The Tate Murders were a False Flag
and the Greatest Unknown Success
Story of Project CHAOS
by Miles Mathis
You will best benefit yourself by keeping an open mind and forgetting most of what you have learned in the past.
Jay Sebring*
Part 8:
the “Prisoners”
In closing, let's bookend this investigation by looking at Manson one last time. We have seen that Sharon Tate
wasn't where we thought she was for the past 40 years. Has Manson been where we thought he was? Here is a
recent picture of Manson.
The date is right there for you. Do you see a problem? Prisons don't allow beards like that. Beards used to have
to be trimmed to ½ inch, but since 1998 they have been disallowed in California State Prisons. Manson was
originally in Vacaville and San Quentin, but he was transferred to Corcoran in 1989, a California State Prison.
So the question we should have is, “Is Manson really in prison at all?” Or do they just ask him to come in every
couple of years so they can take his picture with a printed card? Ask yourself this: Do we have any evidence—
evidence that wouldn't be easy to fake—that Manson is really living at Corcoran? If they can fake all these
deaths, they can fake a few people being in prison. If you don't think so, I encourage you to study John
Hinckley, who allegedly shot Reagan in 1981. You can find out the truth there without doing much research.
Mainstream sources admit that Hinckley, the son of a rich friend of the Bushes, never went to jail, was being
released into the care of his mother within a few years, and that during the last decade he has spent almost as much time at home as in the cushy psychiatric hospital. Since 2009, he has been given a dozen home visits of
10 days at a time. Do the math and you find that is 1/3rd of the year. He is also allowed to drive! Most people
assume Hinckley is serving a life term, and they have always been wrong. Most people assume Manson is
serving a life term. Are they right? We don't know. They make little movies about Manson every few years,
and release some pictures, but as we have seen, those things can be faked as easily as a 15-second commercial
for Rice-a-roni. Manson could be living in Big Sur in a house on the beach, for all we know.
Another obvious problem there. Do you see it? Compare the 1971 to the 2009 photo. Manson has had an ear
tuck on his right ear. Do you really think the State of California paid for or allowed an ear tuck? State prisons
pay for necessary health care, but not for elective cosmetic (vanity) surgery.
How many interviews has Manson done since 1970? Twenty, thirty, more? Don't you think it is odd that
Manson has appeared with Nuel Emmons, Charlie Rose, Tom Snyder, Diane Sawyer, Geraldo, Ron Reagan, Jr.,
Penny Daniels, Heidi Schulman, Michal Ben Horin, and many others? I encourage you listen to all of them
closely. For a start, go to the very first, his 1972 interview on San Quentin death row, which is ridiculous from
the first frame. First we see Manson getting his dinner. Manson refuses his dinner and asks the server to give
his steak to Mike next door. So they serve steak every night at San Quentin, I guess, and prisoners can request
their meals be given to other prisoners? They expect us to believe this? Then, when the interview starts, the
interviewer just sticks his microphone up to the bars. Do you really think journalists and camera crews are
allowed to interview and film death row inmates inside the cell block? Of course not, which is why in future
interviews they decided to bring Manson into an interview room of some sort, to make it look slightly more
believable. The last thing Manson says in that first interview is, “I believe what I'm told to believe. Don't you?”
They were fucking with us even then. They don't feel compelled to make these interviews believable—since
they just assume the audience knows nothing about nothing—but they are quite willing to insert their own
private jokes. As they are brainwashing you, they laugh and ask you if enjoy being brainwashed.
Even after they moved the interview and camera crew into a private room in later films, the thing was still a
farce, since level 1 prisoners like Manson are not allowed to talk to anyone except their attorneys, clergy, or law
enforcement. This is the common rule in all state prisons across the country, and has been for decades. Anytime
you see an interview with a convicted mass murderer/torturer, you should ask how such an interview is possible.
I encourage you to watch again the 1988 Geraldo interview with Manson.It starts out with a pan of the room,
and we see the film crew strolling around. One bored cop is by the door, not even looking towards Manson.
Everyone, including Geraldo, appears to be suppressing a smile. Manson is wearing bluejeans and a brown
shirt, and is sporting a longish beard with long hair. I paused there at 16 seconds into an hour-long interview,
and I already knew it was fake. This is Charles Manson, folks: supposedly one of the most dangerous men
alive. This is the guy who lunged over the court tables and supposedly tried to get at his judge with a sharp
pencil. But here he is with Geraldo, and Manson has no handcuffs on, no security is near him, he is not wearing
prison clothes, he is not shaved or shorn like a prisoner, and he is acting like he is in control of the script (which
he may have been). He is ordering the cameramen around. They simply do not let level I prisoners do
interviews like this. If Manson were who we have been told he is, he could kill Geraldo with one punch to the
throat or one jerk of his chin. Instead, we see Geraldo leaning in, his head less than a foot away from Manson.
They are literally knee to knee. No table is between them. We see Geraldo covering a chuckle at second 26.
Anyone who thinks this is a real interview with a mass murderer has done too many acid trips themselves.
The 1989 Penny Daniels interview is also a flying farce, since Manson comes in wearing a wide-collar hippie
shirt, dark sunglasses, Converse sneakers, and a beard that is at least 3 inches long. He's also still wearing his
leather “thong” necklace. None of that is regulation prison attire. You may want to check Penny Daniels' bio
and Wikipedia page. Although this is by far the biggest thing she ever did, it isn't mentioned. Manson walks
into the interview room thinking he has an interview with someone from France. He is like some movie-star at
Cannes who can't keep up with all his worldwide interviews. He should travel with a booking agent. He then
tells the prison administrator who is present to sit down and shut up. He tells him he is just a “lockman” and that
he doesn't have any power there. Very amusing theater, but no more than that. Outrageously unbelievable in
every way. You also should notice that Manson's face and hands show no indication of the third-degree burns he
was supposed to have suffered at Vacaville in 1984, when he was allegedly doused in paint thinner and set on
fire. Third-degree burns require excision and always scar badly, but we see nothing like that. You will say the
scars are beneath the beard, but beards don't grow over third-degree burned skin, especially not thick healthy
beards like we see on Manson. Also see minute 8:40, where we see Manson's right hand very clearly. Doesn't
look like a jail hand, since it is clean and well manicured. Also no scarring. Also, a gold pinky ring. Not
allowed in jail. At 22:30 we see the left hand as well: no scarring. As smooth as a girl's hand.
Manson does give away some information, though. He tells us he knew Lynette Fromme from before 1967. He
tries to cover by saying he knew her in a dream, but he is obviously rattled for a moment, realizing he has said
something he shouldn't have. According to the standard story, he wasn't supposed to meet Fromme until 1967,
after he had been out of prison some months. This implies that Manson's earlier prison record may be faked or
padded as well. Knowing what we now know, that doesn't take much believing.
I also encourage you to listen closely to Manson's “Sneakyville” speech, reproduced several times on youtube.
