I seem to be at the part of the wheel where I can only faintly-sorta-kinda point to verifiable references by others to me/my material, as opposed to, say, my references to the "Simpsons" season finale (my blogs of May 18th and 23rd), where you would have to be partially stupid to feel no real evidence of Steinhoff inside-references was offered.
Oil Painting Leak
In the very beginning of my May 23rd blog ("Can't Say For Certain Whether Or Not Oliver Twist Would Have Wanted More Of This"), I build upon what I construed as a possible inside-reference by Paul McCartney to the Beatles song "Paperback Writer", a song which I was an influence on. Evidence that I was reacting to the idea of the song "Paperback Writer" on May 23rd may be found by going to my YouTube posting of May 23rd, "Notes From The". The video there relates to too many pages to read in connection with McCartney. As we all know, "Paperback Writer" contains the line, "It's a thousand pages," meant to express the idea of too many pages.
We then see that just three days later on May 26th Paul McCartney gave an interview to the Telegraph, wherein he discusses well known artists in connection with his purchase of their works. Should you at this point take the trouble to go to my January 10, 2010 blog (also posted/copyrighted at archive.org in Volume 3 of the collected texts of my blogs), in the section entitled, "The President, Terrorism and Baby Oil?", you will see that I bring up "Paperback Writer" specifically in connection to Paul McCartney's purchase of the works of artist Francis Bacon. I should or should not perhaps add that the May 26th McCartney interview includes someone saying that, in telling anecdotes, McCartney isn't good at self-editing, which I believe could possibly be there to bring to mind endless pages/a thousand pages.
His Master's Void
This one is for those who recall evidence presented in previous blogs that Russell Crowe movies are sometimes found to contain inside-references to me/my material. On this basis, I consider it legitimate to ask people to take my word on something difficult to prove to the public-at-large. And by "difficult to prove to the public-at-large," what I mean is, people only started posting videos in 2005 (evidencing in 2005 at least something regarding how long ago such videos were made), so videos I made before 2005 cannot be proven to the public-at-large as having been made before that, as I didn't post them until 2005, and they received no theatrical release. (As for those who saw my videos prior to 2005, you do have proof of their being made before 2005 - perhaps someone needs to give you a calculator?)
Specifically, my "Gosk 1" video (1994), which can be found at archive.org, has Clerp all excited about a threat to the spacecraft that he sees on the monitor, a meteor in the distance. After dramatically steering around the perceived (by Clerp) threat, Jerp expresses that he didn't see anything at all, but Clerp replies with, "Oh yeah, it was coming right at us." In the 2003 Russell Crowe movie, "Master and Commander," someone sees a threatening ship through a telescope, however, the Russell Crowe character sees nothing through the telescope, and expresses this to the person who said he saw it. The person who said he saw the threatening ship reaffirms his assertion, he is sure he saw something.
In and of itself one would not have to regard this as a reference to "Gosk 1", however, one's perspective should be informed by the context: there are a number of significant references to my material in Russell Crowe movies (particularly the ones he made with Ridley Scott, and also Ridley Scott movies that don't have Russell Crowe acting in them, though this Russell Crowe movie was not directed by Scott).
Am I Read
Without going into endless detail, I believe that, following my making a reference to Don Rickles in a comment to a Huffington Post article (as JonathanDS), he in turn made an inside-reference for my benefit in his Letterman appearance several days ago. It tied in with the inside-references for my benefit whenever Philbin is on Letterman in relation to a woman I knew to whom Philbin once introduced himself. Further on this same subject, while eating lobster today in a restaurant, I saw someone who brought a certain JH to mind, which is someone I think of in connection with a certain LW, which connects back to the whole Philbin and Letterman thing, and to lobster.
Hickery Dickery Tusk
I seriously do not know if that was Kiefer Sutherland who drove by me today, wearing sunglasses in an expensive silver car. This could be most significant, it being that my May 26th blog suggests, at least to those who have been paying me serious attention, that the final seven or so "24" episodes, which were about Jack Bauer's emotional involvement with a woman possibly causing him to cease to be the ultra-responsible Jack Bauer, began with my Jack Bauer suggestion for "SNL". As mentioned, I cannot say it was necessarily he, however, if it was and I were to make no acknowledgment here of any kind of having possibly noticed him, it would be an act of omission, or whatever that form of irresponsibility is called.
Real Time Is On My Side
And finally, I believe Bill Maher has on his past several "Real Time" shows been making little references to little things I've included in HuffPost comments. It is nothing new for Bill Maher to include me in some way, but I don't know if I need to go into detail each time.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tusk
I'm beginning to think they chose last Friday to release "MacGruber" just so that people have something to contrast against the intensity of a character like Jack Bauer in "24". I personally am no fan of SNL's "MacGruber" sketches, though am open to the possibility that the movie will have something stronger going for it. I will wait until it shows up on TV, which, who knows, could be in several months?
It's been two days and 18 minutes since "24" ended, and unlike my blog posting six minutes after it ended, I have now truly allowed enough time for all the wisdom of the ages to seep in and inform my perspective on what else they might have included for my benefit. Yes, there is more than I told you of last time.
If you research various blog postings of mine (try volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the collected postings of my blogs - text only - at archive.org, do word searches, try to keep up), you will find that I've made a certain number of references to a former CalArts classmate of mine who was a friend of Senator Ted Kennedy. You will not get me to divulge this person's identity, I shall regard it as a certain kind of secret. However, I will mention here that they named the Hart Building in Washington D.C. after his father, who co-sponsored innumerable bills with Kennedy.
When they brought the Hart Building from Washington D.C. to New York City for the "24" series finale, it did make me think of this person. There were no visible senators in the building as there would have been had it remained in D.C., yet I recognized the reference just the same, as I'm sure every Senator did as well, not to mention every Congressman, and also, I imagine, my former classmate's brother, cousins, etc. Perhaps others as well. One often hears of the Hart Building, and as no building with that name actually exists in New York City, one is confronted with the fact that "24" is entitling itself to copy and paste a little, or maybe cut and paste, not that actual Congressmen had to go along for the ride. It's the thought that counts.
In my previous blog I observed how the series finale of "24" brought to mind (my mind) another former CalArts classmate of mine, Henry Golas. I therefore had to stop for a moment and think. What did Henry ever have to do with this other person, if anything? Is there some well known project they both worked on together, and am I meant to go there? Something that will sooner or later surface in my thoughts "of itself" as a result of "24" bringing both of them to mind on this most important episode? Yes. Several years ago, two of the three CalArts Alumni heading the CalArts Alumni Association were these two people. Okay, where exactly does that lead, if anywhere? (Nowhere, at least, not if you can't believe me, despite all the things I am able to prove in my blogs, because, here we have something that requires the average reader to take my word.)
Alumni Association spells reunion (by the way, I do not plan on attending the upcoming CalArts reunion, so worry not, all ye who fear elephants in the room who are secretly super-important in relation to Spielberg and McCartney yet go unacknowledged and therefore might fit the profile of dangerous malcontents demanding justice from those in a position to take action). That's kind of what alumni associations generally bring to mind: reunions.
And it so happens that "24" therefore brought something very specific to mind (my mind) - a "Saturday Night Live" contribution I had sent in (to my secret SNL sorta kinda connections). The email went to Stuart Cornfeld and Sean Daniel, it was dated 9/28/07, and the subject line was, "How I Learned To Stop Worrying". SNL always seems to find something to do with what I send in, which tended to compel me to keep sending in stuff. In those days I felt more compelled than now, in fact, it helped me work on stuff that I later did stuff with on my own.
