All Roads Lead To Memphis And France

A few things from last night's Letterman tend to add support for my belief that someone over there is reading my blogs. In fact, I seem to have found reason to believe that SNL people also read my blogs, as well as certain others who make TV, movie, etc. contact with countless others.

One or two of you out there may even permit me to build my case:

As recently as July 15th I found reason to state in a blog article:

".... apparently something was worked out with Letterman (who has referenced me/my material quite a bit before, as I've indicated in numerous blogs)....."

My July 6th and July 13th blog articles related to my observations that the July 6th and July 13th episodes of the TV show, "Memphis Beat" made inside-references to my material (specifically, my 1993 video, "Mall Man", which is posted at Archive.Org), and in those blog articles I also included my explanation of why those inside-references were made on "Memphis Beat". Videoclip excerpts correlating things in "Memphis Beat" with things in my 1993 "Mall Man" video were also presented. My July 13th blog article ("One Small Step For Mall Man") included but one "Mall Man" videoclip excerpt for correlating purposes, which, interestingly, was directly sequential with the exact spot in "Mall Man" where we left off in my July 6th blog article.

Now, on July 20th, a new reference on TV to my "Mall Man" video, again directly sequential with the exact spot in "Mall Man" where we left off on July 13th. This occurred on the July 20th Letterman, with the word "Memphis" also figuring big on that night's show:



May I express my apologies to Dave for making him look a little silly by editing him as repeating Sheryl Crow's word "Memphis" so much. However, the title of an important guest's latest release is important in that world, therefore, I do not exaggerate that word's degree of importance on that show. Perhaps on some future occasion it will become relevant for me to edit him as appearing to repeat the word "Mississippi" in like manner, which surely would have the effect of making him seem quite impressive. Who knows what the future will bring? Let's see, first I would have to do a video about Tom Sawyer, then....

Make That Period A Comma

I seem to be at the part of the wheel where I can only faintly-sorta-kinda point to verifiable references by others to me/my material, as opposed to, say, my references to the "Simpsons" season finale (my blogs of May 18th and 23rd), where you would have to be partially stupid to feel no real evidence of Steinhoff inside-references was offered.

Oil Painting Leak
In the very beginning of my May 23rd blog ("Can't Say For Certain Whether Or Not Oliver Twist Would Have Wanted More Of This"), I build upon what I construed as a possible inside-reference by Paul McCartney to the Beatles song "Paperback Writer", a song which I was an influence on. Evidence that I was reacting to the idea of the song "Paperback Writer" on May 23rd may be found by going to my YouTube posting of May 23rd, "Notes From The". The video there relates to too many pages to read in connection with McCartney. As we all know, "Paperback Writer" contains the line, "It's a thousand pages," meant to express the idea of too many pages.

We then see that just three days later on May 26th Paul McCartney gave an interview to the Telegraph, wherein he discusses well known artists in connection with his purchase of their works. Should you at this point take the trouble to go to my January 10, 2010 blog (also posted/copyrighted at archive.org in Volume 3 of the collected texts of my blogs), in the section entitled, "The President, Terrorism and Baby Oil?", you will see that I bring up "Paperback Writer" specifically in connection to Paul McCartney's purchase of the works of artist Francis Bacon. I should or should not perhaps add that the May 26th McCartney interview includes someone saying that, in telling anecdotes, McCartney isn't good at self-editing, which I believe could possibly be there to bring to mind endless pages/a thousand pages.

His Master's Void
This one is for those who recall evidence presented in previous blogs that Russell Crowe movies are sometimes found to contain inside-references to me/my material. On this basis, I consider it legitimate to ask people to take my word on something difficult to prove to the public-at-large. And by "difficult to prove to the public-at-large," what I mean is, people only started posting videos in 2005 (evidencing in 2005 at least something regarding how long ago such videos were made), so videos I made before 2005 cannot be proven to the public-at-large as having been made before that, as I didn't post them until 2005, and they received no theatrical release. (As for those who saw my videos prior to 2005, you do have proof of their being made before 2005 - perhaps someone needs to give you a calculator?)

