I recently came up with a most funny concept, I believe, and dutifully sent it off to the two producers who I once knew and who used to always open my emails, Stuart Cornfeld and Sean Daniel. According to Didtheyreadit.com, technology I sometimes use so I know if my emails are possibly being read. Problem with Didtheyreadit.com is that, when received on some computers, I cannot detect whether my emails are being read. I know this because I've received emails in response to emails I've sent that presumably were never opened, according to Didtheyreadit.com. I suppose if you're rich enough and organized enough, you might even know which of your computers is on this "radar" or not, and then determine whether you wish to be picked up on the "radar", depending on the email content (which you could first learn by first opening the email off the radar). Nowadays, sometimes the emails sent to these producers are opened, sometimes not. According to Didtheyreadit.com.
But I digress, that is, if this is about the funny concept itself (and not about someone doing something with it), and so without further digression or ado or whatever that was:
Someone visiting at a friend's house finds that his friend has purchased a "DoggyBarkBark" device. This is a speaker you strap to your dog's neck that produces the bark of a ferocious dog, triggered by the sound of your dog barking. If your little lapdog is barking because it senses an intruder, the intruder imagines that scurrying around somewhere is a ferocious dog. The big problem is that whenever the lapdog hears the ferocious barking, he barks back, thus creating an endless barking situation. Initially the lapdog responds to the friend's visit with a little bark, thus triggering the situation and a shouted explanation from the dog owner. The dog owner explains also that the video that comes with the "DoggyBarkBark" device reassures the owner that their dog will eventually become accustomed to the sound of a ferocious dog barking and not respond. This may not occur for a few months.
That's the version of the idea I sent out to two people who in the past have channeled a huge number of my ideas to people who then make use of them (Daily Show, Colbert Report, SNL, movies, other TV shows, people who create new TV shows, CNN Presidential Election Night Coverage producers, etc.). I simply wish to add to the above version, that perhaps at some point the dog's owner might plug his lapdog's ears with his fingers to stop the vicious cycle. Which succeeds in creating a momentary cessation of barking. Eventually, numerous stops and starts of the vicious cycle of barking puts looks of very serious apprehension into the facial expression of the guest at any occurrence that might potentially set off the lapdog into letting loose with a tiny yelp. Accompanied by deep sighs of relief, too soon, a yelp was coming afterall. I imagine an idea this funny is worthy of, I don't know, at least 45 minutes of screen time. It's very symbolic too, I think, you know, big guns (ferocious dog barking sound) always at the ready to turn things upside down on behalf of seemingly innocuous imbeciles (the yelping lapdog).
Speaking of big guns at the ready to turn things upside down, I have to see the recent news item about Bruce Willis' ski resort burning down as being in relation to my "reopening the investigation" into the death of Princess Diana in several of my recent blogs, "Word To The Wise" and "I Read The Clues Today". While my experience in these matters makes the connection particularly clear to me, I do find there to be one element built into it that has written all over it, "if there's that coincidence then it's all coincidence issue closed no need for investigation all logical deductions are tainted by there being a coincidence in the mix". Sometimes one must even conjecture whether certain apparent coincidences haven't been planted for those stupid enough to regard coincidence as the answer to everything, sure to win an acquittal every time, no matter the crime, no matter the other evidence. The coincidence to which I refer here is that (and by the way to follow this you would need to actually read my blogs referenced here that regard all this): on the one hand I've previously connected Steve Holland with Bruce Willis, and put the "Zig Ski" license plate spotted in 1997 in relation to this due to context (without my knowing at the time of making the connection that Willis owned a ski lodge); and then you have the fact that Bruce Willis owns a ski lodge (according to my research, Willis purchased it in 1996). The big bad coincidence is that Steve Holland's first movie, "Better Off Dead", which I refer to in my blogs on this subject, uses skiing as a significant element. The explanation may be that a mutual interest in skiing is part of Holland in relation to Willis - I don't know.
I would also like to add, as I've stated before, that whoever committed one crime (eg., the assassination of Diana Spencer) was not necessarily involved in any of the others. However, it is clear to me that there was a consciousness on the part of the perpetrator(s) that there would be an apparent connection to be made between the various acts discussed. For all I know, Bruce Willis read my blog and then set fire to his own ski lodge. The perpetrator(s) in Diana's death were trying to create a trail leading to McCartney and/or Harrison from what they left on my doorstep ahead of time - this could increase the likelihood of a few Spartacuses standing up at this point in "our story".
