PART 3: THE TATE MURDERS WERE A FALSE FLAG AND THE GREATEST UNKNOWN SUCCESS STORY OF PROJECT CHAOS

The Tate Murders were a False Flag 

and the Greatest Unknown Success 

Story of Project CHAOS

by miles mathis
@http://mileswmathis.com/index.html

Part 6: 

The “Crime Scene” 

OK, we are now ready to look at the death photos of Sharon Tate. Now that you understand we are just watching a movie, perhaps you can look at them with a fresh and unclouded eye. I will show you two versions of the same photo, to start with. The first version is the one most reproduced on the web, and it does look a little grisly. But that is only because they boosted the contrast by large margins, blowing it out, and have also added tons of red. They had to do that because the un-retouched photo looks so un-scary and un-grisly. It actually looks very reassuring, since it easy to tell she isn't dead. 

Remember how they reported that the hippies had cut her belly open and knifed the child or cut it out, using the baby's blood to mark the walls? I remember reading that or hearing it on TV. Not true, as we see. In later photos, we can see her belly, and it is fine. Not a single fake stab wound in the belly. No open womb, no dead child, none of that. Of course, knowing what we know, that would be very difficult to fake. They might be able to fake it now with CGI, but back then such things were beyond them. 

I got both those photos off the web.** They are freely available and I didn't do anything to them in photoshop. The first one is much more prominent on the web, and it is likely to be the first one you find on a websearch. That is the one they want you to see. But the second one is also out there. 

You see the lengths they had to go to, to make the photo look bad. They have really cheated, and that should be the first red flag. If the crime scene photos really did the job they wanted them to do, they wouldn't have to cheat and red them up, would they? Their problem is obvious: in the real photo, she doesn't look nearly bad enough. She doesn't even look dead. Her skin has color, she is smiling, and there is actually way too little blood. This is many hours after the murders, we are told. The murders are said to have taken place around midnight, and these photos were taken at least 10 to 12 hours later. She should look awful. She shouldn't have any color, her mouth shouldn't look like that, and the chest wounds should simply be caked with blood. The coroner's report claimed lividity on the left side of her head, but we see none here. What is lividity? Lividity (also known as livor mortis) is bruising caused by blood pooling inside the body. It should be on the high side here, but it isn't. 

We will see that she was found by the couch: why is she against a white wall here, turned completely over? You don't normally move corpses at a crime scene, just to photograph them from other angles. If she is dead, why does she need a pillow? Why is she smiling? That isn't rigor mortis. Rigor mortis doesn't make you smile in a natural way, like that, fluid and lovely. Rigor mortis tightens your lips in a ghastly unnatural-looking grimace. Rigor mortis is worst at 12 hours after death. Look it up.. These crime scene photos were taken roughly at the time, so rigor should be at a maximum. And yet her face and mouth and eyes look completely natural and alive. 

We can also study the arms, as more proof that something is very wrong here. Before they moved her, her original position was by the couch, and her upper arm was over her head. In the photo above, they have flipped her on her other side, so the top arm is now on the bottom. But it is no longer over her head, as you see. It is out to the side. In her original position, her bicep was right on her ear. Here, it is a foot away. No problem if you are alive, but if you are dead and in the maximum hours of rigor mortis, it is a big problem. Whoever has moved her couldn't just move that arm to suit themselves. 

We see no sign of livor mortis either, which also peaks at about 12 hours. Except for the traces of fake blood, Tate has no skin discoloration either top of bottom of her torso or head. She should be whiter where her torso is high and purpler underneath. Since they have flipped her over, she should be purple on the high side. She isn't. Nor does she have pallor mortis, which would be there even if rigor hadn't set in. She isn't pale. In short, she doesn't look dead by any normal standards, and only people who had never seen a real corpse would think she is dead. 

Here is the main photo, and it looks a little bad if you don't know it is a movie. But even though the fake blood is pretty gross, she actually looks way too good. Her pose is entirely too supple for a corpse in rigor. You don't see corpses in languid poses like that. Most often, a corpse left on its side like that will develop a strange lift in an arm or leg, so that it floats off the ground. Corpses don't take languid sleeping poses like these two. And why is Sebring's head covered? If they are moving corpses around, you would think they could at least remove that handkerchief or whatever it is, so that we could identify him. As it is, I would suggest they covered his face because it isn't him—he was tired of lying there. Or because he couldn't keep a straight face. Like Tate, he was prone to laugh or smile, and his smile was even worse than hers. Best to cover it. 

Also, you can see how lovely her skin looks there, with no pallor, no livor, and no rigor. Most of the copies you will find of this photo on the internet have been manipulated to make her skin look worse. 