"A man goes to his high school reunion. Everyone is instantly put in mind of his legendary romantic drama of many years before, wherein he and his high school sweetheart had a big falling out, leading to all kinds of romantic and dramatic stuff. But he is not going to his high school reunion because of this, he is on a mission to save the world from blowing up. It is very complicated and impossible for anyone to believe that his going to this high school reunion can exist in relation to something larger than a romantic experience, and so he has no shortage of obstacles to overcome in making his circumstance understood. Then the band plays 'their song', he succombs, dances with his high school sweetheart, and the world blows up."
Detecting a reason to believe that this did not go unnoticed (as I always do with these things), on October 8, 2007 I responded to SNL's response to this idea with another email to the same two people (whom I had sorta known at certain times during the '70s before they were among the world's biggest film producers and Spielberg inner circle folk), and provide here the following excerpt:
"I actually pre-anticipated that this would get translated by SNL into a 'McGruber' sketch. On the second SNL episode of the season there were a set of 'McGruber' sketches, and so I immediately anticipated one would feature McGruber getting sidetracked by a high school romance-type concern. Sure enough, in one of the 'McGruber' sketches McGruber insists he be referred to as extremely young, that his team pretend to be his parents, and then a high school-type girlfriend is all excited about getting tickets for Dave Matthews, which is enough to sidetrack McGruber and the place blows up."
In other words, the secret agent character's return to his younger self caused his older self to take its eyes off the ball.
It was a more obvious use of my "suggestion" when a week or two before the opening sketch of the first SNL of the season was about an auction, after I had sent in an auction sketch just weeks before. The masking of the reunion idea was nevertheless obvious enough to me, even with Jack Bauer turned into MacGruber.
It's been two days and 18 minutes since "24" ended, and unlike my blog posting six minutes after it ended, I have now truly allowed enough time for all the wisdom of the ages to seep in and inform my perspective on what else they might have included for my benefit. Yes, there is more than I told you of last time.
If you research various blog postings of mine (try volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the collected postings of my blogs - text only - at archive.org, do word searches, try to keep up), you will find that I've made a certain number of references to a former CalArts classmate of mine who was a friend of Senator Ted Kennedy. You will not get me to divulge this person's identity, I shall regard it as a certain kind of secret. However, I will mention here that they named the Hart Building in Washington D.C. after his father, who co-sponsored innumerable bills with Kennedy.
When they brought the Hart Building from Washington D.C. to New York City for the "24" series finale, it did make me think of this person. There were no visible senators in the building as there would have been had it remained in D.C., yet I recognized the reference just the same, as I'm sure every Senator did as well, not to mention every Congressman, and also, I imagine, my former classmate's brother, cousins, etc. Perhaps others as well. One often hears of the Hart Building, and as no building with that name actually exists in New York City, one is confronted with the fact that "24" is entitling itself to copy and paste a little, or maybe cut and paste, not that actual Congressmen had to go along for the ride. It's the thought that counts.
In my previous blog I observed how the series finale of "24" brought to mind (my mind) another former CalArts classmate of mine, Henry Golas. I therefore had to stop for a moment and think. What did Henry ever have to do with this other person, if anything? Is there some well known project they both worked on together, and am I meant to go there? Something that will sooner or later surface in my thoughts "of itself" as a result of "24" bringing both of them to mind on this most important episode? Yes. Several years ago, two of the three CalArts Alumni heading the CalArts Alumni Association were these two people. Okay, where exactly does that lead, if anywhere? (Nowhere, at least, not if you can't believe me, despite all the things I am able to prove in my blogs, because, here we have something that requires the average reader to take my word.)
Alumni Association spells reunion (by the way, I do not plan on attending the upcoming CalArts reunion, so worry not, all ye who fear elephants in the room who are secretly super-important in relation to Spielberg and McCartney yet go unacknowledged and therefore might fit the profile of dangerous malcontents demanding justice from those in a position to take action). That's kind of what alumni associations generally bring to mind: reunions.
And it so happens that "24" therefore brought something very specific to mind (my mind) - a "Saturday Night Live" contribution I had sent in (to my secret SNL sorta kinda connections). The email went to Stuart Cornfeld and Sean Daniel, it was dated 9/28/07, and the subject line was, "How I Learned To Stop Worrying". SNL always seems to find something to do with what I send in, which tended to compel me to keep sending in stuff. In those days I felt more compelled than now, in fact, it helped me work on stuff that I later did stuff with on my own.
"'Jack Bauer Ditches His High School Sweetheart'"
"a comedy sketch idea, copyright 9/28/07, Jonathan D. Steinhoff"
"a comedy sketch idea, copyright 9/28/07, Jonathan D. Steinhoff"
"A man goes to his high school reunion. Everyone is instantly put in mind of his legendary romantic drama of many years before, wherein he and his high school sweetheart had a big falling out, leading to all kinds of romantic and dramatic stuff. But he is not going to his high school reunion because of this, he is on a mission to save the world from blowing up. It is very complicated and impossible for anyone to believe that his going to this high school reunion can exist in relation to something larger than a romantic experience, and so he has no shortage of obstacles to overcome in making his circumstance understood. Then the band plays 'their song', he succombs, dances with his high school sweetheart, and the world blows up."
Detecting a reason to believe that this did not go unnoticed (as I always do with these things), on October 8, 2007 I responded to SNL's response to this idea with another email to the same two people (whom I had sorta known at certain times during the '70s before they were among the world's biggest film producers and Spielberg inner circle folk), and provide here the following excerpt:
"I actually pre-anticipated that this would get translated by SNL into a 'McGruber' sketch. On the second SNL episode of the season there were a set of 'McGruber' sketches, and so I immediately anticipated one would feature McGruber getting sidetracked by a high school romance-type concern. Sure enough, in one of the 'McGruber' sketches McGruber insists he be referred to as extremely young, that his team pretend to be his parents, and then a high school-type girlfriend is all excited about getting tickets for Dave Matthews, which is enough to sidetrack McGruber and the place blows up."
In other words, the secret agent character's return to his younger self caused his older self to take its eyes off the ball.
It was a more obvious use of my "suggestion" when a week or two before the opening sketch of the first SNL of the season was about an auction, after I had sent in an auction sketch just weeks before. The masking of the reunion idea was nevertheless obvious enough to me, even with Jack Bauer turned into MacGruber.
Monday, May 24, 2010
The Secret Is Out There
One Man's Poison Is Another Man's Historical TV Show Episode
Now that "24" is in the past, about six minutes in the past, I feel I've let enough time go by to share something that happened on the show 12 minutes before it was over.
You may first want to bear in mind that, unless my eyes deceived me, Kiefer Sutherland drove by me the day they announced the show was over (see my blog of that day); and the star of "House" drove by me a hundred miles from L.A. the day a USA Today article on "24" described one of the reasons given for ending the show was to have a better lead-in for "House" (see my blog of that day). Also, I've occasionally mentioned "24" in my blogs at various other times - to research, go to archive.org and find where I've posted several volumes of my collected blogs ("Jonathan D. Steinhoff's Sometimes Blog, Volume 1", etc.), and do a word search - or just rummage around here at Blogspot for the original blog postings.
It had recently occurred to me that, with this somewhat special "24" attention I was getting, it seemed a little out of the ordinary that so much time had gone by since they had made an inside-reference to my material. This made it seem more likely that they were waiting for the final episode. And sure enough, I have come to the objective conclusion that this is exactly what happened.
Twelve minutes before the end, as they were taking away that woman who was at CTU working on behalf of that former president who reminds me of Nixon, she said something that immediately brought to mind my 1978 CalArts video, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly," which I've also mentioned here and there in a few blogs. "Take your hands off of me," she shouted as they were leading her away in handcuffs. It was very close to the way the star of my video, Henry Golas (who was once Groucho Marx' right hand), intoned the words, "Take your grubby hands off of me," as they were leading him away to be tortured.