Do you hear a problem? Although the audio is pretty well synched to the video, that isn't Manson's voice. It
sounds more like Henry Fonda or Peter Coyote. I don't know why they would replace the audio, since Manson
is very able to do his own audio. Maybe they lost the audio.
The Nuel Emmons “backporch interview” in 1979 is also ridiculous. First we have to ask, “Who in hell is Nuel
Emmons?” Have you ever heard of anyone named Nuel? I found two other first names of Nuel on the internet,
but they both looked fake as well. Nuel Emmons is another phantom, with no history other than his work with
Manson. We have these interviews and a book in 1986, and other than that Nuel Emmons didn't exist. It looks
like an anagram to me. I would say it is meant to be an anagram of Emmanuelson, which is both a lengthening
of Manson and a reminder that Manson claims to be the son of God. Emmanuel-son. Nuel Emmons isn't a real
person, it is just an alter-ego of Manson.
We see more theater in the later 1992 interview with Michal Ben Horin, by which time they have lost any last
sliver of respect for the whole charade. They dress the young female interviewer like Victor Victoria, and
expect you to believe her real name is Ben Horin, as if she is Jewish or something. It is all an inside joke, and
not even a subtle one. It was a toss up whether to name her Michal Ben Horin or Michal Ben Dover. Do a
websearch, and you see she has no presence before or after 1992. We are to believe she has done nothing except
that one interview 20 years ago. We do, however, get the continuation of the joke with another Michael Ben Horin, who is a more recent “terrorist” praying for the death of Ariel Sharon.
Get it? Ariel Sharon, Sharon Tate? And see how this Michael Ben Horin is given his own Charlie Manson
beard, to go with his death-camp shirt and star? Hilarious, right?
For more of the same kind of jokes, you can research John Aes-Nihil, which is the fake name of a fake director
who supposedly produced the fake Manson Family Movies in 1984. These are faux home movies made to look
like the Manson family shot the movies of themselves. They even made up reviews. One of them is, “Looks
like the real thing,” signed Kenneth Anger. To get that joke, though, you have to know who Kenneth Anger is.
Anger is a fake Crowley Satanist who made a lot of propaganda movies on the occult, homosexuality, and
surrealism back in the 50's and 60's. But to understand what he was really up to, you simply have to look at the
date of his first film Fireworks, which came out in 1947. Remember that date? That is year one of the CIA.
Whenever you see Crowley or Satanism, you can substitute CIA or MI6 instead. Anger was one of the top guys
at Lookout Mountain from the beginning, producing their “raciest” propaganda. So for Anger to be quoted as
saying, “looks like the real thing,” is doubly and triply rich. They might as well have two thumbs up from
Goebbels and Riefenstahl, “looks like first-rate agitprop to us!”
Somehow, this fake person Aes-Nihil was also able to get a series of interviews with Manson between 1972 and
1979, which, like everything else, you can see on youtube. This despite the fact that we know he wasn't allowed
visitors. In a 1975, in a telephone interview with Sandra Good, both Good and the reporter admit that Manson
was not allowed visitors, much less interviews with filmmakers. Nihil is the Latin word for “nothing,” and Aes
is the Latin word for “brass,” as in the phrase, aes alienum, “another person's money.” So Aes-Nihil translates
as “money for nothing,” as in the Dire Straits song from 1985. Aes-Nihil probably is Kenneth Anger, but if he
isn't, he is just another director at the still-busy Lookout Mountain Film Laboratory, aka Hollywood.
Now maybe you understand why the people running these events decided to go ahead with 9/11 and everything
since. By the late 1990's they could see that no matter how outrageous their stunts and jokes became, no one
was catching on. Even the most revolutionary conspiracy theorists were clueless, missing everything. No one
had even come close to figuring anything out, even though the perpetrators were leaving clues everywhere in
plain sight, bigger every year. When people are so stupid they don't even know you are fucking with them, it
isn't fun anymore. It isn't fun being a bad guy when no one even knows how bad you are. That is why they
have graduated to 9/11 and Sandy Hook and everything in between. They need to be noticed. They need to be
appreciated as bad guys. Just as I need my audience and you need yours, they need their audience. They need
someone to get the jokes. Just as Moriarty needed Sherlock Holmes, these people need me. Even if I don't fully
appreciate their sick jokes, at least I get them. I don't have to like them or even respect them, but it is important
that I see them. No one likes to be fully invisible. Even the spooks don't like to be fully invisible. They like to
get away with everything, but it is much preferable to be visible while you are getting away with it, don't you
see? Any fool can get away with an invisible crime. It takes someone really clever to get away with a visible
crime. Or this is the way they think.
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—which 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.
Apparently they are telling us Manson is living in Santa Barbara. It is his “fiancée” Afton that lives in Corcoran,
according to the certificate. You will tell me they just accidentally switched them. Maybe, but I take it as their
latest tipping of their hand to us. If you live in Santa Barbara, keep your eyes open. That guy you just thought
looked like Charlie may actually be him.]
This last bit of info lead us to ask who Charles Manson really was. 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.
Now let us move on to Susan Atkins.
The videos of Atkins are equally suspicious and absurd. I encourage you to watch her last words, in this video from ABCnews. Ask yourself this: is it common procedure to roll lifers into prison offices so that they can
recite the Lord's Prayer for ABCnews? Or does this maybe look a little bit like the continuation of a scripted
tragedy, the final act in a long-drawn-out and poorly written play? If that doesn't convince you, how about the
picture above, which is a glamor shot of Atkins. She looks to be at least 35. Problem is, she was supposed to be
in jail by the time she was 21. Do you think they do glamor shots for lifers? Look at her hands. They don't do
fingernail polish in prison, and fingernails are not allowed to be long, for obvious reasons. Nice wig, no? Do
you really think they do wigs in prison? Yes, I suppose to encourage prisoners to go incognito, so they can
escape. Which brings up the fact that Atkins, like Tex Watson (see below), worked in a wig shop around the
time she met Charlie.11 The CIA should have spread the jobs around better. Having Sebring set up both Watson
and Atkins in wig shops looks mighty suspicious after the fact. Especially now that we know Paul Tate opened
a hair salon in 1971.
The red flags in the long Susan Atkins saga are legion, but just remember that Joseph Ball worked with Atkins after her arrest in 1969. Who is Joseph Ball? He was senior counsel on the Warren Commission, for one thing. Why was he giving counsel to Atkins, and who was paying for it? Atkins also skated charges several times like Manson. Although she pleaded guilty, her arrest for pot in 1968 led only to probation. Patricia Krenwinkel beat the same rap in Mendocino. Looks like they were being saved for their roles. Like Tex Watson—who we will look at below—and Leslie van Houten—who was a homecoming queen—Susan Atkins was a model highschool student, having been the captain of her swim team and a singer in the church choir. That was only one year before she became “Charlie's girl” and two years before she was supposed to turn into a witch, a torturer, and a multiple murderer. She was not the sort to drop out of highschool to become a topless dancer, and she didn't. She was recruited to play a part. Strange that we never hear from Atkins' highschool friends. They might tell you who she was recruited by, and exactly under what circumstances.
