Showing posts with label Jennifer Aniston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jennifer Aniston. Show all posts
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Skipper Too
Breaking Up A Telephone Book With A Karate Chop Is Hard To Do
Another one of the specially contextualized sitings of a former cast member of the TV show, "Friends". As mentioned in my blogs of October 25th and November 8th, a shorthand that has developed (was set up) has led to specific interpretations of my sitings of Jennifer Aniston and possibly Courteney Cox Arquette. Consistent with this, on Thursday, Nov. 12th, I almost definitely (no, make that, without any doubt whatsoever unless someone is using look-alikes in expensive cars) saw David Schwimmer (wearing sunglasses) on my way to work in more or less the same spot as where his fellow former cast members were spotted. As prescribed by the shorthand, I looked for the Ross Geller/David Schwimmer reference on that night's episode of "The Office". It was easy to spot: Rainn Wilson's Dwight character was seen ridiculously injuring himself while trying to demonstrate the importance of Martial Arts self-defense proficiency. Among those who have been seen doing likewise in another TV show: David Schwimmer's Ross Geller character on "Friends". I could rest my case here, if not for the fact that all of my witnesses, i.e., those who might also have seen David Schwimmer driving by me, are very difficult to locate. Naturally I wrote down all of their license plate numbers, and anticipate being able to present follow-up on this within the next thirty years. However, verifying how this is contextualized by the above-referenced shorthand may require a little more time.
Weekly MONK/STEINHOFF VIDEOCLIP, 11.13.09
This videoclip pretty much speaks for itself. I thought of including a few other things in this videoclip, such as the voice scrambler used on the phones that occurred on both the referenced "Monk" and "Smallville" episodes. I also thought of including something from the "Medium" episode that aired the same night as the referenced "Monk" and "Smallville" episodes, as they featured an idea that is important in the videoclip: the idea of a piece of ground made special (a man was secretly buried alive in cement - his teenage son somehow knows this, and often sits outside a store built on that spot). Who knows, perhaps if these two items had worked on their Musical Chairs skills....
It's All Good
On the Nov. 14th "Saturday Night Live" (a TV show that for years and years has regularly found ways to incorporate things from me from the week leading up to the show), in the opening of the show, they had Vice President Biden stating in an address to the nation (regarding Afghanistan):
"You know what they're good at, growing drugs."
On Nov. 12th, 2:44pm, my comment to a Huffington Post article (as JonathanDS2U):
"This has incentivised many to interfere with progress, and sometimes they're really good at it."
And so we find the same idea, being good at something bad, expressed two days apart, the second usage coming from those with a very long history of referring to ideas that come from the same person responsible for the first usage.
Labels:
David Schwimmer,
Jennifer Aniston,
Joseph Biden,
Monk,
Smallville
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Written In Stone (And Why The Book Was Better)
Permanent Photograph Of Something Written In Evaporating Ink Before It Evaporated
The big news is that I have begun posting accumulations of the text of these blogs at Archive.Org, for the purpose of giving them an unalterable timestamp (i.e., copyright), unlike the malleable timestamp given by this blogsite, "Blogspot" (aka blogger.com). That means no videos, photos, etc., only the text is being posted at Archive.Org.
Due to the fact that I won't be doing this after each blog posting, but periodically, all of my blogs will receive this timestamping, but the timestamping will only prove the general timeframe: if this blog I'm writing now gets posted as part of a volume at Archive.Org on December 31, 2009, it will only prove that it was written no later than December 31st, not that it was written today. On the other hand, those who read this blog today will know with certainty that it was written today, and so a week from today they will know I never reedited it. The one posted volume (Volume 1), containing everything I've blogged thus far going back to August 2008, is considerably larger than the volumes that will follow - it will not be another year and 3 months before the next volume is posted at Archive.Org.