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
I Read The Clues Today
When I saw the following bit on the March 16th Daily Show I immediately thought of Mind Helmets:
While I was attending my last two years of high school in New York City from 1971 to 1973 at a small school called Elisabeth Irwin High School, I wrote something for a creative writing assignment. It was a make-believe newspaper editorial, addressing a future world where superstition/paganism had taken over. In this world, technology was as sophisticated as could be imagined, but most people called it magic. The editorial defended the unpopular idea that, though some called it magic, those new things everyone was talking about, Mind Helmets, might actually be a product of science.
Over time I have accumulated good reason to believe that, contrary to the official version of how it came about, this story of mine had a lot to do with the creation of “Mind Games,” the title song of the John Lennon album that followed “Imagine”. Both this story and “Steinhoff’s Monster”, a 16mm film I started on at CalArts in 1973. There were people at my very small (25 boys, 25 girls in my grade) high school who would go to Lennon's secret Bank Street home after school, having met Lennon through a mutual friend of Lennon's, David Peel (in 1974 I would work for Howard Smith, the person who introduced Lennon to Peel). I was actually told that this story of mine would appear in the 1973 school yearbook, though it was pulled at the last minute.
Two things happened during the afternoon of March 16th prior to the Daily Show videoclip included here:
What might have been prevented, what can still be prevented, what exactly is at stake, I feel very much in the dark here. What is it that someone wants us to see, what guilt would they wish to assign, that may be more apparent. Oh, if only I hadn't printed the words, "Zig Ski". And oh, do no such thing again. Perhaps this is like some poker game, where a player would seek to bluff us into believing that "Zig Ski" is/remains a great clue, when it is in fact an easy opportunity to mislead. The driver of the "Zig Ski" car may have innocently done nothing more than drive from Point A to Point B on cue, expecting he was enroute to seeing the Martians land or Ringo Starr dancing the cha-cha-cha. But who cued him? Can it lead back to a more genuine clue?
Could this be an effort to guilt Spielberg for the death of Richardson, because I had to divulge the clue in a blog instead of being able to provide it directly to someone who would follow-up? Someone who would follow-up, because they would accept that I am secretly important and would thusly be more likely to receive such a clue "on my doorstep"? Could dumping guilt on people like Spielberg and McCartney be the kind of thing an enemy of the Western world would endeavor to accomplish, with me as their pawn? As for me, I recognize how complex issues might surround matters of this kind in ways beyond that which I presently know of, thus justifying a decision by Spielberg and McCartney to avoid publicizing my importance. As I lead a far more reclusive existence than most, it could seem to people like Spielberg and McCartney that I am far more vulnerable.
I do not let the kind of sick people who would kill Princess Diana and Natasha Richardson direct my mind in how to look at these things. I read the news today, but I did not see the same thing as everyone else in so doing.
And finally, I've written another sketch comedy idea, "Timeout", available at archive.org. I hope you see something good in it.
While I was attending my last two years of high school in New York City from 1971 to 1973 at a small school called Elisabeth Irwin High School, I wrote something for a creative writing assignment. It was a make-believe newspaper editorial, addressing a future world where superstition/paganism had taken over. In this world, technology was as sophisticated as could be imagined, but most people called it magic. The editorial defended the unpopular idea that, though some called it magic, those new things everyone was talking about, Mind Helmets, might actually be a product of science.
Over time I have accumulated good reason to believe that, contrary to the official version of how it came about, this story of mine had a lot to do with the creation of “Mind Games,” the title song of the John Lennon album that followed “Imagine”. Both this story and “Steinhoff’s Monster”, a 16mm film I started on at CalArts in 1973. There were people at my very small (25 boys, 25 girls in my grade) high school who would go to Lennon's secret Bank Street home after school, having met Lennon through a mutual friend of Lennon's, David Peel (in 1974 I would work for Howard Smith, the person who introduced Lennon to Peel). I was actually told that this story of mine would appear in the 1973 school yearbook, though it was pulled at the last minute.
Two things happened during the afternoon of March 16th prior to the Daily Show videoclip included here:
- I received an emailed Facebook communication from someone I hadn’t heard from since the early ‘70s, a person I knew at Elisabeth Irwin
- The Mind of Natasha Richardson, whose husband, Liam Neeson, is working with Steven Spielberg on a movie about Lincoln, was damaged, presumably because she skied without a Helmet.
