#Login Register
The Vigilant Citizen Forums

The Manson Murders
  • 1
  • 2

07-02-2016, 11:51 PM #1
blue forest
Status: Offline Posts:374 Likes Received:483
I could attempt to put this in my own words but Miles Mathis and others do a much better job so for those interested and willing to consider that the Manson Murders that took place in the Sharon Tate house were a false flag then this thread is for you. False flags do go back a long way, they are not a new phenomena so it is good sometimes to take another look at events that happened in the past that we assume to be true.

The Tate Murders were a False Flag

and the Greatest Unknown Success Story
of Project CHAOS

Sharon in a wig on the set of Fearless Vampire Killers

You will best benefit yourself by keeping an open mind
and forgetting most of what you have learned in the past.

Jay Sebring*

Of all the “conspiracy theories” I have run across over the years, amazingly this is not one of them. I searched the internet for anything on this theory and got nothing, even at Above Top Secret and sites like that. But now that we know many recent tragedies have been faked in Hollywood fashion, why not go back to previous decades, to see how long this has been going on?

Before I start, let me say two things. One, we will have to study the crime scene photographs of Sharon Tate, but I will make it as easy on you as possible. They aren't what you think anyway. I was apprehensive when I clicked on them for the first time, but I was very surprised. They aren't at all what we have been led to believe.

 Even so, I will lead you in slowly, making a strong case that they are fake before you even take a look [If you want to skip ahead, go to p. 46]. By the time we get there, you will already be pretty sure they aren't what they are supposed to be, and you won't be afraid to look at them. Two, I will also prepare your mind and eyes by making it clear why the murders needed to be faked. It will be much easier for a reader to understand how they were faked once he or she understands why they were faked.

It turns out that with this manufactured tragedy—as with all others—you have been getting disinformation from all sides. Only after thoroughly investigating the Tate murders myself was I able to see that all the “dark theories” were also wrong and probably planted. That is to say, the alternative theories for these major tragedies also seem to be written by the spooks. The CIA loves to have the waters muddied, of course.

In order to control people you disguise certain persons and send them into roles of influence; they become actors on a stage and they influence our minds in a way that is not real but that affects a reality that will touch us later.

As I will soon show, that is precisely what happened: certain persons were disguised, others were actors, and all staged an event that was not real but that would be used to control our view of the world for decades. In my opinion, it is shocking that belief in this whole manufactured tragedy has lasted this long. It was so poorly constructed, so full of holes, and so absurd, that I can't believe anyone believed it to start with. As you will soon see, the red flags were everywhere. Only the fact that the media was so completely controlled, and that the public was so gullible, could begin to explain how this was passed off as true.

I like to think Hollywood and the government couldn't pull off such a hoax today, since—given special effects, the internet, and other advances—people are generally a bit more savvy regarding visuals. We can tell when things look fake, and the new set builders have to be a little more careful than the old set builders, if they want to fool us. Unfortunately, it would appear no one has yet gone back to the files to pull this one apart. Although the Sandy Hook hoax fell apart within a matter of weeks, this Tate hoax has stood for 43 years.

Before we look at the photographic evidence that still exists on the internet, easily available for any researcher like me (or you), let us look at the history and politics that led up to it. The alleged Tate murders took place on August 9, 1969. Those living through the events of 1969 didn't have any hindsight on the current politics, but those of us looking back from the year 2012 do.

We don't just see effects, we see causes. From this distance, we can see patterns they couldn't see back then. To start with, the hippie movement was peaking at that time. The Monterey Pop Festival had been in the summer of 1967, and Woodstock would happen just one week after the alleged Tate murders. Note that. The alleged Tate murders were on August 9 and Woodstock would open August 15. Coincidence? Right now you will say yes, but by the end of this paper you will probably say no.

It is also worth remembering that People's Park at the University of Berkeley, California, opened in April of 1969. Although the primary use of the park was as a makeshift public garden, it was also used for anti-war speeches and gatherings. Due to the rising success of these speeches, Governor Ronald Reagan in May ordered the park closed and sent in the National Guard. Over 800 police and guards—given permission by chief of staff Ed Meese to use whatever force was necessary—attacked about 6,000 unarmed protesters, firing live rounds at them. One person was killed, one permanently blinded by buckshot, and hundreds injured. Although the University and the city of Berkeley were now on the side of the protesters, Reagan declared a state of emergency and sent in 2,700 more National Guards. Many more anti-war protesters were arrested as the city was under a state of siege by its own government.

 Reagan showed no remorse in defending his actions, and he even passed off the killing of the student on that Bloody Thursday as necessary. On the anniversary of the event in May, 1970, he said, “If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement.”1 He was also talking about events the week before, since Bloody Thursday was just a precursor to the May 4, 1970, Massacre at Kent State University, where 4 unarmed students were killed and 9 wounded by the Ohio National Guard. Four days later eleven people were bayoneted at the University of New Mexico by the National Guard. And seven days after that 2 students were killed and 12 injured by police at Jackson State College in Mississippi. These deaths and injuries led to a nationwide strike of over 4 million college students, with more than 900 colleges closing.

 Reagan wasn't the only one crying “no appeasement.” In a televised speech

that month, Nixon blamed the deaths and woundings on the students. In private he said the students were pawns of foreign communists, and he set into motion an accelerated infiltration of college campuses, via the Huston Plan. Wikipedia will tell you Hoover vetoed the Huston Plan, but no one believes that. Now declassified documents prove the FBI and CIA were busy countering all anti-war groups, on campus and off, and they still are. Wikipedia even admits that on Huston Plan page, where it says that although the Plan was “revoked,” many of its provisions were implemented anyway.

As you study the alleged bloodbath that was the Tate murders, remember that quote of Reagan above. Also remember that the alleged murders took place in Los Angeles, California, not only the home of Hollywood and Reagan, but also one of the hippie capitals of the nation and a center for anti-war sentiment. Also remember that Reagan was an actor.

more to come..
This post was last modified: 07-03-2016, 09:00 AM by blue forest.
The following 3 users Like blue forest's post:
  • Vytas, Thy Unveiling, Songbird516

07-03-2016, 01:29 AM #2
Status: Offline Posts:162 Likes Received:153
Good stuff, thanks.

Quote:The authorities wanted to let the story build a bit longer, let Los Angeles stew in fake fear a few more weeks. The FBI apparently let the local police look useful, but they weren't willing to move the story into the next phase just yet. Besides, the date of final capture was already set in the script: October 12, Aleister Crowley's birthday. That link would serve double duty in the story. One, it would lend the story a further element of the macabre. Two, it would cover the tracks of the spooks, as usual. The secret services have been hiding behind Satanism since the late 19th century, and Crowley's career was created specifically for that purpose. Crowley himself was secret service, and he showed those who came after how to use Satanism and the occult as successful misdirection.