So I started to think. Because this is the exact kind of short-hand used to put my mind on track with something, which then leads me to something else, which they had waiting for me. It would not count as a reference in and of itself, that would be way too thin. Unless there was some other thing that belonged alongside it, so that, cumulatively, they would be revealed as having deliberately brought something in particular to mind.
But what? And then it became obvious, and clearly the point, and clearly one I had discovered through objective thought, rather than by some stretch.
In "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly," we find a future scenario in which only one person alive still knows how to play Monopoly (trademark Parker Bros.). And so they must make him talk, they have to make him talk. They have the Monopoly board, the Monopoly pieces - it must be made to work. But he doesn't want to talk. In his words, "It's a terrible game! A horrible game!" He did not want the seed of the precepts of capitalism to reenter this future world through the gate of knowledge that was the rules of how to play Monopoly (trademark Parker Bros.), - at least, that is one take on the significance of his resolve not to release the secret. So they take him to a room and begin chanting over and over, "We wanna play Monopoly! We wanna play Monopoly!" Until finally, he cracks. "Alright! I'll teach you! Just stop torturing me!" he shouts. This is the one work of mine that contains an unmistakable parallel (semi-parallel) to the thing about "24" that has made that show so controversial.
That's My Story And They're Sticking To Something That's Not Entirely Different, At Least In Terms Of The Idea For The Title
In 1978 I gave a copy of "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly" to then non-producer Sean Daniel, who was the first person who told me of the school I had just graduated from, CalArts. At the time he was Universal's spokesman for the first Robert Zemeckis movie, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". When Zemeckis later made "Back To The Future," wherein the movie title camps up confusion of past and present tenses owing to "future" being in the title, I knew why it reminded me of, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly." But that's another story.
Now that "24" is in the past, about six minutes in the past, I feel I've let enough time go by to share something that happened on the show 12 minutes before it was over.
You may first want to bear in mind that, unless my eyes deceived me, Kiefer Sutherland drove by me the day they announced the show was over (see my blog of that day); and the star of "House" drove by me a hundred miles from L.A. the day a USA Today article on "24" described one of the reasons given for ending the show was to have a better lead-in for "House" (see my blog of that day). Also, I've occasionally mentioned "24" in my blogs at various other times - to research, go to archive.org and find where I've posted several volumes of my collected blogs ("Jonathan D. Steinhoff's Sometimes Blog, Volume 1", etc.), and do a word search - or just rummage around here at Blogspot for the original blog postings.
It had recently occurred to me that, with this somewhat special "24" attention I was getting, it seemed a little out of the ordinary that so much time had gone by since they had made an inside-reference to my material. This made it seem more likely that they were waiting for the final episode. And sure enough, I have come to the objective conclusion that this is exactly what happened.
Twelve minutes before the end, as they were taking away that woman who was at CTU working on behalf of that former president who reminds me of Nixon, she said something that immediately brought to mind my 1978 CalArts video, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly," which I've also mentioned here and there in a few blogs. "Take your hands off of me," she shouted as they were leading her away in handcuffs. It was very close to the way the star of my video, Henry Golas (who was once Groucho Marx' right hand), intoned the words, "Take your grubby hands off of me," as they were leading him away to be tortured.
So I started to think. Because this is the exact kind of short-hand used to put my mind on track with something, which then leads me to something else, which they had waiting for me. It would not count as a reference in and of itself, that would be way too thin. Unless there was some other thing that belonged alongside it, so that, cumulatively, they would be revealed as having deliberately brought something in particular to mind.
But what? And then it became obvious, and clearly the point, and clearly one I had discovered through objective thought, rather than by some stretch.
In "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly," we find a future scenario in which only one person alive still knows how to play Monopoly (trademark Parker Bros.). And so they must make him talk, they have to make him talk. They have the Monopoly board, the Monopoly pieces - it must be made to work. But he doesn't want to talk. In his words, "It's a terrible game! A horrible game!" He did not want the seed of the precepts of capitalism to reenter this future world through the gate of knowledge that was the rules of how to play Monopoly (trademark Parker Bros.), - at least, that is one take on the significance of his resolve not to release the secret. So they take him to a room and begin chanting over and over, "We wanna play Monopoly! We wanna play Monopoly!" Until finally, he cracks. "Alright! I'll teach you! Just stop torturing me!" he shouts. This is the one work of mine that contains an unmistakable parallel (semi-parallel) to the thing about "24" that has made that show so controversial.
That's My Story And They're Sticking To Something That's Not Entirely Different, At Least In Terms Of The Idea For The Title
In 1978 I gave a copy of "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly" to then non-producer Sean Daniel, who was the first person who told me of the school I had just graduated from, CalArts. At the time he was Universal's spokesman for the first Robert Zemeckis movie, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". When Zemeckis later made "Back To The Future," wherein the movie title camps up confusion of past and present tenses owing to "future" being in the title, I knew why it reminded me of, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly." But that's another story.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Who Has The Floor
Can't Say For Certain Whether Or Not Oliver Twist Would Have Wanted More Of This First, a follow-up to my immediately preceding blog (May 21, the "Count On It" section) - something I posted earlier today on YouTube, "Notes From The".
More specifically, this regards the homework I gave myself in case I should get invited to Paul McCartney's 68th birthday party June 18 and he wants to talk with me about Charles Dickens and/or the time we were together in the Baker Street Underground Station in May 1983.
Take Camera One
In my blog that immediately preceded my immediately preceding blog (May 18, to put it simply), I included a side-by-side image comparison that demonstrated how a preview commercial regarding the then-upcoming "Simpsons" season finale (aired tonight) contained something I originated in my "Frozen" video posted at archive.org in March 2007. This same video of mine, which has Paul McCartney depicted as sitting on the arm of a sofa while the other three fit on the sofa itself, was behind what McCartney did for his "Memory Almost Full" album cover, as I describe in a pdf I posted a while back at archive.org, "McCartney and Steinhoff, An Introduction". This is from that pdf:
This is one of many instances where I can clearly demonstrate to the astute among us the significant influence I have on Paul McCartney. And it being that this year's season finale of "The Simpsons" was referring to my "Frozen" video, I therefore looked to see if the episode might also include other things regarding my video. I believe the part in tonight's episode where Moe could not find a chair answers that question:
As I've mentioned in previous blogs, "The Simpsons" is among a number of significant things on the entertainment industry landscape that refer to me/my material. One of the main directors of "The Simpsons", Mark Kirkland, used to live down the hall from me at CalArts during the '70s, and though we did not particularly know each other, we did know many people in common. There is a bit in the sequence that opens every "Simpsons" episode that includes an inside-reference regarding me.We Now Turn To Page One Million In Prayer Book Four Thousand
My next "point", primarily contained in the following videoclip regarding my (perhaps very minor) influence on the May 21 season finale of "Medium", is made clearer if you go back to something I posted in my May 16th blog, in the "Smallville, Mediumville, Steinhoffville" section. [Note- I originally posted it on YouTube, however, they removed it, so I went back to the link in the May 16th blog and added the video in the blog itself.]Even then your homework would not be done, for you would also want to look further, read previous blog postings, to verify that there exists a cumulative context to support the point.
I recently read that they are considering ending (aka cancelling) this show, which would make this the last episode. I very much hope not, from my own selfish point of view, as I find this to be quite a good show. We've already got "24" ending tomorrow night, and the next season of "Smallville" being its last. Very unfair to me. Nevertheless, I shall just be philosophical about it. Just as I recognize that death permeates life, through the question mark presented by the idea of death, if for no other reason, so the inevitability of the end of these shows has never been out of the equation from day one. Perhaps after "Medium" Patricia Arquette will be moving on to an even "better fit". And if they do actually end it with the May 21 episode, I will also look forward to seeing the other cast members growing into something new.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Sands Of Time Scattered To The Wind
I Wish You Could Read
In this blog I will be primarily making the point that there is an extremely significant moment in the new Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe movie, "Robin Hood", wherein I specially share this moment with the film's creator. Either you will register this point, or you won't bother to put it together, whichever suits you.
