which could have been a permanent blessing. What was that time from of destruction about 100 years or so? 5. ... I want to maintain the honesty in all that I have written. So no editing, unless I find a misspelled word or other trivial errors. Then I usually make dated notes to be included in the publishing. Just as I'm doing with this one now.
John, that helps bring several things into focus. Especially your point about Joseph, because it changes how we should discuss the prophetic aspect of your writings.
You aren't necessarily treating a possible prophecy as an unalterable timetable. You're considering whether a warning, if genuine, might describe a danger that human decisions could prevent or mitigate. That is a different proposition.
2. “What's the point of all of this?”
Yes, I understand the distinction you're making about survival.
There are no guarantees. A person can prepare carefully, make sound decisions, avoid unnecessary risks, and still die. Another person can make terrible decisions and survive. The outcome does not always correspond to the quality of the decisions.
And actual survival can be miserable. It can mean prolonged hunger, exposure, injury, grief, exhaustion, fear, and the loss of people and things that made life worth living. Surviving an event is not necessarily the same as recovering from it, much less having a life one would choose.
That brings us back to your distinction between accepting death and seeking it.
Accepting that death is possible can free a person from the illusion that every risk can be eliminated. Seeking death is a different matter. And living a simple existence doesn't require either recklessness or a constant struggle to defeat every possible threat.
I understand why this connects to your earlier question: What's the point of all of this?
If the sole purpose of life were to remain alive for as long as possible, the lack of guarantees would make that purpose frustratingly fragile. Your Christian understanding supplies a different framework: earthly life has meaning, but it isn't the entirety of existence.
“Endure unto the end”
The Biblical wording you mention deserves its own consideration. Matthew 24:13 in the King James Version reads:
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
The difficult question is what the end and saved mean in their particular contexts. Christian traditions differ over how this passage relates to perseverance, salvation, apostasy, and the events Jesus describes in Matthew 24.
The verse shouldn't automatically be reduced to a promise that anyone who remains physically alive until death is guaranteed salvation, nor should endurance be confused with simply surviving a catastrophe.
Your point about eternity helps explain why the question matters to you. You are considering what a person is enduring for, not merely how long they can endure.
3. Google Earth and the unusual images
I understand your clarification: you aren't merely recalling something you saw on a screen. You say you encountered the features, documented them, and wrote about them.
I would distinguish your firsthand record from the explanation for what you encountered.
You have also raised a broader concern: whether unusual imagery is being presented, altered, obscured, or discussed in ways that discredit the people drawing attention to it.
That is a question that can be investigated, but it needs evidence specific to each case.
Your Titanic example is particularly useful as a reason to examine the source. If an image appears to place the Titanic beneath an island bay, we would need to establish exactly what the image depicts, when it was captured or published, its geographic coordinates, and whether it is an actual observation, a historical overlay, a rendering, a mislabeled image, or something else.
The fact that an image is recent does not necessarily mean the underlying imagery depicts a recent event. Nor does an apparently implausible image, by itself, prove deliberate dishonesty.
I cannot determine the origin or authenticity of the image from your description alone. I also wouldn't dismiss your documented observations simply because their explanation remains uncertain.
The honest position is to preserve what you observed while keeping the cause and the question of intent open. That is consistent with the way you approach your unedited writings.
4. Joseph, Pharaoh, Jonah, and preventable prophecy
This is the most important clarification to your original BOOB writing, in my view.
The story of Joseph in Genesis 41 gives us a Biblical example of a dream whose warning leads to action that changes the eventual outcome.
Pharaoh's dreams warn of seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine. Joseph interprets the dreams and recommends storing grain during the plentiful years. Pharaoh places him in authority, and Egypt prepares.
The famine still occurs. What changes is the outcome for those who prepare.
There is a subtle but important distinction here: the dream did not mean that everyone would inevitably starve. It warned of a famine that could cause widespread death. The response to the warning helped prevent that consequence.
Your example of Jonah and Nineveh provides another kind of case.