What might have been prevented, what can still be prevented, what exactly is at stake, I feel very much in the dark here. What is it that someone wants us to see, what guilt would they wish to assign, that may be more apparent. Oh, if only I hadn't printed the words, "Zig Ski". And oh, do no such thing again. Perhaps this is like some poker game, where a player would seek to bluff us into believing that "Zig Ski" is/remains a great clue, when it is in fact an easy opportunity to mislead. The driver of the "Zig Ski" car may have innocently done nothing more than drive from Point A to Point B on cue, expecting he was enroute to seeing the Martians land or Ringo Starr dancing the cha-cha-cha. But who cued him? Can it lead back to a more genuine clue?
Could this be an effort to guilt Spielberg for the death of Richardson, because I had to divulge the clue in a blog instead of being able to provide it directly to someone who would follow-up? Someone who would follow-up, because they would accept that I am secretly important and would thusly be more likely to receive such a clue "on my doorstep"? Could dumping guilt on people like Spielberg and McCartney be the kind of thing an enemy of the Western world would endeavor to accomplish, with me as their pawn? As for me, I recognize how complex issues might surround matters of this kind in ways beyond that which I presently know of, thus justifying a decision by Spielberg and McCartney to avoid publicizing my importance. As I lead a far more reclusive existence than most, it could seem to people like Spielberg and McCartney that I am far more vulnerable.
I do not let the kind of sick people who would kill Princess Diana and Natasha Richardson direct my mind in how to look at these things. I read the news today, but I did not see the same thing as everyone else in so doing.
And finally, I've written another sketch comedy idea, "Timeout", available at archive.org. I hope you see something good in it.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Fun For Everyone
Well, that last post was extremely serious, if one recognizes the idea that, had Princess Diana lived, she might have entered into a semi-royal marriage with an Egyptian, an event that could have been world-healing; and that her murderers appear to have singled out my doorstep as a repository for clues to their guilt, owing to my secret great importance in relation to Spielberg, McCartney, and many others.
This current post may be thought a continuation of the "argument" contained in my previous post, in that it adds to the proof of my contention that I am perceived as having some degree of importance (someday someone will invent a device for measuring degrees of importance with precision):
After viewing this videoclip regarding Russell Crowe (and perhaps Christian Bale), one may also wish to read a blog I posted on September 21, 2008, entitled, "Not Enough Time For The Beethoven," and/or view my 1998 video, "Gosk 2", which is at archive.org (where my 1994 video "Gosk 1" can also be found).
As usual, I have this week seen other references to my material:
I am left in these instances to ask people to take things on faith. Nevertheless I believe that, in general, I provide far more things that do not require taking things on faith, things for which I offer proof as being references by others to my work. And so I hope people will not begrudge me these instances where I do not provide details. There is no small importance to granting credit for integrity and intelligence, if it is earned, otherwise there is much that would be buried.
This current post may be thought a continuation of the "argument" contained in my previous post, in that it adds to the proof of my contention that I am perceived as having some degree of importance (someday someone will invent a device for measuring degrees of importance with precision):
After viewing this videoclip regarding Russell Crowe (and perhaps Christian Bale), one may also wish to read a blog I posted on September 21, 2008, entitled, "Not Enough Time For The Beethoven," and/or view my 1998 video, "Gosk 2", which is at archive.org (where my 1994 video "Gosk 1" can also be found).
As usual, I have this week seen other references to my material:
- "Mr. Brooks" (my Dostoyevsky video)
- "Smallville" plus "The Office" (Tony Scott/Terrance Williams)
I am left in these instances to ask people to take things on faith. Nevertheless I believe that, in general, I provide far more things that do not require taking things on faith, things for which I offer proof as being references by others to my work. And so I hope people will not begrudge me these instances where I do not provide details. There is no small importance to granting credit for integrity and intelligence, if it is earned, otherwise there is much that would be buried.
Friday, March 13, 2009
A Word To The Wise
How did it come to be that just hours before Princess Diana was killed in an automobile accident involving a reporter from the French newspaper, La Figaro, I was standing on the spot where the Los Angeles restaurant, La Figaro, named for the French newspaper, once stood? How did an interview with George Harrison in La Figaro come about just three days before? Is there a set of verifiable facts that will unmistakably say certain things to an intelligent person, while being mute or confusing to an unintelligent person?