This could be quite simple, but please, hold still, see the movie, that will help you get the point, I mean it.
I shall begin with my March 15, 2009 blog. This blog is also posted at archive.org, therefore, it is verifiable that I wrote it a while back (though not posted there on the same date I wrote it). And I know that the videoclip that blog contains is not posted at archive.org, only the blog's text. However, if you see the idea behind the videoclip, which includes material of mine posted at archive.org in 2005 (taken from my 1998 video, "Gosk 2"), you should be able to determine that the bases for what I chose to have it include are clear and would be just as recognizable even if I made that videoclip yesterday: I point out that practically every year Russell Crowe makes a movie with Ridley Scott (fact); that Ridley Scott's former assistant (and that of Ridley's brother, Tony), Terrance Williams, is in my "Gosk 2" video (fact, but one most cannot verify); and I point out that I am repeatedly provided opportunities to identify elements in the directorial work of the Scott brothers that correlate to elements in my work (fact, but the degree to which you recognize this as fact depends on your following the numerous presentations of instances of this). I also state that, though the Russell Crowe movie, "3:10 To Yuma", is not directed by Ridley Scott, it would follow that, if there is a similar such correlation to be made between something in it and something in my material, it would be something to view in the context of the Scott/Crowe relationship to my material.
That said, if you have seen the videoclip included in that 3.15.09 blog, and you have seen "Robin Hood" (Scott/Crowe), you already know the correlation to be made between a key moment in "Robin Hood" and a moment in "Gosk 2" featuring the person I assert as being the former assistant to Scott.
Can I discuss how important a moment it is in "Robin Hood" without ruining the movie? Let me put it this way: it establishes the legendary outlaw hero aspect of the Robin Hood character, and thereby fuses the character in the movie to the myth. And is essentially the film's ending. And it draws from the identical action I drew attention to in relation to Russell Crowe, in my March 15, 2009 blog's videoclip. A videoclip based on a similarity between my 2005 posting of "Gosk 2" and something that occurs in the Russell Crowe movie, "3:10 To Yuma".
Pelham 10, 9, 8
I've just posted on YouTube, "Pelham 10, 9, 8", wherein I correlate something from Tony Scott's "Pelham 123" with this same scene from "Gosk 2" that features Tony and Ridley Scott's former assistant, Terrance Williams. I first referred to this correlation in my June 14, 2009 blog, however, my point now benefits from my having been able to edit together the two scenes.
Count On It
A Rolling Stone article written yesterday regarding Paul McCartney's webchat has him saying his favorite book is Charles Dickens' Nicholas Nickelby, and that, "It's long but I really love it!" Of all the people I can think of to focus on the idea of a book being particularly long, and yet failing to state specifically whether it's a thousand pages or 15, oh well, it's not worth going on and on about I suppose. I'm sure it will have a positive effect on Dickens' career, heaven knows, I'm sure he can use the money. I hate to see someone drown like that.
In this blog I will be primarily making the point that there is an extremely significant moment in the new Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe movie, "Robin Hood", wherein I specially share this moment with the film's creator. Either you will register this point, or you won't bother to put it together, whichever suits you.
This could be quite simple, but please, hold still, see the movie, that will help you get the point, I mean it.
I shall begin with my March 15, 2009 blog. This blog is also posted at archive.org, therefore, it is verifiable that I wrote it a while back (though not posted there on the same date I wrote it). And I know that the videoclip that blog contains is not posted at archive.org, only the blog's text. However, if you see the idea behind the videoclip, which includes material of mine posted at archive.org in 2005 (taken from my 1998 video, "Gosk 2"), you should be able to determine that the bases for what I chose to have it include are clear and would be just as recognizable even if I made that videoclip yesterday: I point out that practically every year Russell Crowe makes a movie with Ridley Scott (fact); that Ridley Scott's former assistant (and that of Ridley's brother, Tony), Terrance Williams, is in my "Gosk 2" video (fact, but one most cannot verify); and I point out that I am repeatedly provided opportunities to identify elements in the directorial work of the Scott brothers that correlate to elements in my work (fact, but the degree to which you recognize this as fact depends on your following the numerous presentations of instances of this). I also state that, though the Russell Crowe movie, "3:10 To Yuma", is not directed by Ridley Scott, it would follow that, if there is a similar such correlation to be made between something in it and something in my material, it would be something to view in the context of the Scott/Crowe relationship to my material.
That said, if you have seen the videoclip included in that 3.15.09 blog, and you have seen "Robin Hood" (Scott/Crowe), you already know the correlation to be made between a key moment in "Robin Hood" and a moment in "Gosk 2" featuring the person I assert as being the former assistant to Scott.
Can I discuss how important a moment it is in "Robin Hood" without ruining the movie? Let me put it this way: it establishes the legendary outlaw hero aspect of the Robin Hood character, and thereby fuses the character in the movie to the myth. And is essentially the film's ending. And it draws from the identical action I drew attention to in relation to Russell Crowe, in my March 15, 2009 blog's videoclip. A videoclip based on a similarity between my 2005 posting of "Gosk 2" and something that occurs in the Russell Crowe movie, "3:10 To Yuma".
Pelham 10, 9, 8
I've just posted on YouTube, "Pelham 10, 9, 8", wherein I correlate something from Tony Scott's "Pelham 123" with this same scene from "Gosk 2" that features Tony and Ridley Scott's former assistant, Terrance Williams. I first referred to this correlation in my June 14, 2009 blog, however, my point now benefits from my having been able to edit together the two scenes.
Count On It
A Rolling Stone article written yesterday regarding Paul McCartney's webchat has him saying his favorite book is Charles Dickens' Nicholas Nickelby, and that, "It's long but I really love it!" Of all the people I can think of to focus on the idea of a book being particularly long, and yet failing to state specifically whether it's a thousand pages or 15, oh well, it's not worth going on and on about I suppose. I'm sure it will have a positive effect on Dickens' career, heaven knows, I'm sure he can use the money. I hate to see someone drown like that.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Worship Not False Central Point Of Focus Entities (or Idols, Whatever)
I have never actually watched the TV show, "American Idol", however: I'm sure you will be permit me to say, there's something clearly wrong about it, they should use the set for a great big burger restaurant, that's the true purpose for that space, you have to believe me, I can see into the souls of people and spaces, and know the full scope of their potential. Well, let me at least say, the show isn't suited to my taste.
Sometimes I go even deeper: It's the wrong spirit/attitude to raise/nurture when rallying the world to engage in a massive search for an entity upon whose shoulders the weight of the world might in some way, shape, manner or form rest. That's the bottom line when you're talking about the space/role to which would-be superstars aspire. I hope I will someday be forgiven for violating the populist taboo against permitting true weight-of-the-world gravitas to intrude upon the concept of music - in - relation - to - soul / oneness -with - humanity - incorporating - focus / crystallizing - on - one - single - entity.
That being said (or was it? not unless each and every one of you understood it!).....
If you are among the enormous number of people who have always hoped to have the chance to properly imagine that show's host, Simon Cowell, standing in a TV control room, yet were denied this image, it appears you have me to thank for your deliverance. Those who saw Sunday night's coming attractions for the May 23rd season finale of "The Simpsons" (to air this coming Sunday) were permitted such a glimpse - but where did this image originate is the real question for everyone to weigh in on.