For another red flag, I send you to minute 40:10 of this video. Atkins and her attorney are being interviewed by reporters while still sitting at the courtroom table. She doesn't say much, but that isn't the point. She wouldn't be allowed to be interviewed at all, but especially not in the courtroom. No judge would allow reporters into his courtroom to interview an accused murderer. And no attorney would allow his client to talk to reporters in such a situation. The whole thing is staged.
For more of this, I encourage you to watch her 1976 prison interview, which is at least as fishy as any Manson interview. Watch it again knowing what you now know. Notice that in the beginning, she is just strolling through the prison grounds with the reporter: no handcuffs, no guards, no prison uniform. She is wearing a skirt, which is not provided or allowed in prison. She is wearing a large metal crucifix, which is also not allowed, since it could be used as a weapon. This is supposed to be a vicious killer, one who could rip your eyes out at any moment. Also remember that level 1 prisoners like Atkins are only allowed contact with their attorneys, clergy, and law enforcement. NOT reporters. Once they sit down, we can see she has long, painted fingernails, a gold ring, and a gold watch. Again, none of that is allowed. She then repeats the goriest part of the story, even adding new details. Why would she need to do that, unless she was being paid to do it? By 1976, we had already heard the story millions of times, from her and every one else. Why interview her to get that again, unless you wanted to be sure it was indelibly etched in everyone's minds? If she is hoping to get out on parole, why would she keep repeating that she and Tex were there “to do the Devil's business” and things like that? She seems more interested in keeping up the sensationalism than in benefiting her parole. You will say that she is stupid and/or crazy, but I think we now know that she is doing the interview on orders from above. Not orders from Charlie, but orders from the CIA.
Remember, the Tate/Labianca murders were “solved” only through the big mouth of Atkins, who blabbed to a cellmate in prison. According to testimony, Atkins was dancing and singing in the LA County Jail, refusing to wear underwear, doing cartwheels, and performing general theatrics, although she had already been charged for the murder of Gary Hinman. She wasn't acting crazy, since they send crazy people to the mental hospital. No, she was acting protected. And simply acting. Her relationship with cellmate Virginia Graham is peculiar from the first word, since Graham is said to have gotten her a job as a message runner in jail. We don't know why they need message runners in jail, why they would use accused murderers to be runners, or why Graham was in any position to recommend runners. It looks very much like Graham was planted to hear what Atkins was being paid to say, since it was time to get the police on the right track. It was time to move the story to the next chapter.
Another red flag is Atkins' husband James Whitehouse, 15 years younger than Atkins and a graduate of Harvard Law School (like Obama). He was married to her for 22 years, from 1987 on. Whitehouse may have the distinction of being the only guy in history to marry a female mass murderer in jail. If you check the websites listing people who marry convicted murderers[link is dead, here is a good one....http://www.ranker.com/list/people-with-hybristophilia-who-married-killers/stephen-tompkins you find all the others are women who marry men in jail, not the reverse. And the women who marry male murderers are never law school graduates, as you might imagine. This marriage makes no sense on any level. It is a strong pointer to the fact that Atkins was always no more than an actor, and was never really in jail. For more evidence of this, I recommend you watch the tapes of the trials, her own and Manson's. The things she said to the judge are pure theater, and have never been repeated before or since in court, and never shall be. All the girls acted absolutely crazy at all times. This has been spun by everyone to indicate they were crazy. Why did no one ask if they were acting? All the people murdered at the Tate house were actors, so why not ask if all the people at the Spahn's Movie Ranch were also actors? They give you the clue right in the title.
Here's another big clue everyone has missed, regarding Susan Atkins. On September 5, 1970, chief prosecutor Aaron Stovitz was pulled off the Manson case by District Attorney Evelle Younger, for a remark he made to the press. Stovitz was co-prosecutor with Bugliosi at the time. Younger claimed Stovitz had violated the “no comment” policy, but since it was for a one-line “off-the-cuff” comment, no one could understand the overreaction by Younger. The comment, in reference to Susan Atkins was, “She's better than Sarah Bernhardt.” Of course, to get the joke, you have to know who Sarah Bernhardt was, and most people didn't. In Hollywood, they knew who she was, since was considered at the time to be the greatest actress ever. And so you see how this comment may have been seen as a little too revelatory by those running the show. The chief prosecutor was admitting that Susan Atkins was an actor.
Before we get to Watson, let's take a quick look at Leslie Van Houten. There is video[minute 46:30] of Van
Houten talking about going from bad to good. It is 1982, long after her incarceration, but she is in some sort of
classroom. She is wearing a short skirt and a tank top, with bare arms and shoulders. A woman behind her is
wearing an orange sleeveless dress, sunglasses and a bandanna. There are at least two young guys sitting behind
her, both with longish hair. They are all sitting at school desks. Here's the question you should have: where are
these people supposed to be? It isn't prison. Van Houten was supposed to be in a California prison for women,
and they don't mix male and female prisoners. They don't mix them in classrooms, either. They don't allow
them to dress like they are on the beach, either. She also has long, sharp fingernails [minute 47:00]. Not
allowed. Two rings and a bracelet: not allowed. We are told by the narrator that she is at an Antioch College on
prison grounds. While I found no information on Antioch College at any California prisons, if Van Houten were
on prison grounds, there would be no men in the classroom. That is why they call it the California Institution for
Women. And at no time—in school or out of it—are prisoners allowed to wear shorts, short skirts, halter tops,
bandannas,or dresses.
The same analysis should be applied to Tex Watson. Like Atkins, Watson is supposed to be one of the most vicious of the Family. But like Atkins, he too has CIA written all over him. He isn't in jail anywhere, except for a few days every five years when they call him in for his part. He was a highschool honeyboy A student, straight as an arrow, short hair and good looks. Besides being honor roll, he was the newspaper editor and a track star, and a Methodist church group leader to boot. He then went to University of North Texas, where he was a business major and fraternity man. He was there for three years, and did well (the CIA often recruits college juniors). He did not have long hair in college, did not show any leftist tendencies (Texas fraternities were not known for admitting hippies in 1966), and was not known to be “conflicted.” Mainstream sources also admit he worked as a baggage handler for Braniff, which afforded him travel opportunities Travel opportunities to Langley, VA, perhaps? We are told in the mainstream that Watson used his travel miles to take girls to Dallas. Whoops! He was already in or near Dallas. I don't think you need to burn travel miles to get from Denton to Dallas. Maybe he was taking them to Mérida? Also, the CIA often places young recruits as baggage handlers, since this is a great way to learn smuggling techniques while being useful in a low-risk job.
We are also told in the mainstream story that Watson had some combat training, and he is said to have trained the Manson girls as well as having taken on all the difficult killings (of the men). Where would he have gotten that training? In the ΠΚΑ fraternity? Watson didn't need any combat training, since he was only used as an actor, but if he had any combat training, I think we know where he got it.