In this statement, I will be combining information that is easily verifiable as fact with information that cannot be proven which you will have to take on faith, simply because many of the things that happen in this world cannot be proven (will you be able to prove tomorrow that you were sitting down while reading this today?).
The easily verifiable facts alone will ultimately be enough to prove that there is much in what I say.
Part 1 – The Death of Princess Diana
During the last week of August, 1997 I was having a conversation with someone I knew who was also a friend of Blues legend BB King. I described an experience once described to me by Howard Worth, who made the movie, “Raga”, about Ravi Shankar, how George Harrison had come through for him in getting his movie the money needed to complete it. A few days following this August 1997 conversation, George Harrison gave an interview to the French newspaper, La Figaro, and based on my (extraordinary) experiences, I had to wonder if what I'd said hadn’t influenced Harrison to give an interview. The day after the Harrison interview, a paragraph summarizing it was featured in the L.A. Times. It is perhaps relevant that, in 2000, BB King and Eric Clapton made an album together, “Riding With The King”. Eric Clapton is historically known to have been a longtime close friend of George Harrison (despite Clapton’s ultimately causing Harrison’s divorce and marrying Harrison’s ex-wife).
The next day I saw on my way to work a look-alike of someone I knew years before (unless it was the actual person, I could not tell, however, the resemblance, in terms of certain unusual, identifiable features, was obvious). This person was my friend when I attended CalArts, and had for a roommate a woman who worked in the secretary pool for George Harrison’s record company, Dark Horse. George Harrison married a girl from the secretary pool at Dark Horse. Olivia Harrison may actually have been the roommate of my friend, I wish I could say with certainty one way or the other.
As a secretly important person, I have for a long time been accustomed to being followed wherever I go. I thought it might make things interesting to begin this particular three-day Labor Day Weekend (Saturday, August 30th) by going to a place I sometimes went when I was a student at CalArts during the 1970s, the La Figaro Restaurant in Los Angeles, where the menus were formatted like the French newspaper for which the restaurant was named. The restaurant was no longer there. I then made my way to the 5 Freeway and headed south.
I suddenly became aware that on each side of me were two very large vehicles – a truck and a bus. Yet each had something about it that brought to my mind the L.A. Times paragraph of a few days before about the Harrison interview. The truck had the word “Werner” in big letters on the side - the friend whose look-alike I saw a few days before had once given me ticket to see an appearance by the leader of a then-popular cult, Werner Erhardt (in fact John Denver provided Werner Erhardt with a song to debut at the gathering I attended; I was only there out of curiosity). Werner is not so unusual a thing to see on the side of a truck, not in and of itself. The bus had the word, “Oasis” painted on its side - the Harrison interview emphasized Harrison’s dislike of the music group, Oasis. Again, in and of itself, Oasis written on the side of a bus is not something I would have you regard as being so very out of the ordinary. I felt very unsettled by these two large vehicles and made a mental note of what had just happened and how it connected with the Harrison interview. Immediately following this, I was surrounded on all sides by cars with license plates that collectively brought to mind a letter Paul McCartney sent to me in 1978. The letter was on the subject of hiring me, and came under my dormitory door a week after Billy Joel had sat next to me on an airplane. As it was Labor Day Weekend and the reference 1978 letter had been on the subject of hiring me, the idea of being surrounded by cars whose license plates brought the letter to mind sort of seemed to fit, if you’ve ever experienced anything in relation to any of the world’s less conventional billionaires. For the most part I don’t remember what the license plates said specifically; what my new mental note focused on was the fact that the bus and the truck relating to the Harrison interview had been replaced by comparatively benign cars regarding McCartney.
That evening Princess Diana was killed in Paris when her car was surrounded by the cars of reporters chasing her, including a reporter from the newspaper, La Figaro.
Marie Antoinette of Austria married King Louis XVI of France because historically such marriages can create an important bridge between nations of people who might otherwise live in conflict, even war against each other. At the time of her death, Princess Diana appeared poised to enter into a most serious phase of her relationship with an internationally famous Egyptian, Dodi Al-Fayed. In fact, a few days before on the Larry King Show, Dodi Al-Fayed’s ex-fiance appeared as the guest, claiming that Princess Diana had stolen him from her.
If one can imagine people in this world with a fanatically serious wish to prevent a bridge between Arabic people and the Western world, one might see the question of responsibility for the death of Princess Diana as being worthy of scrutiny beyond that which takes place in the tabloids. And those with something serious to add to this discussion should not deserve to be cast into the role of tabloid mongerers.