First, a still image of Simon Cowell from my "Frozen" video, posted at archive.org in March 2007 (the only work of mine ever to include an image/reference to Mr. Cowell, one of the true icons representing what the world has come to):
And second, a still image, indicated as being Simon Cowell, taken from the May 16, 2010 coming attractions for the May 23rd season finale of "The Simpsons":
Should a side-by-side comparison of these images affect those who are skeptical of occasional references in my previous blogs to there being inside-references to my material showing up on "The Simpsons" - including something that regularly occurs in the current opening sequence used at the beginning of every episode? Might such skeptics, or those who profess skepticism, feel compelled to retract this disposition? Countless presentations of evidence of the veracity of my oft-repeated statement that I am secretly super-important haven't affected them yet, so surely I must always put their vote first and continue my quest for their approval. Anything less would deserve to be interpreted as my thumbing my nose at the masses. I know someday, yes someday, I will hear them shout, "D'oh!", which for me would be a dream come true, for what greater vindication is there.
In a few days, how the just-released movie, "Robin Hood," can clearly be seen to "bring me in" at a key moment (I don't mean literally, I hope you don't expect anyone to ever literally bring me in).
So that will be all for the moment. Let's not give you too strong a dose all at once.
Sometimes I go even deeper: It's the wrong spirit/attitude to raise/nurture when rallying the world to engage in a massive search for an entity upon whose shoulders the weight of the world might in some way, shape, manner or form rest. That's the bottom line when you're talking about the space/role to which would-be superstars aspire. I hope I will someday be forgiven for violating the populist taboo against permitting true weight-of-the-world gravitas to intrude upon the concept of music - in - relation - to - soul / oneness -with - humanity - incorporating - focus / crystallizing - on - one - single - entity.
That being said (or was it? not unless each and every one of you understood it!).....
If you are among the enormous number of people who have always hoped to have the chance to properly imagine that show's host, Simon Cowell, standing in a TV control room, yet were denied this image, it appears you have me to thank for your deliverance. Those who saw Sunday night's coming attractions for the May 23rd season finale of "The Simpsons" (to air this coming Sunday) were permitted such a glimpse - but where did this image originate is the real question for everyone to weigh in on.
First, a still image of Simon Cowell from my "Frozen" video, posted at archive.org in March 2007 (the only work of mine ever to include an image/reference to Mr. Cowell, one of the true icons representing what the world has come to):
And second, a still image, indicated as being Simon Cowell, taken from the May 16, 2010 coming attractions for the May 23rd season finale of "The Simpsons":
Should a side-by-side comparison of these images affect those who are skeptical of occasional references in my previous blogs to there being inside-references to my material showing up on "The Simpsons" - including something that regularly occurs in the current opening sequence used at the beginning of every episode? Might such skeptics, or those who profess skepticism, feel compelled to retract this disposition? Countless presentations of evidence of the veracity of my oft-repeated statement that I am secretly super-important haven't affected them yet, so surely I must always put their vote first and continue my quest for their approval. Anything less would deserve to be interpreted as my thumbing my nose at the masses. I know someday, yes someday, I will hear them shout, "D'oh!", which for me would be a dream come true, for what greater vindication is there.In a few days, how the just-released movie, "Robin Hood," can clearly be seen to "bring me in" at a key moment (I don't mean literally, I hope you don't expect anyone to ever literally bring me in).
So that will be all for the moment. Let's not give you too strong a dose all at once.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Follow This And That
Several things to whisper about, ranging from scarcely audible whispering to jumping up and down on the table whispering:
Smallville, Mediumville, Steinhoffville
Once again, I am pleased to say the Smallville season finale (5.14.10) has found a home for me, or, something for me, or, I've found something for them, or, we're in some strange no man's land with these little interconnections between what they're doing and what I've done, Medium being in there/out there somewhere as well. [Note- I posted my videoclip showing what I'm trying to say at YouTube (where I'm Zoomsteinhoff), however they removed it, so I've revisited this blog after its initial posting to include it here.]
Been There, Done That
I neglected to mention last time that the May 8th Saturday Night Live, in having another installment of their recurring sketch about the juvenile delinquents, was thereby doing something that originated with me. I ask you to do a search for "Bowery Boys" in the text of my earlier blogs posted at archive.org (I've posted "Jonathan D. Steinhoff's Sometimes Blog" Volumes 1, 2 and 3 there), should you be interested in what this statement is based on.
The season finale of SNL last night may or may not have been influenced by me, more specifically, my comedy sketch idea, "Beaver and Wally, The Flying Invisible Time Travelers" (posted at archive.org). In my idea, as we watch a single conversation, various changes to the present resulting from time travel continually manifest, generating aberrations to basic assumptions about the present, as the participants continue to speak in a state of total obliviousness. Same thing in last night's "Timecrowave" sketch with Alec Bladwin and Kristin Wigi.
See Where I'm Pointing, My Dear Watson
As I've described numerous times to numerous people, the first time I went to London, back in 1983, I hadn't been there one week before it's five to eleven at night and Paul McCartney and I are in the same underground station, opposite platforms (this is not my whole point, however). There was scarcely anyone else there, and sitting next me was someone dressed like Sherlock Holmes. It was the Baker Street station, Baker Street being something commonly associated with Holmes (as is Basil Rathbone, though Rathbone could also be associated as the name of the evil corporation in McCartney's "Give My Regards To Broad Street", which was released a certain number of months later). That is not my whole point either. So I turned to the Sherlock Holmes looking guy and said, "Isn't that Paul McCartney?" He needed more information. "Where?" he asked. So pretending my pointing finger was a searchlight beam, I moved my pointing finger along the near-empty opposite platform, then suddenly came to a stop on Paul McCartney. I paused a moment, then stated, "There." "Oh yes," he said, or something to that effect. It was May 13th, 1983, and I was already secretly super-important in relation to McCartney, as I am now, and would be invited in several days to a dinner party by an old friend of an old family friend, who lived next to McCartney during the '70s - so it was small surprise. This also is not my whole point. Several weeks ago, on the very same day that a news item was circulating that Steve Carell would be leaving "The Office", I somehow happened to drive by Steve Carell, who smiled at me. "The Office" people have done just this sort of thing to me before, possibly put up to it by Stuart Cornfeld (do another search) - so it was small surprise. And then, on the May 13th, 2010 episode of "The Office" (the 27th anniversary of that other stuff), this happened:
That is my point: from what I can tell, person or persons involved with "The Office" heard of my 1983 experience, including the date it happened, and did something about it. Even Sherlock Holmes himself would have been unable to imagine how something such as this could have come about. I am still arguing with myself over what might have happened.
And while this does not prove the point made in those news items about Steve Carell leaving "The Office" (let's wait and see), I, on the other hand, do plan to leave the office where I work, i.e., I am currently looking for a new job. The one where Spielberg and McCartney don't pay me anything and meanwhile terrorists leave stuff on my doorstep because of my "secret" super-importance, yet no one investigates, and people "above" me at work act REAL above me.... isn't working.
Smallville, Mediumville, Steinhoffville
Once again, I am pleased to say the Smallville season finale (5.14.10) has found a home for me, or, something for me, or, I've found something for them, or, we're in some strange no man's land with these little interconnections between what they're doing and what I've done, Medium being in there/out there somewhere as well. [Note- I posted my videoclip showing what I'm trying to say at YouTube (where I'm Zoomsteinhoff), however they removed it, so I've revisited this blog after its initial posting to include it here.]
Been There, Done That
I neglected to mention last time that the May 8th Saturday Night Live, in having another installment of their recurring sketch about the juvenile delinquents, was thereby doing something that originated with me. I ask you to do a search for "Bowery Boys" in the text of my earlier blogs posted at archive.org (I've posted "Jonathan D. Steinhoff's Sometimes Blog" Volumes 1, 2 and 3 there), should you be interested in what this statement is based on.
