Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

Top 10 Reasons why Charles Manson is Fake:

10. The trial was a media circus lasting a year, with gross violations:

-Manson wasn't on the scene at either of the killings instead he was
essentially found guilty of remote mind control.
-President Nixon's involvment should have forced a mistrial and Bugliosi (the prosecutor) met privately with Manson DURING the trail.
-The Helter Skelter story (Bugliosi's bestselling book) was plagiarized from the story of Krishna Venta. Ed Butler was fronting the same race-war propaganda before Bugliosi was.
-High profile JFK/RFK lawyers are involved along with documented/declassified MK-Ultra institutions .
-The defense rested without calling a single witness.

9. 25 finger prints around the crime scene were never identified along with the pair of eye glasses. The gun used was found by an 11 yo and was put into evidence for 3.5 months, then an identical gun in evidence before the police remembered they had the first. They discarded the second and went with the original which was a prop from an old Ronald Reagan western.

8. Manson had a spook for a parole officer. Dr. Roger Smith who was not a parole officer at all. He was a research criminologist known as "the friendly fed" working at the Haight-Ashbury free clinic. The clinic was funded in part by the Folger family (the step mother of victim Abigail) and the Merrill Trust which is on the list of CIA fronts. The "Manson Family" was being studied and written about before hand, Manson an ex-con on parole, was arrested repeatedly without consequences (including rape).

7. Manson was given a Hollywood facility, the Spahn Ranch, to operate his sex/drug commune (plus the Barker Ranch as well) and the police were warned to leave Manson alone as testified in court.

6. Dozens of high profile interviews with Manson from prison including Charlie Rose, Tom Snyder, Diane Sawyer, Geraldo...where he is wearing jewelry, long beards, long hair, sunglasses! and is entirely unrestrained and dominating the interview or in a straight jacket. The constant media reinforcement of the Manson mythos for decades is evidence of the agenda. Manson is releasing music, audio tapes, and books from prison and so are the other 5 convicts. Interview where they are wearing makeup and street clothes, some producing and starring in films (Bobby Beausoliel) others having children from maximum security prison (Tex Watson had 4).

5. Lynette Squeaky Fromme was a drama major at the suspicious El Camino College and had previously dated Doors manager Bill Gibbons. She starred in the "Manson family" films from the Spahn Ranch and was a media darling during the trial. Then a couple years later: she staged the assassination of President Ford in a Phrygian hat, and then she escaped from prison in 1987.

4. A black propaganda illumninati/satanic film called: Mondo Hollywood was released 2 years earlier (1967) and it is predictive programming/psychic driving for the end of the hippies. It features the convicted Manson killer Bobby Beausoliel (the 3rd alleged murder of Gary Hinman) and the alleged victim Jay Sebring (real name: Thomas Kummer) has a whole segemtn dedicated to him. Also featuring is Angela Landsbury (as "Minerva") who in RL had her children join "mr. manson's ministry" also future Governor of California Mike Curb and Vito Paulakas who is the brother-in-law to Winston Rockefeller and an impossible litany of superstars and royalty with scenes like Paul Newman flirting with Queen Margaret and witnessing the controlled opposition at John Birch meetings. This rated X film which was banned in many countries. It preaches sex, psychedelics, hippie rock, and open satanism! directly from the deranged illuminati elites. Beware it is full mk-ultra psyOP violence and at one point the narrator says "we want turn the whole world into Hollywood" and then he says they are going to use "horror" to do it. This actor narrating the scene is aka Ted Charach (who also does voice overs for homosexual porn) can be found a few years later pretending to be an independent journalist discovering conspiracy research about who really killed RFK (The Second Gun) and too much evidence to list that this is CIA made. Both found on YT.

3. Manson was associated with spooks, famous criminals, and high profile lawyers even BEFORE being released in 1967…evidence that he was groomed, trained and funded to play his role, knowing that he would return to "prison" where he would receive special status and privileges (when actually there) for the rest of his life as long as he played the part. This is the logical explanation.

2. The Social Security Death Index does not list any of the Tate/La Bianca victims as dead in 1969...except for Leon LaBianca who was in debt to the mafia.

