All The News That's Fit To Make You Think I'm Nuts

The Telephone Game
For quite some time now, I have "felt" myself to be in the sites of people involved with "Ripley's Believe It Or Not".... I'm somehow "getting" that they want me to come up with a "Believe It Or Not" dance.... they need me to express in this dance the idea, "you ain't gonna believe this unless you take all kinds of trouble to research how I'm not a liar but worthy of your having great belief in me"..... that I should go through life with many of the important things I might need to say being tinged with a feeling of, "believe it or not". Someday I hope to prove in a soundbite how this feeling has been given to me, and is not of my own device. I just know I can prove it all in a soundbite.

Sorry, I just need to say the kind of stuff contained in the preceding paragraph every now and then. Should you read on, you may possibly see the relevancy for this being one of those every now and then occasions.

I Shot The Walnut
So yesterday I'm on my way to the nut house again (the Somis Nut House in Somis, California, where I get my almonds and walnuts, however, my readers may recall that I prefer to provide my detractors the chance to go, "Yeah, he belongs in the nut house!" at every possible opportunity, thus, I choose my words in a way that helps set up such remarks, it's the least I can do). And I'm right at that stretch where Paul McCartney drove by for my benefit once (see my August 8, 2010 blog, "Stuck In Traffic, Not"). I believe I reported that incident as hard to believe in most respects - it meant McCartney, on whom I have been a huge influence over the years, ran to California all the way from Canada for a day or so, in relation to my email to someone. Not like the new Clapton song about running back to someone's side, rather, more like a billionaire flying in a super-luxury version of first class so why really care about where you're flying to anyway, it's gonna be a fun time. Or so goes the theory. In fact, it was in that same blog that I expressed how I looked up on the Internet where on the globe McCartney was supposed to be, in order to help me evaluate whether I could actually have seen him then. And at some point after that I did a blog article about seeing someone who looked like another person I've been an influence on, Eric Clapton, after which I looked up his whereabouts on the Internet, at which point I learned the siting coincided with the day of Clapton's announcement of his first album in five years - as if someone knew the siting would cause me to look him up on the Internet that one day in five years.

One would also have to read other things I've written about Clapton, in order to more properly appreciate how I would construe this siting (and others) as having been specifically intended for me.

So there is Jerry Seinfeld driving by in his car talking on a cell phone, right in Paul McCartney's spot. Should I add in the fact that the person to whom I had sent that email that led to the August 2010 moment happens to be among those connected in a certain way with when Michael Richards of "Seinfeld" attended my school (CalArts)? Or that Seinfeld on a talk show appearance once talked and talked about introducing McCartney at an Obama thing? Another thing that should also be regarded as related: my Oct. 25, 2009 and Nov. 29, 2009 blogs, which essentially prove my major influence on the "Seinfeld" reunion on "Curb Your Enthusiasm". I've also mentioned in previous blogs how the entire last season of "Seinfeld" was seriously influenced by me as well.

What does it mean? Nothing. It's Seinfeld, it's not supposed to mean anything. The guy who played Uncle Leo on "Seinfeld" just died in Burbank, 50 miles from where I saw Seinfeld, he has a funeral to attend. That's the only sense most people need to make of this stuff.

Head of the Hats
I have often referred to my influence on "Smallville". Without going into detail, recently, shortly after a certain famous person drove by me/looked at me while she was wearing a certain hat, which I construed at the time as having been for my benefit for reasons I also won't go into, an episode of "Smallville" (Feb. 18th) featured the same type hat as serving to keep Green Arrow's identity secret. This episode in general related to Clark Kent coming up with something to wear to keep his identity secret.

I Follow You, Clapton
A recent news story went into a degree of detail regarding the great interest Kim Jong Il's son has in Eric Clapton. (This fact goes into storage until Ahmadinejad and his Steinhoff-mania can be tied in.)

If North Korea Could Please Stay Out Of This, Thank You

Disclaimer
You are not allowed to do any kind of interconnecting between any matters relating to the Iranian president found in the following (which I describe as being in relation to my “theory” in order to lessen the possibility that I will be sent to the loony bin for taking it as fact and not just theory) and matters one may have read about regarding Iran receiving from North Korea assistance towards achieving its nuclear weapons capability ambitions (especially at this point in time when North Korea is about to blow up the world again, South Korea first perhaps, I want to stay away from all that, being shy).

Eleventh Hour Make-Believe Diplomacy
Whether you agree with a theory, disagree with a theory, feel a slightly involuntary urge to laugh in the face of someone because of their theory, or want to go out and kill cats because of a theory (whatever): if the theory results in strange predictions that nevertheless come to pass in spite of how unlikely they may seem…. well, a rational person should certainly take notice of such developments, or at least stop feeling a slightly involuntary urge to laugh in my face, that is, not laugh in the face of a person because of their theory, if such developments occur after they are predicted by a theory.