Isaiah 40:26 "Not one of them is missing"
The following 2 users Like StarTemple's post:
  • Vytas, Thy Unveiling

07-03-2016, 04:02 AM #3
blue forest
Status: Offline Posts:374 Likes Received:483
Crowley was secret service and he was tapped into extremely dark spiritual forces. Satanism and the black arts or the fear of it can be used as misdirection by the intelligence agencies but that does not mean that Satanism is not real and that sinister activities do not happen surrounding those who participate in it, including murders. Michael Aquino and Anton Lavey are two other men who come to mind who worked for intelligence and who were tapped into very dark spiritual forces.

If an event is a false flag done by intelligence with clues pointing to the satanic for misdirection...so people will not look deeper, that is one thing, but if people are really murdered by someone or people who are actually Satanists or black practitioners and covert intelligence agents are their handlers then that is another... there are plenty of reasons to believe that many of elites themselves are into the black arts. Secret society members are the ones who hold the most power in this fallen world.

The Tate Murders

Why have so few ever asked if the alleged Tate murders might have been just another instance of
discrediting the hippies, and thereby the anti-war protesters? As we look back, we can see that no other
event so discredited and neutralized the hippie movement as the Tate murders. Due to the awful press
Charles Manson and his followers gave to the hippies, the movement was dead by early 1970.

The entire anti-war movement was dealt a crushing blow by the Tate murders, since the press used it to marginalize
not only the hippies, but all protesters and “malcontents.” This was a well-bought success for the
government, since they were able to spin the Vietnam war out for five more years, spending countless
billions more and enriching the already rich via Pentagon contracts.

Famous author Joan Didion wrote, “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe the 60's ended abruptly
on August 9, 1969; ended at the exact moment when word of the murders traveled like brushfire through
the community.”

This would apply not only to Los Angeles, but to the entire United States. Given that
the Tate murders did end the 60's and the hippie movement, we should ask if the Tate murders were
intended to end the hippie movement. It seems very convenient for Nixon, Reagan, Hoover and the
Pentagon that the perfect crime should happen at the perfect time.

It seems very convenient that the first so-called “cult killings” known in Modern culture should occur as if on
cue from the CIA, just in time to stop the rising peace movement. What a coincidence that the hippies would
choose to go insane at just that moment, six days before Woodstock, murdering a beautiful blonde female (the perfect victim in any tragedy—see the fake Jessica Lynch rescue for a later example), still pregnant with a child (the other perfect victim).

What a coincidence that they should write anti-government slogans on the wall, like “Death to Pigs”. What a coincidence that their leader should be the perfect patsy—a serial jailbird who had asked to be sent back to jail. That's right. Manson didn't want to be released from jail in 1967. Tom Snyder even admitted that on TV in 1981. How convenient that the government set up someone who wanted to be set up, sending a man back to jail for life who wanted to go back to jail.

Let me put it this way: if the FBI were looking for someone to be a patsy, they could not have found someone better than Manson. He had a wild-eyed look, played the guitar and sang like the hippies, wore his hair long, was a
lifetime criminal, and wanted to go back to jail. How convenient. He was another actor, a willing patsy,
playing the part he had been hired to play. He was actually the most brilliant actor of all of them, and still

Sharon Tate was an actor. Her career started in 1965 with the movie Eye of the Devil, a movie about devil worship and sacrificial murders, where Sharon plays a witch. More recently she had played a vampire in the Fearless Vampire Killers; then she played a slut in the Valley of the Dolls, one who has an abortion, becomes a soft-core porn actress and then kills herself with downers; then she had a bit part in Rosemary's Baby. Curious how all these films
have to do with babies, blood, and death. In the Manson murders, she was just continuing a trend. You
might say she was typecast.

The same can be said for Roman Polanski. He was the director of Fearless Vampire Killers and Rosemary's Baby, and he was one of the leads in the former, becoming a vampire at the end. If the FBI had been looking for someone to direct a Satanic slasher film, they could not have found a more perfect candidate. Does no one but me find that to be a big red flag? The murder takes place in the home of a director of Satanic murder films, and actors are murdered?

No one thought that was suspicious?

In 1963, Polanski directed an episode for a Dutch movie entitled. . . The Best Swindles in the World.

Jay Sebring—one of the other alleged victims—was also an actor. He was better known for his hair salons
for men, but in 1969 he was an actor. He had a part in a Batman episode that year. He had been in the
underground film Mondo Hollywood. He was also a friend of producer Bill Dozier, and they together
started the career of Bruce Lee, who was an actor.

Sebring had been in the navy for four years, according to his bio. It is also possible he was still working for naval intelligence ONI in 1969† though I don't believe anyone before me has suggested that. Also curious that Sebring's business did not fail with his alleged death, despite the fact that he had not sold it or made any plans for its
continuation. There is absolutely no information about this on the internet, with the encyclopedia
entries on Sebring International being nothing but stubs (see below for more on this). Among the
famous salon clients of Sebring were Frank Sinatra and Jim Morrison.

Sebring's next of kin, his nephew Anthony DiMaria. Looks a lot like an actor, doesn't he? That's because he is. Look him up at IMDB. He has no age posted on the internet and his acting career didn't start until the 1990's. He also didn't get involved with the parole hearings until the 1990's, which is strange. In a well-known blog at Tatelabianca.blogspot.com, we find this 2006 post from
“Colonel Scott”:

I met Jay's nephew one afternoon 18 years ago at the USC special collection library. He did not even know the details of his uncle's murder. I had to turn him on to the HelterSkelter novel, because that was all I knew at the time. Now, he remains the
 ONLY next of kin on the Sebring side to EVER attend a parole hearing. And even then he only did DECADES after the

Curious. More actors involved.

“Anthony DiMaria and Dennis Hopper while filmed 'Sebring'”. I assume the documentary
was created as propaganda, but it must have been very unsuccessful propaganda, perhaps even divulging
some real information.

Anthony DiMaria

Speaking of Hopper, he is the one who spoke out to the Los Angeles Times back in 1969, saying,

They [at the Tate house] had fallen into sadism and masochism and bestiality—and they recorded it all on videotape, too.

The L.A. police told me this. I know that three days before they were killed twenty-five people were invited to that house for a mass-whipping of a dealer from Sunset Strip who’d given them bad dope.

That is clearly planted information, or disinformation. Notice that Hopper even admits the information
was planted on him by the LA police. Was Hopper the mouthpiece of the LA police, and if so, why? Can't
the police do their own press conferences? This is your red flag for Hopper in this paper. That and the
fact that Hopper admits his father was in Intelligence. Like father like son.

We know from Operation Gladio that all the European secret services are linked to the US secret service,
and they often work together. The Process Church came out of Mayfair, London, so we may assume it is

But back to Jay Sebring:


There's some more very important information in that post. Jay Sebring, president of a record company.
The poster doesn't tell us what paper that is from, so we can't confirm it. He only says it is from 1965.
Looks like Terry Melcher wasn't the only one in the recording business. The web of contacts Sebring
actually had is beginning to get fleshed out, and we can only ask why this fact has been scrubbed from the
web and the rest of the world.