1. The 1960's counter-culture was engineered by intelligence agencies/secret societies, including the manufacture and distribution of psychedelics (causing hyper-suggestibility) while simultaneously developing the fashion, media, superstars, and messages. Timothy Leary (admitted CIA) was placed in the prison cell next to Manson before he escaped with the help of The Weather Underground. Leary admits working for the CIA. The end of the 60's is attributed to the Manson massacres (the day the music died) and this was on the week preceding Woodstock. Lesson to the world: this is what happens to hippie communes who turn on, tune in. and drop out. Altamont was also part of this.



---All the worlds a stage--- appears to be the agenda on this planet. This linked video below contains audio clips from Mae Brussell (radio show in the 70's) documenting many of the anomalies with pertinent images and documentation included. And now we have a superbudget Tarantino movie, with the biggest actors possible. And there is also a new Mondo Hollywood being released which I won't be assaulted by anytime soon. The propaganda is far more powerful than we ever imagine
.
see the video on YT


/watch?v=b5t2yGPSNTg

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

You know the movie isn't about Charles Manson, right?

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

I don't understand the original post. Are you saying that the "cult" Charles Manson was involved in was funded by Hollywood, and that he was put in prison so that other members of the cult could continue doing their thing undiscovered?

I wouldn't doubt that weird stuff goes down amongst millionaire celebrities and influencers and CEOs and company owners, etc., but it's probably best not to wonder about it too much...

"Totes."

I clicked on your link above, but nothing happens.

I was going to reply, but I'm not going to be able to improve on this.

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

Not quite, what I am saying is this is an agenda to create a mythology. Charles Manson and the unibomber and timothy mcveigh are invented to create laws and narratives for repression

Its not a link, paste that the standard YT address with the normal preceding characters

So the dead people's families are in on it or...?

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

I was watching Ancient Aliens with Giorgio Tsoukalos the other day and he said the only way the Loch Ness Monster could exist, a creature of that size for such a long time, in such a small lake... is if was an alien... using alien cloaking devices and alien food replicators like in Star Trek.


After reading this thread... I now believe.

Wonder how long it took the op to type all that.

Must be aliens if you can't figure it out.

Far, far, far longer than it did for me not to bother reading beyond the opening few words I reckon :)

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going back to my bowl of these:
http://www.everythingcounts.com/Talk...s/ec-loops.jpg

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

Both Tate and Ffolger's fathers were high level military intelligence, check wikipedia. Mansons father was also a Army Colonel.

Leaving aside how comically inadequate it is to just cite military connections as a reason to disbelieve everything they say (and have maintained for decades, amazingly), this applies to just two victims out of more than half a dozen, if I recall correctly. So I'm afraid you'll need a glib, superficial reason to disbelieve those families, too, at minimum.

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

Manson killed Kennedy.

I like getting responses like this because it is a rational intelligent argument. Am I really saying that all the people involved are complicit and keeping an impossible secret? Just because military intel is involved I am jumping to wild conclusions? Well...first of all there are pre-requisites for even considering such a implausible scenario. Outrageous claims requires outrageous proof. So clearly you still think it must be possible for modern skyscrapers to fall like controlled demolitions and ignore 100's of other anomalies, like missing trillions and insider trading...and you might think there is no precedent for such a enoromous hoax. But don't you find it just a mild bit interesting that the original astronauts (and astronauts to come for 4 decades) stated over and over as fact that: the stars are not visible in space. /watch?v=A3rhjJfRMec
And if you actually fact check it, and see who is saying what, you can see they are lying about the moon landings, no question, 100%. And because the lies are so huge every person must actually use their reason and logic (if they can) do come to these conclusions, and that takes time and work and has all sorts of punishments associated. So I suggest downloading the video anonymously with a service like youTUBnow.com.


Anyhow, I doubt anyone has actually read carefully what I wrote or even watched my video, even if you have you would have to fact check it and not believe anything.As a reward I will probably die young and alone with no friends but without the truth we are slaves anyway. One factoid I didn't even include in any of my analysis is the last photos of manson, which is clearly not him. Compare his last photos with the real manson at his parole hearing in 2012, (I would post links but it won't allow me to do that)

Thanks. Yes, I imagine most people just mock it. I kind of understand that, too, though, for reasons I'll explain later in this post.

Yeah, I've had arguments with people about the "controlled" demolition 9/11 stuff, and against my better judgment I've actually educated myself about why it's wrong. More importantly, I've found most conspiracy theorists have never even heard the more technical explanations, which means they can spend hours watching YouTube videos with ominous background music but can't be bothered to spend 30 seconds Googling the debunking.