Part 2 – The Death of the Mother of the Duchess of York
Approximately one year later, on September 19, 1998, Susan Barrantes, the mother of the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, was killed in what was regarded as (investigated as) a car accident. I experienced a similar series of events on that day as I had a year before.
While driving to San Diego from Los Angeles I saw a few license plates that brought to mind something of personal significance from when I attended CalArts, the word “Ziggy”. Hours and hours later, on the way back from San Diego, I saw a few more license plates that also suggested this word (such as “ZIG SKI”). I also saw license plates that brought Mickey Mouse to mind (CalArts has often been referred to as Mickey Mouse U, owing to the involvement of the Disneys with the school).
Part 3 - The Ziggy Connection
During the 1970s while attending CalArts, a friend of mine, Al Goulder, had a kind of bird that originates from Australia, a cockateel, who was named Ziggy. I took care of Ziggy for him over Christmas break one year. Al Goulder’s roommate was Steve Holland, who went on to make a number of movies. He wrote and directed “Better Off Dead”, made in 1985, which co-starred Curtis Armstrong. In that same year Curtis Armstrong began co-starring with Bruce Willis in the TV show, “Moonlighting”. In 1986 Steve Holland wrote and directed, “One Crazy Summer”, which co-starred Demi Moore, who married Bruce Willis in 1987. Bruce Willis played a character in the TV show “Moonlighting” named David Addison from 1985 to 1989.
September 19th was also the anniversary of Mickey Mouse’s debut, in a cartoon entitled, “Steamboat Willie”. Some are aware (particularly in Great Britain) that Sarah Ferguson created a cartoon character named Budgie The Little Helicopter, named after a bird that originates from Australia, called a budgie.
Part 4 - Why Bruce Willis Is Relevant
On August 31, 2005, the anniversary of Princess Diana’s death, the media carried the story of how Taliban terrorists had taken a soldier hostage (he was killed a few days later), a soldier with the recognizable name of David Addison (the same name as the Bruce Willis character on “Moonlighting”). The following year, on Labor Day Weekend 2006, I saw a car with a license plate that read “ADDISON”, or something similar.
For a long time I have made reference to the fact that the first person from whom I ever learned of CalArts was Sean Daniel, that Sean Daniel (a Spielberg friend) makes inside references to my work in the movies he produces. Sean Daniel produced a movie released on November 14, 1997 starring Bruce Willis entitled, “The Jackal”, which has the Bruce Willis character saying, "You can't protect your women." It related to the assassination of the American First Lady.
Summation
I believe that if the true story behind the John F. Kennedy assassination is that Oswald was sent by the Russian government, the publicizing of such a fact could have resulted in the U.S. being backed into a corner where nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union would not have been particularly easy to avoid.
I believe that if the true story regarding the death of the mother of the Duchess of York is that it was caused by the same people who killed Princess Diana, massive publicizing of this fact would likely serve the purposes of the perpetrators. Furthermore, if the likes of Harrison or McCartney were to appear implicated in one or both of these deaths, again, one would likely have been led to such a conclusion by perpetrators who preconceived such a frameup.
What I believe is the value of what is reported here, therefore, is that there could be clues that could lead to the actual perpetrators, in spite of where they might want the clues to lead, and perhaps, eventually, this could prevent some future terrible event. I caution against playing into the hands of the perpetrators. Was the Barrantes death ever investigated with an eye towards the possibility of a clue that might unravel a huge mystery? No, it was thought an accident. Was the Addison death ever investigated as containing the potential to ultimately lead to the solving of the true cause of the death of Princess Diana? No, it was assumed to be a random Taliban killing. Deaths are investigated in accordance with certain preconceptions regarding what occurred. In the absence of certain theories about a murder, the investigation follows a more limited course. Correlatingly, the information here could lead to new information. I have been reluctant to present my information because it could alert the perpetrators to more perfectly bury the trail of real information. And attaching value to what I present first requires accepting the premise that my doorstep is a place where things of this significance might land.
I have often tried to demonstrate that I possess the personal credibility required to be believed as the type of person whose doorstep these clues would wind up on. Apparently my credibility is seen as too opposite to the interests of the likes of Spielberg and McCartney for anyone to come forward and admit that my doorstep would indeed become a likely repository of such information. I have other information. It is useless if my premise is not appreciated. Why would these clues be left for me? When did I ever prove my importance in relation to McCartney, Spielberg and others? The coverup of my importance has for some time now become a significant part of the coverup of things that the world needs investigated.