The season finale of SNL last night may or may not have been influenced by me, more specifically, my comedy sketch idea, "Beaver and Wally, The Flying Invisible Time Travelers" (posted at archive.org). In my idea, as we watch a single conversation, various changes to the present resulting from time travel continually manifest, generating aberrations to basic assumptions about the present, as the participants continue to speak in a state of total obliviousness. Same thing in last night's "Timecrowave" sketch with Alec Bladwin and Kristin Wigi.
See Where I'm Pointing, My Dear Watson
As I've described numerous times to numerous people, the first time I went to London, back in 1983, I hadn't been there one week before it's five to eleven at night and Paul McCartney and I are in the same underground station, opposite platforms (this is not my whole point, however). There was scarcely anyone else there, and sitting next me was someone dressed like Sherlock Holmes. It was the Baker Street station, Baker Street being something commonly associated with Holmes (as is Basil Rathbone, though Rathbone could also be associated as the name of the evil corporation in McCartney's "Give My Regards To Broad Street", which was released a certain number of months later). That is not my whole point either. So I turned to the Sherlock Holmes looking guy and said, "Isn't that Paul McCartney?" He needed more information. "Where?" he asked. So pretending my pointing finger was a searchlight beam, I moved my pointing finger along the near-empty opposite platform, then suddenly came to a stop on Paul McCartney. I paused a moment, then stated, "There." "Oh yes," he said, or something to that effect. It was May 13th, 1983, and I was already secretly super-important in relation to McCartney, as I am now, and would be invited in several days to a dinner party by an old friend of an old family friend, who lived next to McCartney during the '70s - so it was small surprise. This also is not my whole point. Several weeks ago, on the very same day that a news item was circulating that Steve Carell would be leaving "The Office", I somehow happened to drive by Steve Carell, who smiled at me. "The Office" people have done just this sort of thing to me before, possibly put up to it by Stuart Cornfeld (do another search) - so it was small surprise. And then, on the May 13th, 2010 episode of "The Office" (the 27th anniversary of that other stuff), this happened:
That is my point: from what I can tell, person or persons involved with "The Office" heard of my 1983 experience, including the date it happened, and did something about it. Even Sherlock Holmes himself would have been unable to imagine how something such as this could have come about. I am still arguing with myself over what might have happened.
And while this does not prove the point made in those news items about Steve Carell leaving "The Office" (let's wait and see), I, on the other hand, do plan to leave the office where I work, i.e., I am currently looking for a new job. The one where Spielberg and McCartney don't pay me anything and meanwhile terrorists leave stuff on my doorstep because of my "secret" super-importance, yet no one investigates, and people "above" me at work act REAL above me.... isn't working.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
No Words For What WAS Set Off
A few things, each of identical significance (or perhaps not):
New Steinhoff Song
I'm pleased to announce my newest song, "Born Ahead", which can be experienced at archive.org. I hope everyone who hears it enjoys it in the identical way and to the identical degree as everyone else who hears it (whatever way and degree that may be).
Why Is Today Different From All Other Days
As my mother passed away in February 1991, I am unable to experience this holiday in the identical way as everyone else. However, as the person who first told me of CalArts, the college I attended, is Sean Daniel (Spielberg and McCartney friend, former Lennon friend), and Sean Daniel is the producer of the "Mummy" movies, I will take this opportunity to wish him a Happy Mummy's Day. (I am not in touch with Sean, but would appreciate it if someone could pass along my message.)
Fish Wearing Goggles
The writers of the TV show "Smallville" (who also wrote "Mummy 3") have once again included an inside-reference for my benefit. However, this one is identical to the way-off-the-radar ones they do in relation to me, as opposed to being identical to the ones they do where I can point to evidence (evidence for those who know how to add 2 plus 2.2, that is). I am flying so below the public's radar here that I expect to be making more ripples in the ocean than anywhere else. Yet somehow I feel obliged to describe it, lest the powers that be (them what done it) feel I'm no fun anymore, and then what would happen to me?
I've previously described how oftentimes the "Smallville" episodes containing inside-references to me are done in conjunction with episodes of the TV show "Medium" airing that same night, and this is true regarding Friday, May 7th. In fact, you may wish to reread my "Smallville" mention in my May 1st blog and the whole T-shirt example there. I'm getting the feeling they had their own personal T-shirt vendor this time around.
In the May 7th episode of "Smallville", Lois Lane pushes for Clark and her to go on a "break" from each other (this develops into a breakup). Everyone watching heard something in that moment that brought to mind the historic episode of "Friends", the one that led to endless discussions/consequences of what it meant for them to be on a break.
What I heard, being someone who receives frequent, secret nudges from the "Smallville" folk, was a reference to the main side-plot in that same "Friends" episode, where Monica can only date someone if his translator accompanies them everywhere. This side-plot was based on my 1996 story, "The Translator". Someone (Raphael Middleman) once published my story in their little magazine (the May 1996 premiere issue of "The Inspector"). There were numerous reasons back then for me to deduce that "Friends" would use my material, even though I had not yet starred a "Friends" insider in my (1998) "Gosk 2". One reason: one of my sister's oldest friends, Claire Josephson, is the sister of Nancy Josephson, International Creative Management VP, the woman who first brought the "Friends" writers to California, which directly led to the creation of "Friends".
In "The Translator", newlyweds who don't speak the same language receive a translator as a wedding gift. He accompanies them EVERYWHERE, which much displeases the wife, causing her to secretly murder him, though it means she and her husband will not understand each other. They didn't need to understand each other when they first met, so why now?
Because my story was included as part of the very important initial "Friends" "break" episode, the "Smallville" "break" set me looking to see if there was something I should connect to this. As has often been the case, I found the answer in that night's "Medium": a husband murders someone about to communicate to his wife the key to understanding him. In "The Translator", the murder of the translator by the wife means she does not want to have around the person with the key to their understanding each other.
What Were They Trying To Do
What was the real meaning behind the Pakistani Taliban's Times Square "incident"? It was announced by the White House today that it was in fact the Taliban who were involved in the Times Square "attempted" bombing. Are we to believe that they truly meant to succeed, based on what we've learned about the hard-to-fail-to-anticipate reasons behind why it failed? Might not this lead the discussion to the question of what possible Taliban objective WAS achieved by only succeeding in having people investigate an empty car parked on a busy New York City street on May 1st?
As I described in my May 1st and May 2nd blogs, my April 28th posting on YouTube regarded a scene where an empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street is investigated. And my description accompanying that YouTube posting referred to the Iranian President.
I find that the degree to which there has been NO follow-up investigation regarding what I've been saying (shouting) for a while now looks VERY bad with this new terrorist occurrence, one that could have turned into the second 9/11. It suggests that there is a willful act of suppressing the investigation I seek. How close to the doorstep of Steven Spielberg must this suppression seem, as such an investigation would have to be based in part on my assertion that I am secretly super-important in relation to the work of Spielberg, the most prominent Jewish man, that therefore I am someone on the radar of those who act out of anti-Israeli/Jewish sentiment. What happens when my super-importance is secret - how can I instigate an investigation when that fact is unknown?
Does this Times Square bombing "attempt" light a fire under Spielberg and others? Is this all potentially damaging to key pillars/foundation stones of Hollywood Royalty? Extremely damaging? Fatally damaging? The suppression of such important investigations into terrorism, just to cover their astors?
Should we conjecture that the appeal of being able to generate this kind of issue in a big way became great enough to the Taliban/al Queda that it was chosen over an actual bombing - an alternative course? Especially if at heart they'd rather not kill in reality if they can poison the reputations of our "royalty", which would seriously undermine an important part of our moral foundation (yes, the product of Hollywood royalty portends to speak to the world's fundamental ethics).