Another problem with this photo is the shine on her arm. It took me a while to notice that, but it is a red flag as well. It is a sign of moisture, of course. See how her arm nearest you shines? It shines because it is wet. But how can the blood still be wet 10-12 hours after the murders? It should have long since dried. You will say that is because this picture was taken earlier, and that is why she doesn't show rigor or livor or pallor. Problem there is that these crime scene photos are assumed to have been taken by the police photographer, who could not have gotten there before about 10am. If we go back to a time before that—when the blood might still be wet—we have to ask who is taking the pictures? They were all supposed to be dead. Any photos earlier than 10am are proof of a film set and a crew. 

In some of the death photos, she has no bra on: she is naked. We are told this one is from the coroner's table. 

Does that look real? Why is the body less exposed than the head? What's wrong with her neck? It isn't large enough for her head. The worst piece-job is where I have drawn the red arrow. No neck line has a sharp angle like that. This is about the worst fake photo I have ever seen. I can't believe they released it. Let's put it side by side with the previous photo. 

The first problem I see in the comparison is that her head is too long in the first photo. Look how long her nose and upper lip are. Death can't stretch your head, moving your mouth and eyes farther apart. In manipulating the photo, trying to put that head on that body, the technician somehow stretched the head. The first photo is faked using the second photo as a reference and source. You can tell that whoever faked it stole the top eye from the second photo, importing it into the first photo. It is exactly the same, down to the shadows. But he put it in too high, making the face look longer. He also got the face wounds in the wrong place. In the first photo she has two cheek wounds about 2 inches apart, with the lower wound starting about 1.5 inches beyond the corner of her mouth. In the second photo, she has one cheek wound, and it starts right at the corner of her mouth. He also copied the chest wounds, since it was very important that those match. But he didn't get those right, either. It also looks like he copied the body, just removing the bra. The position of the torso is the same. 

Now, what about that tag, which says R. Wilson? Who is R. Wilson? The coroner? An unknown Beach Boy? The coroner doesn't normally tag his bodies with his name. You tag bodies with their own name, for pretty obvious reasons. We should see a tag that says Sharon Tate or Sharon Polanski. Besides, the chief medical examiner, who did the autopsies, was Thomas Noguchi, not R. Wilson. A guy named Stuart was the deputy coroner. I would suggest this plate isn't a body tag, it is a cover that the photo faker needed to cover his worst area. You often see strange things like this on photos where one head is pasted on another body. Since the seam is pretty obvious, the faker will put a tie there or a necklace or a collar or something. You see that the plate goes up very high, in an odd way. He has covered most of his bad seam. But he really needed to cover that sharp angle that I pointed to with my red arrow. 

Before we proceed, let's take a quick look at Thomas Noguchi. You may be interested to know that Noguchi also did the autopsies for Robert Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, Natalie Wood, William Holden, and John Belushi. To say he is suspicious is a huge understatement. A researcher could write an entire book on Noguchi, exposing him as a fraud. I don't have the time or inclination to do that, so I will only mention a couple of things. One, it is known that Noguchi's deputy coroner at the time, Donald Angus Stuart, was a fraud. He was arrested in 1972 for forging his medical degree, practicing without a license, and perjury. The perjury stemmed from his testimony in court against Noguchi.. There were Civil Service Commission hearings on Noguchi in 1969, and Stuart gave testimony against Noguchi. Noguchi had been fired by the LA Board of Supervisors on March 18, 1969, on a 5-0 vote. However, Noguchi ended up being reinstated by the federal CSC on July 31, 1969, and Stuart was arrested much later. Note that date. Noguchi was reinstated just one week before the alleged Tate murders. Also notice that Noguchi was reinstated by the Feds, over the 5-0 of the local authorities. 

During this fracas, Noguchi was lambasted by court testimony, including this: 

Deputy LA County Counsel Martin Weekes alleged [in court] that a smiling Noguchi danced in his office while waiting for Kennedy to die and told associates, "I am going to be famous! I hope he dies, because... then my international reputation will be established." A secretary described Noguchi slashing a piece of paper in two with a penknife and telling her he'd like to perform a live autopsy on [county chief administrator] Lin Hollinger. 

In addition, Hollinger stated in testimony against Noguchi that “he was in need of psychiatric care, stemming from apparent use of drugs.” And of course we have the report I linked above, in which his own deputy coroner Stuart testified Noguchi was unstable [San Francisco Examiner, Feb. 3, 1972]. This is the man that was reinstated just one week before the alleged Tate murders by the CSC, supposedly due to race-baiting. The Civil Service Commission reinstated Noguchi, giving the appearance of doing so because they were afraid of firing an Asian-American. Noguchi and his supporters decided to lead with the defense that he was being fired for being Asian, and it worked. 

Eventually, despite the fame he did find, he was fired in 1982 and no Civil Service Commission could save him that time. By then he had botched or falsified the deaths of William Holden, Natalie Wood, John Belushi, and many others—most, we assume, on orders from above. Anyone who has researched any major murders or famous deaths knows that coroners are hired to follow official stories, not to do real autopsies. The public is told what the federal authorities want it to know—no more, no less. If the CIA tells a coroner to check the suicide box, he checks the suicide box. If the FBI tells him to discover an accidental drowning, he discovers an accidental drowning. If he doesn't, the next accidental drowning may be his own. 

