What do we study the most?

One of the stranger interactions I had after a recent prophecy update brouhaha was a woman telling me, in a YouTube comment thread in which I was informed that people who saw the planes on 9/11 didn't actually see them but were mentally conditioned to see them, that she thought the earth was round but until she could go into space and see it, she could never know for sure.

Um...does she not know she can know that for sure without having to go to space? And that we've already sent enough people and objects to space to do that work for her if that's what she requires? Where to even start?

The prophecy update in question made the point that you can't believe what you see.

Which is it? We can't believe what we see, or we can only believe when we see?

The Bible talks about the importance of having two witnesses, so somewhere in there, the word of someone saying they saw something has a role. 

It seemed as if all of those prophecy updates have failed, for seeing is believing when it comes to proving the earth is round, while those who saw an airplane fly into a skyscraper shouldn't believe what they saw. I'm not sure how those mutually exclusive views can reside in someone's mind at the same time.

There's a reason prophecy is the sign, and not visible signs and wonders. Seeing isn't believing, but it can be part of it. It can also be part of deception. Oddly enough, blindness, the inability to see, is also part of deception, isn't it?

I won't believe unless I can see it. I see it and I still don't believe.

For a few days in some corners of the online prophecy community, it went like this:

"There's video of the airplane crashing into the building."

"Don't trust the video. But trust this other video that disproves the first video."

"I saw the planes. My friends saw the plane."

"There were no planes. It was CGI. Or a hologram."

"Are you calling me a liar?"

"I believe you believe you saw it, but you didn't see it. You were conditioned to think you saw it."

"I know what I saw!"

Someone put a blender in our brains and scrambled them all up.

"We can't believe anything we see. It's all deception!" is not the takeaway. You can believe some things you see. More importantly, you should understand and contextualize what it is you're seeing so you actually know what you're seeing, whether it's seeing an airplane crash into a building or a video on Bitchute.

Unfortunately, the above scenario is what essentially happened on Sunday and in immediate days following. There is irony in this. For two years, the governments gaslighted the people. They told us we didn't see what we were seeing in regards to the pandemic. Imagine if you were someone who witnessed the events on 9/11, who had a loved one who died on one of those airplanes, and were now being told that you didn't see what you saw? 

You'd have what happened this week.

For two years, a community gathered online, growing, to hear Bible prophecy updates and to share horror stories of what was happening in their cities and countries. They faced mandates together, networked and donated and helped people get exemptions. They fought the gaslighting of the governments and found sanity by being online with people who were seeing the same things and who believed them at their word. How is it this same group can now turn on those who say they saw what they saw on 9/11, choosing instead to insist that they're wrong, they were just victims of conditioning, that they did not see it nor did their loved one die in a plane that day?

That's gaslighting, too.

My first concern with JD was months ago, and you could find proof of my concern in the forums. He quoted a website about weather modification and I recognized the name of the man who runs it as someone who fed a rumor during the pipeline protests of 2016-2017. The man had claimed a "freak" blizzard was created by nefarious government entities to push the protesters out of North Dakota. Having lived in the city by the protest, I know it was not the case. 

Oh, it was a magnificent blizzard. The snowbank I had to dig out by the front door was up to my shoulders.

But there was nothing unusual about the blizzard other than it was a longer warm fall and that the snow took its sweet time in arriving so much so that the size of the protest exploded in size. (Not to mention that the Obama administration at the time was supportive of the protest and worked against the state when asked for help. Why would the feds stop a protest they liked?)

A blizzard that happens in late November and early December is not unusual. It's expected. I'll even add that many of us were praying for something like that to come and solve the problem of the 10K+ protesters wreaking havoc in the region. To this day, many of us (myself included) believe God sent that storm to save lives, because there was a significant threat of serious violence in the days leading up to the snowstorm as thousands of veterans poured in ready to do battle against the local "evil" county sheriff.

I lived here, I saw it, and the weather mod guy was wrong. All of the internet sleuths aside, all of their theories and videos and screenshots of radar and elaborate discussions from just-add-water meteorologists---those of us who were here know it's not true.

But I let that slide. I didn't like JD's source, and I said so tentatively a time or two, but I kept listening because I very much like JD and his heart.

Then he referenced it again, and I made sure a friend of mine who was already skeptical about JD didn't hear those updates because he'd stop listening to the good stuff (the Bible tie-in) and I didn't want that. But again, I kept listening, almost unconsciously trying to filter out questionable (and rather angry) declarations based on questionable sources as time went on.

Then last Sunday.