When Watson took his first assignment and was sent to Los Angeles, he was installed in a wig shop. No one ever analyzes that. Who would be capable of getting Watson a job working with wigs? Sebring, of course. Sebring was either Watson's handler or enabler, and Atkins, too. It wasn't drugs or porn that linked them, it was military intelligence. At the same time Watson was installed in the wig shop, he was also installed in Laurel Canyon. The problem there is two-fold: one, Laurel Canyon, then as now, was a high-rent neighborhood. That's why all the famous people were living there, of course. The Beach Boys and the Mamas and Papas and Doris Day and Sebring and Polanski weren't going to be living in the slums in East LA. So how does a new wig man —a poor hick with a drawl straight out of the Dallas suburbs—get set up immediately in Laurel Canyon? Two, Laurel Canyon was the center of operations of Lookout Mountain Film Studios. Many of the people working there were installed in the immediate neighborhood, for convenience, so many of those houses were CIA houses. Do you think it was just another coincidence that Watson was installed there? Do you really think he met the various other operatives while hitchhiking, as we are told? No, he met them by appointment.
Perhaps the most ridiculous story is that Watson picked up Dennis Wilson while Wilson was hitchhiking. You may have thought it was the other way around. No, the story always told was that Wilson, a millionaire Beach Boy, was hitchhiking. Not that his car had broken down or anything like that, but that he was hitchhiking. How many multi-millionaires who own Ferraris and Jaguars do you know that go out hitchhiking for fun? Do you think Jay Leno goes out hitchhiking in the hills of LA now? How about Eddie Murphy? Justin Timberlake? How little respect must they have had for their audience to tell a story like that, expecting anyone to believe it.
When Watson was first arrested, two high-profile attorneys leapt to his aid, much as Shibley had leapt to Manson's aid in 1966. David Deloach and Perry Walshin took his case pro bono, although Deloach was known at the time as a GOP bigwig. Why was a bigwig GOP attorney so interested in “the hippie” Watson? Even stranger, Deloach said that he had already had 40 consultations with Watson before his arrest. What?
Perhaps the most obvious clue to the fake status of Tex Watson is his fathering of four children in prison, during conjugal visits. Conjugal visits weren't allowed for prisoners like Watson (or Atkins), even in the few states that allowed such visits for lesser prisoners. We are told these visits for lifers were banned in 1996 in California, but that is a cover story. Some rules changed in 1996, but violent murderers/torturers like Watson were never allowed conjugal visits. Watson wasn't just a lifer, he was a multiple pre-meditated murderer with torture, which is why he initially got the death penalty.Over 10% of inmates in California State Prisons are lifers and many of them are 3-strikers who did nothing worse than flash a knife during a robbery. The change in 1996 applied to them, not to Watson. There are currently hundreds of people on death row in California, and the only reason Watson isn't there with them is that he “lucked out” and fell into the gap between 1972 and 1978, when those on death row were transfered to life (due to a Supreme Court decision on the death penalty). But as a matter of rules, the same rules apply to Watson that apply to those on death row, since his crime is the same. The rules are based on the severity of your crime, not on your term. If you are on death row, you get no conjugal visits. If you are a murderer/torturer, you get no conjugal visits, for obvious reasons. If you enjoy murdering for sport, as Watson is said to have done, then you aren't going to be set up with a new victim by the prison system. The wife's family would sue for millions, and the prisons know that.
Ask yourself this: if top-level inmates like Watson were allowed conjugal visits before 1996, why didn't Manson get himself a wife back in the early 70's? According to the mainstream story promoted by Helter Skelter and most other places, Charlie is and was hypersexual. He is supposed to have slept with hundreds or thousands of young girls. He is also supposed to be a magnet for impressionable young women to this day. And yet we never hear about wives or conjugal visits for Manson. Why do we hear about them with Watson? Simply because with Watson there are known children they have to account for in some way. So they tell you these children came from conjugal visits, even though that is impossible.13
All the high-profile parole hearings would be easy to fake as well. As we have seen, Pam Turner and Debra Tate and Doris Tate and Patti/Sharon Tate and Anthony DiMaria and the rest of the speakers are already insiders. Some have been acting these roles since 1968, either under threat from the CIA or just because it is a thrill. The entire story about Debra Tate being offended by the conjugal visits of Tex Watson is just more theater. The screenwriters finally realized they had a hole they needed to fill, so they created this new saga in order to tell you that the hole had been filled: no more conjugal visits for Tex Watson. So I guess if Tex has any more kids he better learn to hide them better. He can now claim they are grand kids.
Nor is it just the Manson people that have been sold to you as fake prisoners. As just one example outside the family, we can look at Christopher Gibson, Barry Mills, and Tyler Bingham, supposedly leaders of the Aryan Brotherhood:
page 80 here
http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf
Three prison photos, all of them in disallowed props. You don't get to wear your hair or beard like that, and they don't take photos with sunglasses on. Here's a question for you: is that three different guys, or one guy at different ages? Why do all three have the same shaped head, bulbous-ended nose, and very similar ears? The second and third guys are obviously the same. They have just manipulated the ears a little bit. With the second guy, they have reversed the right ear and pasted it over the left ear. With the third guy, they have done the opposite: reversed the left ear and pasted it over the right. The first guy is again the same person, but without glasses and squinting. Even the glasses are the same. They just painted in the lenses in one photo. Look where the bright spots are on the frames (by the nose and on the left cheek)!
There he is a fourth time, this time as Steven Hicklin. They put him in muted light, but it is the same pointy head, same eyebrows, and same square chin. For some reason they like to manipulate the ears, as if that changes everything.
Actually, the Aryan Brotherhood are not completely separate from the Manson family, since they were initially linked back in the 1970's. That's why Manson wore the swastika, among other reasons (we are told). But it no longer matters, since we can now see that both Manson and the Aryan Brotherhood are just creations of military intelligence or some other agency of the State. They are both parts of a bigger story being told to create fear, manufacture conflict, and control the wider population.
After all this, we can see that the Tate event is just the longest-running feature film of Lookout Mountain Propaganda Film Studios—sort of like Michael Apted's 7-Up series, but with the Manson Family instead of British children. Like Operation Gladio, it was directed and funded by military intelligence, with Paul Tate as captain and Jay Sebring as lieutenant. Tate was able to use what he had learned in Italy, importing it to the streets of Los Angeles, including his uncanny ability to pass for a bearded leftist. He then used his own daughter as cover, relying on the fact that no one would think he had agreed to her death, as well as on the fact that no one would figure out it was all faked. It worked for 43 years, and would have continued to work if they hadn't left the original crime scene photos in plain sight. For 43 years these photos had acted as their own defense and their own spin: no one wanted to study them closely, and those that did were death groupies who wanted them to be real. The evidence could therefore be hidden in plain sight. However, as you have just seen, the maze of contradictory and planted evidence can be successfully navigated, provided you have the ability to pull together the important facts, and the intelligence to collate them properly. The most important talent in this navigation is seeing red flags when you read them. I have done almost no original research here; I have only highlighted and circled things that others have seen and passed by. I then linked these red flags into a story. That was not so difficult: once the red flags are found, the story almost tells itself. The four tallest red flags pretty much prove the story alone, with little help from me. Once we see that Sharon is alive in that photo, that Paul Tate is a military intelligence colonel in hippie disguise, that Lookout Mountain Film Lab is in the background of Cielo Drive photos, and that Sharon has since been posing as her sister, all the rest falls into place. And once we see the method in this false flag, we can export what we know to other cases. That is what I will do in upcoming cases—some of them even more striking and controversial than this one.