Before we move on, I would like to point out that the death certificate is also fake. The way they normally do this is simply by putting the wrong name in the box. We have seen them do that over and over. Perhaps the most obvious was Jack London,, where they put “Jack London” in the box despite the fact that his real name was John Griffith Chaney. With Sharon Tate, they faked it by putting Sharon Tate Polanski in the box, when—even according to the mainstream story—her legal name at the time was Sharon Marie Polanski. Remember, your maiden name doesn't become your middle name when you get married. In the 1960s, the normal procedure was to replace the maiden name with the married name. But I now suspect the marriage was fake as well, only being part of the lead-up to the story. If that is true, her legal name was still Sharon Marie Tate. But in no case would her legal name have been Sharon Tate Polanski. Another box is curious, and that is her alleged Social Security number. We are told it was 452-74-4733. Those last four digits throw up a red flag, since 1947 was year one of the CIA, and 33 is a favorite number of the CIA, used as a common signal. The two center numbers are also just the reverse of 47, 74 being the 47 flipped. I suggest this SS# is faked like the rest of it. 

We also see Sharon Tate's mother Doris' maiden name, which was Willett. This is curious because of later alleged victims of the Family named James and Lauren Willett, found in 1972. We are told they were no relation to Doris, but that isn't believable. If you take that link, you will find a nest of numerology markers, including the number 33. James Willett was a Marine (red flag), age 26 (red flag)—same age as Sharon Tate. The death of Lauren was November 11 (red flag). That is 11/11. James Willett's body was said to have been found November 8. That is 11/8 (red flag). The spooks also like 8s. Along with Nancy Pitman and Lynette Fromme, the police arrested James Craig, age 33 (red flag). He and his pal were said to be of the Aryan Brotherhood (see outing of the Ayran Brotherhood below). I think they may have actually overloaded this fake story with markers. 

Geni has scrubbed the genealogy of Doris Tate, but Rootsweb has not. There we are told Doris' parents were Dorris W. Tate and Fannie R. Leuch. Doris had a sister named Genevieve. Doris' grandparents have been scrubbed. Genevieve is listed as married, but her husband has been scrubbed. Geneanet gives us the parents of Fannie, but not the parents of Dorris. This prevents us checking to see if Doris was related to James or Lauren. However, a death search on Lauren Willett, 1972, brings no results nationwide, much less in Stockton. Curiously, we do find a record for a James Willett,  age 26, died in November 1972. However, the day has been scrubbed. Even more curious is that his place of death was Kentucky, not Stockton, CA. This means they probably borrowed the identity of this recently deceased person and inserted him into their fake event. 

But back to the fake autopsy photos. Here is another one, with the head conveniently out of frame: 

So many problems there I don't know where to begin. No proof that is Sharon, since we can't see her face. This “corpse” doesn't look 8.75 months pregnant, either. Maybe early pregnancy, maybe not, but eight months is far bigger than that, and Sharon is far bigger than that in other photos we have seen. Sharon's due date was August 18, 9 days after the alleged murder. Amazingly, the autopsy and death reports don't mention a baby or pregnancy at all. Apparently, Noguchi didn't notice his corpse was pregnant. 

If that is a real corpse, we are probably seeing normal corpse bloating, not pregnancy. Also a problem are the wounds, which don't look like knife wounds. They are all round, as you see. Knife wounds make slits, of course. Those wounds look like wounds from a shotgun. These wounds also don't match the main photo of Sharon by the couch. Remember, she had a big gash on the upper ribs in that one, which would be the lower ribs in this photo. Here we only have two little pin pricks. The shotgun holes make me think that Noguchi may have used old photos from the Rufus Wilson murders. That would make this tag apply to Mrs. R. Wilson, who was murdered in Los Angeles a few years earlier, by shotgun. The Rufus Wilson autopsy photos would have been in the LA coroner's files. 

It is also worth noting that when they show you the corpse with no head in the picture, you get great picture quality. But when they show you the same corpse with the head in the picture, suddenly the picture quality drops by 90%. That is a sure sign of tampering. 

Why is the picture quality so good in the first photo but so poor in the second? Same day, same body, same camera. What happened? Total eclipse of the Sun? Passing comet? 

But let's return to the photos of Tate from the house. Here's another one of her by the couch, from another angle. Again, they have jacked with the contrast and resolution, to make the photo look much worse. You can't tell much from that, and that is how they want it. However, we do see more anomalies. Look at the far upper left corner. We appear to have a strong line of blood there, or possibly a gash. If we compare that to the main photo of her by the couch, it looks more like a short cut that is bleeding down. 
But whatever it is, it is in a band that goes all the way across her torso, and that is about 3-5 inches under her bra. So let's go to the good photo to take a look. 