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and etc. Would they poison our lives better by lighting this fire under us? Isn't it time to put aside this astor-covering of Hollywood Royalty's questionable behavior towards me, so that the truth about my secret super-importance can render plausible this basis for a real investigation of major terrorist acts? Or must we wait for something God awful to happen, when an investigation could have prevented it? I guess that's a chance some bastions of society are willing to take.
New Steinhoff Song
I'm pleased to announce my newest song, "Born Ahead", which can be experienced at archive.org. I hope everyone who hears it enjoys it in the identical way and to the identical degree as everyone else who hears it (whatever way and degree that may be).
Why Is Today Different From All Other Days
As my mother passed away in February 1991, I am unable to experience this holiday in the identical way as everyone else. However, as the person who first told me of CalArts, the college I attended, is Sean Daniel (Spielberg and McCartney friend, former Lennon friend), and Sean Daniel is the producer of the "Mummy" movies, I will take this opportunity to wish him a Happy Mummy's Day. (I am not in touch with Sean, but would appreciate it if someone could pass along my message.)
Fish Wearing Goggles
The writers of the TV show "Smallville" (who also wrote "Mummy 3") have once again included an inside-reference for my benefit. However, this one is identical to the way-off-the-radar ones they do in relation to me, as opposed to being identical to the ones they do where I can point to evidence (evidence for those who know how to add 2 plus 2.2, that is). I am flying so below the public's radar here that I expect to be making more ripples in the ocean than anywhere else. Yet somehow I feel obliged to describe it, lest the powers that be (them what done it) feel I'm no fun anymore, and then what would happen to me?
I've previously described how oftentimes the "Smallville" episodes containing inside-references to me are done in conjunction with episodes of the TV show "Medium" airing that same night, and this is true regarding Friday, May 7th. In fact, you may wish to reread my "Smallville" mention in my May 1st blog and the whole T-shirt example there. I'm getting the feeling they had their own personal T-shirt vendor this time around.
In the May 7th episode of "Smallville", Lois Lane pushes for Clark and her to go on a "break" from each other (this develops into a breakup). Everyone watching heard something in that moment that brought to mind the historic episode of "Friends", the one that led to endless discussions/consequences of what it meant for them to be on a break.
What I heard, being someone who receives frequent, secret nudges from the "Smallville" folk, was a reference to the main side-plot in that same "Friends" episode, where Monica can only date someone if his translator accompanies them everywhere. This side-plot was based on my 1996 story, "The Translator". Someone (Raphael Middleman) once published my story in their little magazine (the May 1996 premiere issue of "The Inspector"). There were numerous reasons back then for me to deduce that "Friends" would use my material, even though I had not yet starred a "Friends" insider in my (1998) "Gosk 2". One reason: one of my sister's oldest friends, Claire Josephson, is the sister of Nancy Josephson, International Creative Management VP, the woman who first brought the "Friends" writers to California, which directly led to the creation of "Friends".
In "The Translator", newlyweds who don't speak the same language receive a translator as a wedding gift. He accompanies them EVERYWHERE, which much displeases the wife, causing her to secretly murder him, though it means she and her husband will not understand each other. They didn't need to understand each other when they first met, so why now?
Because my story was included as part of the very important initial "Friends" "break" episode, the "Smallville" "break" set me looking to see if there was something I should connect to this. As has often been the case, I found the answer in that night's "Medium": a husband murders someone about to communicate to his wife the key to understanding him. In "The Translator", the murder of the translator by the wife means she does not want to have around the person with the key to their understanding each other.
What Were They Trying To Do
What was the real meaning behind the Pakistani Taliban's Times Square "incident"? It was announced by the White House today that it was in fact the Taliban who were involved in the Times Square "attempted" bombing. Are we to believe that they truly meant to succeed, based on what we've learned about the hard-to-fail-to-anticipate reasons behind why it failed? Might not this lead the discussion to the question of what possible Taliban objective WAS achieved by only succeeding in having people investigate an empty car parked on a busy New York City street on May 1st?
As I described in my May 1st and May 2nd blogs, my April 28th posting on YouTube regarded a scene where an empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street is investigated. And my description accompanying that YouTube posting referred to the Iranian President.
I find that the degree to which there has been NO follow-up investigation regarding what I've been saying (shouting) for a while now looks VERY bad with this new terrorist occurrence, one that could have turned into the second 9/11. It suggests that there is a willful act of suppressing the investigation I seek. How close to the doorstep of Steven Spielberg must this suppression seem, as such an investigation would have to be based in part on my assertion that I am secretly super-important in relation to the work of Spielberg, the most prominent Jewish man, that therefore I am someone on the radar of those who act out of anti-Israeli/Jewish sentiment. What happens when my super-importance is secret - how can I instigate an investigation when that fact is unknown?
Does this Times Square bombing "attempt" light a fire under Spielberg and others? Is this all potentially damaging to key pillars/foundation stones of Hollywood Royalty? Extremely damaging? Fatally damaging? The suppression of such important investigations into terrorism, just to cover their astors?
Should we conjecture that the appeal of being able to generate this kind of issue in a big way became great enough to the Taliban/al Queda that it was chosen over an actual bombing - an alternative course? Especially if at heart they'd rather not kill in reality if they can poison the reputations of our "royalty", which would seriously undermine an important part of our moral foundation (yes, the product of Hollywood royalty portends to speak to the world's fundamental ethics).
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and etc. Would they poison our lives better by lighting this fire under us? Isn't it time to put aside this astor-covering of Hollywood Royalty's questionable behavior towards me, so that the truth about my secret super-importance can render plausible this basis for a real investigation of major terrorist acts? Or must we wait for something God awful to happen, when an investigation could have prevented it? I guess that's a chance some bastions of society are willing to take.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Knowing Where To Look
Something which may or may not be of GREAT significance regarding the New York City Times Square bomb in the car incident of May 1st:
- Several days ago I posted my video, "Come On, French Stewart, You Owe Me!" on YouTube. It is a matter of record, therefore, that this video existed Thursday, April 29th.
- It is furthermore also a matter of record that my April 29th posted YouTube Description accompanying this video brings my posting of the video into the context of my special concern regarding an enemy of the United States (the Description refers to statements by the Iranian President which I regard as containing inside-references to myself, and which I regard as having been made by him as the consequence of my secret super-importance in relation to the most prominent living Jewish man, Steven Spielberg).
- In that video of mine posted on YouTube on April 29th, I emphasize something important that happens in the last episode of the TV show, "3rd Rock From The Sun," which I assert originated with me. I blogged yesterday (May 1st) that the specific material of mine to which I refer there is contained both in my 1993 "Gosk" screenplay posted at archive.org in 2007 (NYC parking space first referred to on page 53, aka page 55 of pdf, then situation develops on page 58, aka page 60 of pdf); and in the shooting script for an unfilmed project of mine, "Gosk 3", which was posted in 2005 on my website. The particular basis for my more specific, blogged statement of May 1st about the "3rd Rock" connection would be self-apparent to anyone who does the research even without benefit of the May 1st blog (though the May 1st blog would tend to make it a bit easier to do the research for those not already knowing exactly where to search).
- Therefore, I bring it ALL up on April 29th, and it is verifiable that I bring it all up on that date (in addition to my again bringing it up on May 1st, though when on May 1st is not verifiable in terms of the timeline of the Times Square incident).
- Research would make it factually apparent that on April 29th I was specifically referring to the MOMENT in "Gosk" when the empty Mars Zuns spacecraft lands in a New York City parking space on a crowded New York City street, which then arouses curiosity, which is then followed by people exploring inside it.
- The May 1st bomb in the car in New York City's Times Square incident also involves an empty vehicle on a crowed New York City street arousing curiosity, followed by people exploring inside it.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Dear Letter
Something To Stew Over
I am pleased to announce the posting of my latest video on YouTube, "Come On, French Stewart, You Owe Me!"