*Sharon Tate, Murdered Innocence, Part 1. Onscreen quote by Jay in minute 2:00 of the film.
**The second one was still at findadeath.com as of January 28, 2013.
†Various sources tell us Tate was either a colonel or lieutenant colonel. Since we have caught all sources lying, Tate could have been a private or a 4-star general for all we know. We are relying on military intelligence for any information, and they are not required to be truthful to the public regarding anything. Since we know he started out in the navy, he should have naval rank anyway. If he was ONI, he should have been a captain. Naval intelligence is the ranking intelligence in the military, subordinate only to DIA. Since we will find DIA links with Charlene Cafritz, best guess is DIA was in control of this operation, rather than CIA. Following that lead, we would put Paul Tate as a naval intelligence captain and Sebring as a lieutenant or commander.
‡ In a curious link between Sharon Tate and the Matrix, we find that in Valley of the Dolls, “she took the blue pills.” Years later, the writers of The Matrix would use the blue pill to signify a completely manufactured reality. ☼Polanski's entire bio before age 21 appears to be faked, including his birth date. The date 8/18/33 is a spook date, and indicates it was chosen for numerological reasons. Even the year is suspect, for that reason. See Kiernan's extended bio of 1980, which reads like poor fiction and makes no sense from page to page. Given Polanski's stated credentials, he could never have been admitted to the Director's Classes at the Film School at Lodz at age 21. He was clearly from a rich and connected family, and was probably recruited by Polish Intelligence at an early age. As for his parents being sent to concentration camps, I for one no longer believe it.
1 Unless otherwise noted, all quotes and other facts were taken from the Wikipedia page on the given subject, so I consider them common knowledge. In other cases I provide weblinks rather than footnotes, which are more useful in an web investigation like this.
2 The Family, Ed Sanders. 1971. First edition.
3 At first I thought maybe Polanski wasn't in on it. The whole thing could have been pulled by Paul Tate and Jay Sebring, who both had military/CIA connections. I assume Sharon was initially a willing accomplice, but she may have been strong-armed by her father and Sebring. But I now see Polanski was also Intel, like the rest. His marriage to Tate was probably faked, as part of the run-up to the event. One thing that points to this is that Sebring continued to wear Sharon's highschool ring around his neck even after she “married” Polanski. So the baby is probably Sebring's. As for the rape charges, those too now look to me like another staged event. I say that because the main player on the side of law enforcement was Philip Vannatter, who later was also the lead investigator for the fake O.J. Simpson event. So Vannatter was some sort of Intelligence plant in the LAPD. I don't know the purpose of the Polanski event, but I suspect it indicates a split in Intel. Polanski had pissed off some cadre of US Intel, either in the Tate event or afterwards, and they were out to get him. He escaped only under the protection of International Intel, which was able to whisk him away.
4 Sanders, op. cit. p. 65. Sanders' book is often quoted by conspiracy theorists, but it was actually written as an alternative propaganda source. Although it reveals some things Bugliosi's book doesn't, it sells the central story with almost as much gusto. Unfortunately, Sanders' was a bit sloppy, revealing too much, and this line of propaganda was quickly discontinued. The book was revised and extended (and censored) almost immediately, to better do it job of disinformation. The best thing you can do is get a first edition and search for the things left out of later editions. Those censored things would be the only truth in a book that is mostly fiction.
5 Ibid, p. 37.
6 http://www.american-buddha.com/music.covertwarrock3.htm see footnote 9.
7 For those who believe the music industry is also controlled by the CIA, it is interesting to note that Jerry Garcia also died on August 9 at age 53. Of course he was said to be cremated.
8 Sanders, op. cit., p. 121. Sanders tells us Melcher allowed the Family to use his Jaguar and Standard Oil credit card. So Melcher, like Abigail Folger, appears to be a bankroller of the Tate movie, probably just channeling money given to him by the CIA. This also gives us another contradiction in the standard story: if the Family were in the habit of borrowing Melcher's Jaguar, they knew where he lived. They knew he didn't live at 10050 Cielo. On another page, p. 191, we find that Melcher and Jakobson visited Spahn Ranch several times. Sanders even gives us a date: June 3, 1969. We know they were there because the police were also “on the set,” investigating a Manson rape. Mike Deasy was also there with a mobile recording studio. Jakobson was taking pictures of nude hippie girls for the cover of an album. Sanders then tells us Manson “put out a contract” on Melcher, but we have no corroboration of that, except from the contractor. We do have corroboration of the rest.
9 Ibid, p. 136.
10 Some will no doubt complain that I don't reference Bugliosi's book once in this entire paper. That is with full intent. I want to be the first researcher in history to completely ignore that entire book. The reason I was able to make quick progress is precisely because I refused to be sidetracked by the 689 pages of misdirection there.
11 Atkins' 1985 Parole Hearing Transcript, p. 70.
12 Sanders, op. cit., p. 185. We have visual confirmation of this arrest of Watson, since there is a famous mugshot and fingerprinting.
13 Also see Ted Bundy, who miraculously fathered a child while in prison, despite having no conjugal visits.
14 Sanders, op. cit., p. 302.
15 Ibid, p. 306.
16 Ibid, p. 306.
17 Ibid, p. 345.
18 I will give you the clue in another similar event: the Chicago 7 trial was the same sort of smear campaign. Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Bobby Seale and the rest were no more than planted actors, calling for violence and shouting at the fake judge to give anti-war protesters a bad name. The whole thing was a scripted play, just like the Manson trials, and it very successfully smeared the peace movement, the hippies, and other groups. See Skolnick's analysis, which is not as easy to read as my stuff, but still heavy on facts. Skolnick's writings are hit and miss, since he is obviously an insider for some arm of Intel. When he is writing against an enemy—like the Rockefeller arm—his info is very useful and mostly true. But look out, when he is trying to whitewash his own people—like Kennedy—he is a webspinner. His analysis of the Chicago 7 is mostly true.
19 Page 173. Martin Lee and Bruce Shlain, 1986. Grove Press.
20 Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman later in admitted in 1994 that the War on Drugs in the late 1960s wasn't about drugs at all. It was a war against hippies and blacks. See Harper's, April 2016. What Ehrlichman doesn't tell you is that the war was waged not at the behest of Nixon, but at the behest of the CIA, under orders from the Octopus—the eight wealthiest families.