Since she is flipped, we should see the cut starting down by the rope and then running up. We can see a clear 6-8 inches below the bra, and there is nothing there. Same with the coroner's photo. Nothing there. 

But back to the previous photos. Let's compare them side by side. 

                     
For a change of pace, let's study the rope and matchbooks. I don't know that anyone has ever done that. In the second photo, her wrist is right on the rope, and there are several matchbooks between the rope and the couch. [You may want to study the larger image above, to confirm that.] But no matchbook beyond the rope, by her hand. Now go to the first photo. Her wrist is at least six inches from the rope, and we see a matchbook beyond the rope, next to her hand. Now, the change in angles can affect this greatly, I will admit. It is just possible her hand is blocking our view of the single matchbook, in photo 2. However, the change in angles could not move the rope six inches, making it look like it is under her wrist. The rope in picture 2 is clearly very near her wrist, and no change of angle could affect that greatly. In picture 1, it is nowhere near her wrist. 

She has moved! That position would be quite difficult to maintain for any length of time. Try it. Your arm starts to go to sleep within minutes. She has shifted, and gone back to a similar but not identical spot, relative to that rope. 

That's a very strange photo I found on the internet, , with no caption. Looks like a remake or a more recent movie, since nothing is right. The hair is wrong, the face is wrong, the face wounds are wrong, the pose is wrong, the table is wrong, the carpet is wrong, the couch is wrong, the rope is wrong, etc. 

For more bad photos, we can look at this one said to be Wojciech Frykowski. 

Does that look like any real photo you have ever seen? He's in the shadow of that tree, as we can clearly see from the top edge of the photo, where we see the dark meet the light. So why is he unnaturally and evenly lit? Why is there a medium tone all the way around him, like an aura? Why does his far hand disappear into the ground? Why is there a shadow along his near arm, when he is already in the shadow of the tree? There must have been multiple visual anomalies there, and someone decided the best way to deal with it was to just hit it with as many screens as possible. Although we are quite near his head, there is no one in the world who could identify that man. 

There is a gruesome autopsy photo of Frykowski, but it is so absurd I don't even need to show it to you. The head is way too small for the body, and it doesn't resemble Frykowski at all. 

Which is a good lead-in to the Frykowski problem. Remember that I said there is a Jerzy Frykowski still in Europe, working as a production manager. He is said to be the younger brother of Wojciech. Unfortunately, there are no photos of this Jerzy Frykowski on the internet, which is odd. Why not? Well, consider the fact that Wojciech Frykowski's idol was Jerzy Kosinski, the Polish-American novelist who wrote The Painted Bird and Being There. Frykowski is said to have been an “old friend of Kosinski.” At the time of his alleged death, Wojciech was trying to become a novelist like Kosinski. If Wojciech needed to change his name, the easiest thing to do would be to change it to the name of his idol. So I propose that after the fake Tate murders, Wojciech changed his name to Jerzy and moved back to Poland. There is no younger brother, which is why we don't see any pictures of him. Someone might notice he looks exactly like his older brother. You see how easy it is? You don't even have to change your last name. You can fake your death, return to your home country, and change only your first name, and no one knows or cares. 

Also of interest is the fact that Frykowski was said to be cremated. That prevents a later disinterment in any investigation. I would say the best guess is that Frykowski was always involved in the Polish equivalent of our Lookout Mountain. In other words, he was a member of the film/propaganda wing of the Polish secret service, along with Polanski and probably Kosinski. 

The character assassination and death of Kosinski are also probably related to Frykowski. In 1977, Kosinski began writing about the Tate murders, starting with his book Blind Date. Soon after that, he began seeing himself accused of plagiarism and of being a CIA operative. In a defense of Kosinski in the New York Times in 1982, John Corry replied that these accusations were a disinformation campaign coming out of Poland. Were they perhaps originating with Frykowski? Kosinski couldn't say so without spilling the whole story, and he never did that. However, the fear that he might do so appears to have put his life in danger. He died in 1991 at age 57 under mysterious circumstances. He was found in a half-filled bathtub with a plastic shopping bag around his head. They ruled it a suicide, but deaths like that are normally paid hits. No one commits suicide like that. 

Because Kosinski was one of the few that could have blown the whistle on the Tate murders, they had to initially discredit him and finally get rid of him. In the early 70's he was a famous writer, internationally acclaimed, and he would have been listened to. He was known to be a friend of Frykowski and Polanski. He made the mistake of adding to the story early on, claiming that he missed being murdered only because his luggage was lost in the airport or something. Polanski was forced to respond to this claim, which apparently pissed some people off. It was all downhill from there for Kosinski, who appears to have been targeted by the Polish mafia or by our own boys. Either that or they faked his death, too, and sent him down to Brazil to live with the rest. We don't know, but it is another piece of the puzzle you never see. 