In my August 28, 2010 blog article (copyrighted Sept. 2010, when I published it at Archive.Org in the fourth volume of my blog articles there), I was particularly explicit regarding a previously-described Steinhoff lexicon situation that I contend has come to involve many in entertainment, a lexicon which is also seeing usage by Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

My lexicon “theory” is described by me as likely having to do with my secret super-importance in relation to the work of many, McCartney in many instances, and also the work of Spielberg (see my “Steven Spielberg and the ‘Mall Man’ Factor”, posted at Archive.Org in Dec. 2009). That the world of politics is also in the picture to a considerable degree is ascribed in part to Spielberg being among the WORLD's most prominent/high profile Jewish men; now factor in that Ahmadinejad is someone who publicly announced a wish that the Jewish state of Israel be blown off the map, while he meanwhile is presumed by the West to be developing nuclear weapons capability. So I’m saying I’ve attracted the notice of Ahmadinejad, who, in his more attention-grabbing statements, has been secretly referencing the same lexicon also referenced in much product from the entertainment industry.

The idea that people would be indulging in such a “game” together, one of this variety, would perhaps tend to seem worthy of more serious consideration, were anyone but myself presenting this awareness to you. For, by me being the one asserting this lexicon is built around things I myself have made/have been prominently involved in, it immediately and clearly makes it all incredibly unlikely-sounding and absurd-sounding, however absurd so much in life may be. As I’ve expressed before, it wasn’t my idea for this lexicon to exist, to be brought to the table, to be so much at the center of the chessboard. Yet I recognize that the reporting or ignoring of certain developments should not be predicated so entirely on the degree of mass acceptability one expects such a report to receive. And my vantage point makes the question of reporting or not reporting one of taking responsibility.
In my August 28, 2010 blog article I describe the specific place where Ahmadinejad last left off inserting such an inside-reference. It was with regard to my 1998 “Gosk 2” video (at Archive.Org since Sept. 2005) and with relation to that video’s “hat scene” and things around the “hat scene”. It is therefore a matter of record that I correlated Ahmadinejad’s words to something regarding that section. As to the “hat scene”, we see Vinkalert pondering why things didn’t work out with his high school sweetheart, Gosk, as if to say he wished they had continued together, i.e., gotten married.

And so, how could it fail to jump off the page for me when, on November 21, 2010, Ahmadinejad, with what would obviously be an attention-grabbing statement, announced that he wants Iranian girls to marry at the age of sixteen?

The Big Three

Today I have for you Conan and Dave, both of whom have been keeping me "in the game" recently (see my June 4th blog for Dave, my June 17th blog for Conan), something they've done from time to time over the years. Both of these videoclips are from June 22, 2009, the night before Ed McMahon's death, relevant in that he was a major talk show guy. Also possibly relevant is the fact that, between Iran and North Korea, with their potential ousting of what's-his-name and threats of nuclear warfare, respectively, it's quite a time in the history of the planet/universe, whatever, to feel oneself having special access to so many. And yes, I consider these videoclips to imply a special access, that if I had something for Conan or Dave I could leave it here and it might just get scrutinized, stamped with approval, and a few seconds in front of America (after being first filtered by their sensabilities, of course).

Dave:


Conan:


I also have to wonder about those without the cumulative perspective, people who can't quite connect that the cumulative implication contained in these videoclips, when combined with other things done in relation to me, is different from the implication (i.e., lack of an implication) seen without the cumulative perspective. If you don't put a few of things together, I'm looking like, well, a whole different person from the one you'll see when you do. This may not be a good time in the history of the universe to presume I'm not two inches from the American late night crowd, coming up with something to say.

Stay Tuned To Something

All those who, in search of a reference to the idea for Conan O'Brien that I presented in my May 30th blog, turned their eyes June 1st to Conan O'Brien's first night hosting "The Tonight Show" - you may have been on the wrong channel:



I do not know whether Tom Hanks was making an inside-reference for my benefit on Conan's second "Tonight Show". I do know a conversation I had in 1978 with someone I knew from CalArts led to the premise of his 1980 weekly sitcom, "Bosom Buddies". In fact, well before that conversation, the woman with whom I had the conversation went through a period of designating everyone her buddy - she had her "pool buddy", her "clothes buddy" - I once gave her a Sudafed sinus tablet, for which I received the short-lived designation of being her "Sudafed Buddy". I could provide more details about that conversation's proximity to people connected with Hanks' show, but - some other time. As for Hanks' potential reference on Conan for my benefit: well, firstly he talked a lot about giving Conan a nickname that might stick. This made me think of the Marx Bros., because a right-hand assistant to Groucho Marx whom I knew at CalArts, Henry Golas (star of my video, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly?"), once gave me the nickname, "Stingray", because it was my answer to the question, "What do you think of as the ideal car to drive?" (the night before Conan did a segment on his super-cool car that makes him super-cool, a 1992 Ford Taurus). And who epitomizes nicknames more than the Marx Bros. (I reject the theory that their mother named them Chico, Harpo, Groucho and Zeppo)? Sure enough, Hanks later got in the name Chico Marx somewhere along the way. This also related to the titles of my previous two blogs, "Swordfish" and "Haddock". Then again, couldn't it easily be said that I was looking too hard for an inside-reference from Hanks, owing to his having provided me a few on the season finale of SNL? So, T. Hanks but no T. Hanks.