In this statement, I will be combining information that is easily verifiable as fact with information that cannot be proven which you will have to take on faith, simply because many of the things that happen in this world cannot be proven (will you be able to prove tomorrow that you were sitting down while reading this today?).
The easily verifiable facts alone will ultimately be enough to prove that there is much in what I say.
Part 1 – The Death of Princess Diana
During the last week of August, 1997 I was having a conversation with someone I knew who was also a friend of Blues legend BB King. I described an experience once described to me by Howard Worth, who made the movie, “Raga”, about Ravi Shankar, how George Harrison had come through for him in getting his movie the money needed to complete it. A few days following this August 1997 conversation, George Harrison gave an interview to the French newspaper, La Figaro, and based on my (extraordinary) experiences, I had to wonder if what I'd said hadn’t influenced Harrison to give an interview. The day after the Harrison interview, a paragraph summarizing it was featured in the L.A. Times. It is perhaps relevant that, in 2000, BB King and Eric Clapton made an album together, “Riding With The King”. Eric Clapton is historically known to have been a longtime close friend of George Harrison (despite Clapton’s ultimately causing Harrison’s divorce and marrying Harrison’s ex-wife).
The next day I saw on my way to work a look-alike of someone I knew years before (unless it was the actual person, I could not tell, however, the resemblance, in terms of certain unusual, identifiable features, was obvious). This person was my friend when I attended CalArts, and had for a roommate a woman who worked in the secretary pool for George Harrison’s record company, Dark Horse. George Harrison married a girl from the secretary pool at Dark Horse. Olivia Harrison may actually have been the roommate of my friend, I wish I could say with certainty one way or the other.
As a secretly important person, I have for a long time been accustomed to being followed wherever I go. I thought it might make things interesting to begin this particular three-day Labor Day Weekend (Saturday, August 30th) by going to a place I sometimes went when I was a student at CalArts during the 1970s, the La Figaro Restaurant in Los Angeles, where the menus were formatted like the French newspaper for which the restaurant was named. The restaurant was no longer there. I then made my way to the 5 Freeway and headed south.
I suddenly became aware that on each side of me were two very large vehicles – a truck and a bus. Yet each had something about it that brought to my mind the L.A. Times paragraph of a few days before about the Harrison interview. The truck had the word “Werner” in big letters on the side - the friend whose look-alike I saw a few days before had once given me ticket to see an appearance by the leader of a then-popular cult, Werner Erhardt (in fact John Denver provided Werner Erhardt with a song to debut at the gathering I attended; I was only there out of curiosity). Werner is not so unusual a thing to see on the side of a truck, not in and of itself. The bus had the word, “Oasis” painted on its side - the Harrison interview emphasized Harrison’s dislike of the music group, Oasis. Again, in and of itself, Oasis written on the side of a bus is not something I would have you regard as being so very out of the ordinary. I felt very unsettled by these two large vehicles and made a mental note of what had just happened and how it connected with the Harrison interview. Immediately following this, I was surrounded on all sides by cars with license plates that collectively brought to mind a letter Paul McCartney sent to me in 1978. The letter was on the subject of hiring me, and came under my dormitory door a week after Billy Joel had sat next to me on an airplane. As it was Labor Day Weekend and the reference 1978 letter had been on the subject of hiring me, the idea of being surrounded by cars whose license plates brought the letter to mind sort of seemed to fit, if you’ve ever experienced anything in relation to any of the world’s less conventional billionaires. For the most part I don’t remember what the license plates said specifically; what my new mental note focused on was the fact that the bus and the truck relating to the Harrison interview had been replaced by comparatively benign cars regarding McCartney.
That evening Princess Diana was killed in Paris when her car was surrounded by the cars of reporters chasing her, including a reporter from the newspaper, La Figaro.
Marie Antoinette of Austria married King Louis XVI of France because historically such marriages can create an important bridge between nations of people who might otherwise live in conflict, even war against each other. At the time of her death, Princess Diana appeared poised to enter into a most serious phase of her relationship with an internationally famous Egyptian, Dodi Al-Fayed. In fact, a few days before on the Larry King Show, Dodi Al-Fayed’s ex-fiance appeared as the guest, claiming that Princess Diana had stolen him from her.
