Having No Direct Affect On The Fate Of Humanity Lately

Just here this time to quickly jot down a few things and let the world know this is an alive-and-well blogsite. I know I don't normally leave so long an interval between blogs, however, if one carefully reads the name of my blogsite, "Jonathan D. Steinhoff's Sometimes Blog", you would have to agree that I'm covered in such instances, right? Because I'm the one who gets to say how much time can be represented by the word "sometimes". Oh yeah, I had this angle figured out back when I first named this blogsite, got myself totally covered here.

A Few Quickly Jotted Down Things
Without going into any amount of detail (which would of course be well worth the hours of explanation were I to), here is a listing of the people and/or shows I have recently, specifically observed as doing things "because of me" (these specific observations all previously unreported by me). In each instance, my concluding the "because of me" part results from how I put things together, including putting things together in relation to my extensive, unusual, previous experiences in matters of this variety (whatever variety that is, sure wish I knew).

1. Tim Burton
2. Prince
3. "Smallville" (12.10.10 episode, re my song, "December 1980, Morning")
4. "Christmas In Madagascar"
5. Paul McCartney (12.11.10 SNL, re my "Endless Voyage" photograph)
6. Paul McCartney singling out Nat King Cole in making a general reference to music while discussing The Beatles on iTunes, this occurring immediately after I had discussed Nat King Cole's twin daughters with a friend of Cole's twins. (There is a long history of people such as Paul McCartney, Taylor Swift, Elisha Cuthbert, and many others taking things that have recently come up in my conversations with people in restaurants or where I work, and working them into things they say immediately thereafter in interviews, which, as always, is something I see as just another part of that secret, crazy, snowballing phenomenon started by John Lennon and Paul McCartney during the '60s, "Jonathan D. Steinhoff (aka Secretly The Third Beatle Making Ringo The Fifth Beatle) Mania".)
   
7. Conan writer tailing someone who looked like Jon Stewart while "The Daily Show" is on holiday break, within hours of that news story hitting about Conan apologizing for his writer giving him a joke that resembled a two-week old Jimmy Kimmel joke, Conan promising to fire the writer.
8. "Book of Eli" movie

I'm sure there were many efforts I missed (was that Eric Clapton driving a truck in Houston? because if so it would have regarded me in relation to "Slowhand" due to a certain set of circumstances, but if not, and then again, etc., etc., etc.). Who knows, perhaps even a few efforts regarding which those involved would deny such a connection in their work to me/my material. How strange that would be.

Happy New Year!

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?

I Owe Me The World

PAID IN LAUGHTER
There have been a number of new Steinhoff references on the Saturday Night Lives this season, as always. I will not be going into these things, however.

I will instead be focusing on something I see as being in relation to the Pakistani Taliban joining everyone in Hollywood in making inside-references to things Steinhoff. That is what I will be prioritizing this time around! Owing to my being secretly super-important in relation to Spielberg! And McCartney! And others of note! I'm running out of exclamation marks! Read on....


PAID IN HALF-FULL
Fans of what is perhaps my craziest statement ever (that's quite a distinction, with all the crazy statements of mine there are to choose from) should be happy to learn there is something new to report in relation to this, something to perhaps chew on, perhaps scratch your head about, or even, perhaps, laugh hysterically over to think that a corrupt world should somehow inch its way into this strange a circumstance.

I refer to a connection I have repeatedly made between, among other things, the time proximity between the May 1st, 2010 Times Square Car Bomb Incident and my April 29th, 2010 YouTube posting, "Come On, French Stewart, You Owe Me!":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlH2Ln7GlmU

I will begin by putting that idea into a tiny nutshell here (but know I have your promise that you will explore the subject for weeks, beginning with my June 23rd, 2010 blog, "Crazy Time"):

The primary allusion made in my April 29th YouTube posting (evidenced at that site as having been posted on that date) is to the idea of curiosity and investigation resulting from a suspicious-looking empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street (my June 23rd blog extensively explains the allusion made in my YouTube video, also including verifiable evidence that this allusion was contained in the April 29th video). We all know how this very same idea provided the focus of the news story regarding the Times Square Car Bomb TWO DAYS LATER on May 1st: curiosity and investigation resulting from a suspicious-looking empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street. Now, add in my secret super-importance in relation to the most prominent living Jewish man, Steven Spielberg (see my video, "Steven Spielberg and the Mall Man Factor" at Archive.Org, posted December 2009), and think of what that could possibly mean to Pakistani Taliban thinking types. There's lots more I could describe, but I don't think anyone is likely to find all this truly worth so incredibly much of their time, unless perhaps someone finds a way to increase our lifespan to 1,000 years old, at which point devoting half your life to studying all this will still leave you 500 years for other things. 500 years! That's plenty, I say!

So the condensed version of what I'm on about here, the new thing in connection with all this, involves, I believe, none other than Mr. International Political Situation Investigator Extraordinaire, Jon Stewart (or "Jon Stewart, Daily Show Host", for short)!

In recent blogs I've provided evidence (a link) that I posted a Comment to a blog article at Huffington Post that Stewart and Colbert should do SEPARATE rallies, at a point in time when there first was talk of some kind of Colbert rally. A few days later when the two did make announcements, they hyped it all for weeks as two SEPARATE rallies.

I have often influenced these two, as I've explained from time to time, and I've even periodically included what I regard as evidence of my influence, evidence spelled out in "clues" that could be easily pieced together. Therefore, though they could have had the idea of SEPARATE rallies independently of me, I lean towards the possibility of that not being the case. I for one am additionally aware that Jon Stewart (or someone who looked enough like him for me to feel inclined to blog about it the next day) looked at me as he drove by me the day after my HuffPost Comment.


PAID IN FULL
On Tuesday, November 9th (a little more than a week after his rally, and a week after the Midterm elections), Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" beseeched former president George W. Bush to "come on" his show. He claimed he was starting a new recurring segment, though he repeatedly bemoaned the strange name his people came up with for the segment, "Come On Jon Stewart". Is it possibly fair to say my YouTube video referred to above, "Come On, French Stewart" is worthy of more serious scrutiny, under the circumstances? And what more can anyone ask for, in the name of all humanity, than more serious scrutiny?



I should additionally mention, however, that though I see this as a deliberate reference by "The Daily Show" to what I see as my little Pakistani Taliban-related situation, I do not presume it to mean any one person has really done the homework I'm talking about, no one has necessarily taken the trouble to see any of the emerging larger picture here. As with the Manhattan Project, many may understand some fragment of the larger project, which might give off that they see the larger project, but I see no clear sign of someone acting on a sense of the larger situation.

How To Convert A Plastic Pail Into A Sword For Defending Against Martian Attack

As I promised I would be doing back when Tim Burton's "Alice In Wonderland" was released in theatres, I have now been able to put together my Steinhoff/Burton Correlations "version" (with a little help from the video becoming accessible on Starz Channel's Early Premieres).

Basically, this is just a dispassionate explanation, perhaps so that there will be some chance of the record being set straight someday. For those who can see the context/history I'm trying to get across, I believe this shows, as I have before, my influence on my fellow CalArts alum, Tim Burton - in this case with regard to "Alice". Unfortunately, however much my little videoclip provides some bases for my conclusions, there ultimately are many other things that contributed to these conclusions as well, things too voluminous to include here.

One Percent Rocket Science, Or Possibly Thirty Percent

In the very first blog I wrote, August 10, 2008 (later published at Archive.Org November 2009 as part of Volume 1), I first discuss something that I believe to be recurring inside-references made by someone regarding myself, by which I mean, a certain type of thing has recurringly (though not invariably) appeared in movies produced by Stuart Cornfeld (whom I once sort of knew a very long time ago, and who produces excellent movies that sometimes appear to have been influenced by my material, in which he is not alone, not by a longshot, Spielberg, The Beatles, etc., someone behind the scenes must be making everyone be influenced by me, you should be spending all of your spare time reading about me, the most unacknowledged man who ever lived, though it might be too soon to say if there are people more unacknowledged than myself, as they wouldn't likely be known if they weren't acknowledged, nevertheless, I cannot imagine someone more unacknowledged than me):

8/10/08. Jonathan D. Steinhoff's Sometimes Blog
(regarding a recurring inside-reference in Cornfeld-produced movies)
"....lying on the ground unconscious, opening his eyes to people/person standing over him."

Today I was fortunate enough to see Stuart Cornfeld's latest movie, "Megamind (released yesterday).

[It is an excellent movie, but of course I'm not here to be a film critic, I'm here to jump up and down pointing at myself.]

Those who saw the end of "Megamind", essentially the final scene of the movie, involving the David Cross character, will, I expect, have to consider the potential significance in my having identified above and so long ago (my first blog, as indicated above) that such a scene (not a particularly uncommon scene, generally) might be particularly associated as having, when in a Stuart Cornfeld movie, inside-reference qualities. In this instance, the scene was considered special enough to belong seconds before the end.

The nature of the scene is very common, in many ways conventional, and normally one wouldn't see its recurring from one movie to the next, in and of itself, as leading to any kind of connection. One distinguishing characteristic here is that a special twist is involved, which again is not entirely uncommon, but more uncommon.

In the context of so many other inside-references and influences regarding myself that I've seen over such a long time, by so many in "entertainment" (people for whom I and so many others have so enduring and enormous a respect and appreciation), I lean towards believing this is again the case with the ending of "Megamind". It is a pleasing thought, hopefully not one that will be seen as a stretch of the mind.

Oliver Hardy Laughter

Just as someone might, with relatively little difficulty, begin with nuclear energy, yet one day find himself to be in possession of a nuclear weapon, so Saturday Night Live has, by starting with the "plank of wood, a 2x4" originated by me (previous blog, 10.17.10) while discussing SNL's (very) timely inside-references to Steinhoff material, somehow found a way to beat my plowshare (well, plank) into a 2x8 (disclaimer- these dimensions are based on a visual approximation):



I believe it clearly contains stuff that can easily be interpreted as a continuation of what started in my previous (10.17.10) blog as an Ahmadinejad "discussion" with SNL. How far that reaches into this videoclip has yet to be resolved, though I see where this could all easily culminate in a three-picture deal, or another sketch, only this time all of the characters get to be sitting down on nice soft chairs.

Two Pair Showing

A Show Of Hands
Little tiny inside-references to me/my material have been detectable here and there over the past several weeks. Most are of that nature where one would already have to be familiar with a number of facts before one could appreciate the significance of such observations, otherwise, I would seem to be making too much out of something. What a bother when recognition of the significant context requires special effort.

The Saturday Night Live one I am bothering with reveals to me, as they have before, that they see my blogs. I bothered with this inside-reference because, due to the "history" preceding it, I read it as being in the sphere of Saturday Night Live sorta kinda asking me to inject a remark or something about the Iranian President. Ahmadinejad is part of what they are inside-referencing, thus, my reaction might be expected to include such a remark. Furthermore, I see where I should believe SNL might very possibly scrutinize my reaction to their inside-reference.

There are a few things I should mention about the context of this image. It is preceded by my having mentioned in and demonstrated through numerous blogs, that "Saturday Night Live" has a long history of including things "hot off the Steinhoff press". Usually, the week in which such pieces of my ideas appear are the very same week that I specifically submitted them to SNL, through intermediaries. I do not say such ideas could never have existed prior to my incorporating them into my work. I emphasize the context created by the timing and consistency of their making such usage.

In this case, they not only had their image tie in with something in my 9/26/10 blog. What they chose to reference simultaneously intertwines with the video I have just completed - "Hatch", posted 10/15/10 at YouTube and Archive.Org. That I was working on this video was announced a few months ago in a blog. That announcement was immediately followed by an inside-reference on Colbert, as I described in a blog. "Hatch" also influenced the second episode of the new William Shatner sitcom (I am not new to influencing William Shatner, or influencing almost anyone you can think of, for that matter). When I first wrote the comedy idea several years ago (as "Down The Hatch"), SNL also immediately included an inside-reference.

So what, if anything, do I want to say about Ahmadinejad this time around. Well, I saw him on Charlie Rose recently, and here's what comes to mind. When I was working on the movie, "Gizmo" back in 1974, I came across this old Fox Movietone news footage (from the early '30s, I believe). It showed this young man sitting on the end of a plank of wood, a 2 x 4. The cameraman was on the other end. The plank of wood was on an upper floor of a very tall New York City skyscraper, hanging over the sidewalk. So the man sitting on the plank of wood is looking at the camera, laughing nervously. Why would a person put himself in that position? His nervous laughter was our only handle on his state of mind in doing this. That guy reminds me of Ahmadinejad, who has deliberately chosen to make his world far more precarious than any sane person would. But he looks at the camera with nervous laughter, soliciting the warmth of the cameraman. Asking to be seen as a man free of conventional fear. Impressing us with his bravado. It is a primitive person's route to winning points with people. And yes, you will find people in the crowd who will totally overlook your insanity.

The Two Of Us Are Really One
As I've mentioned a few times, it was I who suggested the Colbert and Stewart rallies be two rallies:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/JonathanDS/restoring-truthiness-colbert-rally-beck_n_704578_59349947.html

The day after I posted this Comment, Stewart drove by me, which I reported in a blog article the day following that.

Now they are making one rally out of it, so I suppose I ought to react. Okay, here it is: Fine with me!

Hatch

My new (10/15/10) video, "Hatch", just posted at Archive.Org (http://www.archive.org/details/Hatch) and YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptDmQCsk3gk), experienced a proper amount of incubating immediately prior to its release.

How Does This Not Disappear

Were you to do a search through my various blogs for "Bruce Willis" (you might go to where they're collected in volumes 1-4 at Archive.Org to simplify the task), you would find this name showing up here and there, now and then. You could then go back to the actual blog articles posted at this site that you had looked up, so that you could actually see the videoclips involved. You'd have so much fun! You'll even find references to Willis appearances on Letterman!

In my past three blogs I've made mention of a trail of bread crumbs that has come to involve, among other things, the Bruce Willis movie, "The Jackal," as well as my video (posted at Archive.Org in 2008), "Bishop and Pawn Forfeit Rule." So, part of my thinking while watching Willis on Letterman Monday night was to see if there would be anything from Bruce Willis in this regard. Which has often been part of the "pattern"....

Outwardly, the big thing about Willis' Letterman appearance Monday was his hamburger hairpiece (which had been important enough for Bruce Willis and Jon Stewart to reflect on the following night during Bruce Willis' appearance on "The Daily Show"):


Okay - but that was all a trick, carefully designed to get you to train your eyes on that part of Bruce Willis. See, so that your eyes would already be there when this happened later on during that same Willis appearance on Letterman:


Because, as is already known to those who have seen my above-referenced, "Bishop and Pawn Forfeit Rule," I play Merlin in that video:


By the way, lest there seem a trail of bread crumbs amidst all this pointing towards this idea, the answer is no, I am not secretly Merlin the Magician in real life. But thank you just the same for thinking you see a trail of bread crumbs pointing in that direction.

Gotta Be A Superman

It's "Smallville" time again - the Superman show, for those not up on things. And if you've been following my blogs over the years, you'll know how that often means it's also time once again for me to describe how I have been incorporated into things over there - how this is something I attribute, in part at least, to the fact that Sean Daniel's "Mummy 3" was written by the "Smallville" writer/producers. Yes, I am there once again, if you know how to put a few things together, and feel like bearing with me until it all makes sense. At the VERY least, don't you have to wonder how it is that I so often have something to give pause, and from the exact same place as where I so often find something to give pause? Or.... perhaps you profess to believe it's all pulled straight out of the air?

Check This
In the final paragraph of my immediately preceding blog (Sept. 28th, "Politics for Dummies"), I observed how, for some reason I didn't particularly get, there were several shows that had recently incorporated references to Sean Daniel movies ("Animal House" and "The Jackal"). These were objective observations anyone might have made, anyone familiar with certain public knowledge:

1. The Bishop scene in "Animal House" (John Belushi smashes Stephen Bishop's guitar as he sits playing on a staircase) showed up via a scene on Leno featuring Sheryl Crow and Ed Helms (which I was bound to watch, as I had shortly before that mentioned in my blogs some Sheryl Crow stuff in relation to me).
2. On Saturday Night Live's season premiere almost a week ago, a reference to the Jack Black scene in Sean Daniel's "The Jackal" (in their takeoff on the recent Stallone movie).

It had crossed my mind, regarding the Sean Daniel connection in the above-referenced Sheryl Crow bit, that, as the word "Bishop" had come up there (Stephen Bishop being in the "Animal House" scene), and then "Smallville" shortly thereafter (last week) made inside-reference to my "Bishop And Pawn Forfeit Rule" (see my Sept. 26th blog), there could be a connection in that for my benefit, but there wasn't enough for me to go on until tonight's "Smallville".

Before you have enough to go on, I would have to ask that you look at my August 13, 2008 blog, "A Piece of the Mask" (also at Archive.Org as part of Volume 1 of my collected blog articles, therefore a matter of record that I couldn't have written it after the date Volume 1 was published). In Item 2 of that blog article, I note special inside-reference significance to someone, in the role of rescuer, standing over a person who had just been knocked to the ground. Specifically, the blog article describes this action with regard to scenes involving Jack Black, including reference to the movie, "Tenancious D And The Pick Of DESTINY".

And so, I now give you this videoclip of moments from tonight's "Smallville," which include

• Someone, in the role of rescuer, standing over someone who had just been knocked to the ground
  

• A situation that brings the movie "The Jackal" to mind

• A discussion of Destiny

Also of interest is that this same DESTINY discussion scene in "Smallville" ends with the introduction of the word "superman" to "Smallville" (I end the above videoclip right before Lois Lane provides the translation for the German version of this word). Whatever you wish to attach to the appearance of "superman" here.

Politics For Dummies

At Least Someone's Reading These
In my Sept. 8th blog I refer to how it was I who suggested, in a Sept. 3rd HuffPost article Comment, that Stewart and Colbert make it two separate rallies: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/JonathanDS/restoring-truthiness-colbert-rally-beck_n_704578_59349947.html

This is copyrighted proof that I made my statement prior to it becoming a part of things. I also stated in my Sept. 5th blog article that Jon Stewart and I looked at each other as we drove by each other on Sept. 4th. This also was before my statement had become anything, though based on having influenced Stewart and Colbert many times before in very big ways, it did lead me to suspect that my HuffPost Comment might be turning into something big. Stewart's look might have contained a certain suggestion of this, unless he was thinking, "Why are traffic lights green and red, Christmas colors, why must we Jews put up with this, someday I'm gonna run a traffic light, that'll show those bastards!" This is something all of us Jews think about from time to time, though few of us go through with it.

The following videoclip should be seen in the context I've just described (not the part about traffic lights, the other context):





Saturday Night's Alright For Following Tiny Little Details
I should at some point fit into a blog article how the SNL season premiere several days ago, like nearly every SNL for years and years and years, included a few things for my benefit. I know, I'll include it in this blog article.

Let's see, well for one thing, Amy Poehler's very brief revival of her Kim Jong Il. Her Kim Jong Il originally (a few years back) included referring to him as a film critic ala the Siskel/Ebert show, "At The Movies", as he said something about saving you an aisle seat. I had several days prior to that impression several years ago passed along (I would pass along an idea and they would always use fragments on the next show) the idea of Kim Jong Il being the guest host on "At The Movies" (when Ebert would always have a guest host with him). My idea showed how Kim Jong Il's taste in movies, in terms of why he appreciated the movies he liked, betrayed a strange sort of personality. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to say that I would personally love for him to review any of my videos, I was only joking about the kind of film critic he would be. (I seem to possibly be tangling with Ahmadinejad these days, and one crazy person doing stuff that could lead to nuclear bomb explosions is all I can handle at one time, thank you, would somebody else mind taking on Kim Jong Il?)

And then there was the appearance on SNL several days ago by the Governor of New York, Patterson, wherein they included their usual routine where he walks too near the camera, blocking things. This recurring bit (though previously it involved an SNL Patterson impression without the Patterson) began with something that happened in an Obama/McCain presidential debate hosted by Tom Brokaw (10.7.08), where McCain at the end walks too close to the camera, blocking things, which led to a few laughs when the moment was rerun on various shows. That real-life moment began with something I published at Archive.Org prior to the Brokaw-hosted debate ("Peek-A-Boo, ICU", 9/29/08, and also contained in my 9.28.08 blog article), a comedy idea about that very same (then upcoming) Brokaw-hosted debate. Incidentally, this was not the first time McCain did something in response to my comedy ideas - though you'll NEVER believe my version of what preceded his Palin selection. Anyway, in my Brokaw debate comedy idea, each candidate is on a video cell phone, placed on a table, facing each other. Brokaw inadvertantly puts his water glass down between the two video phones, blocking Obama's view of McCain, which he complains about, while McCain defends Brokaw's right to block his view.

I believe there may have been a few other things on SNL a few days ago regarding me, but who knows. One other thing I noticed on SNL, but NOT regarding me (every now and then I actually notice things that don't regard me, which in itself is yet another fact that many have trouble believing) is that, in their parody of that recent Stallone movie, they included something that brought to mind Jack Black in Sean Daniel's "The Jackal" (I have mentioned Sean Daniel not infrequently in my blogs for reasons I have also mentioned not infrequently). This struck me particularly because when Sheryl Crow was on Leno recently, she did something at the opening of the show out of Sean Daniel's "Animal House" (Ed Helms was sitting on a staircase playing a folk guitar and she took it away and smashed it). Though Sean Daniel did not produce "Animal House", it is an important part of his history, he was the person behind it when he was a decision-maker at Universal. So what's up with all that?

Your Comprehension Will Never Be Tested

As I promised in my previous blog article, “A Knight To Remember” (9.24.10), I will in this blog show how the Sept. 24th season premiere of “Smallville” (the final season), as has occurred MANY times before regarding this TV show (see references to “Smallville” in other blog articles), made substantial reference to my material (as also demonstrated in other blog articles). It may also perhaps be relevant to mention that the writers/producers of this show also wrote the movie, “Mummy 3”, which was produced by Sean Daniel, the first person who told me of CalArts, the film school I attended. Also perhaps of relevance is the fact that the person who co-produced the “Mummy” movies with Sean Daniel is one of my relatively few (less than 40) Facebook friends.





Image 1
This image featuring a chess knight is the logo for “Checkmate Agency,” which first appeared on “Smallville” in February 2010. Checkmate was an important part of “Smallville” episodes for the remainder of that (the previous) television season.

Image 2
This image showing a fence, field and tiny figure is the establishing shot for what is essentially the final scene of this 9/24/10 season premiere “Smallville” episode.

Image 3
This image, entitled, “A Separate Thing,” is from my graphic artwork book (self-published, copyright 1993), “Go Eyes, Go!” (posted at Archive.Org in June 2007). It is also the image I’ve been using for several years as part of my signature box on all of my emails at my job (thousands of emails). One sees an unmistakable similarity to Images 1 and 2. It is also the only creative work of mine that makes reference to chess, other than my video, “Bishop And Pawn Forfeit Rule” (posted at Archive.Org in May 2008, from a story posted at Archive.Org in October 2007). That video is the source of the remaining non-“Smallville” images.

Image 4
From the 9/24/10 season premiere of “Smallville”, this image represents the moment when Lex Luthor murders other Lex Luthors.

Image 5
From my May 2008 video, “Bishop And Pawn Forfeit Rule,” this image represents the moment when Chess Master Garry Kasparov states that he will travel in time to return to our present, and murder the Garry Kasparov there. Therefore this correlates to what occurs in the moment Image 4 represents.

Image 6
From the 9/24/10 season premiere of “Smallville,” in an extremely rare moment of losing his self-control, Clark is pushed to the point where he suddenly strangles someone, coming very close to strangling that person to death. This is also referred to later on in the episode, as being the moment when he lost his moral high ground.

Image 7
From “Bishop and Pawn Forfeit Rule,” in an extremely rare moment of losing his self-control, Kasparov is pushed to the point where he suddenly strangles someone to death. This is later self-described by Kasparov as the moment when he lost his moral high ground over Putin.

Image 8
From the 9/24/10 season premiere of “Smallville,” soldier pieces are moved around with deliberateness. The scene ends with the image of a soldier piece burning in the fireplace (forfeited?), a strange juxtaposition in which it is outside the normal context/realm established for it.

Image 9
From “Bishop and Pawn Forfeit Rule,” Putin and Kasparov move chess pieces around with deliberateness. Later in the story, having traveled back in time to the 6th century, Kasparov finds that chess pieces are strangely juxtaposed outside the normal context/realm established for them as he understands it, in that there are rules to chess back then with which he is unfamiliar.

Image 10
From “Bishop and Pawn Forfeit Rule,” in which Iranian President Ahmadinejad is made an important character in relation to the plot, in that he plays a key role in motivating Kasparov to travel back in time. In several of my previous blog articles (which are periodically copyrighted in volumes at Archive.Org), I have discussed how something appears to be going on behind the scenes that has led to “Smallville” episode moments and Iranian President announcement moments to, within the same several-day timeframe, include something that coincides with the same thing regarding me/my work (i.e., if both Hitler and Bob Hope had each said something within the same two-period that brought to mind the same, somewhat obscure moment in the movie, “It Happened One Night”, and then, about a year later, it happened once again regarding the same, somewhat obscure scene in the movie, “A Night At The Opera”, and then, two years, it happened again). It is not self-apparent, from what I have been able to identify and evaluate, that those who make “Smallville” have an inside track regarding the Iranian President. Also of relevance here is that “Bishop and Pawn Forfeit Rule” is my only creative work that includes a reference to the Iranian President.

A Knight To Remember (As Having Nothing To Do With The Titanic)

The Walls Are All In Place
I will not be demonstrating specifically in this blog how I am extremely important in relation to tonight's "Smallville" episode, which was the season premiere of this show's final season (those who read my blogs are familiar with my frequent presentation of evidence of my importance in relation to a great number of this show's episodes, including last season's season finale).

Demonstrating how I figure in relation to tonight's episode will take a little more doing than my present energy level will permit. But I do want to indicate here and now that I recognized it, as I am not one who feels good about keeping people in suspense regarding something important to them (I refer to the Smallville people who included me in so significant a way). I consider it very important that they have included me, I love this show, I also believe "Smallville" relates to an important modern mythology, Superman, and I feel enormously gratified by the whole thing. And I don't know if this will offend my old friend from junior high school, who is now one of the three people who runs Marvel Entertainment, and who is also my Facebook friend, but Superman is way better than Spiderman. Period.

The public-at-large may not feel totally satisfied this time around with the proof of what I say that I will be providing. It very much involves the image included with this blog, which can be found in something I posted a while back at Archive.Org, "Go Eyes, Go!", entitled, "A Separate Thing". This image is something I've been including for several years as part of the signature line of every email I send where I work. There are literally thousands of my emails containing this image. But do all of those "witnesses" comprise the entire population of the world? And so, as is the case with so much evidence of various things that exists in the world, there are indeed some among the entire population of the world who cannot be counted among the witnesses, and must therefore rely upon the witness testimony of others. There are always going to be some people who don't witness something! I suppose I deserve the blame for that!

Anyway, until the next time I have the exact kind of energy this task requires.

Hoping For A Stalemate
I also want to throw in, on Wednesday my blog asked the Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, to be serious already. The following day, Thursday, he made himself seem unmistakably ridiculous for the first time, as if on purpose. He may have been outlandish before, but his statement that most Americans think 9/11 was an inside job? He had to know how silly that sounds. I think he was setting himself up. And today, Friday, he announced that he may no longer do that enriched uranium thing he was doing that was scaring all the children around the world and no small number of us adults as well. I'm not crazy about him, but I do have him to thank for the fact that I will be sleeping a little easier tonight. Then again, I wonder how much sleep he was making people lose altogether? Maybe I should just be glad of where the pieces on the chessboard are at this moment, and leave it at that.

When You're Ready To Be Serious, Napoleon

Here's a little bit of fun, at least for those who think things that touch somewhat directly on an important moment regarding the Iranian President are a little bit of fun.

In my previous blog, "I Don't Suppose Anyone Has A Videoclip Of Larry King Leading A Conga Line" (9.20.10), one of the things I touched on was the then-upcoming appearance on Larry King of the Iranian President (at that time it was scheduled for Thursday, however, it aired today, Wednesday). I also touched on something I've been making repeated mention of, that the Iranian President has plugged into my secret super-importance in relation to Spielberg (the most prominent living Jewish man) and Paul McCartney (another individual with a non-comparable prominence in the world), by making inside-references that I get but that would not be appreciable by the public-at-large (am I crazy sounding or what?).

In that same 9.20.10 blog article, I also touched on the Eric Clapton album, "Slowhand" regarding something Clapton did in relation to me personally. (I've also described this same thing in other blogs as well, where I get particular about how it was in relation to me.)

I will begin with "Slowhand". It will become relevant to the other thing.

I have a Facebook friends who is not unconnected from the above-referenced thing Clapton did. And there have been a certain number of occasions when this same Facebook friend person has posted something on Facebook in response to things I've posted that touch on him, though in so indirect a manner as to be undetectable to the Facebook public-at-large that his Facebook posting has anything to do with me. Therefore, I paid close attention on September 21st to see if this person had anything in this "mailbox" for me. What I found was that this individual "Liked" something that was posted by a Dr. Wayne Dyer (who has a quarter million Facebook friends) on September 21st:

"At your core, the place where you originate from and return to, there's no one and no thing to judge."

What does this have to do with Clapton's "Slowhand"? The first song (the opening track) on "Slowhand", entitled, "The Core," contains the line, "I'm at my core."

I had specifically been looking to this person's Facebook posting on this precise day for such a reference to what I had posted the previous day, and I unmistakably found it. I recognize that this had also required that Dr. Wayne (quarter million Facebook friends) Dyer be complicit for this to have come about. I have already described in a recent blog how in general this type of thing has been occurring, including the involvement of the complicity/cooperation of non-Facebook friends taking place in conjunction with Facebook friends.

This brings us to today's interview on Larry King with the Iranian President. Such a TV show can be seen as important in relation to the Iranian President, as this is rather significant exposure on a fairly significant American TV show.

On this occasion, I detected no inside-reference on the Iranian President's part intended for my interpretation. However, at the very end of this show, Larry King closed with a reaction to this interview from the editor of Time Magazine:



I am not saying that heretofore no one has ever used the word, "core". But an intelligent person will see that without my pointing that out. I should also point out that a friend at work is a friend of Larry King. Prior to today's Larry King, I described what happened with "The Core" to someone else at work. I can imagine that as one of the ways word could have reached Larry King. I have no doubt, having pre-anticipated something of this kind, that the specific choice of words used at that important moment began with Eric Clapton's "The Core," or to be more specific, my having just referenced the album on which that is the opening track.

Tomorrow the Iranian President speaks at the United Nations. If you're reading this, Mr. Making - Everybody - Nervous - That - You -Won't - Take - Responsibility - For - Seriously - Playing - With - Fire - While - Doing - Nothing - To - Address - The - Problem - When - The - Future - Of - The - Whole - World - Is - At - Stake, just tap your foot in time with Jack Bruce's "Never Tell Your Mother She's Out Of Tune" when you're up there speaking to the world. It will really help me put together my next schpiel.

I Don't Suppose Anyone Has A Videoclip Of Larry King Leading A Conga Line

Nothing extraordinary to report, nevertheless, a few things I consider worthy of mention:

End Of The World, Part 12
Thursday the Iranian President is scheduled to appear Larry King, and Friday will be the season premiere of the final season of "Smallville". No possible connection, unless you've been following my blogs. I will see if this possible connection takes on significance.

Look Both Ways Before Smashing Into Something
Recently someone who may have been Sheryl Crow behaved in traffic a little like the person I recently mentioned in a blog article for having looked like Eric Clapton on the day his new album was announced. You may want to put on the brakes here, go to Archive.Org, search for Volume 4 of my collected blog articles, then search for Sheryl Crow and Eric Clapton there (you may particularly want to note that Crow will apparently be big on Clapton's upcoming new release). But back to the recent traffic thing - I was at the light to the on-ramp to the 134 on my way to work, the light turned green, however, up came Sheryl Crow (or someone one would think of as her) in the on-ramp diamond line and so didn't have to stop. I behaved appropriately, but I always see that protocol as an accident waiting to happen. I'm glad it is incredibly rare when that on-ramp diamond lane car that doesn't stop vies for the road space of the car that did and then got a green light. I first got my driving license by practicing driving in the car of and accompanied by a woman whose image Clapton put on the inside album jacket of "Slowhand" on my account, so it is important for me to assess the driving of these people, you understand. She also knew (knows?) Paul McCartney, who drives well, last I saw, but I believe I digress.

I recently was provided an opportunity to join in on a Facebook discussion that had Will Lee as a participant. Will Lee is part of Letterman's houseband. This is interesting in that a recent blog article of mine referred to Sheryl Crow in relation to Letterman. I had nothing to contribute to that discussion, and for some strange reason I allowed that fact to be the basis for my choosing not to say anything. I do enjoy Will Lee's impression of a person tortured by Dick Cheney that we occasionally get to see on Letterman. Will Lee also played on a Lennon recording. (I imagine this is a digression for those appreciating the generally non-Beatles quality of this blog article.)

Always Place The Fork To The Left Of The Bishop
Recently Regis on Fallon did his usual secret inside reference for my benefit regarding someone I once knew who is also someone to whom Regis once introduced himself. Fallon participated in it (Fallon is a friend of Drew Barrymore, whom I've mentioned in blog articles, recently, in fact) and I think it was quite entertaining all around.

File Under Bulletin Board
I recently noticed that the woman I once knew whose image was on Clapton's "Slowhand" inside album jacket on my account (she's not the one in the photo showing Clapton kissing, that's Linda McCartney) has on her Facebook Info page something I recognize as being part of a line from the title song of my "Enough To Eclipse" CD (available at CD Baby). She seamlessly worked part of my song line into something about something, and you'd never know. Clapton once married George Harrison's ex-wife (could be I'm digressing again). I merely wish to acknowledge something that jumped off the page as far as I'm concerned, and don't believe I'm expressing an opinion.

Why Don't You Pour It In Jar
And finally, this videoclip regarding the Coen Brothers' "A Serious Man" in relation to my 1990/1992 video, "Steinhoff's Dostoyevsky's 'Uncle's Dream'" (posted at Google Video in 2005, and later posted at Archive.Org) requires an appreciation of the fact that certain ideas can emerge from a collective effect that aren't visible when seen with a piecemeal perspective. You might actually feel I'm dreaming to think this videoclip has anything serious, in response to which I might actually feel you can't be serious to believe I'm dreaming, and there we are, at the beginning of World War III.

Hugely Insignificant Addendum To Something That Meant Nothing In The First Place

A minor addendum to yesterday's minor addendum blog article (9/11/10, "Most Are Unaware Of The Evidence"). This will once again be for the benefit of those who know certain things that others do not, as is so often the case in life (far more often than what I would choose). Perhaps others will also find value here, more likely those who have reviewed a number of my blogs wherein I have been fortunate enough to have supporting evidence to provide, in that such people may feel a basis for having faith in my words at this time.

It has occurred to me, regarding my discussion yesterday of my expectation that the movie, "Everybody's Fine" would have contained something related to me/my material (as tends to be the case when a movie is made for which Paul McCartney contributes a song), yet seemingly did not, that there are several things I may have overlooked. These are possibilities, but possibilities I consider significant enough to relate. I already realize that, numerically speaking, there are fewer people who are "insiders" than there are "outsiders" to what I describe. Sometimes the football only needs to be received by one person.

Drew Barrymore, who is in this movie, previously made reference to my "Leonardoville" movie idea (a version of which is posted at Archive.Org) in her movie, "Ever After". "Leonardoville" regards a humorous imagining of the backstory behind the creation of the painting, "Mona Lisa". In "Everybody's Fine", we see at the end of the movie, as a major closing moment, the significance of the backstory to a painting.

Additionally: I have previously asserted that a number of Beatles songs grew out of a 15-page story I wrote when I was in the 5th grade, "Endless Voyage," how this story involves a pill that, when taken, makes it so that one can breathe water but never breathe air again. In "Everybody's Fine," we find that Drew Barrymore's character has a job performing as a mermaid. Mermaids breathe water. Also, pills are given an extremely special place in the movie's plot, regarding the life and death aspect in relation to De Niro's character not having his pills (not to mention the drug overdose juxtaposed in relation to this, if one construes it this way).

If these things were included for my benefit, and I have a considerable number of reasons to believe they may well have been, or even if I see that only as a significant possibility, I would have to feel some kind of obligation to make an acknowledgment, which is the primary role of this article. Clearly such acknowledgment comes with a cost, in terms of how it must make me seem to the "outsiders".

Most Are Unaware Of The Evidence

For those who recall my August 8th blog article ("Stuck In Traffic, Not"), I have a minor addendum, unless one considers it to be very important in relation to Paul McCartney, in which case it might seem disrespectful to use the word "minor". Whether it is a minor or a major addendum, that is something for history to decide. Perhaps I shouldn't have even brought this question to the table. I have an addendum, I shall simply leave it at that, yes, that would be best. Oh yes, and as the title of this blog article states, most of you are unaware of any evidence for what I describe. You'll just have to total up the times I have been able to provide in my blog articles evidence in matters of this nature, calculate an assessment of my character and intelligence, and stare in astonishment at the results!

Minor Addendum (Preface)
In the above-referenced August 8th blog article, I described a message I sent someone that related to a video I made at CalArts in 1978, "How Did The Future Learn to Play Monopoly," a video which was a significant influence on many people's work, including Paul McCartney's work, particularly his movie, "Give My Regards To Broad Street". I also described in that article how that recent message was responded to, by way of Paul McCartney driving by me the following day on a road that resembled something out of his "Regards" movie, a beginning scene in that movie that directly related to a section I had influenced.

Yesterday I received a direct response from the person to whom I had sent the message. This may have been a reaction on this person's part to the very last paragraph of my Sept. 5th blog article, about emailed responses to phone calls or phone call responses to emails, and how this could generate the appearance of zero responses in the eyes of those presuming what form the responses must take for proper protocol to be involved. The response I received yesterday may additionally (as some actions are designed to serve multiple purposes) have related to the TV premiere (as an "Early Premiere" on Cinemax) of the Robert Downey Jr./Guy Ritchie movie, "Sherlock Holmes".

Follow Me, Watson
When I was in England for the first time, May 13, 1983, several days following my arrival McCartney and myself were nearly alone at the Baker Street Underground Station in London (facing platforms separated by the train tracks). Baker Street is, of course, very related to the Holmes mythology. When McCartney's "Regards" movie came out the following year, Rathbone Inc. (Rathbone Industries?) were the bad guys. At one time the actor Basil Rathbone was synonymous with Holmes (he played Holmes often). Also related is the fact that "Regards" includs a scene meant to evoke a Holmes-esque hunt for a criminal in 19th century London.

I Didn't Say I Was Finished Yet, Watson
I have previously been an influence on works that involved Holmes' Downey and Ritchie. One instance was Downey's "The Soloist", which made inside-reference to my 1993 video, "Mall Man" (posted at Archive.Org). For this and other reasons, I believe there are the right number of reasons for me to regard as deliberate the similarity between Downey's characterization of Holmes and my characterization of Mall Man. Not to mention the moment when Holmes discards a garment from his coach bearing a similarity to Mall Man discarding the socks.

We're Almost There
(I Thought I Told You To Use The Bathroom Before We Left)
Tonight was the TV premiere of "Everybody's Fine," a movie that features a McCartney song written for the movie. Traditionally, movies that feature songs created by McCartney for the movie have invariably contained inside-reference to me/my material. I therefore would first want to state, I hope that the scene in that movie in the train station with the guy who destroyed De Niro's medicine was not that reference (by the way, I would be remiss not to mention that I have also been an influence on De Niro). I would never do something like that, and if McCartney's recollection of what happened at Baker Street remains accurate, I think he would have to agree. I just pointed him out on the near-empty platform to the guy strangely dressed like Sherlock Holmes sitting next to me, who clearly should have observed it for himself, and was therefore obviously putting me on (not just in terms of the fact that he wasn't the actual Sherlock Holmes). Did that person at Baker Street dressed like Holmes destroy anybody's medicine? No. We were both well behaved. Therefore: The only possible connection I was able to find in "Everybody's Fine" that might possibly have been put there for me to identify is the fact that the song title, "I Wanna Come Home" has the word "Home" in it. However, this song title's spelling of "Home" is different, and uses the singular rather than the plural, "Holmes". Furthermore, it would have been scientifically impossible for them to have arranged the TV premieres of these two movies to coincide one day after the other. I suspect magic may have been involved, if anything.

Can't Completely Rule It Out

Here are a few things that belong in the category, "the more weight I attach, the more others will feel compelled to make light" (I've got to start writing about things that fall into a different category). Well, I guess I can stand the short-term break-even (or worse) that comes from this battle between attaching heaviness vs. being made light, in that matters of consequence endure and so I shall be vindicated for though fools may seek to rule the world.... I think I've already begun the making light process on my own. And so now, to be serious about what's serious (it is too). Or, as the title of this blog article states, here are some possibilities I cannot completely rule out, having experienced the strange things that I have (have too).

We've Got To Get Ourselves Back Off The Sofa (by Joni Mitchell)
In my previous blog article I mentioned how Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" apparently drove by me Saturday (admittedly, no fingerprints to support this conviction). I also took the opportunity in that blog article to repeat my oft-made assertion that I am an influence on him (and Colbert as well, as I've also oft-asserted). Older blogs of mine copyrighted on Archive.Org confirm that I didn't just start saying this yesterday (this Blogspot site confirms no chronology of when I said what, as one can attach any date to any article, and so I refer to what is copyrighted to Archive.Org).

In this context, one might consider, as a possibility, that there is greater significance to the following videoclip than merely being an instance of like minds thinking alike (then again, perhaps it could strike you as confirmation of same, or perhaps, different minds that haven't the slightest to do with one another, or, that Steinhoff sure hit the nail on the head this time, or, I wonder why he's talking about Colbert, that looks like Stewart):



I believe the upcoming event Stewart and Colbert allude to in the videoclip could ultimately prove to be the biggest event of the year, or something along those lines. Humor is a medium, and what these two do in that medium is most serious, in my view. Yes, I am serious about the seriousness of humor even if many make light of the weight of.... but some might say I digress, and the opinion of those who feel that way is what matters most to me in the whole world.

Some may feel the need for me to spell out how it is that I believe the Sept. 3rd comment I made on Huff Post as JonathanDS fits in with the direction in which Colbert and Stewart are taking things. It's simple. I reacted to the idea of a Colbert rally with the idea that it be juxtaposed as completely separate yet alongside a Jon Stewart rally, both essentially vying to occupy virtually the same space, despite the expectation that, if anything, it should be one big rally. And that is precisely how they are playing things out at this point. Easily possible I am making too much of a like minds think alike idea, limited in originality, no big deal. Also very possible that this, the biggest event in the history of mankind (I'm only quoting Colbert), in terms of the way Colbert and Stewart are handling it, sprang from my pen. Can those who have followed my influence on things, both in general and specifically, completely ignore this possibility? Would someone pay for my plane fare so I can attend? Or maybe, go to CD Baby and listen to my songs so that, penny by penny, I might at least make it halfway across the country, where I might watch the proceedings from a TV in a dingy hotel room, muttering to myself about the people who wouldn't pay to listen to my songs at CD Baby, that I might afford to be a few miles closer to where things are happening? Don't I deserve at least that, enough song money to be within a thousand miles of it? By the way, I recommend my song, "Whatever Happened" (which is also available for free elsewhere on the Internet in higher quality than mp3, as well as the music video, I didn't just say that, I wonder if Jimi Hendrix' ghost is laughing at me for that, which would be quite an honor).

Stop Pointing That Erasure At Me
Also difficult for me to ignore: In my August 22nd blog article I correlated the book burning in Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451" to the suppressive mentality of Iran's president. Now in the news we see this Terry Jones character suddenly causing an international stir with his vile plans to have a book burning of the Quran. I am not pleased by this (please note my use of the word "vile"). Nevertheless, of all the book burning the world has seen, rarely has the idea of such received this level of attention, including in this instance condemnation from the Pentagon, the Pope, and most importantly, Hillary Clinton (unless you're Catholic and/or militaristic, please don't put me in the middle of this). All this less than three weeks after my book burning referencing blog article. I do recognize that only those who read the blog article upon its publication could testify to this, it being that, as mentioned earlier, this Blogspot site makes it possible to fiddle with dates. Nevertheless, for those who know what I am saying is true about my having posted a blog article on August 22nd that makes significant anti-book burning mention, and also for those who have by now learned to believe me: this is far from the first time the right-wing has used me to springboard their crap onto center-stage. I suppose they would consider it their true crowning achievement if I permitted it to silence me, or bug me. Well, I can recognize a bright side. You see, when one plays pool, one often aims for the bank, it is well known that this is how to hit certain balls into certain pockets and leave oneself well-positioned. I think it extremely possible that, after Terry Jones is finished playing the antagonist in this little drama, the larger story that emerges will be a positive one. People who might otherwise seem aligned against all Muslims showing their repugnance at such conduct. Etc.

I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing Like Jimi Hendrix
And finally, on Sept. 6th, immediately following my Sept. 5th blog article about seeing words of my song show up in somebody's Facebook posting (seemingly inadvertantly), President Obama used words from a Hendrix song in a speech, as if inadvertantly ("they talk about me like a dog" - "Stone Free" by Jimi Hendrix). Okay, not enough here to necessarily construe that this had anything whatsoever to do with my blog article the previous day. How about the fact that the same blog article of mine held back from observing Hendrix song postings by Facebook friends who presumably don't know each other, in that they coincided with my Dwight Hendricks ("Memphis Beat") blog articles? I held back on including mention of those Hendrix incidents, though it would have been germaine to my blog article, owing to the fact that many see posting a Hendrix song on Facebook as being as common as using the word, "the". I would generally concur, if not for the collective significance when seen alongside the other stuff to which I was referring. But it was too obscure a point for me to make in my Sept. 5th blog article, so I held back - now, perhaps, things are different (too late!). I have also indicated in previous blogs that I am an occasional influence on what the President of the United States says. And that he is an old friend of someone I know at work.

Attaching Weight Can Be Fun

Yesterday I believe I was face to face with Sean Daniel, the first person from whom I learned of CalArts, the college I attended. Sean is a good friend of Steven Spielberg and Paul McCartney, and has played an important role in my being a significant influence on both, and on many others as well (that is, from what I can tell Sean has been in this role, although he could be getting his instructions in these matters from McCartney or the Kremlin or the ghost of Abraham Lincoln or whoever). Sean is also one of the co-producers of the Mummy movies (Jim Jacks, one of my Facebook friends, being the other). Sean and I were in our cars and less than half a block from the "Mummies of the World" billboard in Hollywood, the proximity to this being something I discovered after I recognized him. He appeared extremely concerned about something, and I would have to wonder whether my previous blog article on Iran's president might have been a contributing factor. Depending on how much weight one attaches to it, that particular article could be quite a source of serious concern, therefore, you may want to make light of it for that reason alone, as life is too short, etc.

I also saw Jon Stewart yesterday. I may also have seen Rachel Maddow, however, I'm not sure on that. I have at various times been quite a significant influence on both. As a Facebook friend had just posted something about Maddow's MSNBC buddy Keith Olberman, my mentioning this Maddow moment could easily sound contrived to some for that reason alone (I'm sure no one has ever been out to make me sound contrived, and I must accept full responsibility for all the times my words have sounded contrived, it must be something I like to do!).

Relevant to this latest instance of my sounding contrived, I have recently found evidence that some person or persons behind the scenes has been coordinating certain actions of certain Facebook friends of mine, people who presumably have nothing to do with one another. This has on occasion become additionally complicated to the point where it has involved the coordinating of certain Facebook friends of certain Facebook friends to post things, which in turn provide my Facebook friends the opportunity to comment on or like certain postings that were actually made for me to see. For example, a Facebook friend of mine (someone I knew at CalArts) who is connected with Eric Clapton had the opportunity to like a posting his Facebook friend made, causing me to see his Facebook friend's posting. That Facebook friend of a Facebook friend posting happened to use words that are identical to words contained in a song I once did, and the timing of when they made their Facebook postings coincided perfectly with a matter going on in relation to my video for that song (I will not go into further detail, sorry). That Facebook friend of my Facebook friend is himself the Facebook friend of a woman (not my Facebook friend) who is herself the Facebook friend of another one of my Facebook friends (from when I was in high school in Princeon), and this woman did something similar in relation to that Princeton Facebook friend of mine (who is not in the least connected to the Facebook friend person I knew at CalArts). So, a situation involving two of my Facebook friends who aren't connected to one another, and one of each of their Facebook friends who themselves are Facebook friends with each other, all doing things aimed at me (again, I will not go into further detail, sorry again).

As I have mentioned before (e.g., my Sept. 6, 2008 blog article), this type of stuff is nothing new to me. The unfortunate thing for me in this Facebook instance is that, if I keep seeing postings people are aiming at me, I would nevertheless be seen as initiating things without invitation were I to react in any way, as if I'm someone who speaks when not spoken to (ooh, I must be imagining it all). Someday there will be two people, one who telephones the other but never emails him, and the other will be someone who always emails that other person but never telephones him. And a third person will be perfectly able to make the case that one is continuing to send emails to someone who has never sent an email back. And that the other is continuing to phone someone who has never phoned him back. Persona non gratis, I think it's called. A hell of a thing to do to the person in the middle of this U.S. entertainment industry/Iranian President stuff, that is, if you've been attaching any weight to the evidence.

Waiting For The Paint To Dry With All The Time In The World

Preface
This post will be a semi-sketchy attempt to justify the outlandish-sounding assertion I made in my 8.22.10 blog, "So I Says To Myself, Hey, I Don't Want The World Blowing Up, Right?". Specifically, I refer to my statement that the Iranian President, on several headline-grabbing occasions, employed a somewhat secret lexicon to express something in addition to what he appears to have endeavored to express. That this secret lexicon regards someone secretly super-important to Steven Spielberg, who is the most prominent Jewish man alive today. [I refer you to "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor", posted at Archive.Org.]

In spite of the length of this blog article, as stated above this will only be semi-sketchy, that is, in the sense that I will not include here most of the numerous footnotes/links scattered about the Web, accessible to all, that support my statements. What I will do is indicate, with red font, those statements I am making that I believe can be verified/proven were one to know the footnotes/links, as opposed to non-red, unverifiable statements such as, "I sneezed half-an-hour ago, allergies," a fact I cannot prove to you (though it is not my fault that I cannot prove it to you). The statements you will see here in red font, had I included all of the related footnotes/links with them, would lead you to Web locations like YouTube or Archive.Org, where everything has a visible copyright date, so therefore, things posted there clearly did not suddenly come into being "after-the-fact". As I've stated many times before, this blogsite has the defect of an all-too-malleable timestamp, and I do not hold up the dates that these blogs are posted as being indicative of anything. There are also matters of public record such as news articles to support some of my statements. I periodically post at Archive.Org accumulations of my blog articles (Volumes 1, 2, 3 so far), which thusly makes it possible to pinpoint, to a degree, when certain of my blog articles were written (i.e., if at the end of 2008 I posted all of my 2008 blog articles at Archive.Org, there may not be proof that my Sept. 6, 2008 blog article was specifically written Sept. 6, but this would provide proof that it was written prior to 2009).

I must also preface this semi-sketch with the following example (which I like to refer to as "The "Aby Principle") to illustrate an important point regarding the deductive reasoning involved with cumulative implications (by the way, cumulative implications, if of a particular nature, can be considered valid in a court of law):

The Aby Principle
If I am on a 500-mile road trip, and at 10:49pm I see a personalized license plate that reads, "mccartney", and then at 11:49pm a license plate that reads "ccartney", and then at 12:49am a license plate that reads "cartney", 1:49am "artney"; 2:49am "rtney", 3:49am "tney", 4:49am "ney", 5:49am "ey", 6:49am "y", 7:49am "by", and at 8:49am "aby", cumulatively, something's going on here. Somebody put somebody up to something. So if I say the "aby" license plate is connected to that stuff, it isn't because I think McCartney necessarily has any involvement, and it isn't because I believe "aby" is generally to be associated with "McCartney". It would be because, as a basic point of logic, there is a cumulative implication. My experience of many, many, many years may have made me aware of how to associate certain things - but conveying to you exactly why I've deduced the "aby" car has anything to do with the "mccartney" car might require a WHOLE lot of explaining - that is, my example here may illustrate the concept, but in terms of the actual, specific things I need to describe, the example only barely scratches the surface of how many details might inform an observation of this nature, however unmistakable the implication may be.

So hopefully, in this semi-sketchy approach to this very important matter, those things I (thankfully) feel I am able to verify with footnotes/links (red font) will sufficently balance against those things I cannot, and you will get a.... semi-sketch of what I am saying. I may eventually return with a more complete explanation of those things referred to here in red font, though you might just go through my earlier blogs, archive.org, etc. if you need reassurance that I'm not just pulling things out of the air. And I apologize for not including everything here, footnotes/links and all, however, a degree of energy is required in order for me to track down all of the related links/footnotes, and this task has become quite draining as it is: The idea that the chain of ideas I express here is only as strong as the weakest link, and then the idea that it is MOST important that I correctly convey what I am attempting to convey, instead of dropping the ball, the potential for this to so seriously impact so many - well, to put it bluntly, a rather considerable amount of strength must be summoned to accomplish this.

A Semi-Sketch Of The Iranian President's Secret Little Messages
A lexicon has developed among those artists at the highest level of the entertainment industry. It is built around me and my little videos and other stuff regarding me, because of my secret super-importance in relation to people such as Spielberg, McCartney, Lennon, Tim Burton, Ridley Scott, The Stones, Madonna, SNL, etc., etc., but it might just as easily have been built/based around things more generally known, such as that which is found through reading Greek Mythology, or information accessible through reading a biography of John Lennon's Aunt Mimi, or it could have been based on anything you can think of. But it wasn't based on anything, it happens that it was built around me. I didn't ask them to and I don't get off on it personally, except perhaps the child inside me does. The size of my ego, though you might be inclined to presume from this that it is great, is not predicated on the things directed towards it. No, I do not describe all this out of ego, but rather, it is because I am stark raving mad! (I can't resist an opportunity to be most humorous - no really, that was a joke! I am as sane as, well, a few people)

By way of a secret lexicon, a man can seem to be heard talking about making his rocket go off with his girlfriend when everyone else goes to the movies, but he's really talking about them going at each other's things and doing their business (and I look forward to someday understanding what I just said, if I could just meet the right girl). Hopefully I haven't lost anybody other than myself yet. By the way, the very famous four-letter word we men use when we don't feel like saying we're doing our business with our rockets was itself originated a while back to avoid a direct reference, each of those four letters themselves being the first initial of four separate words.

And yes, I do recognize that followers of the music of aby are capable of getting all helter skelter with their screwy interpretations of so-called intended hidden meanings. However, that is not an intelligent reason for concluding that no one ever conceals their meaning from certain parties, or follows a complex path in order to accomplish this. So clearly, it can take a very discerning mind to make the difficult distinctions between subtle meanings, ambiguities, semi-ambiguities, slightly semi-ambiguities, non-ambiguities, etc. I do not expect that everyone is equally suited to the task, especially when it comes to a particularly high level matter, by which I mean, you are all terrific.

My fellow CalArts alum, Tim Burton, often makes heavy inside-references to me/my material in his work. A CalArts alum woman we both knew is part of that, and also part of some of the things contained in those references.

The TV show "Smallville" also makes heavy inside-references to me/my material. I first noticed that show's references before I learned that producer Sean Daniel, longtime Spielberg friend and the first person from whom I learned of CalArts, who is also someone who is involved with making inside-references to me/my material, was using the "Smallville" writers for his major project, "Mummy 3". I also came to make several other observations regarding "Smallville" in relation to these references. One was that sometimes the cumulative factor required seeing episodes of certain other shows that aired the very same night as the "Smallville" episode in question, TV shows that also had come to make inside references to my material ("Monk" and "Medium"). The other thing with "Smallville" is that they were the only show that led me to wonder what the turn-around time was for them, whether they could possibly get something into an episode 24 hours before air-time. One already knows Saturday Night Live or Bill Maher's show can do this, but I had specific reason, on more than one occasion, to wonder this about this one non-live show, "Smallville", and no other non-live show. I still do not know the answer, but it is clear what caused me to wonder this.

When CalArts alum Tim Burton had a scene in his movie, "Mars Attacks", where a gift to the Martians of white doves is presumably misconstrued and reacted against with serious violence, it was based on an incident involving myself and the CalArts woman I knew who worked for Tim Burton (this same incident also influenced Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas" and James Cameron's "Titanic", the latter of which she herself worked on). A gift of a mechanical (wind up) bird was involved.

When the Iranian President had a major media event several years ago (November 2007), announcing a major milestone regarding his proceeding with developing nuclear energy, he had the graphic image of white doves as his backdrop. Thoughts of the scene in "Mars Attacks" crossed my mind at the time, as I felt the Iranian President sought to generate the impression that he was some innocent guy whose peace doves were being misconstrued and reacted against with threats of violence. When there already exists in popular culture (such as in a movie scene) something most very similar to an image someone seems to possibly be trying to conjure up, one might consider the possibility that it is deliberately intended in some way - though not necessarily intended to be foremost in our thoughts, as sometimes people exploit things in the backs of our minds (see the nature of the advertising industry for further examples, or political tyrants who have been known to go to extremes to manipulate how they are perceived by the world, such as when they make believe they won their power in a fair election even though we all know he didn't).

My being aware, through experience, of so many incidents in which people intertwine with the above-described lexicon regarding myself, incidents that sometimes involve world leaders, including presidents, I was on special alert with regard to a possible connection here to the "Mars Attacks" scene. The following day, an episode of "Smallville" also did something that immediately brought to mind the exact same incident regarding the mechanical bird and the woman at CalArts. I would have been aware of that similarity even without it having been brought to mind by what happened at the Iranian President's presentation to the media the day before. I noted this in my own inside-reference about a year later, in my Sept. 6, 2008 blog article. I indicated that there was a secret inside-reference I observed that connected the words "Iran" and "Smallville" and "Tim Burton" and "dove" (I included 10 other words as well, which were indirectly related, but the fact that these four words were included (and published at Archive.Org in November 2009 as part of an accumulation of my blog articles), supports my present statement that I was connecting these things no later than November 2009. From this it should be easy to deduce that "dove" in relation to "Tim Burton" was a reference to that "Mars Attacks" movie scene, and furthermore it is no stretch to construe that "Iran" also being put in relation to "dove" in that same Sept. 6, 2008 blog article regarded the November 2007 photograph that I include above. My point is, I had already made this connection prior to what I am about to describe regarding "Iran" and "Smallville" and "Tim Burton".

In Tim Burton's "Alice In Wonderland", released 3/5/10, he again makes inside-references regarding this same CalArts woman in relation to myself. However, more significantly, in "Alice" Burton makes inside-reference to a particular section of my 1998 "Gosk 2" video. In the first "Smallville" episode to air following the release of "Alice", which was titled "Escape," 4/2/10, Season 9, Episode 189 (their previous episode aired 2/26/10), "Smallville" also brought to mind that same section of "Gosk 2". I will be specific here, although, I also plan on doing a videoclip that more clearly illustrates how "Alice" makes strong reference to this section of "Gosk 2", at which time my point will be far more easy to see.

At a certain point in "Gosk 2", Vinkalert suddenly notices that the greenish-blue plastic pail he's been carrying has become purple. Shocked, he drops the pail to the ground, as the Procol Harum song, "Whiter Shade of Pale" is heard. At the end of "Alice", the Mad Hatter drops his sword to the ground in surprise, as if suddenly aware of what it truly is. He shortly thereafter does a special dance that is given great attention by all. In "Whiter Shade of Pale", the song lyrics begin with a description of doing a dance, "We skipped the light fandango." Additionally, the hat scene occurs at this point in "Gosk 2", wherein Vinkalert, lying in the front seat of his car, can only be identified by his hat - his hat is all we see. I cut between different angles of the hat to punctuate what he is saying about things not working out with the girl he knew back when he was in school, much as one would normally cut to different angles of a person's face. The Mad Hatter is the central character in "Alice", therefore, this is the single moment out of all my various works that most directly ties in with the idea of the protagonist of "Alice", The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp). And cumulatively, alongside all of the other Tim Burton inside-references to me over the years, as well as elsewhere in that movie (see "aby" description above), I believe it should be easy to see that this was in relation to his fellow CalArts alum, i.e., myself.

On the very first "Smallville" episode following the release of "Alice" (4/2/10, as indicated above), we see a silver metal pail that has never been painted. Also in this episode is a story line that involves a painting in an inn, a painting containing paint that shockingly changes by itself.

When I was filming the above-described pail/hat scene for "Gosk 2", I had just finished filming with Robbie Cavolina (who played Vinkalert in "Gosk", and was Joni Mitchell's art director for a number of her album covers, while me, I'm just secretly a major influence on a number of Paul McCartney album covers, see "McCartney and Steinhoff, An Introduction" at Archive.Org) the scene where he's walking with the pail when it was still greenish-blue (clearly the same film location). So, what had to happen, of course, to avoid having to return another day? I had to then and there paint the pail so that in the video it could first be greenish-blue, then shockingly change to purple by itself. I painted the pail purple, and Robbie and I sat around waiting for the paint on the pail to dry, in order to continue (Joni Mitchell and Paul McCartney were nowhere to be seen). This moment was again brought to mind by the "Smallville" episode that featured a totally unpainted pail, and paint shockingly changing by itself on a painting. One could recognize the basis for drawing a correlation due to the cumulative factor regarding "Smallville" so often referencing me/my material. The Tim Burton/Gosk-related "Smallville" episode was their first episode to air following Tim Burton's Gosk-related "Alice". So now it's 4/2/10.

On 4/7/10, the Iranian President grabbed the headlines with his remark, "Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries". This remark was considered odd. It is often the case that when someone is trying to work a lexicon reference into what they say, and/or are bent on being quoted in the headlines, the ostensible (non-lexicon) meaning is expressed in a strained/odd manner.


Paint Things As You Please
It is my carefully considered belief, based on my special experience in such matters, that the coinciding of Tim Burton, "Smallville" and the Iranian President's actions in March/April 2010, all occurring in the same very specific time proximity, is too precise a mirroring of what occurred in 2007 with regard to Tim Burton, "Smallville" and the Iranian President, and therefore should not be presumed a mere coincidence. Somebody put somebody up to something.

I do not venture an opinion as to whether any value must be found in a discovery that the Iranian President was involved in the use of a lexicon at these important moments. I only wish to present my belief that such action did occur, and semi-sketch how I came to this conclusion. Some may regard my assessment as being based on something too flimsy to warrant so serious a conclusion. Some may even think the whole world situation in relation to Iran isn't serious. Some may think DNA evidence shouldn't be taken seriously because that stuff is so tiny you need a microscope to see it. There are people who watch detective shows on TV and think, "That's enough evidence?" I believe there is enough here, and the situation sufficiently important, as to make it idiotic to disregard it. However, many are new to this sort of thing, and I'll try not to judge too harshly those who fail to recognize in this a matter of grave concern.

And as I've indicated in other blog articles, I believe my May 2, 2010 blog article, "Knowing Where To Look," proves that the Times Square "attempted" bombing needs to be seen in terms of some of the key things touched on here.