TATE MANSON FAKE HOAX FAKED HOAXED
The Tate Murders were a False Flag and the Greatest Unknown Success Story of Project CHAOS by Miles Mathis
You will best benefit yourself by keeping an open mind and forgetting most of what you have learned in the past. (Jay Sebring)
Part 1: the Backstory
Of all the “conspiracy theories” I have run across over the years, amazingly this is not one of them. I searched the internet for anything on this theory and got nothing, even at Above Top Secret and sites like that. But now that we know many recent tragedies have been faked in Hollywood fashion, why not go back to previous decades, to see how long this has been going on?
Before I start, let me say two things. One, we will have to study the crime scene photographs of Sharon Tate, but I will make it as easy on you as possible. They aren’t what you think anyway. I was apprehensive when I clicked on them for the first time, but I was very surprised. They aren’t at all what we have been led to believe.
Even so, I will lead you in slowly, making a strong case that they are fake before you even take a look [If you want to skip ahead, go to p. 46]. By the time we get there, you will already be pretty sure they aren’t what they are supposed to be and you won’t be afraid to look at them.
Two, I will also prepare your mind and eyes by making it clear why the murders needed to be faked. It will be much easier for a reader to understand how they were faked once he or she understands why they were faked.
It turns out that with this manufactured tragedy—as with all others—you have been getting disinformation from all sides. Only after thoroughly investigating the Tate murders myself was I able to see that all the “dark theories” were also wrong and probably planted. That is to say, the alternative theories for these major tragedies also seem to be written by the spooks.
They either sidetrack you into Satanism and Crowley and LaVey, for instance; or they lead you in with a few pieces of true information and proper speculation before they divert you to the desired belief nonetheless. Mae Brussell was a case of the latter, admitting that the government was up to no good, but then preventing you from seeing what they were really up to.
As alternative as Brussell seemed to be, she never got to the truth. She always fingered the CIA, which turns out to be true enough, but beyond that she was always in sea of molasses. This could be because she was a poor researcher or it could be because she was CIA as well.
I currently tend to the second conclusion. If she had been onto anything big, she wouldn’t have been allowed on the radio. The simple fact she was speaking out under her own name means she was wrong. She was allowed to talk because she was muddying the waters (and still selling the main lines of the standard story).
The CIA loves to have the waters muddied, of course. For instance, Brussell did an hour-long interview with KLRB in 1971, and she …read more