And that by itself is usually a reason (the first reason, alluded to above) not to bother responding with rationality or intelligence: because if somebody's skepticism is so highly focused, and contains such massive blind spots, then the only reasonable conclusion is that they believe in the conspiracy for emotional reasons and won't respond to rational arguments. They much adopt the cloak of rationality and skepticism, but if they were really after the truth, they would be intimately familiar with pretty much every substantive counterargument already. They almost never are.

It also isn't helping that I asked a simple question and, though you expressed some appreciation for it, you actually invoked another, completely unrelated conspiracy before even attempting to answer it. That doesn't fill me with confidence.

Aaaaand now we have another conspiracy invoked, apropos of nothing, in lieu of a response to the question.

Ya' know, I wasn't convinced when you said "no question," random dude on the Internet, but then you said "100%" and I, being a sensible numerate person, know that percentages can't get higher than that. So now I'm convinced.

If you want more serious responses, sticking to the topic, and not bothering to make "arguments" that are just sheer insistence and repetition, would probably go a long way towards getting them.

And here's the second reason not to respond seriously: the sheer tonnage of material conspiracy theorists force people to sift through in order to have a conversation. If you want to make an argument, make it. Summarize it. Distill it to its most important points. Don't just try to get me off your back by giving me highly curated documentaries or books.

See above. If I link you into articles, videos, and essays, are you prepared to delve into them and address them point by point? Nevermind that, again, you should have seen most of them already, if your skepticism is genuine and not selectively applied.

You must realize what a bad argument this is. If you don't then there's little point in continuing.

Also, we appear to have come to the end of your post, and you somehow managed to write several hundred words without addressing the question you were apparently appreciative of. That seems telling.

Well, as I have detailed the Manson psyop to the best of my ability here and in my video already...there isn't much point in repeating what you probably didn't read the first time. Yes the families are in on it, freemasonic secrets are held closely around the world, yes people do keep massive secrets. I bring up the biggest proven conspiracies because those are far easier to understand, albeit still very difficult. If you believe the explanations why bldg 7 can freefall, after being announced first, when hit by nothing....well I have to point out that siding with the overwhelming majority of authority loving obedient academics isn't thinking for yourself. These are crucial for anyone with a conscious mind to evaluate for themselves and while my adjectives aren't going to convince you of anything, they are accurate, but most believe in impossible magic instead of conspiracy. Seriously what other explanation is there for neil armstrong telling us that the stars in space were not visible from the moon or on the way to the moon? You don't find that interesting? And it is not unrelated at all, this happened the very same year and is part of the same CIA fabrication of reality that began in earnest after WW2. Now you can't hide a billion dollars in insider trading, only smear the facts with disinformation.

I'm pretty sure there's a point to answering the simple questions I'm asking, though.

Unless, of course, you just like saying things but find answering basic questions about it annoying. Or, worse, deep down you don't want to convince people because as long as they remain unconvinced you can look down on them for being naive and gullible, or whatever. That certainly seems to fit the high energy opening of "look at all this evidence sheeple!" followed by the low energy petering out when someone goes "uhhh, what about this?"

It's amazing to me that you think this qualifies as an explanation. Just insisting "yes the families are in on it"? That's it? That's all you have to say to handwave away this massive logic problem?

I think even you must know this is a terrible response, which is why you didn't offer it at all the first time and I had to ask you a second time.

They're not proven. Please stop wasting my time and yours by trying to convince anyone with insistence rather than arguments.

Yikes. This is just an absolute mess, both factually and logically.

First, thinking for yourself means weighing evidence on its merits. If you're thinking about how to avoid being on the side of a certain group (like these "authority loving obedient academics"), then you're by definition not thinking for yourself. You're still letting other people determine your views, just inversely.

Second, by issuing a blanket discrediting of an entire group (and not even a field! Literally just the group "people who formally study things"!), you've made your claim unfalsifiable. You have demanded technical explanations for a technical phenomenon, then dropped in "oh, and by the way, everyone with the technical expertise to answer is suspect and can be ignored."

Third, I've never even heard of the stereotype of academics as being "authority loving." You appear to have invented that out of thin air, in order to have a reason to dismiss them. In fact, in this case the stereotype seems backward, because it's not my experience that academics were big fans of the Bush administration, and didn't much like the idea that Islamic extremists had knocked the buildings down, either. So insofar as you want to invoke lazy stereotypes to ignore all technical expertise (how convenient), those stereotypes would undercut your position, not enhance it.


So your position is that these people were cunning and devious enough to fake the moon landing, but too stupid to remember to add stars? :skeptical:

You can Google the boring technical/photographic explanation if you wan't (and if you haven't already, think about why that is, maybe), but weird stuff like this is an argument against the conspiracy, not for it.

This is the problem every conspiracy theorist has. They try to have it both ways: dude it is just sooooooo obvious that this was faked, LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. IT'S SO CLEAR. But when you ask them about one problem or another, suddenly it's OH, BUT THEY'RE SMART AND THOROUGH AND COVERED IT ALL UP. Every conspiracy has to pretend that the conspirators are either the dumbest or smartest people in the world, back and forth, depending on the needs of the argument at that moment.

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

The simple questions you are asking? They are all rhetorical questions! In fact reading your responses they are all insulting and ridicule without any substance. Like "you can Google the boring technical explanation for why they can't SEE the stars in space with their EYES! There is no boring technical explanation!!! In fact unless you go into conspiracy waters they won't even admit Niel Armstrong said this! But I was wrong you only wish to appear rational, sophism is what you do and no surprise. Impressed by your own sno0tty replies in which you accuse me of what you are doing in spades. You are solipsistic and you don't care about anything.

No they aren't. They're relevant, legitimate questions that you absolutely need to have decent answers to if you're going to float conspiracy theories.

Nonsense. Read the post again; I'm criticizing you for being intellectually lazy, but there's no serious way to pretend I'm merely ridiculing you. It is, at worst, mixing in a moderate amount of sarcasm in with otherwise straightforward counterarguments. And you're transparently using those little moments of sarcasm to ignore said counterarguments.

Frankly, I think I'm being a good deal more substantive than I have to be, given that when I asked you a simple question you started hurling tons of unrelated claims at me, and just keep insisting and repeating things. You can't pretend to want substance if you immediately change the subject when I try to take you up on it.

Yes, there is. I've read it. And it's actually pretty intuitive if you've ever tired to take a photo with wildly disparate light sources in the foreground and background. The answer's literally observable in your phone.

You also haven't addressed the actual counterargument, about why you think it's plausible that they went to such tremendous expense and effort to fake it, but forgot something as simple as this. Like most conspiracies, you have two conceptions of the people covering it up that you switch between from point to point, even though they're mutually exclusive.

I realize it's easier to get all huffy and storm off rather than address this, but that's a bad look for the guy who's accusing everyone else of not facing things.

You're wrong. I care a great deal about many things, and deeply, too.

One of those things is proper critical thinking. I also care about intellect wasted on meaningless rabbit holes. And, unfortunately for me, I am strangely fascinated by the depths people will go to to rationalize things. Which is why I'm sitting here, foolishly trying to have a serious conversation with a person who is saying some pretty outrageous things. And whaddya' know, yet again, that person finds some excuse to not have it after all.

If you actually cared, then you would have already researched how Neil Armstrong and dozens of other astronauts STATED ON VIDEO that: they cannot see the stars in space with their EYES!



Except now (as of about 2007) they say they CAN see the stars. No apologies or explanations at all. Now the official story is they can see the stars no problem! Total contradiction. IF you cared you would already know this or you would go research it now. But you won't. Because you identify with the power structure and you love your special job as moderator which you would lose. I didn't sell my soul. But we can't say the same for you.

Startpage is your friend.
Can Astronauts See Stars In Space?

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

BTW if a government conspiracy bumped off Sharon Tate and then blamed it on Charles Manson, how is it that secret government agents haven't taken down your conpiracy web site and came knocking at your door?

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

Oh my, getting all crazy over a form of art that is used for entertainment purposes? I don't think the producers have said that "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" is actually factual. I dont care.. I'm seeing it for entertainment purposes and no less or more.

@Yoda

This sounds like the guy that used to be here a few years ago, that liked to start controversial conversations with you. I remember what you did .. you banned him... whadda ya think?

I did, and found this. Apparently I was giving you a little too much credit, since I assumed you didn't mean "with their naked eye," since that's addressed pretty clearly in this link, and the one CR posted, and in a dozen others to anyone who takes a minute to Google explanations.

So, since your specific claim is addressed in easily found sources, one of two things must be true. Either a), you've heard this counterargument already, in which case you should already be explaining why it's wrong, rather than just opening with the Armstrong claim and making us to flesh the rest of the argument down. Or (more likely), b) you haven't heard this, because you literally never bothered to find and consider the potential explanations, in which case I'll just quote your own words back to you:

IF you cared you would already know this or you would go research it now. But you won't.

So which is it?

Nice try, but I'm the owner of this site. So the "special job as moderator" is one I got from...me. And I have it on good authority I won't be firing myself anytime soon.

So, now we have proof that you're willing to make accusations based on nothing, which turn out to be literally impossible. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence about your objectivity or commitment to the truth.

See above.

Seems to me like you have a standard playbook of dismissals you use whenever someone pushes back on this stuff, and you don't really know or care if it's true. Everyone who disagree is just automatically a dupe or a shill. Why? Because they disagree with you, of course. It's unfalsifiable, the same way the blanket dismissal of all technical expertise makes your position unfalsifiable. And since everyone who disagrees is a dupe or a shill, you're spared the difficulty of having to respond to their counterarguments.

Except, of course, this time your accusation turns out to be literally impossible. So, you can face the music and try to substantively respond to what I'm saying to you, or you can effectively (if indirectly) admit you don't really want to talk about the evidence by continuing to deflect with dodges and accusations.

Unfortunately, we've had enough conspiracy theorists over the years that I legitimately don't know which you mean. :laugh: I don't think this is an alt, though.

This will be my last post here since I am facing shills. Obviously you haven't SEEN the 2 interviews PLUS half a dozen other recorded interview with astronauts stating very clearly: WE CAN"T SEE THE STARS IN SPACE /watch?v=PCcKX2ZZ5Tg


And considering your avatar is Orson Welles...who was part of the war of the worlds PSYOP, which is referenced in the mondo hollywood film it appears I am trying to use logic to convince satanists. BTW orson wells, hg wells, orwell....all fabians, and the confusion is deliberate.



This moderator might be a piece of software I am talking to but chances are some human might read it. Gaslighting is what this is called. A confidence cult of winning. Its a method not interested in truth at all, and what they deliberately did to logos by replacing it with ego (Freud was Illuminati). The only question you asked me is if their families were in on it. I take it you've never been around an elitist family. Total dedication to the pyramid scheme(check yourself) because all that other writing above is avoiding objective evidence. parly because the perspective I am suggesting is associated with trauma, not just personal trauma either, man-son was just one of thousands of fake news historical events, which is FOR OUR PERCEPTION and the people delivering that content to you is just like what you are doing to me, gaslighting. The real history: "the enlightenment" was a Machiavellian scheme for centralization of power. Documented: elite academics writing ultra liberal utopian books were lying frontmen with elite bloodlines, like adam weishaupt. Consider that the movie The Matrix is freemasonic controlled opposition with neo's passport expiring on 9/11 (aka the emergency number that is predictive programming for the global trauma the plan at least 60 years old) Aud trauma often use the bully laughing in your face, it's more effective especially when it meets total cowardice, and for this we have endless historical evidence associated with proven false flag hoaxes. Like in those films I listed in my OP. This is how the counter-culture works: it uses movies like the truman show, so that any discovery how big the lies really are now equated with comedy fantasy or superhero quasi-religious propaganda in most sci-if mythological weaponized programs. Usually a twisted metaphor about the facts that we don't need a methopor about at all. Some few of us are trying to explain to muppets like yourself that you are defending a transhumanist totalitarian agenda that is based on lies, BIG LIES, and usually about fake freedom. This is not much different from yoda, developed from the works of Joseph Campbell closely associated with mk-ultra (so was Lucas) and the social engineering that aldous huxley was doing for the fabian society working under the charter of the rhodes roundtable group and directed by rothschilds and the black nobility. WW 1&2 were scripted and the evidence that is constantly being banned and censored for "hate speech" is just what they did to senator mccarthy back when what was left of a real congress was humiliated by media power. But go ahead and quote every sentence and make some contradictory sophist remark. No truth and no ground to stand = broken people. For a couple hundred years now Illuminati runs freemasonry and college fraternities and most secret societies around the world. Most governments have been run by the intelligence agencies since ww2. The scam was utopia up front and totalitarian hierarchic behind the scenes which is why people like MLK were freemasons. Cultural Marxism is the deliberate de-moralization by force and that is what Hollywood (the frankfurt school) was/is: the agenda to make good men into homosexual drug addict debt slaves watching their fantasy content for company coupons. So try and be a bit better than Pavlov's dog defending the prison, a prisoner graduating to prison guard. If you think I am wrong then take one big topic (like fake moon trips) and without appeealing to authority prove it's real. WITHOUT appealng to authority, at all. Sure you can do that, right? Well I won't know because I won't be checking back in to hear your slave mentality pretending to be happy about destroying all that's good in a surveillance state of disinformation pervs.

This is a really, really transparent way to dodge difficult questions. And I suspect you've got these dismissals chambered in advance, ready to fire the moment you meet any resistance you're not sure how to respond to. Which explains why you were willing to accuse me of shilling to curry favor with the site owner, unaware that I am the site owner. Seems like it's just a lazy, prefab accusation you toss out like a smoke bomb when things aren't going so well.

See, this is really damning, right here. Did you read his link? It doesn't just say "they never said anything like that." It says "here's the context in which they said it and why that's not what they're referring to."

Kinda seems like you're replying to stuff without looking at it...which proves that you're not interested in the truth at all, and is literally the thing you just tried to condemn me for (inaccurately, as I quickly noted).

Yeah, don't you hate that? People who aren't interested in the truth. People who toss out accusations they have no evidence for that aren't even possible. Or who dismiss evidence without looking at it. People like that are the worst. :indifferent:

False, and I can quote the others back to you to prove it.

Brief recap: I asked you how you reconcile the two mutually exclusive conceptions of the conspirators (they're powerful and clever enough to cover things up, but dumb enough to forget to include stars, and not bother to do anything about it for DECADES?), multiple times. I also asked for an explanation for your weird blanket dismissal of all academics (which seems to be totally made up, if not the literal opposite of the reality), and I asked you which of the counterarguments you were already familiar with. I've gotten crickets pretty much across the board.

Uh...this is the explanation? That's it? They're "elitist," (all of them? How? Define your terms) therefore you can just say they're all faking? Good grief, dude. Your threshold of evidence for this is shockingly low. Certainly a hell of a lot lower than your threshold for believing anything which you feel supports a conspiracy.

You know what conspiracy theorists spend a lot of time doing? Talking about how CLEAR and OBJECTIVE and UNDENIABLE their evidence is.

You know what they don't spend a lot of time doing? Actually discussing that evidence in detail when people point out it's none of those things.

Good grief, dude. Hundreds and hundreds of words of what's essentially just a giant game of free association.

I mean, congratulations on knowing Star Wars is an example of Campbell's monomyth, but what the hell has that got to do with anything? It's starting to sound like this is less about defending a claim and more about just trying to show you know things, or are smart, or whatever. It sure as hell isn't consistent with just wanting a serious discussion of the facts, though. If that's what you wanted, you wouldn't fly off the handle and talk about everything other than the topic at hand the moment somebody asks you a question about it. That's a pretty big tell.

@Yoda, I love how he brushes you and @Citizen Rules off... just clearly ignores comments..

Conspiracy theorists crack me up... paranoids... .

:lol::lol::lol::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

For some reason this brief back and forth from Sneakers (1992) keeps popping into my head:

Mother: Were you still in C.I.A. in '72?

Donald Crease: Yeah, why?

Mother: Did you know the Deputy Director of Planning was down in Managua, Nicaragua the day before the earthquake?

Donald Crease: Now what are you saying, the C.I.A. caused the Managua earthquake?

Mother: Well, I can't prove it, but...

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

My mom is a conspiracy theorist. I found out on 4th of July... she's stockpiling groceries and such because she thinks the economy will crash and the price of things will skyrocket....

I think OP has done what many people do when the facts aren't clear and that's to fill them in and possibly connect dots that aren't there.

That said, I agree with some of what he's posted.

"Helter Skelter" was a strategy, concocted and employed by Bugliosi specifically to put Manson in prison. He states many times, in his own book, that he didn't have enough evidence of Manson's involvement to convict him. A 'family' member, Paul Watkins, brought up the Beatles thing and Bugliosi ginned it up to make Manson appear to be some evil Svengali. In reality, the Cielo Drive murders were about drugs and the LaBianca murders were mafia related (Manson had a lot of mafia connections in prison). He hints at it several times in interviews but the interviewers always fail to pick up the ball - instead focusing on the blood and gore and on 'evil' Charlie.

Manson had a lot of connections in Hollywood and on the L.A. drug scene. He also had connections with Leary (who might actually be MK Ultra) and many other movers and shakers of the time.

This has led to what amounts to guilt by association - ie anything his associates are guilty of he must also be guilty of (because Charlie was the devil, right?). Manson was not innocent. I don't believe it can be proven that he had anything to do with the Cielo Drive murders prior to them happening (but he might have visited the scene afterwards). I do think he was likely complicit in the LaBianca murders because no one but him would have had a beef/score with Leno (mafia connected).

Manson wasn't a 'fake' - he was a patsy on some levels and a conspirator on others.

Lots of real (first hand) evidence available in Nikolas Schreck's book "The Manson File" - the most truthful book on the subject IMO. Also, his film, Charles Manson Superstar is a wealth of information. Another good book is Stimson's "Goodbye Helter Skelter" - breaks down Bugliosi's built up case. By the by, OP is on the right track RE: Bugliosi - he was for sure a CIA darling - see the 1k+ page book on JFK trying to legitimize the Warren report.

By the way, 'Conspiracy Theorist' is a term coined by the CIA (circa mid 60's) designed to mock/insult anyone who questions the official narrative.

No one can really be sure of what happened in events like JFK, 9-11 etc. There are always elements that don't make sense.

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

Yeah, I think you're right on the basic posture: if something a little wonky goes on, people just sort of bifurcate. Either they pretend nothing wonky happened at all, or they buy into the absolute craziest explanation possible. Very few just go with the nuanced "yeah, there was some stuff that didn't match the official line, but it's probably not an overarching conspiracy with dozens of faked murders."

I'm of the mind that you can look at almost ANY major crime and find tons of things that don't make sense. Reality is weird and messy and coincidences happen all the time in events with lots of moving parts and lots of unpredictable people.

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

I don't find the agnostic approach to nearly anything a cowardly position.

In my experience, most things are surrounded by gray area and anyone who is dead certain about anything is making a leap somewhere along the line.

I can't stop laughing at this.

At least Fabian got a shout out:p

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

I always wonder why dudes like this choose a film forum as the place to fire up their megaphone...

In my experience, they spray this stuff all over bunches of forums, and often have to storm off and "start over" somewhere else when it goes badly (as it has here). Easier to just call everyone a shill, not really defend the position, and just do it all again until they find people who won't think too critically about most of it.

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

The new Tarantino flick is about Manson faking the moon landings? This movie is gonna be dope.

I think it's about Buzz Aldrin shooting everyone who thinks he didn't walk on the moon.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0-CV2o0rY4s/maxresdefault.jpg

So you're saying there is no moon...

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

Anyway, let the record show I asked this dude a couple of really simple questions and he somehow replied like four times without answering them at all, then made a literally impossible accusation based on nothing and left.

Yes sir, fearlessly following the evidence wherever it might lead. :indifferent:

*Spoon. There is no spoon.

Pretty sure that's on-set footage of the upcoming King of the Hill live action flick.

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

For people who actually do like examining evidence, here's a ton of it.

Short version: in order to believe the moon landing was faked, you have to believe they fabricated thousands of hours of communication out of mission control. And then forgot stars exist. :indifferent:

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

Frankly, I'm surprised you even allowed this thread to exist. It's clearly spamming to pitch his link, which spamming is against forum rules. It's clear this OP had no interest in becoming a participating member, he has made no attempt to engage any other threads. He joined for one reason only - to spam his link.

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

Very well could be. It helps that it's just a video and not a site plastered with ads or something. There's admittedly a gray area with this stuff, but that could indeed have been the intent. I suppose my best judgment is that it was mostly about spamming the idea and there was, at least initially, some actual expectation of conversation behind it. Sure evaporated quickly if so, though.

My favorite was the assertion that disagreement or counterpoint in an argument amounts to gaslighting. :shifty:

Though it's been a fun read, so I'm glad the thread is still here. But yeah the OP just wanted to promote his belief that green peas are tiny alien balls.

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

Giving it more thought, Yoda makes a good point. Allowing a gray area spam thread to exist from time to time gives members an atypical avenue to sound off.

Re: Before you see the new Tarantino movie
 

Yeah, it's tough. I do appreciate the feedback. You're not wrong, and I don't always get it right, whatever right is in the end. I do know that, of all the mods, I'm usually the softest, though. The others are usually tougher, and usually end up being right, for that matter.