Part 7: 

The Switch 

Now that you have in your head the idea that a man can pose as his non-existent younger brother, try the idea that a woman can pose as her non-existent younger sister. We are told that Sharon Tate has two younger sisters, Debra and Patti. Debra is 9 years younger and Patti is 15 years younger. That first picture above is tagged as Sharon and Patti, but that must be wrong. The second picture is supposed to be Sharon with Santa Claus, and that is obviously the same little girl as in the first picture. So the first picture must be Doris (the mother) and Sharon, not Sharon and Patti. We can tell that from the clothes, which are late 40's styles, not early 60's. Look at the hat. That isn't a 60's hat. 

This one is also tagged Sharon and Patti: 

How come that little girl looks nothing like the previous little girl, like Patti, or like a Tate sister? All three Tates were gorgeous. 

This is supposed to be all three sisters: That's a paste-up if I have ever seen one. Why is the baby's face so much whiter than Sharon's and Debra's? Why does Sharon have a dark cloud around her head? If that is a shadow on the backcloth behind, why is her head casting a shadow but not her shoulder? Why is she casting a shadow straight back on the cloth, but the baby isn't casting a shadow straight back on her? And why is there a lighter halo around Sharon, between her head and the dark shadow? That's a paste line, from before they had photoshop. That faked photo destroys the entire plot, by itself. If they were really sisters, there would be genuine photos. The only reason to paste-up a photo like that is because there aren't any real photos of them. 

That is supposed to be all three sisters. But again, the youngest girl doesn't look like Patti or like the other sisters. People have friends and cousins, you know. I think we need something better than that. But notice the age difference between “Patti” and Debra. Considerable. Remember that for later. 

Here is a picture at Sharon's alleged funeral. 

Some websites tag that as Polanski with the mother Doris Tate and sister Patti Tate. Two things are wrong there, however. One, where is Debra? We see only one sister, which is curious. Also, Patti should have been 11 years old here. Does that girl look eleven? No, she looks about 15-17, which was Debra's age then. That isn't Patti, it is Debra. There is no Patti. Other websites tag that photo as Debra. 

Another one. Still no Patti. Two different photographers, and neither one bothered to get both sisters in the shot? And another: 

And another: 

Here's the only picture I could find of two girls together at the funeral: 

Those two girls aren't six years apart. As we see in the video itself, they are the same height and the same size. It is the second girl that is in the other four photos, since she has short sleeves and a lace collar. Study the other four photos above. That girl is about 17, not 11. 

I encourage you to watch the NBC archived video of the funeral (on youtube many times), where you see Debra. Her hair is light chestnut-brown and she looks 15-17. There is no one there who looks 11. If Patti were there, she would be with her sister or mother, wouldn't she? She isn't. There is no record of a Patti Tate before 1970. 

I recommend you watch the NBC archived video, but please notice how it has been edited. It is chopped in a million places. You see very little of value, and that is not an accident. You gets lots of footage of the backs of people's heads, but very little footage where you can see anything. They have even installed a fake counter on top of the footage to make you think you are getting some sort of original feed. 

Again, some have said that there are two girls at the funeral, but the other girl with Debra in a couple of frames is not six years younger. They look the same age. They may be one or two years apart, but never six. That other girl is either a cousin, a niece, or a hire. Following that idea, we may ask if Sharon had a cousin or niece about that age. She did. Here is a picture from 2008, of Sharon's cousin Pam Turner at Susan Atkins' parole hearing. 

How old would you say that woman is? I would guess around 55. She may be older, but she has a good dye-job. Which makes her around 16 in 1969. We have a match. A 16 year old cousin would almost certainly have come to the funeral. This older woman even looks like the young girl—with the same face shape and the same nose— and we could call it a probable match from that alone. 

Other facts: Sharon was 26 when she allegedly died. She was supposed to be 15 years older than Patti. So we are supposed to believe that mother Doris had one girl, then had another girl 9 years later, then another 6 years after that? Not impossible, but unlikely. 

When Patti/Sharon allegedly died of breast cancer in 2000, she was said to be cremated. This prevents there being two bodies of Patti/Sharon, you see. They put Patti/Sharon in Sharon's coffin, and put any old ashes in Patti's urn, and the deed is done. 

So where did they come up with the name Patti? Well, there was a character on the soap opera Search for Tomorrow named Patti Tate. She was well known in the 50's and 60's. SFT had just expanded to a half-hour in 1968. Maybe Patti Tate was a favorite character of Sharon. 