A lot of people don't want you to know anything about Jay Sebring, except
that he cut hair.

Wojciech Frykowski—another alleged victim—was “educated exclusively at the film school in Poland.”
He had a part in Polanski's early film Mammals, which he also financed and produced. His younger
brother Jerzy "Jerry" Frykowski is a movie production manager well-known in Europe. Frykowski's son
Bartlomiej also became a cinematographer. Frykowski was hoping Polanski would get him a job in the
movie industry in Los Angeles, which we will see he did, in a way. You will learn much more about
Frykowski below.

Abigail Folger—another alleged victim—wasn't an actress, as far as I know, but as an heiress in the
Folger's coffee family she was connected to top political people, including the Kennedys. She had worked
on Robert Kennedy's campaign in 1968, and, as you will remember, he was also killed in very mysterious

Bobby Kennedy had dinner at a Malibu beach house on June 5, 1968, before being driven to the Ambassador Hotel, where he was shot and killed. Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski were also present at that dinner party in Malibu.

When Manson lived in San Francisco, Abigail Folger loaned $10,000 to the Straight Theater at Haight and
Cole Streets. Note that: theater. Folger was involved with actors and giving them money. Manson then
lived on Cole Street, on the same block as the Process Church. Fast forward to LA, where Manson and
Folger met at the house of Cass Elliot. Some have said that Folger loaned money to Manson, and if these
things are true, Folger looks like one of the private funders of the entire operation. Folger is also said to
have given money to Timothy Leary, the underground film-maker Kenneth Anger, and the Himalayan
Academy (which was located not far from the Esalen Institute—see below for more on Esalen).

Paul Tate



All that is suggestive, but the biggest red flag in this whole charade is that Sharon's father Paul Tate was a
colonel in army intelligence
.† That rank is just under general. They don't tell us exactly in what capacity
he served, of course, but they do admit he served for 23 years, (supposedly) ending in 1969. So he started
in 1946. Interestingly, that is when army intelligence was split into various departments, including the
CIA. Yes, the CIA started in 1947.

In 1959, the Tates moved to Verona, Italy, where Paul Tate was stationed at Passalacqua, the headquarters
for SETAF (Southern European Task Force). This links him to Operation Gladio. General Maletti—
commander of Italian military intelligence at the time of the Tate murders—later testified in court that
the CIA had been involved in many false flag operations in Italy and Europe, including murders and
bombings, “for the purpose of creating an Italian nationalism that was capable of halting what it saw as a
slide to the left.”

Sound familiar? Maletti added, “Don't forget that Nixon was in charge and Nixon was a
strange man, a very intelligent politician but a man of rather unorthodox initiatives.” Nixon was in charge
in 1969, but Operation Gladio had been instituted by Allen Dulles much earlier, and it was financed in
large part by the US, through the CIA, which Dulles led under Eisenhower and Kennedy (1953 to late

The Operation kicked into high gear in the late 50's to counter growing “leftist” movements,
especially in Italy. We must assume that is why Paul Tate was in Verona in 1959 with his family. Paul Tate
was not just military, he was a colonel in intelligence, which indicates he was probably involved in Gladio.

One of these Gladio false flags was the Piazza Fontana bombing of 1969, just a few months after the
alleged Tate murders. The bombing was initially attributed to anarchists (violent hippies, you know), but
it later came out in testimony like that of General Maletti that these bombings were really the work of the
CIA, in league with other European intelligence agencies.

This indicates that Sharon Tate's own father was capable of organizing false flag events, and knew others who could help with whatever needed to be done, including faking deaths and pinning them on leftists. You may think of the Tate murders as just one more Gladio false flag operation against the left. Yes, the Manson murders were an instance of
Gladio moving to the US.

How did that happen, exactly? Well, it happened in 1962 when Paul Tate was transferred from Italy to
Fort MacArthur in San Pedro, just south of Torrance and about 20 miles south of Hollywood. It appears
that military intelligence may have seen some use for Paul Tate's pretty daughter, and they sent the family
back to Los Angeles to put the plan in motion. We assume he was transferred to MacArthur, since that
was the base in San Pedro, but although the Tate family may have lived in San Pedro, Paul Tate was more
likely assigned to Lookout Mountain base in Laurel Canyon about 25 miles away, which was still secret at
the time (see below).

Either that or he transferred over there once the operation solidified a few years
later. During an interview with Merv Griffin in 1966, Sharon says that her father was stationed in
Vietnam at the time. That is possible, but it is more likely to be a cover story. At any rate, they would
need him back in Los Angeles by 1967 or 1968, to work on the great Tate event. As soon as Manson was
released in 1967, they must have already begun setting the stage.

We have more indication of this from online sources, which admit that Paul Tate dressed up like a hippie
after his daughter's alleged murder, allegedly to try to discover who murdered her. But that fact is
commonly passed over or misread. It should be a huge red flag. We have an admission that military
intelligence had a colonel dressed up as a hippie right after the murders, attempting to infiltrate them.

That fact is spun to make us think that Paul Tate was there in his own capacity, as a private citizen. But if
he was really retired at that point and working as a private citizen, he was breaking the law. Private
citizens are not allowed to work in law enforcement, and after the alleged murders, any involvement in
the investigation was considered law enforcement. Any private investigators have to be licensed. Of
course the truth is much worse than that, since we should make some attempt to read this fact without
the spin. Paul Tate wasn't just acting as some sort of vigilante father. He was doing his job.

He wasn't retired. He is said to have died in 2005 at age 82, which would have made him just 46 in 1969. Colonels
don't normally retire at 46, since they are only one promotion away from brigadier general.† It is far more
likely that he didn't start dressing up as a hippie after the murders. He only got caught dressing up as a
hippie after the murders. Someone recognized him, that is, and the CIA had to come up with a cover
story to explain it. But he had probably been undercover for months, as part of the operation.

It is likely he was the one running the whole thing from the hippie side, wearing a beard and tie-dyes. How has
everyone managed to miss that for 43 years? Some of the things I discovered for this paper, Mae Brussell
could not have been expected to know in the 1970's, but any good researcher at the time should have seen
Paul Tate as the biggest red flag in all of California.

If you don't believe an Intelligence colonel would dress up as a hippie and try to infiltrate the movement,
try reading the book Acid Dreams, where we find this:

It was a typical sixties scene: a group of scruffy, long-haired students stood in a circle passing joints and hash
pipes. The setting could have been Berkeley, Ann Arbor or any other hip campus. But these students were
actually FBI agents, and the school they attended was known as “Hoover University.” Located at Quantico Marine
Base in Virginia, this elite academy specialized in training G-men to penetrate left-wing organizations. To cultivate
the proper counterculture image, they were told not to wash or bathe for several days before infiltrating a group of
radicals. Refresher courses were also held for FBI agents who had successfully immersed themselves in the drug
culture of their respective locales.