If one can imagine people in this world with a fanatically serious wish to prevent a bridge between Arabic people and the Western world, one might see the question of responsibility for the death of Princess Diana as being worthy of scrutiny beyond that which takes place in the tabloids. And those with something serious to add to this discussion should not deserve to be cast into the role of tabloid mongerers.
Part 2 – The Death of the Mother of the Duchess of York
Approximately one year later, on September 19, 1998, Susan Barrantes, the mother of the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, was killed in what was regarded as (investigated as) a car accident. I experienced a similar series of events on that day as I had a year before.
While driving to San Diego from Los Angeles I saw a few license plates that brought to mind something of personal significance from when I attended CalArts, the word “Ziggy”. Hours and hours later, on the way back from San Diego, I saw a few more license plates that also suggested this word (such as “ZIG SKI”). I also saw license plates that brought Mickey Mouse to mind (CalArts has often been referred to as Mickey Mouse U, owing to the involvement of the Disneys with the school).
Part 3 - The Ziggy Connection
During the 1970s while attending CalArts, a friend of mine, Al Goulder, had a kind of bird that originates from Australia, a cockateel, who was named Ziggy. I took care of Ziggy for him over Christmas break one year. Al Goulder’s roommate was Steve Holland, who went on to make a number of movies. He wrote and directed “Better Off Dead”, made in 1985, which co-starred Curtis Armstrong. In that same year Curtis Armstrong began co-starring with Bruce Willis in the TV show, “Moonlighting”. In 1986 Steve Holland wrote and directed, “One Crazy Summer”, which co-starred Demi Moore, who married Bruce Willis in 1987. Bruce Willis played a character in the TV show “Moonlighting” named David Addison from 1985 to 1989.
September 19th was also the anniversary of Mickey Mouse’s debut, in a cartoon entitled, “Steamboat Willie”. Some are aware (particularly in Great Britain) that Sarah Ferguson created a cartoon character named Budgie The Little Helicopter, named after a bird that originates from Australia, called a budgie.
Part 4 - Why Bruce Willis Is Relevant
On August 31, 2005, the anniversary of Princess Diana’s death, the media carried the story of how Taliban terrorists had taken a soldier hostage (he was killed a few days later), a soldier with the recognizable name of David Addison (the same name as the Bruce Willis character on “Moonlighting”). The following year, on Labor Day Weekend 2006, I saw a car with a license plate that read “ADDISON”, or something similar.
For a long time I have made reference to the fact that the first person from whom I ever learned of CalArts was Sean Daniel, that Sean Daniel (a Spielberg friend) makes inside references to my work in the movies he produces. Sean Daniel produced a movie released on November 14, 1997 starring Bruce Willis entitled, “The Jackal”, which has the Bruce Willis character saying, "You can't protect your women." It related to the assassination of the American First Lady.
Summation
I believe that if the true story behind the John F. Kennedy assassination is that Oswald was sent by the Russian government, the publicizing of such a fact could have resulted in the U.S. being backed into a corner where nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union would not have been particularly easy to avoid.
I believe that if the true story regarding the death of the mother of the Duchess of York is that it was caused by the same people who killed Princess Diana, massive publicizing of this fact would likely serve the purposes of the perpetrators. Furthermore, if the likes of Harrison or McCartney were to appear implicated in one or both of these deaths, again, one would likely have been led to such a conclusion by perpetrators who preconceived such a frameup.
What I believe is the value of what is reported here, therefore, is that there could be clues that could lead to the actual perpetrators, in spite of where they might want the clues to lead, and perhaps, eventually, this could prevent some future terrible event. I caution against playing into the hands of the perpetrators. Was the Barrantes death ever investigated with an eye towards the possibility of a clue that might unravel a huge mystery? No, it was thought an accident. Was the Addison death ever investigated as containing the potential to ultimately lead to the solving of the true cause of the death of Princess Diana? No, it was assumed to be a random Taliban killing. Deaths are investigated in accordance with certain preconceptions regarding what occurred. In the absence of certain theories about a murder, the investigation follows a more limited course. Correlatingly, the information here could lead to new information. I have been reluctant to present my information because it could alert the perpetrators to more perfectly bury the trail of real information. And attaching value to what I present first requires accepting the premise that my doorstep is a place where things of this significance might land.