There are couple of identifying marks of Sharon, by which we can always know it is her. One, she has two small moles beneath her mouth, on the right side. She normally covers them with make-up, so you won't see them in all photos or videos. Many photos are also retouched by the studios, removing scars or moles or pimples. She also has a small mole or big freckle on her left cheek. The last two photos are reversed compared to the first two. She also has a little scar under her left eye, which Christopher Jones mentioned in his interview. You can see it clearly in the first and third pictures, going straight down. She had a scar on her left knee. Also a chicken pox scar on her forehead, which you can see here: 

We are told that Sharon had brown eyes, but she didn't. She had hazel eyes. That's a chubby young Sharon with hazel eyes. You can see both moles and the scar. Hazel eyes can seem to go from light brown to green in changing light. In blue light they can look faintly blue. They generally have more yellow or gold in them than brown eyes. It is not surprising we are told Sharon had brown eyes, since hazel eyes are very often mistaken for brown. Many people don't even know what hazel eyes are. And in photos, the difference is subtle. Unless the photo is perfectly color-balanced, the eye color may not be correct. In a majority of cases, you couldn't tell brown eyes from hazel in a photo. I had to look through quite a few photos of Sharon before I found the one above, which has enough resolution for us to see that her eyes are hazel. 

I also found this one, which is even better. The bright light from the snow washes out her eye color, making it very obvious they are hazel. Brown eyes never look like that. It is also worth noting that hazel eyes are easier to change with blue contacts than brown eyes. Since the irises of hazel eyes are lighter, the color can be covered more easily. It is sort of like hair coloring. It is easier to change blonde hair to brown than to change brown hair to blonde. It is always easier to go from light to dark than dark to light. 

What color eyes does Patti have? Very difficult to tell from the internet. Some say she had blue eyes, but they may have been blue contacts. Let's look at the only decent photo we have of her on the web. 

Could be either blue, green, gray or hazel. Not obviously blue, but the left eye looks bluer than the right, due to the way it is lit. The right eye could be called hazel, at a stretch. Patti is wearing bright blue (I cropped the photo) and the room is very blue, and eyes reflect colors around them. Blue eyes should look very blue in that situation, and these don't. But we do see very light irises, like in the last picture above of Sharon. That's fairly rare, even with blue eyed people. Eyes of all colors rarely have this much translucence. Could be a match, but I would say this test is inconclusive. So we will keep looking. 

Sharon also had a very distinctive left ear, which was sort of elfish. It is flat across the top and has a little nick just below that, on the outside. You can see this most easily in her cruise interview after Valley of the Dolls. You can also see it here: 

You may be interested to know that Sherlock Holmes identified one of his suspects by noticing her ears. In Dressed to Kill, Basil Rathbone recognizes Patricia Morison by her ears, although she is in a charwoman's costume and a wig. 

Before we get to the final clue, let us study the information on Patti and Debra on the internet. We know that as adults Debra and Sharon didn't look much alike. But Patti looked exactly like Sharon? Everyone admits that, but no one asks any questions. Curious. Patti is supposed to have married Don Ford in 1978, having three kids with him. There are no pictures of Don Ford and Patti Tate together online. He was a famous basketball player, very handsome, and she was a famous beauty, but no pictures of them survive? No paparazzi were interested? Either the marriage never happened or it has been scrubbed. But she also is said to have been the domestic partner—read lesbian lover—of Alisa Statman. Statman just happens to be a film director like Polanski. In a CNN article from 2012,, Statman claims she stole two blue boxes of photos, slides and negatives from a detective who worked on the Tate murders. She is now using these in her new book, called Restless Souls. That story is obviously fiction, so we can assume that Statman is yet another FBI or CIA creation, put there to spread more confusion. There are no pictures of Statman with Patti Tate online. 

Patti Tate is also said to have been the lesbian lover of Robin Olson. She apparently was with both Olson and Statman in the 1990's, after she split with Don Ford in 1992. We are told she left her kids with Statman instead of with her sister Debra. Right. 

In her commentary on Restless Souls—which she has threatened to sue Statman over—Debra Tate says that “Patti had few substantial memories of Sharon” and that “Patti could remember little” about the funeral. No wonder, since she wasn't there. She didn't exist. 

Debra was disinherited by her father, though no one really knows why. They weren't close. We must assume Debra didn't like her father, and knowing what we now know, we can see why. The family was used to promote a fascist cause—the suppression of the anti-war movement—and perhaps Debra wasn't happy with her role in that. Being young, she would have had no say in it. But she has never been free to tell the truth or to walk away. She has probably been threatened and watched all her life. That would age you, too. 

Paul Tate was cremated, like many other players in this saga, although he had requested to be buried at Holy Cross with the rest of the family. However, his ashes are not Holy Cross, either. Patti Tate's ashes are said to be buried there, but not his. Neither is there any memorial to him, not even a line on the family gravestone. Furthermore, Debra refused to give him a military funeral. Others planned one, but she refused to sign the forms necessary. She also refused to pay for his cremation, and left his ashes at the mortuary for months until the estate was forced to pay for them. 