Specifically, my "Gosk 1" video (1994), which can be found at archive.org, has Clerp all excited about a threat to the spacecraft that he sees on the monitor, a meteor in the distance. After dramatically steering around the perceived (by Clerp) threat, Jerp expresses that he didn't see anything at all, but Clerp replies with, "Oh yeah, it was coming right at us." In the 2003 Russell Crowe movie, "Master and Commander," someone sees a threatening ship through a telescope, however, the Russell Crowe character sees nothing through the telescope, and expresses this to the person who said he saw it. The person who said he saw the threatening ship reaffirms his assertion, he is sure he saw something.

In and of itself one would not have to regard this as a reference to "Gosk 1", however, one's perspective should be informed by the context: there are a number of significant references to my material in Russell Crowe movies (particularly the ones he made with Ridley Scott, and also Ridley Scott movies that don't have Russell Crowe acting in them, though this Russell Crowe movie was not directed by Scott).

Am I Read
Without going into endless detail, I believe that, following my making a reference to Don Rickles in a comment to a Huffington Post article (as JonathanDS), he in turn made an inside-reference for my benefit in his Letterman appearance several days ago. It tied in with the inside-references for my benefit whenever Philbin is on Letterman in relation to a woman I knew to whom Philbin once introduced himself. Further on this same subject, while eating lobster today in a restaurant, I saw someone who brought a certain JH to mind, which is someone I think of in connection with a certain LW, which connects back to the whole Philbin and Letterman thing, and to lobster.

Hickery Dickery Tusk
I seriously do not know if that was Kiefer Sutherland who drove by me today, wearing sunglasses in an expensive silver car. This could be most significant, it being that my May 26th blog suggests, at least to those who have been paying me serious attention, that the final seven or so "24" episodes, which were about Jack Bauer's emotional involvement with a woman possibly causing him to cease to be the ultra-responsible Jack Bauer, began with my Jack Bauer suggestion for "SNL". As mentioned, I cannot say it was necessarily he, however, if it was and I were to make no acknowledgment here of any kind of having possibly noticed him, it would be an act of omission, or whatever that form of irresponsibility is called.

Real Time Is On My Side
And finally, I believe Bill Maher has on his past several "Real Time" shows been making little references to little things I've included in HuffPost comments. It is nothing new for Bill Maher to include me in some way, but I don't know if I need to go into detail each time.

Evaporating Ink

Letterman Glances To His Left
Contextualize is going to be my word from now on. People always talk about context, yet half the time the context in which they look at things has more to do with a convenient perspective, and less to do with a perspective where they have to put in time and/or energy to properly take into account what a particular matter warrants. Humor is often derived from underscoring the absurdity of the kinds of conclusions such an inclination can result in. Humor can be a momentary mutual forgiveness that sometimes we just don't have that kind of time or energy.

And now on to specifics: Something just happened regarding something I stated in my immediately preceding blog of Sunday, October 11, 2009, and although I shall be lifting my own phrase from its context, you are encouraged to read it in the context I provided in that blog.

Under a (wordy) heading contained in that blog, "Letterman, Regis, And Why Steinhoff, Jonathan Suspects Something Though It Makes Him Sound Crazy (Including Another Potential Terrorist Clue)", wherein I described my surmisal that I am part of the secret subtext to Letterman's very recent front-page adventure, I included this sentence:

"This same woman had on her wall at work, as the only non-business image, a photo I had taken (of a lobster truck, as she had described to me being sick on New Year's Eve but having been provided a lobster dinner by her husband)."

And now, framed by the context just provided (I believe you would actually have to read that entire section of my Oct. 11th blog to appreciate this), I give you David Letterman from his Wednesday, October 14, 2009 show - just three days later:


Unfortunately, as I've pointed out before, the timestamp on these blogs is malleable, I could edit something tomorrow that I wrote today and it would still retain today as the timestamp - therefore, there would only be proof that my Oct. 11th blog was actually written on Oct. 11th to those who saw the blog around the time that I published it. That is particularly unfortunate for those who haven't figured out, from the proof that I have occasionally been provided, and in turn shown, on various occasions, that I truly have been given secret importance, and there is true veracity in my words. It is also unfortunate when one considers that I have enemies, acting to serve ulterior motives or feelings of maliciousness, who would like to generate the idea that I lack integrity/veracity, and possess no secret importance. I believe I am up against big organized efforts, big money, big global power, and therefore there additionally are those whose impression of me is something to which certain people have deliberately misled them.

As it is quite clear to me that, at least for the moment, I have the ear of someone close enough to Letterman as to provide him with material for his October 14th monologue (likely Letterman himself), I should perhaps take this opportunity to show him/them an example of how co-workers are not always a million miles away from being the worst people in the world. Nor do I expect that part of my situation to be immune.

I have described before how, as a secretly super-important person in relation to people as important as Spielberg and McCartney, my "doorstep" has been chosen by those who would wish to "get to" those at the center of Western pop culture, through me, as a depository for terrorist clues. There have been fewer major terrorist events of our time that didn't somehow contain something to associate with me/my work/my situation, than major terrorist events of our time that have. And it is with benefit of the knowledge of that context that I have been scrutinizing many terrorist occurrences.

It being unmistakable to me that the perpetrators of these occurrences are connected to people who have always found the way to infiltrate my situation, so it has been that I have always encountered co-workers who have been involved in actions that connect. However, without the knowledge that previous occurrences have established this context to what I encounter, what I will now describe, as yet another example, will certainly seem something based on flimsy reasoning:

The July 21, 2005 Synchronized Attack On London Underground Stations
When the July 21, 2005 London attacks occurred, the names of four London underground (subway) stations became part of the story. And those hungry to play amateur detective, knowing that you never know what you know until you begin with a theory, began looking at the names of those underground stations in case they said something when put together. In other words, four words/names were handed to us: what's that spell (if anything)? Maybe nothing, maybe something, maybe enough of something to lead to endless, meaningless conjecture.... or not....

We had stations named Oval, Shepherd's Bush, Warren and Hackney. In the lexicon of matters pertaining to global terrorism, Oval is a word that "plays the game" - unless you feel like insisting that it only makes you think of the shape of eggs, in which case this is going to be a long day. Sound, common logic would now produce the thought: if this word is contextualizing the other words, or at least to be read in the context of the other words, it would become obvious why Shepherd's Bush would be words of significance. To illustrate this very basic point of logic, if I were to say, "Don't cry for me," and someone replied, "Who am I, Susanna?", I would have no trouble deducing that the other person had used my phrase to contextualize their response, therefore, their response contained a reference to the song, "Oh Susanna". The one fits with the other, the one establishes the context for the other. Oval, in the context of global terrorism, suggests, possibly, the White House's Oval Office (there isn't really any other oval that would come to mind in the context of global terrorism, perhaps one other at the most). And Oval contextualizes Shepherd's Bush, as Bush was then the American President. But where does that leave Warren and Hackney? It would be easy to consider, as a possibility, that the word Warren contains the relevant word, War, if it was implied that it should suggest something in this lexicon. We also notice that the terrorists, in this theory, are restricted to using already-existing names of underground stations, and so must make do with what they have. Warren is not a word that would have lent itself to contextualizing the other three words, however, once two of the four words set the context, Warren is to be considered in their context. Just as the name Susanna would not really even begin to suggest "Oh Susanna" were it spoken in the absence of the phrase, "Don't cry for me." This interpretation of the word Warren, and by association the words Oval and Shepherd's Bush, is weakened if Hackney is too big a fly in the ointment, too clearly not a card amongst other cards of the same deck. To put it another way, Hackney kind of shoots the whole theory to h e double hockey sticks.

The attack occurred on July 21, 2005. On July 19, 2005 I finished my last day of an approximately two-week temp job (at a company I had once had a permanent job with for six years before I quit in 2000 to try day-trading). One of the approximately ten projects I worked on during that approximately two-week job that ended July 19, 2005 was for a client named Jerry Hackney. Hackney had therefore become a word somewhat foremost in my thoughts. Hackney was also the missing puzzle piece two days later, if one follows the preceding paragraph.

Now, try to express all that I've just described, and require others to read numerous pages as part of the bargain. And now try dealing with someone who pretends that their way of putting two plus two together is to imagine that I'm some non-entity trying to blame Jerry Hackney for committing terrorist acts.