PART 4 of 4: 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 

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.

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.

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.