Patti Tate has an even bigger problem. Although she has a gravestone claiming she died in 2000, there is no government record of it. We are told she was born October 30, 1957 and died June 3, 2000. According to CheckMate Patricia G. Ford, nee Tate, kin to Debra and Don Ford, is 56 years old and still living in California. According to dobsearch.com, no one by that name was born or died on those dates. According to fold3.com no one by that name died in that year. According to the Social Security Death Index SSDI, no one by that name died in that year. According to the California Birth Index, no one by that name was born in that year. Even stranger, Ancestry.com and several other sites seemed to block any search on that name. So Patti Tate not only has no government record of her death, she has no government record of her birth. She is a complete phantom. 

Amazingly, so is Sharon Tate. There is no SSDI card in 1969 for Sharon Tate or Sharon Polanski! According to the webmaster at Manson.freeforums, Sharon's SS# is 452-74-4733, so you can look it up yourself. It is also on her death certificate, of course. The webmaster seems to be misdirecting, since he gives you a link to California death records and recommends you use Polanski for her last name instead of Tate. But if you do that you still get no death record. But we do get some good information, since the original poster in this forum tells us that none of those allegedly killed that night are listed at SSDI, except Leno Labianca. That confirms the analysis in this paper. 

Those are some early pictures of Debra, although some have been tagged as Patti on the internet. The first one is reversed. The second one is tagged Patti on Tumblr, but the History Channel tells us that is Debra. Notice her left eye is higher than her right eye. Sharon/Patti has this trait as well, but it is less pronounced with her. With Sharon/Patti, this trait became more pronounced as she aged, as is often the case. Both these photos have been tagged as Patti, the second one because she appears to have blue eyes. But the first one appears to have brown eyes, and it is obviously the same person, with the same haircut. Either she is wearing blue contacts in the second one, or the photo has been manipulated. The person in these two photos is the same, and is the same as the person in the black and white just above them. The girl on the beach is inconclusive, but it certainly isn't Patti. It is probably Debra, but may be a cousin. 

Here's another one tagged Patti that is obviously Debra: There are almost no pictures of Patti on the internet, as you would expect. There are no close-ups or headshots, other than the one above. And there are none until she starts to get older. None in her twenties or early thirties. That seems odd until you think about it. Sharon couldn't pop back on TV in the mid 1970's, claiming to be Patti. Patti would have been 18 in 1976. Although Sharon was aging very well, she didn't look 18. If we move ahead to 1982, Sharon would be 39 trying to play 24. Still too early. If we move ahead to 1992, Sharon would be 49 trying to play 34. That is do-able. Actresses do it all the time. With good makeup and good haircoloring (and very good genes), a naturally beautiful woman can achieve that. And that is when Patti emerged. The interviews you see on youtube are from 1992-1994. I found a picture from an earlier interview, but the interview itself appears to have been scrubbed. 

Let's say that interview was from around 1990. She looks fantastic, as I think we can all agree, but she doesn't really look 32. She looks like a gorgeous 40-45. The eyelids tell us that by themselves, as well as the falling cheeks. Sharon was 47 in 1990, so she must have stopped smoking and doing drugs. She was getting her sleep, apparently. 

None of the existing pictures or videos of Patti are of a quality where we could see scars or moles. But we do get this clue, left by someone who wants the truth to come out: 

That is Patti/Sharon in front of a picture of Sharon, in about 1992. You can see that the resemblance is very close. Most can see that it is the same person, even without being given the clue. Patti/Sharon just wears less make-up than Sharon did. Patti/Sharon didn't even have to change her hair color, even though neither Sharon nor Patti are natural blondes. Patti/Sharon wanted to become a blonde again, and after a certain amount of time, she felt free to do so. She felt secure enough to do whatever she wanted, including going on TV and doing interviews. Unfortunately, she made one mistake. She went on TV with her hair up, and I saw her left ear. 
4 PICS HERE ON PAGES 66-67
http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf
If you go to the interview, notice she tries to keep her right side to the camera. But in a couple of short instances we can see her left ear. You will say that sisters have the same ears, but they don't. Do you have the same ears as your siblings? No. Often, the overall shape may be similar, but things like this are individual traits, not family traits. The shape match all along the outside of the ear in photos one and two is too close to be passed off as coincidence or family. 

Notice that Patti/Sharon coughs twice in the 25th anniversary interview, which would have been 1994. This cough is what allows us to see her left ear, since she turns away from the interviewer to cover her mouth. But what is she saying when she coughs? The first time she says, “I don't think Manson will ever get out of prison (cough).” The second time she says, “He is not a man that will ever be turned loose on free society—he's just too dangerous (cough).” These coughs would be read by any psychologist as a sign of stress. Most would say that just mentioning Manson's name still gives Patti stress. But since this is Sharon, we have a different interpretation. Sharon knows Manson is just another actor like herself, and that—since 1967—he has never been in jail. Like everything else, his jail interviews are fake. He comes into the studio when they need him, that's all (see below). Sharon is coughing to cover up the whopping lie she is telling. Her other lies are minuscule in comparison to that lie. 