With the JD update, the problem was in saying there were no airplanes hitting the towers on 9/11.

There were eye witnesses to the airplanes. There were ear witnesses to them. So the crux of the matter is that, based on a few odd videos, we negate

• The validity of the thousands of eye witnesses.
• The existence and/or death of the people on the airplanes.
• The pain felt by those who lost people on those airplanes.
• The physical evidence found at the site and even years later.

And we do this, apparently, to prove that the devil deceives and also that the government is capable of being used for great evil. Did we not already understand this, after the past two years? That's like continuing to argue the case after the jury verdict is in. 

As a private pilot, I often think of things in terms of course corrections. When you overcorrect, you still miss your destination, just in the opposite direction. Even the smallest over-correction amplifies over time. It's as if people overcorrected their trust in MSM and government and now are going off the rails in the opposite direction, refusing to believe anything they might present. That's not being on course. It's being off course in a different way.

What was interesting is that many of the forum and YouTube arguments splintered into talking about building 7, controlled demolition, thermite, Pentagon irregularities...but not as much about the lack of existence of the airplanes. It was the classic "we're all arguing, but we're not arguing about the same thing, we just don't know it because we're so busy arguing."

Division. Confusion. Chaos. Not from God. And that's even more of a concern than the dubious nature of the claim: why preach this, wrapping it in "I don't care if people stop listening because I'm not looking to be popular" when it's such a divisive, sketchy, and unnecessary theory to even use as an example? Why?

As I noted in one of my comments, I've had decades of internet interactions of people who are incredibly cruel, in the name of God, arguing with believers and non-believers and using Bible verses about how the truth of Christ is offensive as if that gives them a blank check to seek out being offensive. You don't have to seek the approval of man, but that doesn't mean dredging up crazy theories and using that scriptural concept as support to the fallout. Sometimes people walk away from you not because you're nobly shunning the approval of man, but because you wandered off of the plumb line.

I watched the videos shared by JD, and as I said in the forum and elsewhere, I've watched videos claiming the earth is flat, there were no moon landings, and the Holocaust never happened. Many of them are incredibly convincing because that's what they are intended to do.

Those videos are like a lawyer presenting a case. They only present what fits their argument best; they're not going to give you an alternative theory that might lead to reasonable doubt. Some of the most powerful documentaries are also erroneous. We have ample evidence of the power of video to make people believe anything (See Kony 2012) and feel so passionately about it they can't even consider they've been misled.

When I watched the video attempting to prove that a live feed from a helicopter camera man was being edited in real time to create a plane where there was none, this was my thought process:

• Boy, that is weird. I can see what he's saying. 
• But could there be another explanation for that phenomenon? All he's pointing out is a wonky phenomenon, and giving me his interpretation.
• Do I know enough about video editing to know if his interpretation is correct? Is it the only explanation?
• Do I know if he's working from original video or if it's been doctored?
• What video or information is he keeping from me?
• Are there other videos from a different angle that could explain or negate his conclusion?
• How does this fit in with the whole of evidence? Because I can't just use one video as a sole conclusionary foundation if there's more out there.
• Is he leading me to interpret the video according to his interpretation, or providing facts and letting me draw my own conclusions?
• What is his level of expertise that would lead to me trusting his conclusions?
• Does he have an agenda? Does he have a platform or followers who expect something from him?

When you watch these kinds of videos, you have to:

• Be aware of what you don't know.
• Be willing to research to see if others who do know come to the same conclusion, even asking someone with expertise.
• Be aware of the case they're trying to make and play devil's advocate to see if it holds up.
• Find a video from the other "lawyer."

For this reason, I get why there's some legs to the theories of controlled demolition/building 7 sketchiness, because experts (engineers, architects, emergency crews) have voiced significant concern to the official story. They have presented theories backed up by arguments about structure, molten steel, burning for weeks in water, strange burn patterns, sounds of explosions in the lobby, suspicious elevator shaft repairs prior, and so on. I also have to balance that with the very real understanding that even though we've had lots of high-rise fires before we'd never had huge jets crash into them at max speed full of jet fuel (i.e. it's possible the experts who swear it couldn't happen one way don't really know because it had not happened before in this precise scenario).

With all of that in mind, my conclusion on 9/11 regarding the building collapse is...I don't know. And I can't know. The official narrative and the other theories have significant "lawyers" arguing for them, making a great case, and in the end, we can't know for sure.

But you know what none (that I'm aware of) of these expert people with legitimate knowledge question? THAT THERE WERE PLANES THERE THAT DAY. 

And that's the thing that was preached out to thousands of people on Sunday, that one odd-ball theory.