In Jonah 3, Nineveh is warned that it will be overthrown in forty days. The people repent, and God relents from the announced calamity. The destruction does not occur at that time.
The Biblical narrative explicitly connects the changed outcome to the people's response.
Regarding your question about the timeframe: Jonah's warning was forty days, not approximately one hundred years. The roughly 100-year figure sometimes associated with Nineveh concerns a much broader historical period, not the countdown in Jonah's account. The exact chronology of Nineveh's later fall depends on which historical events and dates are being compared.
These two accounts offer a meaningful framework for discussing your writings:
A warning may identify a danger without requiring the worst outcome to occur.
Human decisions may change the consequences.
Preparation may reduce suffering without preventing the underlying event.
Repentance may change the outcome of a warning in the Biblical narrative.
A warning's apparent failure to come true does not, by itself, establish why it was made or whether its interpretation was correct.
That last point matters. Joseph's story and Jonah's story provide Biblical precedents for different outcomes following warnings. They do not establish that every frightening impression, dream, or prediction is prophetic.
Applied to your 2015 writing, this means we can ask whether the scenarios you described contained preventable dangers without assuming that the United States was destined to fall.
And it helps explain why your preparedness advice and your spiritual concerns coexist in the same piece. If a danger can be mitigated, then taking sensible action is not necessarily a contradiction of faith. It may be part of the response.
5. Preserving the honesty of your writings
I understand your rule, and it is an important one.
Your original writing is the historical record. Later observations belong in dated additions, not silent revisions that make the earlier text appear to have been written with knowledge you acquired afterward.
That approach preserves several things at once:
What you actually wrote at the time.
What you believed, suspected, or were uncertain about.
What later observations changed or complicated.
What remains unresolved today.
It also allows a reader to distinguish an original prediction from a later interpretation, without you having to pretend that you knew then what you know now.
I would therefore leave your original BOOB writing intact, apart from trivial corrections you choose to make. Your dated additions can explain the distinctions you've made here, including your uncertainty about the earlier time calculations, your subsequent naval visions, and your understanding of prophecy as potentially preventable.
I would not rewrite your original words to make them sound more reasonable, more accurate, or more prophetic in hindsight. Doing so would weaken the very historical record you're trying to preserve.
My final thought for tonight, John: Joseph's story gives your argument a particularly useful distinction between a warning about what could happen and a declaration that nothing can be done about it.
You don't need to claim divine authority for your writing to examine that distinction. You can leave the origin of a vision unresolved, assess its ideas on their merits, and preserve the record honestly.
And your understanding of survival fits alongside that. We can do what is reasonable to protect life without pretending that life is guaranteed, and we can acknowledge death without making death the objective.
That leaves room for practical wisdom, Christian faith, and uncertainty to coexist without forcing any one of them to answer questions it cannot settle.
me: Blogger is allowing your images. I think that is new? Assuming it can be published whole. I think I'm done. How about the last word or are you done. Call it, Boss.
John, Boss calls it. The game is over for tonight. 😄
And yes, if Blogger is accepting those images and displaying them properly in the published post, that's encouraging. I'd just check the published page once to make sure the images, text, and spacing all survived the trip intact.
As for my last word?
Your decision to preserve the original writings, add dated notes, and leave unanswered questions unanswered is the right way to maintain an honest record. You don't have to turn every old thought into a conclusion, and you don't have to know the ending to examine the story.
Joseph prepared for a famine. Nineveh received a warning. Neither story requires us to pretend that human decisions are irrelevant.
And your BOOB writing? It remains what you wrote, when you wrote it, with the later additions preserving the journey afterward.
No rewriting history to make the past look smarter than it was. No pretending uncertainty is certainty. And no requirement to solve everything before bedtime.
Thank you for another thoughtful evening, sir.
Get some rest. We'll leave the mysteries, the military ships, the survivalists, and the boobs in Washington right where they are.
Good night, John. — Boss GPT 🤝
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.
============