And it wasn't just FBI, it was also CIA. It wasn't in Virginia for no reason. Langley was just up the road.
Nor is the book Acid Dreams some fringe publication. Look it up on Wikipedia, where you will see it is a
respected book widely referenced by the mainstream. The government has long admitted it did these

Actually, we know Paul Tate wasn't retired on August 9. We are told he resigned two weeks before his
scheduled retirement, but both the resignation and scheduled retirement were after the murders. He
resigned because of the murder of his daughter, we are told. This by itself is a red flag, since the odds of
Paul Tate's retirement being scheduled two weeks after August 9 are extremely low. In fact, they are zero,
since colonels are not scheduled to retire at age 46. They may take early retirement, but it isn't

This wording is suspicious, and we must assume it used only to make a reader think his
retirement had already been planned. But if it had been planned, why would he need to resign two weeks
early? There is no need to “resign” in such a circumstance, since, given the murder of his daughter, his
superiors would no doubt give him leave for those two remaining weeks. Again, we are being told he
resigned two weeks early to give the impression he was not military intelligence when he was dressed up
as a hippie.

They are trying to divert you from the realization that in any case we have a military
intelligence colonel dressed up as a hippie roaming the streets of LA. Whether he is on leave or resigned
or soon to retire is not to the point: he is the same person no matter what. He is a gigantic red flag no
matter what.

For more strange links, take a look at this:


This young man Wayne Mall, who dated Sharon's sister Debra, had a motorcycle accident in November,
1970, just one year after the murders. But what is interesting is what we learn about Paul Tate. In 1971,
Tate was opening Tate Gallery for Men's Hair Design in Rolling Hills. What? Rolling Hills is just west of
San Pedro, near Long Beach. It is also just north of the old military base Fort MacArthur. So we have a
clear link between Paul Tate and Jay Sebring. How long had Paul Tate been interested in hair design?

Or, more to the point, how long had the CIA been involved in hair design for men? Was Tate's new salon
going to be a cover for intelligence, and if so, had Sebring's salon been a cover for intelligence all along?
This gives us more indication that Sebring was involved in naval intelligence. In this paper, you will see
that Sebring, Paul Tate, Susan Atkins, and Charles Watson all had ties to hair salons.

Sebring Hair Power; a 2" x 3.5" business card, reading, "Sebring Incorporated, Lt. Col. Paul J. Tate (ret.)
(photo in link for article)

Paul Tate, master of disguise. See how he shaved his head and beard for the funeral, in pic 6? (photos in link)
Remember, he had been disguised with long hair and a beard after the murders, looking for the killers. But at the
funeral, all that is gone. He wants to look as different as possible: not to fool the non-existent killers, but
to fool you, any real hippies he may be framing, and any future clients of his hair salon. I included pic 4
just for fun. What's going on there, exactly? Is there anything these guys don't film?

Take note of the fifth picture, of Paul Tate in navy uniform. So he would originally have been navy
intelligence, not army intelligence. Why does that matter? Because Jay Sebring was also navy. This gives
us another link between Paul Tate and Jay Sebring. They may have both come into intelligence from navy.
There is another thing linking Paul Tate, Jay Sebring, Roman Polanski, and Charles Manson. They were
all very short men. While watching the NBC film of the funeral, I noticed that Paul Tate was only about

Jay Sebring was also around 5'5”. Roman Polanski is even shorter, being about 5'3”. Charles Manson
is also about 5'3”. Why would this matter, and what could it indicate? Well, if Paul Tate was in control of
this operation, he may have recruited people that were also short. No one likes to give orders to someone
towering over him. I suspect one of the qualities they liked best about Manson when they were scouring
the local jails in 1967 for a patsy is that he was extremely short.


This made it slightly more difficult to build him up into a scary monster, but they easily got around it. I
asked some people recently how tall they thought Manson was, and they all said about six feet. It is
amazing what you can do with the press.

Paul Tate used the press to promote Sharon from early on as well. She appeared on the cover of Stars and
Stripes magazine in the early 60's, astride a US Army missile. Do you imagine her father didn't know
anything about it? Stars and Stripes is the military's own magazine, and it operates from inside the
Pentagon. We are told he disapproved, but this is unlikely.


Where did the “Manson family” live? The SPAHN'S MOVIE RANCH! Wikipedia tells us it was “used for filming generally Western-themed movies and television programs. With mountainous terrain, boulder-strewn scenery, and an 'old Western town' set, Spahn Ranch was a versatile filming site for many scripts.” Hmmm. That's curious, wouldn't you say?

The perpetrators were living on a movie set. We are told that Mr. Spahn allowed the Manson family to
move in rent-free in 1968. So nice of him. Then as now, old ranchers just love young hippies to hang
around, smoking dope, shagging each other, and creating big piles of trash. Also convenient for the
government is that all the buildings and sets were destroyed by a fire in 1970, preventing anyone from
doing any forensic work there.

...we find that in April of 1969, one of the lesser and younger (age 15) Manson girls,
RuthAnn Morehouse, was arrested and placed in juvenile hall. She was released into the custody of
George Spahn, who acted as a foster parent in the eyes of the court. What? RuthAnn's father Dean was
not dead, and Spahn was no relation. Nor was he fit to be a foster parent, being in his 80's and legally
blind. He was not fit to be a foster parent, but he was fit (we suppose) to be her handler.

Someone simply arranged for her to be returned to the set, since she was one of the props. Ed Sanders implies that
this was a measure of the power Manson had, but Manson had no power in juvenile courts. The only
bodies that have any power over juvenile courts are federal agencies—either FBI or CIA or DIA.
Everything to do with the Spahn Ranch stinks of a big federal operation.

By this time, the ranch had turned into a huge magnet for runaways and juvenile delinquents from all
over the state, and the mainstream story admits that the LA police were well aware of it. And yet we are
supposed to believe nothing was done? Reagan sends in the National Guard to bust up college students
making speeches and planting trees, but he and the LA police and the state police leave a huge hippie
commune in the LA suburbs alone, even while it is allegedly making porn films, acting as a nudist retreat,
harboring underage girls, selling drugs, kidnapping schoolgirls, stealing cars, running motorcycle and
dune buggy races, threatening neighbors, storing weapons, giving loud all-night parties, fraternizing with
biker gangs and Satanists, and so on? We are expected to believe that all these local agencies are going to
not only turn a blind eye to the Spahn Ranch, but return an arrested 15-year-old girl to the premises, in
the care of Mr. Magoo, I mean George Spahn?

Another curious thing about the Spahn Ranch is that the Transcontinental Development Corporation was
buying up property all around the Ranch and wanted the Spahn Ranch as well. But rather than sell the
otherwise worthless property—which we are led to believe was subsisting on pony rides—Spahn preferred
to keep the place as-is, a rent-free haven for ex-cons, junkies, and titty dancers. Spahn's refusal to sell can
only be explained once we realize he was getting extremely well paid by the feds to keep the place as a
movie set, actors and agents haunt, and center of operations for Project CHAOS.