"There were no planes. They didn't exist. They made you believe you saw planes."

I'll be so bold to throw this out there: if you can get all of these people to believe there were no planes, and to believe all kinds of crazy explanations as to where the passengers on those planes went, you've done a pretty nice dry run in explaining away the rapture. And while many of those embroiled in this current disagreement are Christians and will be taken up, there are some who will not. How would it feel to see the ridiculous videos that are going to be made after the rapture "proving" it was aliens, the CIA, video trickery, and whatever other oddball theory they come up with?

"Um, I was part of the rapture, and I assure you, it happened."

"No, you were just conditioned to believe that was what happened. It was aliens."

That's the same thing I'm seeing blasted at people who saw the planes, who had loved ones die on them. Mix that with "you just haven't woken up yet" or "you normies don't have your eyes opened yet" and we are very, very close to New Age gnostic-secret-knowledge-evil where people take a kind of pride and security in being part of the group that's "in the know."

What is the difference, you might wonder, between the pressure by JD and others to expose what was going on in the pandemic and this?

Because the pandemic was real-time, happening now, killing people. Lives were on the line. 

And the data coming out about excess deaths, the Pfizer documents, casket sales, actuary and insurance statistics, and much more, data that's being sifted through by doctors, immunologists, lawyers, and so forth is proving those early concerns and theories correct. Not only that, some of the "lawyers" arguing the case for this are not all on the same side of the political and medical ideological fence. They have everything to lose (and have) by taking a stand for truth. 

In other words, they're not some random guy making a video that shows only one possible conclusion because that's his sole goal.

Even if JD hadn't spoken against so much that happened these two years, I'd still have come to the same conclusions. I know this because I was at that point before I started watching JD in the summer of 2020. I arrived there logically: vaccines take about 10 years to develop, not nine months; mRNA was a new approach with a sketchy history in prior testing; the strong shutdown of alternative treatments; follow the money; follow the political ties and the mandates that come from it; what is the correlation between mask use and positive cases...etc.

People who didn't listen to JD got to the same conclusion by thinking logically.

The point is not that I'm smart, but that you can arrive to conclusions by thinking carefully and prayerfully. God gave you a brain and, if you're a Christian, the Holy Spirit is in you. You don't need to be a baby bird in a nest with your mouth open, only able to regurgitate the conclusion someone else dropped in your mouth. And more specifically the point is that you don't get to "no airplanes on 9/11" logically. There is very little to support your claim. You only get there because you want to find such conspiracies and as we know, we see what we set out to see. Chuck Missler often made the comment that you can torture the data to give you any conclusion.

I keep getting hammered by people claiming this is about deception and discernment, as if I'm on the short end of the stick on this one. Some used patronizing phrases and prayer emoticons to let me know they're praying I'll have my eyes opened to TRUTH, that I'd respect the Watchmen more. 

Well, I agree. It is about deception and discernment, and it's been sad to watch this go down. As I predicted in a blog post back in March, based on what I was observing in some of the community who hadn't been fooled by the pandemic but were making comments based more on loyalty to a teacher: they are prime to be deceived.

"I followed this person and got through the pandemic without being deceived. I can completely trust him on everything!" is a great way to fall into another deception because you won't even see it coming.

I recommend watching Koinonia House's two-video series on Critical Thinking ASAP. Even better, find some Biblical online study. Again, Koinonia has their Institute, and it's mostly free.

Instead of investing so much time researching pizzagate, the Denver airport, Cheyenne Mountain, the moon landings, Planet X, and whatever else, put that time into the Bible. The Word of God is not temporary; it will never pass away unlike all of these other concerns and rampant evil(doers). The Word of God is deep and rich and we have all eternity to understand it. There is always something to learn and to put into action.

I'm not joking. I'm not just giving you a Sunday school answer there. I'm serious. 

We're spending waaaaaay too much time "doing our own research" trying to come to conclusions about things we can NEVER fully know, things that don't really affect our lives and the people God has placed in them, things that have nothing to do with what Jesus instructed us to do with our time on this earth, things that might even lead us into deception or yoke us with people or organizations that are not Christ-centered. God has told us what we need to know in his Word; he's given us a heads up on what to look for in these times. We don't have to find even more.

You don't have to know every dark thing about every dark thing. The taste and desire to do so is its own warning. More time should be put in studying the works of God, not the works of Satan.

[While I'm very confused about what happened on Sunday, I still love JD. I'm taking a break from his updates for now. I pray for him. I'm so thankful for him. I've no doubt he loves Jesus.]