Big Bangs Theory Disproven
I have been growing hair for as long as I can remember, though the length of my hair does not actually evidence this (my hair gets cut from time to time). For this and other reasons, I can only reproach myself for a terrible error made in my blog of October 25th. I shudder to think of the damage my mistake will surely do to my credibility and all that relies upon my credibility. I erroneously referred to a certain configuration of Jennif Aniston's hair as "bangs". I honestly thought it was called bangs. It appears I did not know the meaning of the word, "bangs".
Those who have been paying closer attention to the process of growing hair, which is in so many ways connected to the process of cutting hair, will find it impossible to believe that I spoke out of ignorance, and instead presume there to be a more fundamental misinformation involved. I can already hear them: "Oh, you knew what bangs were, and you tried to claim Jennif Aniston had bangs, but now we see, she has no bangs, and therefore your claim to have seen her, and all that you say was connected with your having seen her, reveals an attempt to perpetrate a hoax. Therefore you are not secretly important in relation to Spielberg and McCartney, as you also claim, therefore you are not secretly important to Western "culture", therefore there were no terrorists who chose your doorstep to leave their terrorist clues, therefore no serious investigation is warranted, the world is not at stake in choosing against performing such an investigation." It sounds silly, but I fear that the world may yet suffer for my being mistaken in what I thought bangs are.
I will attempt the now Herculean (if not Atlasean) task of setting the record straight. I thought bangs were when the hair of a girl or
woman is cut so that it curls up on each side of the face and comes to a point. This picture here of Victoria Beckham isn't quite it, but may help illustrate my point. Okay, now: imagine the ends curling up.
I was asking a woman where I work what bangs are, suddenly suspecting that I may have gotten it wrong, and in the process of my description someone else actually came up and said, "Do you mean that thing Jennifer Aniston sort of does?"
He may have been a follower of my blogs, and so may have known what to say. As perhaps may also have been true of the next person who entered the conversation - a woman where I work who goes to movie openings and the Oscars because her brother's limo service has many top celeb customers, thus generating an "in" for her over the years. She actually described to me how Jennif often goes to openings wearing a short hair wig, where the hair on the sides, well, she basically described exactly what I saw when I saw Jennif drive by me. Which I described on October 25th in my blog only because of a specific matter, and not out of a desire to record celeb sitings. The photo of Jennif shown here, incidentally, was published on the Internet with regard to a very recent event (in the uncropped version of the photo she is next to Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore, Demi being Bruce Willis' ex-wife. We (myself and the woman at work) then had a brief discussion about David Arquette, husband of Courteney Cox Arquette, Jennif's BFF. Today on my way to work I may have seen (you guessed it) David Arquette (though his face seemed too large). I only mention this in the context of this Jennif stuff, which is in the context of - oh, go ahead, put everything in whatever context you please, don't mind me. No wait, stop, I didn't mean it!
The big news is that I have begun posting accumulations of the text of these blogs at Archive.Org, for the purpose of giving them an unalterable timestamp (i.e., copyright), unlike the malleable timestamp given by this blogsite, "Blogspot" (aka blogger.com). That means no videos, photos, etc., only the text is being posted at Archive.Org.
Due to the fact that I won't be doing this after each blog posting, but periodically, all of my blogs will receive this timestamping, but the timestamping will only prove the general timeframe: if this blog I'm writing now gets posted as part of a volume at Archive.Org on December 31, 2009, it will only prove that it was written no later than December 31st, not that it was written today. On the other hand, those who read this blog today will know with certainty that it was written today, and so a week from today they will know I never reedited it. The one posted volume (Volume 1), containing everything I've blogged thus far going back to August 2008, is considerably larger than the volumes that will follow - it will not be another year and 3 months before the next volume is posted at Archive.Org.
Big Bangs Theory Disproven
I have been growing hair for as long as I can remember, though the length of my hair does not actually evidence this (my hair gets cut from time to time). For this and other reasons, I can only reproach myself for a terrible error made in my blog of October 25th. I shudder to think of the damage my mistake will surely do to my credibility and all that relies upon my credibility. I erroneously referred to a certain configuration of Jennif Aniston's hair as "bangs". I honestly thought it was called bangs. It appears I did not know the meaning of the word, "bangs".
Those who have been paying closer attention to the process of growing hair, which is in so many ways connected to the process of cutting hair, will find it impossible to believe that I spoke out of ignorance, and instead presume there to be a more fundamental misinformation involved. I can already hear them: "Oh, you knew what bangs were, and you tried to claim Jennif Aniston had bangs, but now we see, she has no bangs, and therefore your claim to have seen her, and all that you say was connected with your having seen her, reveals an attempt to perpetrate a hoax. Therefore you are not secretly important in relation to Spielberg and McCartney, as you also claim, therefore you are not secretly important to Western "culture", therefore there were no terrorists who chose your doorstep to leave their terrorist clues, therefore no serious investigation is warranted, the world is not at stake in choosing against performing such an investigation." It sounds silly, but I fear that the world may yet suffer for my being mistaken in what I thought bangs are.
I will attempt the now Herculean (if not Atlasean) task of setting the record straight. I thought bangs were when the hair of a girl or
woman is cut so that it curls up on each side of the face and comes to a point. This picture here of Victoria Beckham isn't quite it, but may help illustrate my point. Okay, now: imagine the ends curling up.I was asking a woman where I work what bangs are, suddenly suspecting that I may have gotten it wrong, and in the process of my description someone else actually came up and said, "Do you mean that thing Jennifer Aniston sort of does?"

He may have been a follower of my blogs, and so may have known what to say. As perhaps may also have been true of the next person who entered the conversation - a woman where I work who goes to movie openings and the Oscars because her brother's limo service has many top celeb customers, thus generating an "in" for her over the years. She actually described to me how Jennif often goes to openings wearing a short hair wig, where the hair on the sides, well, she basically described exactly what I saw when I saw Jennif drive by me. Which I described on October 25th in my blog only because of a specific matter, and not out of a desire to record celeb sitings. The photo of Jennif shown here, incidentally, was published on the Internet with regard to a very recent event (in the uncropped version of the photo she is next to Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore, Demi being Bruce Willis' ex-wife. We (myself and the woman at work) then had a brief discussion about David Arquette, husband of Courteney Cox Arquette, Jennif's BFF. Today on my way to work I may have seen (you guessed it) David Arquette (though his face seemed too large). I only mention this in the context of this Jennif stuff, which is in the context of - oh, go ahead, put everything in whatever context you please, don't mind me. No wait, stop, I didn't mean it!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
HOW SWEET
TERRORIST CLUES
I have more terrorist stuff if anyone (such as President Obama - see my last few blogs) is listening, this time from 2002, and will go into sufficient enough detail that it should be a cinch for someone to investigate - this being part of the reason for my reluctance to provide it in so public a forum (the heads-up this will give to the living clues and others). However, as I stated before, by the time someone in law enforcement figures out that my information is worthy of being taken seriously because of the fact that I truly am a secret super VIP ala Spielberg and McCartney, enough so that terrorists would choose my "doorstep" to leave things on as part of an effort to "get to" (in the psychological sense, terror being a psychological state) those at the center of American "culture", the entire world could end three times over and still have time leftover to stand on line at the DMV (one familiar with the DMV should actually be able to visualize the entire world there, on line ahead of you). I cannot wait any longer. As always, this information requires you to put things together, incorporating a context based on knowledge, not ignorant presumption. This isn't algebra, it is simple arithmetic. As such, the "numbers" taken individually do not point to the existence of a larger, sum total picture. And yes, I am aware that some of these facts have few witnesses, in some instances only one - myself. Yet by now I must certainly have earned enough credibility that such "flimsy" evidence (myself as the only witness) warrants investigation nevertheless:
1. On May 21, 2002 I sent an email* to actor John Lithgow (about to star on Broadway in "Sweet Smell of Success"), referencing his sister, SJ, who had been part of my "crowd" back in 1969 when I was in the ninth grade (her boyfriend was my best friend - Bruce Conover, who is now Senior Producer at CNN, and at one time the primary liaison for journalists embedded with American military in Iraq). Someone else who was part of the larger "hippie-ish" crowd I was in during the ninth grade was a girl named Terry Barton (the first girl I ever slow-danced with!!!).