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.
Now let us move on to Susan Atkins.
The red flags in the long Susan Atkins saga are legion, but just remember that Joseph Ball worked with Atkins after her arrest in 1969. Who is Joseph Ball? He was senior counsel on the Warren Commission, for one thing. Why was he giving counsel to Atkins, and who was paying for it? Atkins also skated charges several times like Manson. Although she pleaded guilty, her arrest for pot in 1968 led only to probation. Patricia Krenwinkel beat the same rap in Mendocino. Looks like they were being saved for their roles. Like Tex Watson—who we will look at below—and Leslie van Houten—who was a homecoming queen—Susan Atkins was a model highschool student, having been the captain of her swim team and a singer in the church choir. That was only one year before she became “Charlie's girl” and two years before she was supposed to turn into a witch, a torturer, and a multiple murderer. She was not the sort to drop out of highschool to become a topless dancer, and she didn't. She was recruited to play a part. Strange that we never hear from Atkins' highschool friends. They might tell you who she was recruited by, and exactly under what circumstances.
For another red flag, I send you to minute 40:10 of this video. Atkins and her attorney are being interviewed by reporters while still sitting at the courtroom table. She doesn't say much, but that isn't the point. She wouldn't be allowed to be interviewed at all, but especially not in the courtroom. No judge would allow reporters into his courtroom to interview an accused murderer. And no attorney would allow his client to talk to reporters in such a situation. The whole thing is staged.
For more of this, I encourage you to watch her 1976 prison interview, which is at least as fishy as any Manson interview. Watch it again knowing what you now know. Notice that in the beginning, she is just strolling through the prison grounds with the reporter: no handcuffs, no guards, no prison uniform. She is wearing a skirt, which is not provided or allowed in prison. She is wearing a large metal crucifix, which is also not allowed, since it could be used as a weapon. This is supposed to be a vicious killer, one who could rip your eyes out at any moment. Also remember that level 1 prisoners like Atkins are only allowed contact with their attorneys, clergy, and law enforcement. NOT reporters. Once they sit down, we can see she has long, painted fingernails, a gold ring, and a gold watch. Again, none of that is allowed. She then repeats the goriest part of the story, even adding new details. Why would she need to do that, unless she was being paid to do it? By 1976, we had already heard the story millions of times, from her and every one else. Why interview her to get that again, unless you wanted to be sure it was indelibly etched in everyone's minds? If she is hoping to get out on parole, why would she keep repeating that she and Tex were there “to do the Devil's business” and things like that? She seems more interested in keeping up the sensationalism than in benefiting her parole. You will say that she is stupid and/or crazy, but I think we now know that she is doing the interview on orders from above. Not orders from Charlie, but orders from the CIA.
Remember, the Tate/Labianca murders were “solved” only through the big mouth of Atkins, who blabbed to a cellmate in prison. According to testimony, Atkins was dancing and singing in the LA County Jail, refusing to wear underwear, doing cartwheels, and performing general theatrics, although she had already been charged for the murder of Gary Hinman. She wasn't acting crazy, since they send crazy people to the mental hospital. No, she was acting protected. And simply acting. Her relationship with cellmate Virginia Graham is peculiar from the first word, since Graham is said to have gotten her a job as a message runner in jail. We don't know why they need message runners in jail, why they would use accused murderers to be runners, or why Graham was in any position to recommend runners. It looks very much like Graham was planted to hear what Atkins was being paid to say, since it was time to get the police on the right track. It was time to move the story to the next chapter.
Another red flag is Atkins' husband James Whitehouse, 15 years younger than Atkins and a graduate of Harvard Law School (like Obama). He was married to her for 22 years, from 1987 on. Whitehouse may have the distinction of being the only guy in history to marry a female mass murderer in jail. If you check the websites listing people who marry convicted murderers[link is dead, here is a good one....http://www.ranker.com/list/people-with-hybristophilia-who-married-killers/stephen-tompkins you find all the others are women who marry men in jail, not the reverse. And the women who marry male murderers are never law school graduates, as you might imagine. This marriage makes no sense on any level. It is a strong pointer to the fact that Atkins was always no more than an actor, and was never really in jail. For more evidence of this, I recommend you watch the tapes of the trials, her own and Manson's. The things she said to the judge are pure theater, and have never been repeated before or since in court, and never shall be. All the girls acted absolutely crazy at all times. This has been spun by everyone to indicate they were crazy. Why did no one ask if they were acting? All the people murdered at the Tate house were actors, so why not ask if all the people at the Spahn's Movie Ranch were also actors? They give you the clue right in the title.
Here's another big clue everyone has missed, regarding Susan Atkins. On September 5, 1970, chief prosecutor Aaron Stovitz was pulled off the Manson case by District Attorney Evelle Younger, for a remark he made to the press. Stovitz was co-prosecutor with Bugliosi at the time. Younger claimed Stovitz had violated the “no comment” policy, but since it was for a one-line “off-the-cuff” comment, no one could understand the overreaction by Younger. The comment, in reference to Susan Atkins was, “She's better than Sarah Bernhardt.” Of course, to get the joke, you have to know who Sarah Bernhardt was, and most people didn't. In Hollywood, they knew who she was, since was considered at the time to be the greatest actress ever. And so you see how this comment may have been seen as a little too revelatory by those running the show. The chief prosecutor was admitting that Susan Atkins was an actor.
The same analysis should be applied to Tex Watson. Like Atkins, Watson is supposed to be one of the most vicious of the Family. But like Atkins, he too has CIA written all over him. He isn't in jail anywhere, except for a few days every five years when they call him in for his part. He was a highschool honeyboy A student, straight as an arrow, short hair and good looks. Besides being honor roll, he was the newspaper editor and a track star, and a Methodist church group leader to boot. He then went to University of North Texas, where he was a business major and fraternity man. He was there for three years, and did well (the CIA often recruits college juniors). He did not have long hair in college, did not show any leftist tendencies (Texas fraternities were not known for admitting hippies in 1966), and was not known to be “conflicted.” Mainstream sources also admit he worked as a baggage handler for Braniff, which afforded him travel opportunities Travel opportunities to Langley, VA, perhaps? We are told in the mainstream that Watson used his travel miles to take girls to Dallas. Whoops! He was already in or near Dallas. I don't think you need to burn travel miles to get from Denton to Dallas. Maybe he was taking them to Mérida? Also, the CIA often places young recruits as baggage handlers, since this is a great way to learn smuggling techniques while being useful in a low-risk job.
We are also told in the mainstream story that Watson had some combat training, and he is said to have trained the Manson girls as well as having taken on all the difficult killings (of the men). Where would he have gotten that training? In the ΠΚΑ fraternity? Watson didn't need any combat training, since he was only used as an actor, but if he had any combat training, I think we know where he got it.