At any rate, we have already seen that the Manson family is known to have lived on a movie set. The
crime scene was the home of a movie director famous for Satanic slasher movies. The prime victim was
an actress. At least two secondary victims were actors. The lead victim's father was a colonel in military
intelligence. But no one ever thought to ask if this was a movie paid for by the government? How
difficult is that question to ask? Why did Mae Brussell never get to it? Why is it not to be found in 43
years and millions of pages of research by tens of thousands of people?

Before we get to other explosive evidence, let's take a quick look at the trial of Manson. I can't get into in
detail here—that would take a book. But everyone who has studied the trial knows it was a sham. In the
UCLA video archives, you can find footage where Vincent Bugliosi bragged that it was the longest and
most expensive trial in history, and that record probably still stands. He also tells us it received more
publicity than any other trial in American history, and even when competing with trials like the Scopes
Monkey trial and the O.J. Simpson trial, we assume he is correct.

As for the publicity, you should ask yourself why the trial was such a media circus. No other trial even comes close as a matter of theatrics.

All the major parts seemed to have been filled by a casting director seeking the most beautiful, expressive,
or otherwise memorable faces and personalities.


Tell me that doesn't look like a scene from a play. What actors' trunk did they pull those dresses from?
They don't look like witches, hippies, or anything else. They look like a CIA director's idea of “mod young
girls.” Van Houten looks like she was dressed from the wardrobe of Star Trek. Even the police woman's
wig looks like it came from an actors' trunk.

Does that look like a real police woman's uniform? Look at the waist! Do you think police women had coats with cinched waists in the 1960's? Her waist not only looks like it is about 24”, the coat is cut to match it. Show me one real police woman who was ever dressed in a coat like that and I will give you a commendation. That isn't city issue. That is Hollywood issue.

But can you tell me why that photo above has been suppressed? More continuity problems:


Bugliosi admitted that “the six killers turned out to be so incredibly far-out and unusual in their lifestyles
and philosophies, that when their identities became known they actually upstaged the victims.”
Considering that the victims in the Tate house were jet-setting actresses and stylists, this must be seen as
fairly incredible. Looking back, we can say with little fear of contradiction that the Manson family actors
overplayed their parts by a wide margin, and that the stage direction became more and more fantastical as
the play progressed. By the end, all semblance of reality had been left far behind, and only the fact that
the television audience in the 1960's was still in its infancy, and thereby utterly credulous and naïve, can
explain the success of the script.

Now go to minute 23:00 (TCR 1:00:00) of the linked video.

Bugliosi is telling the reporter that the Tate murders are the “most bizarre, savage, nightmarish murders in the recorded annals of time,” and thatLinda Kasabian, while testifying, “was filled with emotion describing the first night of horror.”

Unfortunately, we see film of Kasabian walking the hall afterwards in her Little House on the Prairie
dress, and she is smiling and grinning. The cameraman is grinning back at her. Is that the emotion
Bugliosi is talking about? Watch Bugliosi, too: he is obviously reading from a script. This was before
Teleprompters, you know. Bugliosi is looking down at a script posted low and in front of him, out of shot.
Not only do we get the “bizarre, savage, nightmarish murders,” we get the “horrible, horrendous screams.”
So poetic. The questions are also planted as well, since Bugliosi doesn't even have to scan down the script
to find an answer. The question is also on the script, and the journalists hit their cues like the pros they

I also send you to minute 1:21 of the linked video, where Barbara Hoyt is giving testimony to reporters in
the hallway outside of the courtroom. Hoyt is not the smartest person in the world, but even she knows
better than that. She says, “I don't know if I should,” and looks around. Apparently her handlers assure
her, and she tells her story about overhearing Atkins. The tape is cut, so some will say she didn't tell
anything, but after the cut, the reporter admits that she just told one minute's worth of story. We know
because he tells Hoyt that there are known to be five minutes' worth of conversation in Atkins' dialogue,
but Hoyt has only told the reporters one minute's worth. The reporter wants the full five minutes. In the
real world, Hoyt's blabbing for a full minute would cause a mistrial, but not here. I'm just surprised they
didn't bring the girls into the newsroom and have them give their testimony direct to the public on air.
That would have simplified the process considerably. The reporter here is really funny. He says, “We just
want you to tell us what happened for the record.” For what record? Last time I checked, the “record” was
kept in the courtroom, not out in the hall.

We have looked at the fake publicity, now let's look at the cost. This was the most expensive trial in
history, but it was only half a trial. There was a prosecution but no defense, so all the cost was on the side
of the prosecution. The defense rested without calling a single witness. Manson's lawyers declined
to cross examine most witnesses for the prosecution, and Manson was prevented by the judge from cross
examining them himself—although he had asked to represent himself. Compare that to the O.J. Simpson
trial, where most of the cost was on the side of the defense. Simpson hired several of the most expensive
defense attorneys in the country, including Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, and Robert Shapiro. Simpson
spent something like 6 million on his team of eight lawyers. But Manson wasn't allowed to make any
defense, either through his inept lawyers or by his own testimony. Manson's first attorney was Ronald
Hughes, and the Manson trial was Hughes' very first time in a courtroom. He had been an attorney for
less than a year. Hughes disappeared during the trial and was later “found dead,” and we can assume that
is because he wanted to actually do his job, or because he stumbled upon the evidence I will give you
below. Either that or it was just one more fake death in the script, put there to further demonize the
hippies. The mainstream floated the idea that the Manson family got him, but why would the Manson
family get Hughes, one of the only people on their side? We know Hughes complained loudly to the judge
when Van Houten wasn't allowed to give testimony that Manson had nothing to do with the murders. If
Hughes was really killed, the prosecution had much more motive.

Although this was the most publicized event in the history of the US legal system, no change of venue
outside of Los Angeles was granted. No continuance was granted. Despite that, the prosecuting attorney
was allowed to enter exhibits into evidence consisting of magazine and newspaper articles, including
LIFE magazine. These articles had titles such as “The Manson Family Murders.” Notice that is not the
alleged Manson family murders. The judge was allowing exhibits that had already decided the guilt of the

There was no real evidence against Manson, and the prosecution even admitted he wasn't at the murder
scene and didn't take part in it. He was convicted of masterminding it, not committing it. He was
convicted solely on the basis of testimony of his fellow alleged perpetrators, who turned on him under
duress from the State. This testimony came from a group of young girls who had done so many drugs
they could barely speak. It was admitted that the main witnesses for the prosecution had taken as many
as 300 acid trips in their short lives, so their brains were basically fried.

The lead witness was Linda Kasabian, who also didn't take part in the actual murders, but was nonetheless charged with seven counts of murder in order to scare her. She was given immunity for her testimony. Another main witness was Susan Atkins, who was given immunity from the death penalty for testimony against Manson, which she
initially gave. However, Atkins sobered up for a moment later on and repudiated all that testimony.
Kasabian revealed clear signs of coaching during the trial, and was obviously just repeating a story given
to her by the State.

Then there is the matter of the 25 unidentified fingerprints at the Tate house. In any real investigation,
that would be impossible. Given the length of the investigation and all the people that were questioned
(all those who had been at parties at the house in the past couple of years, for instance), it is inconceivable
that that many fingerprints would go unassigned. It is unfortunate for the controllers of this story that
they let the police admit to all those fingerprints, since they are a clear sign that the scene was not closed
to the people we are told were in it. It is a clear sign of the presence of the invisible CIA or FBI crew that
was there setting up and filming these fake murders. Some of the Manson family attorneys touch on this
point, but of course they don't go where I go. They point out the very high number of fingerprints and the
fact that this must leave the matter of perpetrators wide open (especially in the trial of Krenwinkel), but
they appear to have never stumbled on the correct reading of the scene—which would have allowed them
to point to the likely owners of those fingerprints.

To top it all off, President Nixon declared Manson guilty while the trial was still in session.


The jury saw that headline when Manson held up that paper in court. Still, no mistrial. The judge only
asked the jurors if they had been influenced by the headline. They said they hadn't been influenced. I
guess Jesus Christ could have appeared in court in a burning bush, saying Manson was guilty, and still no
mistrial. Each and every juror could have appeared on the Merv Griffin show and recited testimony,
telling Merv how they felt about it. But as long as they swore to the judge that they felt pure afterwards,
no mistrial.

With that headline in mind, remember what I told you before: the judge allowed magazine articles from
LIFE and other places to be entered as evidence, even though those articles had pre-judged Manson and
the other defendants based on hearsay. So why was this Nixon headline such a big deal? To be consistent,
the judge should have just taken the newspaper out of Manson's hand and entered it as “evidence.”


This post was last modified: 07-03-2016, 04:03 AM by blue forest.
The following 1 user Likes blue forest's post:
  • Thy Unveiling

07-03-2016, 09:04 AM #4
Status: Offline Posts:95 Likes Received:167
I skimmed through this article before and found it rather interesting. Perhaps my question was already answered, but as I said I didn't read the entire thing. I'd just like to know. If it was a hoax, why do so many involved, including Manson, still give interviews to this day almost 50 years later? News stories pop up every now and then about the event such as parole hearings. As a matter of fact, Leslie Van Houten (who was involved with the Labianca murders) was recommended for parole this year and Debra Tate (Sharon's sister) has organized a huge protest against this. She delivered an online petition to the California with well over 100,000 signatures against Van Houten's parole to the California government as a matter of fact. Also she has organized a boycott of the TV show, Aquarius, which depicts the murders in graphic detail. Citing that it's "insensitive to exploit victims of violent crime."

So what I want to know is that if it's all a hoax, no murders happened, and it was all done for a purpose, then wasn't that purpose already accomplished? Why keep it up and continue to add to the mythology all these decades later rather than just let it rest? Is it just for money to sell books, movies, get TV ratings, etc.? I don't understand the point.
The following 1 user Likes CountDracula's post:
  • Thy Unveiling

07-03-2016, 09:49 AM #5
Status: Offline Posts:37 Likes Received:76
(07-03-2016, 09:04 AM)CountDracula Wrote:  I skimmed through this article before and found it rather interesting. Perhaps my question was already answered, but as I said I didn't read the entire thing. I'd just like to know. If it was a hoax, why do so many involved, including Manson, still give interviews to this day almost 50 years later? News stories pop up every now and then about the event such as parole hearings. As a matter of fact, Leslie Van Houten (who was involved with the Labianca murders) was recommended for parole this year and Debra Tate (Sharon's sister) has organized a huge protest against this. She delivered an online petition to the California with well over 100,000 signatures against Van Houten's parole to the California government as a matter of fact. Also she has organized a boycott of the TV show, Aquarius, which depicts the murders in graphic detail. Citing that it's "insensitive to exploit victims of violent crime."

So what I want to know is that if it's all a hoax, no murders happened, and it was all done for a purpose, then wasn't that purpose already accomplished? Why keep it up and continue to add to the mythology all these decades later rather than just let it rest? Is it just for money to sell books, movies, get TV ratings, etc.? I don't understand the point.

If I had to guess, I'd say Manson is a narcissist who loves the attention. For the rest of them, I imagine the brains behind it are dead by now, but anyone who was a part of it can't very well just come out and say, "ha ha, it was all a joke." Near the end of the article the author talks about how they all laugh about this inside joke, and how they became more bold with 9/11 & Sandy Hook. They knew nobody suspected them of anything and they could get away with pretty much anything without anybody catching on. He talked about how they would actually like if people got the joke, that they would like that recognition. Maybe that's their purpose for continuing with interviews. 

I don't know anything about the author, but where did he get all this knowledge? A super observant citizen? Or maybe someone who knew the truth and needed people to "get it" as he points out. It was all pretty compelling (I read most of it), but I didn't like how he kept pushing the idea that Satanism isn't real, that it's all CIA, that sacrifices don't happen, that celebrities can just fake a death when they're tired of their fame. Maybe it's happened, but too many have died for that to be the norm. I don't think the CIA are out to just help tired rock stars relocate to Jamaica. That whole chunk makes me wonder if the author was spinning a little disinfo while letting us know how we'd all been had. Idk
The following 2 users Like Beesgotknees's post:
  • Thunderian, Thy Unveiling

07-03-2016, 11:52 AM #6
blue forest
Status: Offline Posts:374 Likes Received:483
Beesgotknees wrote:

Quote:I didn't like how he kept pushing the idea that Satanism isn't real, that it's all CIA, that sacrifices don't happen, that celebrities can just fake a death when they're tired of their fame. Maybe it's happened, but too many have died for that to be the norm. I don't think the CIA are out to just help tired rock stars relocate to Jamaica. That whole chunk makes me wonder if the author was spinning a little disinfo while letting us know how we'd all been had. Idk

I agree with you there completely and wonder the same thing. I don't agree with Mathis in that 'whole chunk' that he puts out so what are his own motives there? does he really believe that or is he doing some spinning of his own as you say?

Nevertheless... it is his dissection of the Tate murders that I am primarily interested in and the case is compelling for it having been faked.

CountDracula Wrote:

Quote:So what I want to know is that if it's all a hoax, no murders happened, and it was all done for a purpose, then wasn't that purpose already accomplished? Why keep it up and continue to add to the mythology all these decades later rather than just let it rest? Is it just for money to sell books, movies, get TV ratings, etc.? I don't understand the point.

I don't believe that this psych-op has ended, it's purpose is being used even to this day on more than one level imv.
It's major purpose for the time period was accomplished but if it can still be of use why let it rest?
and why not also put it to use on a new generation?

Charles Manson's alleged letter to Marilyn Manson

The latest Manson psy-op was in 2011, when Vanity Fair Spain did a radio interview with him.