I would be even more pleased if this video wasn't connected with my numerous entries into the sweepstakes to see which of my muffled screams will succeed in drawing the necessary attention to the fact that I have been singled out by the Iranian President for including inside-references whenever he has a major statement regarding his nuclear situation. Which the Iranian President is doing because of my secret super-importance in relation to the most prominent living Jewish man, Steven Spielberg (please see my "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor" video at archive.org).
Oh well, what difference could that make? By the way, the work of mine to which I refer in this new Stewart video in connection with the final episode of "3rd Rock From The Sun" is "Gosk", both the 1993 screenplay and the shooting script for the unfilmed, "Gosk 3".
In The Future All My Troubles Seem So Far Away
A new event has occurred in connection with my observations that someone behind-the-scenes at the Huffington Post website is very much "on" to my secret super-importance (or partially on?):
Wheel Of Making Me Look Like I'm Piecing Together Sentences That Aren't There
ONLY because "Smallville" has very recently included inside-references to my few music videos (as I've described in previous blogs), I believe I might have seen something in yesterday's episode, in this context, that could be seen cumulatively as part of this. However, please first permit me a moment to once again attempt to get across the cumulative concept:
If John Lennon wears a T-shirt in Los Angeles that only has the letter "M" on it; and Paul McCartney wears a T-shirt the next day in London that only has the letter "I" on it; and George Harrison wears a T-shirt the day following that in San Francisco that only has the letter "C" on it; and Ringo Starr a week or two or even three later in Ann Arbor, Michigan wears a T-shirt that only has the letter "K" on it, and you are in on the fact that John, Paul, George and Ringo were once in a group together, you could surmise that the context exists in which Ringo's "K" could be seen as part of a deliberate effort to spell the word "Mick", even though "K" all by itself contains no such implication. And if someone took the basis of your surmisal out of context, and said, "How does 'K' have to necessarily be part of spelling 'Mick'?", or "How does 'I' and 'K' necessarily have to be part of spelling 'Mick'?", or "Why do you think of The Beatles at the same time as the Stones when their music is not really all that similar?", the person saying these things about your surmisal might be out to make you sound like an i-d-i-o-t, or themselves be less smart than a non-idiot.
Back to "Smallville": There were things in last night's episode - the manner of flying; the turning of a wall into fragments (when a chemical was applied to make it shatter-able); a mystery regarding whatever happened to a woman who was taken away - that may possibly have been designed to bring to mind my music video, "Whatever Happened".
Numb With Excitement
Immediately following a recent email I sent to someone I never email, which made mention of Jon Stewart, an inside-reference was made on "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" to someone who automatically brought to mind my email's recipient. And when I followed up that email with another email to that same person to point this out, this time around including mention of Stephen Colbert, "The Colbert Report" immediately made an inside-reference to my email's recipient, as well as an inside-reference to another person who automatically brought to mind my email's recipient. More specifically, Colbert was causing me to think of the few times people have pushed me into the position of bringing in emotion as part of an effort to dissuade someone from using violence. As my recent emails were written on the subject of the above-mentioned matter regarding the Iranian President (nuclear weapons and inside-references to me), I suppose these were meant to be regarded as contributions towards my efforts.
This may possibly lead the "discussion" to this question: Do people naively expect that, once Iran has nuclear weapons, we can then just hang the fate of humanity on our ability to bring in emotion as part of an effort to dissuade? To still be that young and idealistic! It is my belief that such idealism in such an instance as we now find ourselves can only hasten the end of humanity. It is very near to the point where a realistic action to halt Iran from nuclear weapons capability should replace endless efforts to dissuade.
I am pleased to announce the posting of my latest video on YouTube, "Come On, French Stewart, You Owe Me!"
I would be even more pleased if this video wasn't connected with my numerous entries into the sweepstakes to see which of my muffled screams will succeed in drawing the necessary attention to the fact that I have been singled out by the Iranian President for including inside-references whenever he has a major statement regarding his nuclear situation. Which the Iranian President is doing because of my secret super-importance in relation to the most prominent living Jewish man, Steven Spielberg (please see my "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor" video at archive.org).
Oh well, what difference could that make? By the way, the work of mine to which I refer in this new Stewart video in connection with the final episode of "3rd Rock From The Sun" is "Gosk", both the 1993 screenplay and the shooting script for the unfilmed, "Gosk 3".
In The Future All My Troubles Seem So Far Away
A new event has occurred in connection with my observations that someone behind-the-scenes at the Huffington Post website is very much "on" to my secret super-importance (or partially on?):
- My April 25th blog was titled, "See It In A Different Light".
- My April 26th blog mentioned that this April 25th blog title was from a Paul McCartney song upon which I am/was a major influence.
- On April 29th, 2:49pm, I made a comment (as JonathanDS) to a HuffingtonPost article, "Donald Trump Defends Arizona's Immigration Law". My 2:49pm comment was not actually approved/posted by HuffingtonPost for another ten minutes, yet a few minutes before my comment was posted to the world, at 2:53pm, someone posted a comment that included the words, "look into the future". These words are from this exact same Paul McCartney song.
Wheel Of Making Me Look Like I'm Piecing Together Sentences That Aren't There
ONLY because "Smallville" has very recently included inside-references to my few music videos (as I've described in previous blogs), I believe I might have seen something in yesterday's episode, in this context, that could be seen cumulatively as part of this. However, please first permit me a moment to once again attempt to get across the cumulative concept:
If John Lennon wears a T-shirt in Los Angeles that only has the letter "M" on it; and Paul McCartney wears a T-shirt the next day in London that only has the letter "I" on it; and George Harrison wears a T-shirt the day following that in San Francisco that only has the letter "C" on it; and Ringo Starr a week or two or even three later in Ann Arbor, Michigan wears a T-shirt that only has the letter "K" on it, and you are in on the fact that John, Paul, George and Ringo were once in a group together, you could surmise that the context exists in which Ringo's "K" could be seen as part of a deliberate effort to spell the word "Mick", even though "K" all by itself contains no such implication. And if someone took the basis of your surmisal out of context, and said, "How does 'K' have to necessarily be part of spelling 'Mick'?", or "How does 'I' and 'K' necessarily have to be part of spelling 'Mick'?", or "Why do you think of The Beatles at the same time as the Stones when their music is not really all that similar?", the person saying these things about your surmisal might be out to make you sound like an i-d-i-o-t, or themselves be less smart than a non-idiot.
Back to "Smallville": There were things in last night's episode - the manner of flying; the turning of a wall into fragments (when a chemical was applied to make it shatter-able); a mystery regarding whatever happened to a woman who was taken away - that may possibly have been designed to bring to mind my music video, "Whatever Happened".
Numb With Excitement
Immediately following a recent email I sent to someone I never email, which made mention of Jon Stewart, an inside-reference was made on "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" to someone who automatically brought to mind my email's recipient. And when I followed up that email with another email to that same person to point this out, this time around including mention of Stephen Colbert, "The Colbert Report" immediately made an inside-reference to my email's recipient, as well as an inside-reference to another person who automatically brought to mind my email's recipient. More specifically, Colbert was causing me to think of the few times people have pushed me into the position of bringing in emotion as part of an effort to dissuade someone from using violence. As my recent emails were written on the subject of the above-mentioned matter regarding the Iranian President (nuclear weapons and inside-references to me), I suppose these were meant to be regarded as contributions towards my efforts.
This may possibly lead the "discussion" to this question: Do people naively expect that, once Iran has nuclear weapons, we can then just hang the fate of humanity on our ability to bring in emotion as part of an effort to dissuade? To still be that young and idealistic! It is my belief that such idealism in such an instance as we now find ourselves can only hasten the end of humanity. It is very near to the point where a realistic action to halt Iran from nuclear weapons capability should replace endless efforts to dissuade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