When Watson took his first assignment and was sent to Los Angeles, he was installed in a wig shop. No one ever analyzes that. Who would be capable of getting Watson a job working with wigs? Sebring, of course. Sebring was either Watson's handler or enabler, and Atkins, too. It wasn't drugs or porn that linked them, it was military intelligence. At the same time Watson was installed in the wig shop, he was also installed in Laurel Canyon. The problem there is two-fold: one, Laurel Canyon, then as now, was a high-rent neighborhood. That's why all the famous people were living there, of course. The Beach Boys and the Mamas and Papas and Doris Day and Sebring and Polanski weren't going to be living in the slums in East LA. So how does a new wig man —a poor hick with a drawl straight out of the Dallas suburbs—get set up immediately in Laurel Canyon? Two, Laurel Canyon was the center of operations of Lookout Mountain Film Studios. Many of the people working there were installed in the immediate neighborhood, for convenience, so many of those houses were CIA houses. Do you think it was just another coincidence that Watson was installed there? Do you really think he met the various other operatives while hitchhiking, as we are told? No, he met them by appointment.
Perhaps the most ridiculous story is that Watson picked up Dennis Wilson while Wilson was hitchhiking. You may have thought it was the other way around. No, the story always told was that Wilson, a millionaire Beach Boy, was hitchhiking. Not that his car had broken down or anything like that, but that he was hitchhiking. How many multi-millionaires who own Ferraris and Jaguars do you know that go out hitchhiking for fun? Do you think Jay Leno goes out hitchhiking in the hills of LA now? How about Eddie Murphy? Justin Timberlake? How little respect must they have had for their audience to tell a story like that, expecting anyone to believe it.
When Watson was first arrested, two high-profile attorneys leapt to his aid, much as Shibley had leapt to Manson's aid in 1966. David Deloach and Perry Walshin took his case pro bono, although Deloach was known at the time as a GOP bigwig. Why was a bigwig GOP attorney so interested in “the hippie” Watson? Even stranger, Deloach said that he had already had 40 consultations with Watson before his arrest. What?
Perhaps the most obvious clue to the fake status of Tex Watson is his fathering of four children in prison, during conjugal visits. Conjugal visits weren't allowed for prisoners like Watson (or Atkins), even in the few states that allowed such visits for lesser prisoners. We are told these visits for lifers were banned in 1996 in California, but that is a cover story. Some rules changed in 1996, but violent murderers/torturers like Watson were never allowed conjugal visits. Watson wasn't just a lifer, he was a multiple pre-meditated murderer with torture, which is why he initially got the death penalty.Over 10% of inmates in California State Prisons are lifers and many of them are 3-strikers who did nothing worse than flash a knife during a robbery. The change in 1996 applied to them, not to Watson. There are currently hundreds of people on death row in California, and the only reason Watson isn't there with them is that he “lucked out” and fell into the gap between 1972 and 1978, when those on death row were transfered to life (due to a Supreme Court decision on the death penalty). But as a matter of rules, the same rules apply to Watson that apply to those on death row, since his crime is the same. The rules are based on the severity of your crime, not on your term. If you are on death row, you get no conjugal visits. If you are a murderer/torturer, you get no conjugal visits, for obvious reasons. If you enjoy murdering for sport, as Watson is said to have done, then you aren't going to be set up with a new victim by the prison system. The wife's family would sue for millions, and the prisons know that.
Ask yourself this: if top-level inmates like Watson were allowed conjugal visits before 1996, why didn't Manson get himself a wife back in the early 70's? According to the mainstream story promoted by Helter Skelter and most other places, Charlie is and was hypersexual. He is supposed to have slept with hundreds or thousands of young girls. He is also supposed to be a magnet for impressionable young women to this day. And yet we never hear about wives or conjugal visits for Manson. Why do we hear about them with Watson? Simply because with Watson there are known children they have to account for in some way. So they tell you these children came from conjugal visits, even though that is impossible.13
All the high-profile parole hearings would be easy to fake as well. As we have seen, Pam Turner and Debra Tate and Doris Tate and Patti/Sharon Tate and Anthony DiMaria and the rest of the speakers are already insiders. Some have been acting these roles since 1968, either under threat from the CIA or just because it is a thrill. The entire story about Debra Tate being offended by the conjugal visits of Tex Watson is just more theater. The screenwriters finally realized they had a hole they needed to fill, so they created this new saga in order to tell you that the hole had been filled: no more conjugal visits for Tex Watson. So I guess if Tex has any more kids he better learn to hide them better. He can now claim they are grand kids.
Nor is it just the Manson people that have been sold to you as fake prisoners. As just one example outside the family, we can look at Christopher Gibson, Barry Mills, and Tyler Bingham, supposedly leaders of the Aryan Brotherhood:
page 80 here
http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf
Three prison photos, all of them in disallowed props. You don't get to wear your hair or beard like that, and they don't take photos with sunglasses on. Here's a question for you: is that three different guys, or one guy at different ages? Why do all three have the same shaped head, bulbous-ended nose, and very similar ears? The second and third guys are obviously the same. They have just manipulated the ears a little bit. With the second guy, they have reversed the right ear and pasted it over the left ear. With the third guy, they have done the opposite: reversed the left ear and pasted it over the right. The first guy is again the same person, but without glasses and squinting. Even the glasses are the same. They just painted in the lenses in one photo. Look where the bright spots are on the frames (by the nose and on the left cheek)!
There he is a fourth time, this time as Steven Hicklin. They put him in muted light, but it is the same pointy head, same eyebrows, and same square chin. For some reason they like to manipulate the ears, as if that changes everything.
Actually, the Aryan Brotherhood are not completely separate from the Manson family, since they were initially linked back in the 1970's. That's why Manson wore the swastika, among other reasons (we are told). But it no longer matters, since we can now see that both Manson and the Aryan Brotherhood are just creations of military intelligence or some other agency of the State. They are both parts of a bigger story being told to create fear, manufacture conflict, and control the wider population.
After all this, we can see that the Tate event is just the longest-running feature film of Lookout Mountain Propaganda Film Studios—sort of like Michael Apted's 7-Up series, but with the Manson Family instead of British children. Like Operation Gladio, it was directed and funded by military intelligence, with Paul Tate as captain and Jay Sebring as lieutenant. Tate was able to use what he had learned in Italy, importing it to the streets of Los Angeles, including his uncanny ability to pass for a bearded leftist. He then used his own daughter as cover, relying on the fact that no one would think he had agreed to her death, as well as on the fact that no one would figure out it was all faked. It worked for 43 years, and would have continued to work if they hadn't left the original crime scene photos in plain sight. For 43 years these photos had acted as their own defense and their own spin: no one wanted to study them closely, and those that did were death groupies who wanted them to be real. The evidence could therefore be hidden in plain sight. However, as you have just seen, the maze of contradictory and planted evidence can be successfully navigated, provided you have the ability to pull together the important facts, and the intelligence to collate them properly. The most important talent in this navigation is seeing red flags when you read them. I have done almost no original research here; I have only highlighted and circled things that others have seen and passed by. I then linked these red flags into a story. That was not so difficult: once the red flags are found, the story almost tells itself. The four tallest red flags pretty much prove the story alone, with little help from me. Once we see that Sharon is alive in that photo, that Paul Tate is a military intelligence colonel in hippie disguise, that Lookout Mountain Film Lab is in the background of Cielo Drive photos, and that Sharon has since been posing as her sister, all the rest falls into place. And once we see the method in this false flag, we can export what we know to other cases. That is what I will do in upcoming cases—some of them even more striking and controversial than this one.