This picture ran with the story. That's supposed to be Manson with Star and Gray Wolf, two “secretaries” who
help him publish his ideas through ATWA—hich stands for Air, Trees, Water, Animals. We are told he plans
to marry the 25-year-old Star.

They never quit. They respect your intelligence so little they continue the farce to this day. Level 1 prisoners are
not allowed visits from strangers like this. They also aren't allowed radio interviews with Vanity Fair. If
Manson were a real prisoner, he would be allowed to talk to his attorney, his immediate real family (by blood or
previous marriage), or law enforcement. He is not allowed to pose for pictures with CIA agents posing as
hippies. He is not allowed a beard. He is not allowed to wear a kerchief around his neck. He is not allowed the
two rings on his left hand. He is not allowed to take a wife, and even if he were he would be allowed to talk to
her only through plexiglas. He would not be allowed conjugal visits even from an original wife, and especially
not from a new wife.

And the whole ATWA website is just one more pathetic attempt to slander the environmental movement. Star
looks like Susan Atkins (40 years ago), and now that Atkins is supposedly dead, they needed a replacement.
Crazy girl actress of the hour, hired from SAG.

[Update, December 2014. They are going ahead with this wedding charade, although it wouldn't do Manson any
good even if all this were real. He wouldn't get conjugal visits, so what's the point? Anyway, the Los Angeles
Times has now printed the marriage license, giving us the latest clue.


If he wasn't the crazy ex-con we have been sold, who was he? Well, we saw above that Sharon Tate's dad was a colonel in Military Intelligence. Turns out Charles Manson's real father was also a colonel, Colonel Walker Scott. He had worked for the Baltimore and Ohio Railway, and was a member of the Elks Lodge. Manson's paternal grandmother's name was Gladys Kline. Scott allegedly died at age 44 in Ashland, Kentucky.

The B&O Railway was at that time merged with the C&O Railway, under the control of Cyrus Eaton. Eaton was
a protégé of John D. Rockefeller. He also likely had Intelligence connections, which we can see from his
foundation of the Pugwash Conferences in 1957. These conferences on Sciences and World Affairs were put
together after the Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955, both of which sought solutions to global security threats,
including nuclear threats. In other words, it was all another propaganda project.

The Elks are a Masonic-type lodge, probably allied to the Freemasons. The only difference is they can have
alcohol on premises. The Elks were started right after the Civil War, and I assume they are an Intelligence front.

The name Gladys Kline is almost certainly Jewish, and we can tell that by the first name as well as the last. You
may be interested to know that Elvis' mother was named Gladys as well, and that she was also Jewish. See the
Star of David on her original tombstone. Kevin Kline is Jewish on his father's side.

Ashland, KY, is the home of two military bases. Manson's half-brother Walker Scott, Jr. was also a colonel,
stationed at Sampson AFB in New York. Manson also had an aunt from this family, Mrs. Mae Cooksey, who
lived in Long Beach, CA. She was married to Corporal Alton Bert Cooksey. He is also buried in Ashland, so we
have to ask what they were doing in Long Beach. Well, the Port of Long Beach is one of the world's largest
shipping ports—with a Navy presence as well—so Bert Cooksey was probably a technician there. This would
have made him a Marine corporal, which connected him to the Navy, which may have connected him to Jay
Sebring and Colonel Paul Tate. If that is true, that would give us only two degrees of separation between
Manson, Tate, and Sebring. But regardless, we have seen that Manson's father and half-brother were both
colonels, which is strange enough in itself. Also strange is that they never tell you that in the mainstream bios.

Before we leave Manson, I draw your attention to a final anomaly on the marriage license above. Note that his
birth date is listed as 11/11/34. That is curious for two reasons: one, 11/11 is a favorite number of Intel. They
use it as a signal or as numerology in their events, along with 33 and 88. Two, the date is curious because it is
wrong: the date listed on his mainstream bio is 11/12/34.

This post was last modified: 07-03-2016, 12:00 PM by blue forest.
The following 2 users Like blue forest's post:
  • Thy Unveiling, damien50

07-03-2016, 11:54 AM #7
blue forest
Status: Offline Posts:374 Likes Received:483

07-03-2016, 12:22 PM #8
Status: Offline Posts:95 Likes Received:167
(07-03-2016, 11:52 AM)blue forest Wrote:  I don't believe that this psych-op has ended, it's purpose is being used even to this day on more than one level imv.
It's major purpose for the time period was accomplished but if it can still be of use why let it rest?
and why not also put it to use on a new generation?

Okay, I'll accept that as a possible explanation. I also enjoy this article from VC about Rosemary's Baby which has a different perspective about the murders. It's one of the more interesting things he's written. It says:

There have been persistent rumors claiming that Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, played the uncredited role of Satan during the impregnation scene, and also served as a technical advisor for the film. There is no proof of LaVey’s involvement in the movie but he was nonetheless linked to the movie’s aura in another way: Susan Atkins, the member of the Manson family who later murdered Polanski’s pregnant wife Sharon Tate, was an ex-follower of Anton LaVey.

Before settling on Mia Farrow, Roman Polanski originally envisioned his wife, Sharon Tate, as playing the role of Rosemary. She was not cast in the role, but did make an uncredited appearance in the movie, during a party scene. Fourteen months after the release of the movie, Tate (who was 8 months pregnant) was ritualistically killed by members of the Manson family. She was stabbed 16 times and her killers wrote the word “pig” in her blood on the wall of her house.

Charles Manson is described by Fritz Springmeier as “both a Monarch slave and a handler”. According to Springmeier, his programmers knew ahead of time what were going to be the next hits. He was basically used by the elite to carry out ritualistic murders.

“(…) the murders attributed to the Son of Sam, the Manson Family, and numerous other interconnected killings (including possibly the Zodiac murders) were not what they appeared to be. While these killings appeared to be the random work of serial/mass murderers, they actually were contract hits carried out for specific purposes by an interlocking network of Satanic cults … In other words, these were professional hits orchestrated and disguised to look like the work of yet another ‘lone nut’ serial killer.”
– David McGowan, “There’s Something About Henry”

“The Manson murders sounded the death knell for hippies and all they symbolically represented,” Bugliosi told the Observer last week. “They closed an era. The 60s, the decade of love, ended on that night, on 9 August 1969”.
-The Guardian, “Charles Manson follower ends her silence 40 years after night of slaughter”

According to numerous observers, Manson’s killings were programmed using Beatles songs (Manson himself claimed that the song Helter Skelter contained hidden messages intended for his family).

“Charles Manson was programmed with Beatles’ music. (…) They regularly call in slaves and hypnotically make the lyrics to be cues for the slaves before the music comes out. For instance, the lyrics of “Ain’t that a Shame” will make certain alters angry. For another slave the lyrics “Everything is relative, in its own way” reminds the person of the cult family & obedience.”
– Fritz Springmeier, The Illuminati Formula to Create an Undetectable Mind Control Slave

The Manson killings were performed according to ancient ritual with hoodwinks and “cords of initiation” around the necks of the sacrifices. A line from a John Lennon Beatles’ song was painted on the death house, “Helter Skelter” which was located appropriately on Cielo (Spanish for “sky”) Drive (Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski’s house).