2. On June 8, 2002 a different Terry Barton (yet from her name sure to evoke in me a recollection of ninth grade) was responsible for the biggest fire in Colorado's history. According to the news stories, the fire resulted accidentally from when "she was burning a letter from her estranged husband".
3. In an episode of the NBC TV show, "Friends" (I have referred to some of my connections to this show from time to time in previous blogs and on YouTube), "The One with the Candy Hearts", which first aired February 9, 1995, the girls "burn all the objects that are connected to the guys they have dated. But that turns out to become an arson."
4. July 4, 2002 was the first 4th of July following 9/11/01, and as such, everyone in the U.S. was extra-alert to the possibility that this would be enough to trigger another attack. Knowing that my "doorstep" counted with such types, I was extra-extra-extra-alert (but not so alert as to imagine things). On the evening of July 3, 2002 (as I recall I was at a fast food rest-stop somewhere east of LA and west of Phoenix), I saw the only thing during that three-day weekend that I considered worth noting, though it was nothing I considered very much worth noting at the time (as so often happens when important things occur): a license plate that included the word, "Nile". As the expression goes, the Nile is not just a river in (the Middle Eastern country) Egypt, though in this instance, I made a faint mental note of it for a reason beyond it's Egyptian significance: Niles was the name of the co-star on the NBC TV show, "Frasier", and David Angell, a creator, writer and producer of that same TV show, was the one and only celebrity killed by being a passenger on one of the planes on 9/11/01 (and we are nothing if not a celebrity-oriented society). I am reasonably sure the "Nile" license plate was either from Arizona, Nevada or California.
5. On July 4, 2002, we got our focus for the extra-alert the news media had put us on: An Egyptian killed several people in LAX. The anecdotal part of the news story we were given to chew on about this terrorist:
"Neighbors said Hadayet lived quietly, but became incensed when an upstairs neighbor hung large American and Marine Corps flags from a balcony above his front door after Sept. 11. 'He complained about it to the apartment manager. He thought it was being thrown in his face,' said another neighbor, Steve Thompson. The upstairs neighbor declined to comment."
6. On January 15, 2002 the NBC TV show "Frasier" aired the episode, "Mother Load, Part 2" for the first time, in which the following occurred:
"After Cam Winston dropped a huge American flag over Frasier's entire apartment window, Frasier takes his grievance to the condo board meeting."
*Dear Mr. Lithgow:
As you know, I knew your sister SJ in Princeton in the 9th grade when Bruce Conover, her boyfriend, was my best friend. Interestingly, a very long time ago when I saw the movie "IQ", which is set in Princeton and which includes Einstein as a character, I noticed something that reminded me of something that SJ knows about. Then, a while back when I went to see a taping of your show "Third Rock From The Sun", they had a guy who looked distinctly like Einstein putting people through the metal detector. Finally, a short time ago I went to see "Star Wars II". Again they had that thing that SJ knows about. As the title of your television show brings to mind someone trying to explain how to find a planet, as one would give directions, and as that very thing became a significant issue in "Star Wars II", I am demanding from you a free Star Wars lunchbox. [Incidentally, I very much enjoyed in the "Third Rock" series finale the reference to my written but as-yet unfilmed, "Kalorping for Gosk, Part III" . Also incidentally, while I was a film student at CalArts, Alexander "Sandy" MacKendrick (then Film School Dean/teacher) had us study a movie he directed, "The Sweet Smell Of Success". At one point I took a leave of absence to work for Village Voice columnist, Howard Smith, John Lennon's friend, in the Brill Building (where "Sweet Smell" was filmed). It was during this time that Lennon released a song that included the words, "Sweet as the smell of success".]
Sincerely,
Jonathan D. Steinhoff, Burbank
Footnote to John Lennon reference in above email:
I omitted the fact that Lennon not only inside-references on "Walls and Bridges" the Sandy Mackendrick/Burt Lancaster movie, "Sweet Smell of Success", but Lancaster's "Rainmaker" as well, thus confirming context, e.g., if I said, "Couples are odd when one is a grumpy old man", one perceives a clear Jack Lemmon/Walter Mathau reference, but to just only say "couples are odd when" or to only say "grumpy old man", one would not necessarily be contextualizing in the mind of those with only basic knowledge of Lemmon/Mathau, and thus no Lemmon/Matthau reference would be apparent.
As I've stated before, I do not believe any of the people directly connected to the clues I've encountered are to be linked to anything, I believe they are pawns, with information.
NOT LIVE FROM BROOKLYN, IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT
As I've pointed out many times before, Saturday Night Live often finds use for my stuff:
My "An Irishman Visits Ralph Kramden's Brooklyn" was posted on YouTube and on Archive.org September 1, 2009.
JOLIE PART
The context of my being face-to-face with Angelie Jolie (Brad Pitt wife) from cars yesterday on Sunset Boulevard a few blocks from the "Surrogates" movie billboard in which Jolie is shown from the middle up: my previous, September 30, 2009 blog regarding Jennifer Aniston (ex-wife of Brad Pitt), which in turn regarded my September 27th blog regarding Jen-friend Courteney Cox Arquette and Steinhoff "Gosk" star and Arquette friend, Robbie Cavolina. Jolie was stopped opposite me as I drove by, thus offering me an opportunity for a degree of scrutiny (for lack of a better word), and if it was not her, this woman unquestionably was meant to appear to be her (this is a less obscure concept for those who live in the real world).
Labels:
Angelina Jolie,
David Angell,
Frasier,
Jennifer Aniston,
SNL
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
I'm Just A Love Machine
A few things surely to seem of no great consequence, especially if one feels no inclination to apply context:
1. Announcing my new little video, "A Stiff Drink", viewable on YouTube.
2. I believe I spotted Jennifer Aniston again a few days ago, which, if so, would only have significance if seen in relation to my believing I saw her good friend, Courteney Cox Arquette, a few days before that, and also a star of my "Gosk 2" video, who once introduced me to David Arquette's assistant, and who once was going to have Rosanna Arquette (McCartney friend) starring in a movie he was once planning.
3. I failed to note, in my blog of Sunday, September 27th, that the Bruce Willis role on Letterman in relation to Kevin Smith's appearance on Fallon, which were both in relation to me in relation to Smallville and Monk, the latter of which was also in relation to my potential 9/11 clue, never would have occurred if President Obama hadn't appeared on Letterman Monday, September 21st - from TV Guide:
1. Announcing my new little video, "A Stiff Drink", viewable on YouTube.
2. I believe I spotted Jennifer Aniston again a few days ago, which, if so, would only have significance if seen in relation to my believing I saw her good friend, Courteney Cox Arquette, a few days before that, and also a star of my "Gosk 2" video, who once introduced me to David Arquette's assistant, and who once was going to have Rosanna Arquette (McCartney friend) starring in a movie he was once planning.
3. I failed to note, in my blog of Sunday, September 27th, that the Bruce Willis role on Letterman in relation to Kevin Smith's appearance on Fallon, which were both in relation to me in relation to Smallville and Monk, the latter of which was also in relation to my potential 9/11 clue, never would have occurred if President Obama hadn't appeared on Letterman Monday, September 21st - from TV Guide:
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Imagine That
Not a whole lot for me to be pointing at at this very moment, as far as I know.
Let’s see, we had the title of my previous, February 24th blog being “Like In That Beatles Song”, and the very next day, February 25th, Supreme Court Justice Alito renders a decision by putting things in the context of what it might mean to reference a John Lennon song. I consider myself very much on the left of the political spectrum, generally (though I don’t always accept conventional definitions of what issues fall where on the political spectrum, preferring to use my own mind), however, there is a substantial history of major Republicans referencing my material: George W. Bush, Trent Lott, Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain. Perhaps it’s word of mouth, related to the fact that everybody everywhere references my material, from rock superstars to film directors to TV shows to leaders of foreign nations to Democrats. All of this weighs very much in favor of the conclusion that Alito’s action the day following my action, both actions not merely regarding references to Beatle songs, but rather the concept of referencing Beatle songs, was apropos of my previous blog title.
If that was a difficult one to follow, this next one will certainly throw you.
Let’s see, we had the title of my previous, February 24th blog being “Like In That Beatles Song”, and the very next day, February 25th, Supreme Court Justice Alito renders a decision by putting things in the context of what it might mean to reference a John Lennon song. I consider myself very much on the left of the political spectrum, generally (though I don’t always accept conventional definitions of what issues fall where on the political spectrum, preferring to use my own mind), however, there is a substantial history of major Republicans referencing my material: George W. Bush, Trent Lott, Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain. Perhaps it’s word of mouth, related to the fact that everybody everywhere references my material, from rock superstars to film directors to TV shows to leaders of foreign nations to Democrats. All of this weighs very much in favor of the conclusion that Alito’s action the day following my action, both actions not merely regarding references to Beatle songs, but rather the concept of referencing Beatle songs, was apropos of my previous blog title.
If that was a difficult one to follow, this next one will certainly throw you.
- I begin by drawing your attention to my videoclip regarding the final episode of the TV show “Friends”, which starred Jennifer Aniston and others. Ever since my 1998 “Gosk 2” sci-fi comedy video, which included in a starring role someone who was friendly with Arquettes and other “Friends” people, there were quite a number of references to my material on that show (only a few prior to “Gosk 2”, including an entire storyline contained within the initial “we were on a break” episode). On the referenced videoclip, they made a game of using one of the made-up words in “Gosk” a few episodes prior to the final one, and then on the final episode gave center stage importance to the power of a made-up word to catalyze events. The question was thereby raised of whether a new made-up word (or possibly not new for viewers of “Gosk”) would get Rachel off the plane the second time (as a made-up word had at one point in that episode), to reunite with Ross for the climax of the series (I said series, not episode). Had such a word been called into play, we can be certain that it would be a word instantly made part of the English language, for its “Friends” significance. Had such a word demonstrably originated with me, I imagine it would have become trivia difficult to suppress.
- Jason Lee’s show, “My Name Is Earl” is the result of a story idea I submitted to the person (Sean Daniel, first person from whom I learned of CalArts, the school I attended) who produced the first big movie Lee was in, “Mallrats”, which was itself named after my video, “Mall Man”. As mentioned in a videoclip posting of mine on YouTube, that several-page story idea of mine contained six references to chipmunk talk. The announcement that Lee would be in the movie, “Alvin And The Chipmunks”, came years after my story idea that led to his “Earl”.
- Jack Black often makes references to my material, in his work and his talk show appearances. Some see Black as part of the Stiller/Cornfeld group (Cornfeld is referred to in a few of my other blogs).
- When Aniston and Black together presented an award during the Oscars a week ago, I was struck less by what they said as much as by the omission of a word. Black began by saying that this year in animation we’ve seen talking squirrels. Squirrels are so close to chipmunks, that in the movie, “Alvin and the Chipmunks,” the association of the two species is referred to several times. I was left wondering why Jack Black of all people should be off by one word this way, off, that is, in terms of missing a chance to make an inside reference to things related to my material. It took several days, but it finally occurred to me, he must have learned this from Jennifer Aniston.
Labels:
Alito,
Friends,
Jack Black,
Jennifer Aniston,
Jolie,
Madonna,
Sean Penn,
Winterbottom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