*Sharon Tate, Murdered Innocence, Part 1. Onscreen quote by Jay in minute 2:00 of the film.
**The second one was still at findadeath.com as of January 28, 2013.
†Various sources tell us Tate was either a colonel or lieutenant colonel. Since we have caught all sources lying, Tate could have been a private or a 4-star general for all we know. We are relying on military intelligence for any information, and they are not required to be truthful to the public regarding anything. Since we know he started out in the navy, he should have naval rank anyway. If he was ONI, he should have been a captain. Naval intelligence is the ranking intelligence in the military, subordinate only to DIA. Since we will find DIA links with Charlene Cafritz, best guess is DIA was in control of this operation, rather than CIA. Following that lead, we would put Paul Tate as a naval intelligence captain and Sebring as a lieutenant or commander.
‡ In a curious link between Sharon Tate and the Matrix, we find that in Valley of the Dolls, “she took the blue pills.” Years later, the writers of The Matrix would use the blue pill to signify a completely manufactured reality. ☼Polanski's entire bio before age 21 appears to be faked, including his birth date. The date 8/18/33 is a spook date, and indicates it was chosen for numerological reasons. Even the year is suspect, for that reason. See Kiernan's extended bio of 1980, which reads like poor fiction and makes no sense from page to page. Given Polanski's stated credentials, he could never have been admitted to the Director's Classes at the Film School at Lodz at age 21. He was clearly from a rich and connected family, and was probably recruited by Polish Intelligence at an early age. As for his parents being sent to concentration camps, I for one no longer believe it.
1 Unless otherwise noted, all quotes and other facts were taken from the Wikipedia page on the given subject, so I consider them common knowledge. In other cases I provide weblinks rather than footnotes, which are more useful in an web investigation like this.
2 The Family, Ed Sanders. 1971. First edition.
3 At first I thought maybe Polanski wasn't in on it. The whole thing could have been pulled by Paul Tate and Jay Sebring, who both had military/CIA connections. I assume Sharon was initially a willing accomplice, but she may have been strong-armed by her father and Sebring. But I now see Polanski was also Intel, like the rest. His marriage to Tate was probably faked, as part of the run-up to the event. One thing that points to this is that Sebring continued to wear Sharon's highschool ring around his neck even after she “married” Polanski. So the baby is probably Sebring's. As for the rape charges, those too now look to me like another staged event. I say that because the main player on the side of law enforcement was Philip Vannatter, who later was also the lead investigator for the fake O.J. Simpson event. So Vannatter was some sort of Intelligence plant in the LAPD. I don't know the purpose of the Polanski event, but I suspect it indicates a split in Intel. Polanski had pissed off some cadre of US Intel, either in the Tate event or afterwards, and they were out to get him. He escaped only under the protection of International Intel, which was able to whisk him away.
4 Sanders, op. cit. p. 65. Sanders' book is often quoted by conspiracy theorists, but it was actually written as an alternative propaganda source. Although it reveals some things Bugliosi's book doesn't, it sells the central story with almost as much gusto. Unfortunately, Sanders' was a bit sloppy, revealing too much, and this line of propaganda was quickly discontinued. The book was revised and extended (and censored) almost immediately, to better do it job of disinformation. The best thing you can do is get a first edition and search for the things left out of later editions. Those censored things would be the only truth in a book that is mostly fiction.
5 Ibid, p. 37.
6 http://www.american-buddha.com/music.covertwarrock3.htm see footnote 9.
7 For those who believe the music industry is also controlled by the CIA, it is interesting to note that Jerry Garcia also died on August 9 at age 53. Of course he was said to be cremated.
8 Sanders, op. cit., p. 121. Sanders tells us Melcher allowed the Family to use his Jaguar and Standard Oil credit card. So Melcher, like Abigail Folger, appears to be a bankroller of the Tate movie, probably just channeling money given to him by the CIA. This also gives us another contradiction in the standard story: if the Family were in the habit of borrowing Melcher's Jaguar, they knew where he lived. They knew he didn't live at 10050 Cielo. On another page, p. 191, we find that Melcher and Jakobson visited Spahn Ranch several times. Sanders even gives us a date: June 3, 1969. We know they were there because the police were also “on the set,” investigating a Manson rape. Mike Deasy was also there with a mobile recording studio. Jakobson was taking pictures of nude hippie girls for the cover of an album. Sanders then tells us Manson “put out a contract” on Melcher, but we have no corroboration of that, except from the contractor. We do have corroboration of the rest.
9 Ibid, p. 136.
10 Some will no doubt complain that I don't reference Bugliosi's book once in this entire paper. That is with full intent. I want to be the first researcher in history to completely ignore that entire book. The reason I was able to make quick progress is precisely because I refused to be sidetracked by the 689 pages of misdirection there.
11 Atkins' 1985 Parole Hearing Transcript, p. 70.
12 Sanders, op. cit., p. 185. We have visual confirmation of this arrest of Watson, since there is a famous mugshot and fingerprinting.
13 Also see Ted Bundy, who miraculously fathered a child while in prison, despite having no conjugal visits.
14 Sanders, op. cit., p. 302.
15 Ibid, p. 306.
16 Ibid, p. 306.
17 Ibid, p. 345.
18 I will give you the clue in another similar event: the Chicago 7 trial was the same sort of smear campaign. Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Bobby Seale and the rest were no more than planted actors, calling for violence and shouting at the fake judge to give anti-war protesters a bad name. The whole thing was a scripted play, just like the Manson trials, and it very successfully smeared the peace movement, the hippies, and other groups. See Skolnick's analysis, which is not as easy to read as my stuff, but still heavy on facts. Skolnick's writings are hit and miss, since he is obviously an insider for some arm of Intel. When he is writing against an enemy—like the Rockefeller arm—his info is very useful and mostly true. But look out, when he is trying to whitewash his own people—like Kennedy—he is a webspinner. His analysis of the Chicago 7 is mostly true.
19 Page 173. Martin Lee and Bruce Shlain, 1986. Grove Press.
20 Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman later in admitted in 1994 that the War on Drugs in the late 1960s wasn't about drugs at all. It was a war against hippies and blacks. See Harper's, April 2016. What Ehrlichman doesn't tell you is that the war was waged not at the behest of Nixon, but at the behest of the CIA, under orders from the Octopus—the eight wealthiest families.
who the hell cares.
ReplyDeleteWell done, Mind Blown.
ReplyDelete