I have often tried to demonstrate that I possess the personal credibility required to be believed as the type of person whose doorstep these clues would wind up on. Apparently my credibility is seen as too opposite to the interests of the likes of Spielberg and McCartney for anyone to come forward and admit that my doorstep would indeed become a likely repository of such information. I have other information. It is useless if my premise is not appreciated. Why would these clues be left for me? When did I ever prove my importance in relation to McCartney, Spielberg and others? The coverup of my importance has for some time now become a significant part of the coverup of things that the world needs investigated.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Imagine That
Not a whole lot for me to be pointing at at this very moment, as far as I know.
Let’s see, we had the title of my previous, February 24th blog being “Like In That Beatles Song”, and the very next day, February 25th, Supreme Court Justice Alito renders a decision by putting things in the context of what it might mean to reference a John Lennon song. I consider myself very much on the left of the political spectrum, generally (though I don’t always accept conventional definitions of what issues fall where on the political spectrum, preferring to use my own mind), however, there is a substantial history of major Republicans referencing my material: George W. Bush, Trent Lott, Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain. Perhaps it’s word of mouth, related to the fact that everybody everywhere references my material, from rock superstars to film directors to TV shows to leaders of foreign nations to Democrats. All of this weighs very much in favor of the conclusion that Alito’s action the day following my action, both actions not merely regarding references to Beatle songs, but rather the concept of referencing Beatle songs, was apropos of my previous blog title.
If that was a difficult one to follow, this next one will certainly throw you.
Let’s see, we had the title of my previous, February 24th blog being “Like In That Beatles Song”, and the very next day, February 25th, Supreme Court Justice Alito renders a decision by putting things in the context of what it might mean to reference a John Lennon song. I consider myself very much on the left of the political spectrum, generally (though I don’t always accept conventional definitions of what issues fall where on the political spectrum, preferring to use my own mind), however, there is a substantial history of major Republicans referencing my material: George W. Bush, Trent Lott, Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain. Perhaps it’s word of mouth, related to the fact that everybody everywhere references my material, from rock superstars to film directors to TV shows to leaders of foreign nations to Democrats. All of this weighs very much in favor of the conclusion that Alito’s action the day following my action, both actions not merely regarding references to Beatle songs, but rather the concept of referencing Beatle songs, was apropos of my previous blog title.
If that was a difficult one to follow, this next one will certainly throw you.
- I begin by drawing your attention to my videoclip regarding the final episode of the TV show “Friends”, which starred Jennifer Aniston and others. Ever since my 1998 “Gosk 2” sci-fi comedy video, which included in a starring role someone who was friendly with Arquettes and other “Friends” people, there were quite a number of references to my material on that show (only a few prior to “Gosk 2”, including an entire storyline contained within the initial “we were on a break” episode). On the referenced videoclip, they made a game of using one of the made-up words in “Gosk” a few episodes prior to the final one, and then on the final episode gave center stage importance to the power of a made-up word to catalyze events. The question was thereby raised of whether a new made-up word (or possibly not new for viewers of “Gosk”) would get Rachel off the plane the second time (as a made-up word had at one point in that episode), to reunite with Ross for the climax of the series (I said series, not episode). Had such a word been called into play, we can be certain that it would be a word instantly made part of the English language, for its “Friends” significance. Had such a word demonstrably originated with me, I imagine it would have become trivia difficult to suppress.
- Jason Lee’s show, “My Name Is Earl” is the result of a story idea I submitted to the person (Sean Daniel, first person from whom I learned of CalArts, the school I attended) who produced the first big movie Lee was in, “Mallrats”, which was itself named after my video, “Mall Man”. As mentioned in a videoclip posting of mine on YouTube, that several-page story idea of mine contained six references to chipmunk talk. The announcement that Lee would be in the movie, “Alvin And The Chipmunks”, came years after my story idea that led to his “Earl”.
- Jack Black often makes references to my material, in his work and his talk show appearances. Some see Black as part of the Stiller/Cornfeld group (Cornfeld is referred to in a few of my other blogs).
- When Aniston and Black together presented an award during the Oscars a week ago, I was struck less by what they said as much as by the omission of a word. Black began by saying that this year in animation we’ve seen talking squirrels. Squirrels are so close to chipmunks, that in the movie, “Alvin and the Chipmunks,” the association of the two species is referred to several times. I was left wondering why Jack Black of all people should be off by one word this way, off, that is, in terms of missing a chance to make an inside reference to things related to my material. It took several days, but it finally occurred to me, he must have learned this from Jennifer Aniston.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