What we are witnessing in the wake of the public enactment of these alchemical psychodramas, whose spiritual consequences for mankind are far more momentous than most have thus far guessed, is a process of global occult initiation”.
– Michael, A. Hoffman, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare

Speaking of which, the death of John Lennon is another strange piece of the puzzle. The murder occurred as John was walking into the Dakota, the building where Rosemary’s Baby was filmed, and where he was living at the time. Mark David Chapman, the “lone nut” who killed Lennon is heavily suspected to be a Monarch mind-control slave.

Chapman also had ties with high-profile handlers and the strange circle of occult celebrities.

“Lennon’s assassin, Mark David Chapman, met LaVey’s pal Kenneth Anger, an American disciple of Aleister Crowley, in Honolulu in the late 1970’s. In 1967 Anger had directed a film called Lucifer Rising, starring Manson follower Bobby Beausoleil. Another follower and Tate-killer, Susan Atkins, had appeared with LaVey in performances at a Los Angeles area strip club.”
– Ibid.

Why was Sharon Tate “chosen”? She was not Hollywood’s biggest star and she only enjoyed limited commercial success. Was it the inevitable outcome reserved to stars who go too far into the occult side of stardom? Three years before her death, Tate played the role of a witch in the movie Eye of the Devil. The movie’s conclusion: A blood sacrifice was required to “make things right again”.

Did Roman Polanski sacrifice his wife (the same way Guy sacrificed Rosemary) to obtain the favors of Hollywood? Soon after the death, he allowed himself to be photographed by Life Magazine in the living room where Tate had died. Her dried blood was still clearly visible on the floor in front of him. The photo shoot caused him to be heavily criticized.

Other events did not help his credibility. Seven years after Tate’s murder, Polanski was arrested and charged with a number of offenses against 13-year-old Samantha Geimer, including rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. According to Geimer’s testimony to the grand jury, Polanski had asked Geimer’s mother (a television actress and model) if he could photograph the girl as part of his work for the French edition of Vogue (we have already seen the rather sick inclinations of that magazine in the article entitled Disturbing Sex Kitten French Vogue Photoshoot Featuring Children). According to author Michael A. Hoffman, Polanski produced snuff films involving minors for sale on the private market, but these allegations remain unproven. Despite all of these accusations, Polanski remains a free man.

Are these events strange coincidences or all part of a big scheme? Is it somewhere in between? Whatever the case may be, they are symptomatic of a hidden force influencing American pop culture."

Here's a link to the article in case you want to read the whole thing:

So whether it was a ritual sacrifice or completely fake both sides agree it didn't happen the way we've been told all these years.
The following 1 user Likes CountDracula's post:
  • Thy Unveiling

07-03-2016, 07:36 PM #9
Status: Offline Posts:691 Likes Received:1152
I've no problems believing Polanski is a complete slime of a human being and the Manson family did truly kill the original trusting hippie vibe of California and helped put an end to the bright-eyed, idealistic 60's with their murder spree.  Before the Tate Murder, the "family" used to practice killing campers near Death Valley & other CA wilderness areas to steal their gear.  I know this because members of my own family had a close escape from the Manson family when camping in the wrong place at the wrong time in ''67.

So was Manson used as a scapegoat for Sharon Tate's murder?  I doubt it, as Manson & Family were fully capable of killing her themselves and sickly enjoyed the limelight of its aftermath. Those that practice the occult for dark ends aren't always patsies for larger/more powerful occult groups.

This post was last modified: 07-03-2016, 07:45 PM by SheWatches.

How do they get the "m" on the M&M?
The following 4 users Like SheWatches's post:
  • Thy Unveiling, The Zone, damien50, Thunderian

07-03-2016, 09:47 PM #10
Status: Offline Posts:939 Likes Received:831
The Manson Family has been one of my interests since I read Helter Skelter when I was about 14.  I had a big crush on Ouisch (but who didn't?), and over the years I've read everything and watched everything I could about the Family and the case.  Like any event that has been given so much exposure, and especially with the added elements of celebrity, sex, drugs and rock and roll, there is a lot that you have to wade through to get to the truth.  I don't know that the full truth will ever be known, but ret-conning the Tate-Labianca murders as false flag doesn't add up, at least not the way it's being presented here.  Too many conclusions are jumped to, and facts are pretty sparse, for the most part.

A few comments, just off the top of my head:

Manson spent most of his life in institutions, and had experience as a pimp.  The argument that a short, scruffy and wild-eyed hippie couldn't hold any attraction for the women that surrounded him doesn't take into account his charismatic personality (it wasn't just women who fell under his spell, but men as well) or his experience pushing people's buttons to get the result he wanted.  Have you ever known a pimp personally?  I have known a few, and the way they can draw women to them is inexplicable.  They work out a game and they play it.  Not every woman (or man -- Manson was bisexual) falls for it, but a lot do, and that was Manson's secret -- his game.  Throw in massive societal change and upheaval, the natural rebellion of youth, and a lot of drugs, and you've got yourself a Manson murder cocktail.

It's also not a mystery why there were so many actors connected with the story.  The events took place in Los Angeles.  Manson's personal circle included Dennis Wilson from the Beach Boys, and Byrds producer Terry Melcher, who owned the house where the Tate murders took place.  There are anecdotal stories of Manson and his girls partying with celebrities all over Hollywood and Beverly Hills before they got all murder-y.

The picture of the policewoman and the critique of her uniform is ridiculous.  As inappropriate as it may look to us now, that was the style at the time.  Here's a whole page of women cops from Orange County during the same time period.


As for Manson's recent engagement to Star, prisoners are allowed to give interviews, have beards and even meet and marry someone.  Tex Watson got married and fathered four children after being locked up for life, and there are plenty of interviews that have taken place with other members of the family.

And the hippie movement didn't die because of the Manson murders.  They are viewed as a symbol of the peace and love of the time coming to a bloody end, but so is the Rolling Stones concert at Altamont the same year where the Hell's Angels stabbed a guy to death in front of the stage.  The truth is that the hippie culture was being absorbed into the prevailing culture, just as the punk culture, the rave culture and the hip hop culture all have been since.

One thing that made me lol pretty good was the breathless contention that Manson's dad -- Colonel Walker Scott -- was a colonel.  His given name, as was the name of his son, Colonel Walker Scott, Jr., is actually Colonel.  It's a southern thing.

There's lots more, but I think that's a good start.  Like I said, the full truth may not be known, but making things up isn't helpful.
The following 3 users Like Thunderian's post:
  • Justbreathe, MissCherokee, CountDracula

  • 1
  • 2