While you are studying that interview, I encourage you to compare Patti's voice to Sharon's. You can listen to Sharon here at minute 1:09. Sharon's voice as Patti has become a bit rougher with age, but she has the same pitch and the same pacing and the same inflections. Someone should put a voice analyzer on these videos. You will say that sisters have the same voices, but of course they don't. Your voice is unique to you. 

Which brings us to one final question concerning Sharon in this paper. Patti is said to have died of breast cancer in 2000, at age 42. Sharon would have been 57. Is Sharon really dead this time, or did she simply want to go away again? It may be that all the TV appearances in the early 1990's raised some eyebrows, leading others to ask the questions I am asking. Was she feeling some heat? Did she need to return to Brazil for a few more years? I don't know. I have nothing to go on. Sharon looked really healthy in the mid 1990's, but she had used a lot of hair color over the years, as well as other beauty products. These things are known to cause cancer. That said, the prognosis for recovery from breast cancer is excellent, especially for women under 60. Only about 40 of every 100,000 women die from breast cancer, and most of those are diagnosed late. For myself, I don't tend to believe anything I read in the papers, and things regarding the Tates least of all. Sharon would be 70 this year. 

Now that we know the answer, so many things fit into place. For instance, the fact that Sharon was 8.5 months pregnant is admitted but never studied as evidence. Given the story they sold you, it couldn't really be relevant. It was just an accident, a coincidence. But now we can see it is another major clue. It explains why Sharon was willing to retire from acting. She was about to have her first child, and she wanted to take care of her child. She didn't want to be an actress anymore. She was perfectly willing (at the time) to have her death faked, because she was perfectly happy at the new anonymity it would afford her. It would allow her to retire with her family and not be bothered by fans and the press. She had had her fun in Hollywood, but she now wanted to be a quiet mom for a while. This plan meshed with that desire so well. 

It looks to me like those in Hollywood and music have long had an escape clause. When they sign the initial contracts or first discover that the film and music industries are just arms of Intelligence, they are told they can later get out if they want. Many in the industry never develop qualms. They enjoy working with Intelligence and have no desire to quit. But Intelligence will work temporarily even with those who do develop regrets. They don't have to murder anyone who wants out. Most just retire and fade away. But for the most famous, that isn't a viable option. They can't fade away because they simply have too many fans. Intelligence can help with that. A faked death can easily solve that problem. This is what happened to many many stars, more than you think. Not only Elvis and Jim Morrison and John Lennon, but a large percentage of all the other deaths you know of. Very few Hollywood deaths actually occurred, and realizing what happened here may help you unwind any other death you may have questions about. 

The faked death suits Intelligence very well, too, since it immediately creates plausible deniability. You may ask yourself what happens if a very famous person threatens to squeal on the whole project. Does Intelligence need to kill them to prevent exposure? No. Even then, a faked death solves the problem in a much cleaner manner. For instance, say Elvis showed up today and started spilling the beans on everything. All Intelligence has to do is say, “That's not Elvis. Everyone knows Elvis is dead.” Then they take Elvis, put him in an Institution for a few months until he sobers up, and let him go. Problem solved, and no blood on anyone's hands. 

Now that we have reached the end, let's ask how many people would have to be controlled to make the Tate event happen. I will be told that conspiracies like this would require hundreds to be controlled, but that simply isn't true. Outside of the willing accomplices, this could have been pulled with minimal outside knowledge. Most people don't understand how little it really takes. A handful in the police department would have to be paid off or coerced, the coroner would have to be paid off, and a select number of hippie girls would have to be controlled one way or the other. And that's about it. Those in the FBI or CIA don't have to be controlled, since they are just doing their jobs. And they control all the information. They control what is told to the press. They control what is told to police officers. They control what is told to attorneys and judges. Even the prosecuting attorney Bugliosi may not know what really happened, since he always relied on information provided to him. Most people accept what they are told, and that includes most officials. If you control the crime scene and the information, you control the whole event. We then add a few who have to be controlled in the mop-up: those who see something or figure something out. But that is limited to a handful, and they can normally be kept quiet with nothing more than a threat. That is precisely what we have seen with the Tate murders, and indeed with all other big media events. Almost no one in any capacity ever questioned the story, and those few who did couldn't navigate the evidence.

NEXT...FINAL PART
prisoners 

FAIR USE NOTICE

THIS SITE CONTAINS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. AS A JOURNALIST, I AM MAKING SUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN MY EFFORTS TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ARTISTIC, CULTURAL, HISTORIC, RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL ISSUES. I BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES A 'FAIR USE' OF ANY SUCH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL CAN BE REMOVED ON THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER.