I posted about Brainwashing a few days ago and it brings up another point for all of you serious researchers.
It really hit home when I did that tour with the Chicago Sun-Times lady. We would stop and I would point out stuff and it was fascinating her reaction.
THIS ISN'T A FUCKING MOVIE.
THIS SHIT HAPPENED.
If this isn't a fucking movie, how come on here and Liz and Cats I always see quotes thrown around as if they fucking are accurate to the letter? They aren't. Do you remember what you said to someone word for word even yesterday?
Some of you throw quotes up as if to say "Haha, this happened." Like there was a fucking video camera taping the events. Like what the OJ jury needed.
Did Parent say "Hey I want to sell you a clock?" or "As long as I give you a good blowjob maybe you'll want to buy my clock." You think Garretson told the actual verbatim truth even if he rememebered?
Did Charlie says "Do something witchy" or "Leave something witchy" or "Go be witchy?"
If you have to hang onto a 42 year old quote to prove your point please go away.
171 comments:
Garrettson wasn't selling any clock.
That's right. Parent was the fated clock/radio salesman. And it was found in his car so it's most likely not idle gossip.
i think actually it was found ON his car - unless someone just happened to put it there during the investigation for whatever reason.
A lot of photos are in circulation of the police milling around CD, and it's not clear what order they were shot in. Car doors and windows open and closed, it's all very confusing.
FrankM
Funny you should bring up brain washing CrazyCol...seems to me.....someone here is
Thanks Frank. I thought the clock/radio was in his car, last unplugged at 12:something am (can't remember, think it's 12:15). Whether or not it was found in his car or on his car, I have no idea. I'm sure that when Steven left the guest house, it was on his front seat, up until Tex decided to blast the life out of of Steven Parent, for no reason at all. Steven was happily on his way to another friend's house to try to sell the radio. The poor guy was trying to make a little dough to get into college. Little did he know that his time ran out.
He can blame this on Charles Manson.
I'm not sure what the Col is spouting about, but this group was indeed brainwashed.
You can call it that, or call it mind control, or call it "needing Daddy".
No matter what semantics you use, it's the same result.
A mild mannered insurance clerk named Patricia Krenwinkel doesn't turn into a blood thirsty killer, screaming and running her victim down in a matter of 2 years, just because she took some drugs.
Not happpening. Not then...not now.
Someone (shall I call him Charlie) talked her out of her job to follow him, because he said she was pretty and he loved her.
She would have killed the President for him if he asked (sound familiar???).
That's only one example I'll use for now.
Brainwashing??? It's nothing new. It has been used for centuries, a useful tool by cult leaders, and if any of you don't believe in cult leaders or brainwashing, let me know. I'll clue you in.
melee- Nope
Oh the Col said "Nope"!!!
This sad sack with the droppy hat dares to confront me???
What part of "nope" did you mean?Did you mean nope, the brainwashing never happened or nope, the clock never happened?
Did you mean nope, Parent never had the clock??? Since you said erronerously that Garretson had it?
Or did you mean that Manson never brainwashed his subjects to kill.
I won't interject on each until I know which you are interjecting about.
Why waste my time???
All are arguable.
I just want to know one thing. Why are you wasting your time on this blog and promoting your stupid movie Transformers???
What a fucking waste of time. You should promote one or the other.
Stop doing both.
Why waste our time if you're not interested.
End of Story.
Oh, and Col, you can do your next thread on me...I don't care...in fact, it will make my case stronger.
"Que sera, sera".
Wacko's everywhere
I watched a study on some TV special once where they brought a guy into a room and had him answer questions with a room full of people who he didn't know were actors...
after a short time- this guy started answering questions incorrectly, when he knew the answers were wrong- but everyone else in the group was answering the same way...
they did this to a whole bunch of people and an overwhelming majority of them did the same thing....
Now I will leave it up to one of you genius' who have sprouted up in here chock full of knowing everything to explain the Social science behind the experiment and the results...
but after watching that, and re-watching Sandy/Nancy/Squeaky in the Hendrickson Documentaries..
In every man terms..
I believe something was at play there.... but maybe not " brainwashing" in the sense most people think of the word...
whatever it was... I can't reason with anyone who says that those girls in that documentary weer completely in there right minds...
SOMETHING was going on there- they were like robots...
but yes- it could have been from drugs, and malnourishment, and some of them may also have been not quite right in the head..
it also could be equal or some parts all of these things...
but if you take people who are part dysfunctional to being with, and then you give them a steady diet of drugs, and deprive them a balanced diet and proper nutrition... and surround them with poeple in similar situation- with similar messages being communicated among all of the,
that might equal some people who are pretty messed up in the head...
and very open to suggestion???
and if my idea is right that for WATEVER reason these girls were NOT in there right minds..
my moral compass says that they shouldn't have been allowed to be parents...
the condition these children and babies lived in would never cut it with social services today...
and truth be told- the right thing would have been to take those kids out of there and away from them...
which would have solved a-lot of problems for the kids both back then and today...
You think Linda's kid would have had at least a chance if she had been taken away when she was ABANDONDED by Linda and given to a family that actually gave a fuck about right and wrong and had some sense of responsibility??
but no I guess she wound up just fine on her own...
Sadie- her child was a priority to her- when??
ohhh after she found out she would never see him again- but she did a-lot to make sure that never happened when she had the chance didn't she?
and after sitting there with that shit eating grin, and getting off the hook for helping slaughter Gary- and everything else she did to hurt innocent people- and hurt others- just leave old Mary Brunner alone because some of you feel bad for her son- who she took the liberty of delivering outside of a hospital without any regard for his safety or well being- in fact getting high while he was on his way out...
if they were not " brainwashed" into believing there children were better off without them talking to them and personally taking care of them...
They were the worst parents on Earth...
in either case- not trustworthy with children...
and anyone with a proper moral compass would have to agree this is bad, and therefore the children should have not been subjected to it...
so maybe the answer would have been to take all the kids away from them, and literally it would have been the best thing, and frankly it would solve all of the problems they are still having by association today....
melee1969- Not sure what the two posts you deleted (like JimNY used to do, hmmm) were. Not sure what Transformers has to do with Manson or why a movie that made a billion dollars worldwide needs to be promoted by us for. But at least try to stay on subject.
Nope means you are wrong. These people were not brainwashed. Some of the things Frank and Saint say make sense. But Charles Manson did not brainwash people to kill strangers for no reason for him. It actually is not possible or we would have heard of this happening since then.
St. up until the 1920s or so, nearly everyone was born outside of a hospital, and the human race managed to survive.
In the 1960s, typical hospital procedure including strapping a mother to a table and drugging her senseless, cutting her cervix and giving her an episiotomy, then dragging the child out with forceps. Then giving the baby chemicals and formula rather than breast milk. Shudder.
I agree that Susan Atkins and Linda K. were terribly bad parents, but others were very good... they just raised their children without social convention. They might not fit in the average boardroom... but neither would a Maori child or a Hmong child or a Rainforest Pygmi child. The notion of a group raising a child works in many cultures... they would've been fine, if some of the people who lived on the ranch hadn't caused trouble for everyone else.
Several of the children are doing very well, today.
St. has made rude comments about my children in the past... my son was a planned home birth. He's now 15 and taking physics, reading Shakespeare and on a short list for a peacekeeping mission to Nepal and Tibet. Some of the "family" children have graduated from college and have very good jobs, are artists and musicians, and have stable families of their own. They're happy and well-adjusted.
We can't say that about some of the Hollywood kids born during that time period, to the rich and famous.
P.S. "Brainwashing" is bunkum, unless someone is being waterboarded or having their fingernails removed with pliers...!
AC said:
St. up until the 1920s or so, nearly everyone was born outside of a hospital, and the human race managed to survive.
In the 1960s, typical hospital procedure including strapping a mother to a table and drugging her senseless, cutting her cervix and giving her an episiotomy, then dragging the child out with forceps. Then giving the baby chemicals and formula rather than breast milk. Shudder.
-------------------------
I'm glad someone mentioned that.
Thanks, AC...
Both my kids were home births as well...and at 30 & 33, they're both doin' fine... so are their kids.
In fact, most of the kids I watched grow up on the hippy communes over the years turned into really together, practical, sensible and (dare I say it) responsible adults. Much better adjusted individuals than their parents... who were raised in more conventional "normal" 1950s & 60s households.
On the flip side, the good thing about hospital births these days is that sometimes you can get your hands on the nitrous oxide while the doctor's out of the room :-)
Ac I never said a bad thing about your kids...
just question if they have chance to strive in modern society if exposed to some the views you express on these sites...
I understand that child berth can be done outside of a Hospital- but if one had a choice and wanted the best for there own - I think getting high and letting criminals do the delivery with musical instrument parts...
is not the most responsible choice to make....
that is my point...
but again...
Please dont misunderstand me..
I respect you AC- I just dont agree with you..
I would certainly never intentionally insult your children... If I have done so regardless in your opinion- I am sorry...
As for Sandy- Mary- Sadie the rest of them- again I dont have a problem with raising a child in a group culture either...
I just think you should be very careful about which group you let your kids be raised by
and if it were my kids or YOUR kids AC- I wouldn't want them being raised by a group like this
AC I really am not sure what to make of you sometimes- because you have always been straight with me, and you have been kind and a friend to me as well, and my instinct is to like you...
but you say things, and make arguments that sometimes offend the very way I was raised and taught about life and values...
I find your nature to be so good- that I wonder if your outward approach to things isn't more what you have been raised with than who you really are...
but that is none of my business, and not up to me to judge..
other than to figure out who I am dealing with when we have these exchanges...
I admire that you are very strong, and loyal, and honest ( even when it may be easier on you not to be)
I dont think you are a bad person, but I think you get stuck not being willing to compromise over some very bad people...
I dont think you care what I think really about you or anything else... lol
but it bothers me to know you think I would insult your children, because I do like/respect you at the end of the day, and even if we have our differences- I would never want to say or do anything to hurt your children or anyone else's..
and for all of you who dont like me...
that is the one thing I hope you will all, at least, understand...
Saint, you did call AC's kids trash some time ago and Patty remembers that it was rather hurtful.
PS Patty likes you just fine.
Mr Dear Col, if you don't like the term "brainwashing" you can substitute any other that you prefer.
I don't think that Charlie amassed a group of young people with the mindset that in 2 years, he would have them go kill people. He wanted a family, he wanted to be the leader of the family, and that's what he did.
Along the way, he constantly spouted off his different beliefs, all the while supplying heavy duty drugs. After time, that will have an effect on any weak minded individual. And most of his followers were weak minded. Anyone who had a thought process remaining just said "I'm outta here" and split. Especially when it started going from free love & drugs to killing.
Do you really think that these people, if they had never met Charles Manson, would have ended up killing people or aid in killing people? A mild mannered librarian, a wig salesman, an insurance clerk.
Do you think Bugliosi made "Helter Skelter" up? Why do you think Patricia wrote "Healter Skelter" on the refrigerator? (spelling wasn't her forte). Do you think Bugliosi told her to do that? No. She heard that term from Charlie.
Why did Charlie want people killed? I don't know.
Now…that’s my opinion, and it obviously isn’t shared by a lot of other people, so I’ll just end it by saying have a nice day.
Well I thought that I said her children would wind up with Trash beliefs... if not- it is what I meant to say, and again...
I probably- no definitely - shouldn't have said anything at all... in regards to her or anyone's children...
because when I get that pissed- it is not at any individual, it is about the effect it has( either intended or unintended) on the innocent ones- and nobody is more innocent than babies and young children...
again- if It came out wrong- or if in a moment of angry insanity- I said it wrong- I apologize to you AC-...
and Patty - I like you just fine as well :)
I really dont want to hurt anyone who isn't trying to hurt me...
in any way
Col, melee1969 is not Monkeyboy. It's MrPoirot. Jimbo doesn't believe in Helter Skelter. I'd stake my life on it.
Didn't Charlie used to keep Sadie away from her child because he saw what an unfit mother she was? I'm sure I've also read that she used to try blow the child. Someone tell me I didn't just dream that.
sadie enjoyed 'blowing' all the little boy's including her son.
That makes good sense to me
Me too. Poirot?
Col, we will never agree on the brainwashing aspect of this case. That's evident.
I could provide a list of family members who have testified/shared that Charlie talked about the Helter Skelter race war stuff, but then you would just say they're lying, so why bother.
I do want you to answer my previous question though.
If Tex, Pat, Susan, Leslie, Bobby, Bruce, Clem or Mary had never met Charles Manson, do you think that they would have killed or participated in killing anyone?
Colonel - Nope
Patricia Krenwinkel NEVER said- "I took away all that life".
Those words were spoken by Leslie Van Houten.
Those words can be heard here at 6:50---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1gLULDEerk&feature=related
Colonel, please get your facts straight. It makes for a much more enjoyable blog experience for your guests.
Leslie can also be enjoyed here at 5:30---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PX7O3r3VyY
Take your pick. Personally, I prefer the first segment. The audio and video quality are much better. I listed the best video first as a courtesy.
I agree, LESLIE is still "one of the stupidest people I have ever seen interviewed". Pat most certainly IS NOT.
Colonel, with all due respect-
You are wrong 50% of the time. You are simply very effective at bullying people into not challenging you. On this blog, "Might makes Right" seems to be the theme.
Yes Colonel- the deleted comment is mine. There's no need to panic, and call me Jim. I was going to simply state the quote was from Leslie. Afterwards, I figured I'd better go find some proof. It's all good. Providing proof can sometimes be all the more gratifying. : )
The Plebes figure Vera Dreiser out quickly. She goes away. Ender Dickhead. yawn...
No Ellis-- I'm not Vera, but thanks for the compliment. Vera was one of the most informative folks to ever grace this blog. I wish he or she would re-emerge.
"Jim"-- is clearly an insult. "Poirot"-- I have no opinon. But "Vera"-- I can happily live with that. Thanks. According to the guesses, I'm moving swiftly up the food chain.
It's amazing. Anyone with a brain and a trace of backbone is accused of being a fake account, usually by fake accounts.
Anyone who says that these family members weren't brainwashed have systematically been brainwashed by something they've heard or read in the past.
I posed the question to the Col twice that if Tex, Pat, Susan, Leslie, Bobby, Bruce, Clem or Mary had never met Charles Manson, do you think that they would have killed or participated in killing anyone?
Well, I'll answer it myself. The answer is no.
Charles Manson was the catalyst or causitive agent that turned these people from normal, decent human beings into killers.
And stop saying it happened because they were all on drugs. Lots of people have been heavily reliant on drugs and have never harmed a fly. In fact, some of the posters here say they have been at one time involved in drugs. No one has mentioned stabbing anyone 51 times.
Taking drugs is one thing, but unto itself, can't transform someone into doing something they wouldn't ordinarily do. It's a combination of drugs and psycho babble that does the trick.
After enough time goes by, the thinking patterns change. And all this was accomplished by Charles Manson. I don't believe his original intent was to have them kill. I think it "transformed" (pardon the pun) into that when Charlie got pissed off at the world in general because he couldn't be a recording star. Instead of stomping his tiny foot and throwing his lip out, he decided to have the people he felt were responsible killed. The pigs. The people who made it and he didn't.
And who better to perform this dirty deed than the ratty kids he'd gathered and preached to about this Helter Skelter for months, ad nauseum.
Charles Manson was in charge of these people from the very beginning, and continued being in charge all during the trials. Has anyone here heard of the "X" carvings, head shavings, etc. to emulate Charlie and support him? That's because he was in charge. Not Tex, not Bobby, not Linda, but Charlie!
Sandy was convinced that he would get out of prison. Magically. Why? Because he convinced her he was Jesus Christ. She even believed that he blew on a dead bird and it came back to life. A statement she wishes she'd never uttered.
But at the time, she was so immersed in him that she couldn't even think with her own brain anymore.
Brainwashed.
And for all of you who think that Tex was "in charge", did you see anyone crawling to the courthouse during his trial? Anyone out making threats if he wasn't released? Anyone trying to look or act like him? Anyone paying any attention to him at all????
No.
Where's your leader now?
It would be impossible to argue with logic like that, and only a very arrogant fool would try to disagree..
But I am going to take a shot....
Oh and Adam, Charlie only kept the children away from their mothers to control the mothers and perhaps hopefully to train the children to be like him. He didn't care who was blowing who.
AC, I have to agree with some of what you say about childbirth, that women had them for years at home, etc., but you don't include the mortality rate for those births. It was very high.
And I agree with St. Circumstance that birthing a child in the filthy conditions of the ranch was abhorrent. Horse shit everywhere, horse flies, dirty humans, VD, everyone high, tying the umbilical with a guitar string? Come on now. It's a miracle any of them survived.
I'd like to know the real low-down of births at the ranch. How many miscarrages and still births due to rampant drug use, VD and unsterile conditions. Have you ever seen a child born with VD deformities or "born high" on drugs? As many fertile women as there were at the ranch, and the constant fucking, there should have been a lot more kids there than there were.
There's a lot of shit that went on there that was kept secret.
why did some of them not do violence when they had the chance then????
if the formula was that easy....
how come some wouldn't??
Tex and Katie did... and they did twice, and really- the most violent and severe carnage was done mostly by these two...
I think they had this in them, and maybe or maybe Charlie brought it out at that time...
but he wasn't able to just make any of them do it...
so again- lets not give him to much credit...
something was going on there for sure- but it was most likely- like Col said- a mixture of a few things- and not all the work of the " most evil man alive" or the " hippy Zombie cult leader"
I dont think Tex was a leader or the leader- but he was a real scumbag....
and who knows what he would have done later in life- had he been allowed to live one...
Katie too.. she could have ended up one of these middle aged housewives who pulls a shotgun one afternoon out of boredom..
You cant say for sure what these people wouldn't do....
But I know for sure what they did do...
If you watch the Hendrickson Documentary-
you will see TJ looks and acts just as lost as the rest of them-
absolutely maniacal with the hair and the smile... rubbing Marys hands in that one scene...
but he said no...
and he was as pro charlie as any of them...
it was not brain washing in that type of sense...
where he had complete control over all of them ...
St. Circumstance, the answer to your question is very simple.
There are certain people in this life who are weak-minded, and certain people who aren't.
You take Pat as an example. Her self esteem was zero, due to her hairy condition, her parents, her life, etc.
It was easy to transform her into a killing machine, because she believed everything that Charlie said. Why? She thought he loved her. Why? Because he said so.
I know that sounds simplistic, but it's true.
Now Susan, Tex & Leslie are different. I do believe they killed to please Charlie, but it was for a different motivation.
Like the Col said, maybe Tex just wanted to keep fucking pussy. Maybe Sadie just wanted to have a place to live. Maybe Leslie thought she could be the princess again among the "un-crowd".
Then there are others who didn't kill. These are people whose self esteem didn't need Charlie. These are the people that looked around and said "what the fuck am I doing here?" These are the people that had at least one family member they felt loved by.
St. Circumstance, brainwashing doesn't work on everyone. Please tell me you know that. You're not dumb.
Brainwashing only works on the weak minded that want to believe, for whatever personal reason they have to believe.
Maybe they want to belong to somebody or something, maybe they're afraid of being alone, maybe they've had a bad experience in their lives and want to find some kind of religious experience.
I can't explain it for everyone, and not everyone succumbs to brainwashing. But some do.
And PLEASE don't mention the Hendrickson documentary.
I don't believe in or like propaganda.
I will neither watch it nor promote it.
The Documentary is propaganda as in how???
Im really curios why you say that?
I like those DVD's because they seem to show the way things really were, and the people as they really were..
Am I wrong to think this way?
honestly- I never heard anyone say that before, and not sure what you mean????
I am 44 so too young to have been around in those days...
I feel like those are home movies of the times so to speak...
I dont give them much weight beyond that ...
but you do get to view and listen to some of them in there own words on there home turf...
isn't there something to that?
I like to think of myself as a outside the box or progressive thinker when I can be lol
Is there another way I should be looking at these films??
if you mean Hendrickson had an agenda when making the film...
I assumed he had the same agenda as every one else...
how to cash in on this " tragedy of the century" in one way or another.. once he realized he had some access to it
but propaganda makes me think you mean there is more to it???
Well it's too bad that Hendrickson wasn't there to film Charlie smashing Simi Valley's teeth in because she wouldn't blow Juan. Or Charlie beating the shit out of Mary or Gypsy for some infraction. Or Charlie encouraging rape to get the orgy going. Or Charlie throwing knives at people and asking them to die for him.
If he had only gotten there before Charlie was arrested, then he would have gotten some good footage.
But as such, he only filmed what the leftovers wanted the world to see. They were hoping to get Charlie out. Peace, love and all that shit.
Directors: Sandy & Lynette. Complete with guns that they didn't even know how to operate. Bumpkins.
Propaganda film.
St. Circumstance, you don't seem like a gullible guy to me.
I can't believe you didn't deduce that.
The reason Hendrickson's films are propaganda is because it's what Sandy & Squeaky wanted people to see.
Nothing more..nothing less.
You figure it out.
Well I appreciate the vote of confidence..
but really- I didn't watch the movies with that angle or those questions in mind...
What you are saying might be true..
I am sure that the worst of it was not going on while Charlie was in the can....
but again... I was looking more for background type of stuff from those films... the atmosphere, the environment, the language, mannerisms...
I am interested in this because of a fascination with the 60's and the elements of the hippy movement- as I am the gore and blood..
I am not interested in killers or real life crimes...
only this one lol
again- as much for the fact that other things like music and such which I am interested in - all came into contact with this story...
So as far as who was helping who, and why so and so did what...
I guess I will take you word for it...
I hope I am not gullible-
The only thing I was convinced of personally watching was that something was very wrong with those people, and it was no place for children...
I do believe there were a-lot of great communes to have and raise children. I dont think it CANT be a good situation...
I just dont think Spahn Ranch was the right situation...
as well...
I have learned in my life...
when it comes to making movies and writing books... especially ones which get nominated for academy awards, or become best sellers..
usually- regardless of whatever other motivations may exist-
$$$$$ is the ultimate factor
if it was a choice between selling Charlie, and selling tickets...
?
at least books and movies about subjects like this...
St. Circumstance, surely you know why that film was made.
First of all, Hendrickson wanted to make money. He wasn't there to promote the longevity of the myth of the hippy kingdom, he was there to make bucks.
Sandy & Squeaky wanted the world to think that this "family" was peace and love. You have to remember, this film was made BEFORE the convictions. It was all about getting Charlie off and making moolah.
Nothing more...nothing less.
I don't care about awards or any other bullshit.
This was strictly a propaganda film, pure & true.
These people were acting. Acting. There was no violence filmed because it was not allowed.
Like I said, if that Hendrickson had gotten there before Charlie was arrested, he would have gotten some damn good footage.
Now if he'd gotten that....I might pay $100 for it.
Otherwise it's not worth 10 cents. I've had my fill of people acting like Charlie didn't do anything wrong. What bullshit.
I dont defend Charlie at all-
I do blame him for all of this- just not for the same reasons you do...
I am not trying to be argumentative with you...
but you say the purpose was peace and love and no violence...
but you pointed out yourself- it opens with the girls sitting with guns trying to be as threatening as possible...
we agree it was about money...
I think Charlie Manson is one of the two or three biggest losers in the history of our planet, and he is responsible directly or indirectly of ruining many many lives...
If that movie was made for the purpose of getting Charlie off..
All i am saying to you honestly- is that I have never heard that before, and didn't consider it myself...
let that make me what it may I guess lol
I was fully prepared to agree with S/C regarding the RH films. I've always viewed the RH footage as "out-takes of the life and times" myself. But, Melee makes a valid point. The footage did miss a LOT, namely Charlie.
It's evident there were several factors at play here. Drugs, the times, each person's individual composition. One could go on forever. This is a complex situation involving several variables. But even so, Manson's presence can not be dismissed. Manson must be heavily factored.
My point--
Melee's synopsis is grossly over-simplified. But, her question-- "would this have happened minus Charlie" is a great common denominator. A fabulous common denominator.
My guess is no. In that regard she's right. Manson was the "final ingredient" amongst many others, but most importanly a necessary ingredient. I won't go as far as to say that Manson was the cause. He certainly wasn't the only cause. But without Manson, these events are FAR less likely. Folks who view Manson as a completely hapless bystander, are WAY off-track.
As for Tex, history speaks for itself. None of them gave two shits about Tex.
St. Circumstance, I'm not your kindergarten teacher, to teach you 1,2,3 or a,b,c.
I can't believe that you can't see it for what it is.
Squeaky and Sandy wanted to make a propaganda film, and along comes Hendrickson to film because he's heard that they were involved in the TLB murders. Okay...are we on the same page so far?
Sandy and Squeaky (who are in charge now that Charlie's in the hooscow) determine that it's okay..but on their terms.
Hendrickson goes in and films people riding horses and fucking, everything's cool.
Then the clip switches to Sandy, Squeaky and Brenda, with "X"s on their foreheads, warning the world that if their leader is crucified, they will all die.
It's so cult-predictable.
Hell, it's been performed a billion times. Shit!!
Asks Melee "Do you really think that these people, if they had never met Charles Manson, would have ended up killing people or aid in killing people?"
Patricia and Leslie, no way. Susan and Steve Grogan perhaps. Bruce and Tex, oh HELL yes.
Two more points:
Bobby managed to kill just fine, all by himself.
And Melee, I've read that one in six pregnancies ends in a miscarriage, whether hospitals are involved or not.
I DO agree that drug abuse isn't good for anyone, especially pregnant women and pre-born babies.
Melee, it's clear you are just another troll trying to get attention.
Yes Tex and Katie would have likely killed if they never met Charles Manson. 100%.
Nobody was brainwashed.
And Jesus Christ, the Hendrickson documentary is not propaganda. It is a neutral documentary. Bug gets his time. Squeaky gets hers. It is a riveting and fascinating work of art.
I will ignore you going forward. You are either too stupid to live or saying shit just to get attention.
I think we need to define brainwashing here. Did Manson influence the general mindset at the ranch? Certainly. And it's clear as 1969 progressed he had some serious issues. Did he convince people that it was OK to kill? Tough one. For once I am going to agree with something The Bug said (SHOCK!!), that the people who killed had to have it in them to begin with. Charlie may have directly or indirectly brought it out of them.
Dammit have to go to work, more later.
Brainwashing of the Family? Too facile.
This media & legal (Bug) shorthand was used to over-simplify a complex scenario to the general public and juries: mainly to scare kids away from cult-leaders and hippie communes: and to gain convictions.
The nub is that core Family members were drawn to a Manson-type (outsider, outlaw, pimp, charismatic-leader) and were, for various individual reasons, highly susceptible to Manson-thought and his outlaw jive-talk. Those wishing to come along for the ride were eager/willing to prove themselves by performing acts of loyalty (chores, sex, crime, obedience etc).
Many others checked this group out and didn't join, or soon left, or became fringe members.
Mansons, Jim Joneses, outlaw gangs, religious fundamentalists. Hitlers & the like don't pull in a random crowd and bend them to their will. A particular group of susceptible rubes usually gravitate to these types looking to attach themselves to their groups because they are drawn to what is being sold, and are looking to "belong".
It often spirals into madness & mayhem because these group "leaders" get ever-more encouraged by this evidence of their popularity and get overtaken by hubris. Often leading to a BIG fall.
If Manson "brainwashed" the kids, we could just as easily say that THEY were brainwashing him simultaneously, what with all that Charlie-as-a-Christ business.
lol call me silly or simple...
part of the reason I watched that film is to see people in the 60's fucking and riding horses at Span Ranch...
lol- if Hendrickson was in cahoots with Squeaky and Sandy...
I will settle for being stupid- because I had no idea that was going on, and nothing I watched in those films struck me as pro- Charlie...
the film made me scared shitless knowing people like that are out there and in one scene can look so foreboding and hard core- and in the next ( sitting sewinjg in the breeze) so innocent...
but If it made me feel one way or another about the family members..
it was anything BUT sympathetic...
If anything I thought Hendrickson was letting them think they were being cool and scary- but in reality letting us see what they were really like- and what they really had to say...
if he didn't want to empathize violence- and was trying to show them in a more hippyish light...
how could he film the opening sequence the way he did??
those girls looked nuts...
and if they didnt know what they were doing and he put them up to it....
why would he do that if he wanted to make them look LESS threatening??
I want to understand this point becuase it is intriguing in a way...
but it doesn't make much sense to me to be honest....
but I dont know
Col, just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they are "trying to get attention".
The reason I feel that the Hendrickson documentary is propaganda is because it doesn't depict life at Spahn's Ranch in its true form. Much like the filming at the People's Temple right before the hammer fell. It was all a guise to throw the public off. Like I said, if Hendrickson had shown the brutality and rape that really happened there, then it would have been more true to life.
I would think you would welcome all opinions to your blog, simply because it creates interest. Debating certain subjects can be interesting and fun.
But if you only want people blogging here who agree with you that's your choice. It is, after all, your blog.
Melee I - for one- am trying hard to hear you on this one...
but how could he have depicted life at the ranch with Charlie...
when Charlie was no longer there by the time he came across it...
just because it would have been more interesting before...
shouldn't have to mean it cant be somewhat interesting after...
if you have the choice between some look and no look- cant you take a peak??
Cause I am really curious
Col...this won't surprise you but I think you are totally out of line. I was really enjoying the exchange between Melee and Saint and Dickhead - all posters I have had issues with - but I thought their posts here were really thought provoking and well written...in other words, the best of blogging.
Why you simply cannot restrain yourself from denegrating anyone who disagrees with you is just intensely sad and childish.
I suppose such anger and intolerance is to be expected on a Manson blog, but it still sucks.
Cease
that was a really good post
Thanks for the kind words, Dickhead, and no, I'm not him, though, I have been addressed by that honorific.
For the record, if anyone cares, I believe that the true devotees -- the ones who killed and the ones who stayed on, i.e.: Squeaks, Sandy, Gypsy, etc. -- had undergone the LSD phenon known as "snapping," which, if you study the shrink testimony at the death penalty phase and the then-contemporaneous research, involved a psychotic break with reality that occurred in certain personality types of LSD users and which stuck, as it were (which the posters in this thread seem to be struggling to define).
Vera says: look it up.
If you mean me- I couldn't have of put it like that
:)
Im not very contemporaneous myself..
so i am not even sure if that was what I was trying to say...
but if that was the something going on there I was talking about- I am interested- so I will go look it up...
Vera-
all sarcasm aside- there is no doubt I am struggling to define what I think was going on there based on what I have seen and read...
Stereotypical Brainwashing is not it...
but some type of it is sort of it...
of course that makes no sense- so if you have scientific explanations for these behavioral phenomena...
I would love to learn more
I can use these techniques to go out and start my own zombie army..
but my chics have to bathe, and shave for sure...
and instead of X I want St. C on there heads...
and I wont eat anything that hasn't been prepared by someone wearing gloves- and cooked in a kitchen- so they will have to start sleeping with a much better class of people to get the things needed to satisfy me...
so if it this easy to do...
please send me the formula...
I had to go on dates and buy meals, and meet parents to get laid...
stop watching so much sports, and going to festivals with my fiends...
and I am handsome and funny...
if there is a way to make short, hairy,angry, ugly dudes get laid by multiple ladies- who will cook and clean for them as well
without the " bonding" or other things most women demand in return for these things which we really dont want to do...
we could be on to something...
lol
Yes I mock that which I do not understand...
its easier that way
There is my Friday night softball for the haters..
Swing away
but again..
charlie never encountered many Jewish American Princess from Long Island...
so maybe that would have made a difference as well..
" go get me some grub from a garbage dump"
lol
not where I grew up...
Sushi and Pad Thai is much more like it, and you better wash and cut your hair before you meet my mother or you can forget about it right now...
not sure even Charlie would be a match for some of the Yentas I grew up with...
if you can figure out a way through anything at all to shut some of these women up...
that would be worth something as well....
a bomb pop in the kisser...
hmmmm
that too might do it
Leary, thanks for your comment. I think maybe you are one of the few on here that "get it".
St. Circumstance, I know that Charlie wasn't there during the making of that film, but it would have been more honest to at least reveal on camera the things that took place there.
If Charlie had been there, he wouldn't have done that stuff on camera. It would have been evidence against him. And if you think for one minute that Charlie wasn't aware of the fact that Hendrickson was filming there, you don't know anything about Charlie & the girls. Charlie was still calling all the shots with all family members, whether at the ranch or elsewhere. And nothing was revealed to the camera lens that wasn't supposed to be revealed.
It's funny how each of you seem to have a different opinion on who would have still killed if they'd not met Manson.
I don't think any of them would, UNLESS they met a different man who was just like Charlie and who preached the same shit Charlie did day after day.
rfoster1: I'm embarrassed for you.
Be a man, stop walking in the Col's shadow and think for yourself.
I could be open to that idea...
could you be open to the idea Hendrickson was smarter than they were, and he played them to get assess to a situation that he realized was about to become a big deal, and in return for " playing the game" with them- he would be able to cash in...
I do believe that Charlie had control of the Girls at that point and who had access to what had to go through him...
but still not sure that Hendrickson didn't go along to the extent that he did as much for his own reasons as to help Charlie..
He did NOT portray them in a positive light overall in my opinion...
as an example- since we have been talking about the kids...
Hendrickson did show the babies being exposed to drugs and terrible living conditions...
He wouldn't have to have said much to Charlie to be able to film those things without Charlie nor anyone else realizing showing that was part of his intention..
The family probably thought that was good stuff- sitting around playing music and sharing food- why wouldn't they let him film that??
but then you see the babies eating out of dirty bowls, and joints being passed around in front of them...
was he really trying to help them showing that?
Maybe he isn't that smart-
but its a thought...
all I can tell you for sure is what I took away from it, and not much of it was good...
Circumstance, I don't believe that Hendrickson ever talked to Charlie. I think he was dealing with Sandy & Squeaky.
If he did...I'd be surprised. Charlie was a "behind the scenes" guy.
Hendrickson showed the children eating out of dirty bowls and people passing joints, but Sandy & Squeaky didn't see anything wrong with that. You don't understand the fried brains that were at the Ranch at the time.
The brains were all fried. They were doing what Charlie said.
"Let him film as long as you don't talk about the murders".
The children were sunburned and sickly. They were eating yesterday's garbage. The Manson family didn't think that was wrong. They were fucked out on drugs.
St. Circumstance, if you look at the scene with clear vision, you can see what's going on.
The "family" wanted the public to see that it was "peace and love" with all these lovely children. Behind the scenes was screaming, crying babies, malnourished, sunburned, fetal alcohol syndrome, molested by Sadie & Clem. Jesus, if Hendrickson had only shown the truth, then maybe some of these babies could have been saved.
I would like to know how many of these babies are buried at Spahn's Ranch or Barker's Ranch. Babies with a cleft palate, babies with deformities due to drugs, babies with breathing difficulties such as asthma, TB, pneumononia. Just as Hitler did...destroy anything less than perfect.
I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that there are plenty.
You people love to sit around and pretend that Charlie was railroaded by Bugliosi, that he's nothing more than a "good ole boy" that was just trying to have some fun.
In reality, Charles Manson is a monster, who ruined so many lives we can't count.
And by the look of this blog...he's still doing it.
Brainwashed??? Look in the mirror.
great, great movies. it's a shame for someone, anyone, as into this case as most people who read these blogs are, to ignore them. If nothing else, like someone said earlier, just to get to kind of see them talk and their mannerisms, and get to look around at the background and their clothing ,etc. most people who read these blogs, or at least a lot of us, love any slight glimpse. shit, people are still taking random pictures of where spahns was so we could sit and stare at a bunch of bushes. even if the movies were propaganda, its not like we're supporting some evil multi national corporation. sometimes you have to be able to sit back, relax and just take thigs at face value and enjoy them.
I said that lol
I agree Andy-
I also agree Melee...
He was as bad as you say...
but Hendrickson may have known that and tried in his own way to get past the girls and show as much of it as he could- at the point they were at when he could show it...
I do not disagree Charlie was a really really bad guy who did terrible things, and catching that on tape would have been a much different story...
but he Hendrickson wasnt around for that- so, maybe, he filmed what he could when he could..
and it is interesting in itself to me...
for the reasons Andy just repeated
and as for me as said here many times before...
Charlie didn't get railroaded- he gave it pretty much up to Bugs on a platter ....
he sparked the phrase and then caused the behavior that let Bugs ride a myth to glory and riches...
he did nothing to either defend himself properly- or dispel the legend that was being grown against him....
Cant blame bugs for that
lol Andy :)
We sit and stare at pictures of bushes... lolol
So True...
Im going out there next fall to stare in person.. lol
what am I expecting to see???
I think it goes back to the original words the Col used in Red on this very post which ring so true...
This shit happened- it isnt a movie
lol....
maybe you need to be there and stare at those bushes for it too really sink in....
melee1969 said...
rfoster1: I'm embarrassed for you.
Be a man, stop walking in the Col's shadow and think for yourself.
Melee1969, I cast my own shadow. It's been a very long time and I am still coming up to speed on this case. As soon as I have assimiliated all of the available information, I will weigh in.
Still, I know enough to say that you are wrong about Manson "brainwashing" anyone and that Hendrickson's film is NOT "propaganda" according to the generally accepted definition of the word. So, ease up on yourself. There's nothing to gain by stepping on your own dick.
Andy and St. Circumstance:
Andy, I understand your curiosity, and it's just that...curiosity. We're trying to find out what made those killers tick.
And we can't. Because we can't go back in time and be there. And I think some of you (I won't say us) want to, just to be involved and say "why"?
But Andy, what you have to realize is that you aren't seeing the whole picture. In all the films, photos, videos, you aren't seeing the violence portrayed there.
Why would you worship at the altar of a madman who raped a young girl? And urged others to do so.
Why would you worship at the altar of a man who beat women senselessly? Because he could.
Have you ever seen a woman with her teeth kicked out? Have you ever seen a pregnant woman who was kicked in the stomach area and lost the baby due to excessive bleeding.
These are Charlie's antics. And I know most of you don't want to know the brutality that he infused..yet it's there.
These stupid young girls like Star pop up and here is yet another victim.
Has anyone questioned Leslie or Pat about Star???
I'll bet not.
No one wants to "discuss" the brutality that Charlie inflicted.
Well it won't be forgotten. Not ever.
______________
St Cirumstance said: he did nothing to either defend himself properly or dispel the legend that was being grown against him....
Cant blame bugs for that.
_______________
No you can't. Charlie dug his own grave with his own ego. His antics at the trials spoke for themselves.
If he was that interested in being set free, he should have kept his mouth shut. Then Bugliosi's claims against him would have fallen on deaf ears.
Charlie "crucified" himself. He has no one but himself to blame.
He can "fake" hang himself in effigy all he wants.
He can carve an "X" in his forehead all he wants.
He can make it a swastika all he wants.
He can coerce the girls to follow suit all he wants.
He can jump on the judge all he wants.
He can ask to represent himself all he wants.
He can claim he was railroaded because he wasn't given a fair trial all he wants.
Bottom line is that Charlie is guilty as charged.
Because of his own actions. Period!
rfoster1: I am still coming up to speed on this case. As soon as I have assimiliated all of the available information, I will weigh in.:
__________________
You already did. You weighed in under the Col's shadow. You parroted what he said.
___________________
Still, I know enough to say that you are wrong about Manson "brainwashing" anyone and that Hendrickson's film is NOT "propaganda" according to the generally accepted definition of the word.
__________________
So if you're so new how do you know this?
____________________
So, ease up on yourself. There's nothing to gain by stepping on your own dick.
_____________________
I don't have a dick. I'm not Mr. Periot.
rfoster1, please don't think with the Col's dick. Think with your brain.
You'll be more respected if you have a backbone.
I will discuss it ...
I hate the Bastard myself...
I understand what you say- and have argued with AC among others very heatedly about this very thing...
I have also gotten myself in much trouble with people over Star- who, to me, is another victim and an even sadder one in the fact that adults around her really should be able to do something about this in modern times ( she was very young when she started this)
but my curiosity over all of this does not mean that I worship at the alter of anyone...
There were a few other things that went on there as well...
ALOT of people went out there, and some were people with quite a few options...
The reason this case fascinates is because there are so many things at play...
allow some of us to be interested in exploring some of those other things...
it doesn't mean we dont agree Charlie was a seriously bad news guy- and criminal and rapist and attempted murderer and worse...
Because I for one- do
but I still want to see people fucking and riding horses in the 60's at Spahn Ranch
alright?? :)
St. Circumstance, you've made it clear, that the only thing you enjoyed about Hendrickson's film is the fucking.
You've made it clear that the only thing you've wondered about is how Charlie got the girls to fuck him.
That's a "man thing".
So I understand your obsession. You want to fuck something.
You want to know how a short, ugly, hairy guy coerced young women into fucking.
You want to know how, a hairy, old, wrinkled man with no future talked a young girl like Star into fucking him.
Well, the answer to that is: I don't know.
I can't imagine the attraction.
Pheromones? Did they have that back then? Does it work now?
Otherwise, I guess it's the "gift of gab".
My last comment on this subject forever...
I am re-posting this which I put on another blog in an open letter to AC:
she will see it one place or another and then I am done with it :)
AC...
with all due respect..
I have apologized a couple of times now because I do respect you, and like you as well for the most part very much...
I recall that this issue started when someone posted a racist statement attributed to you, and you did not exactly deny the statement...
you gave an explanation of it...
you defend quite a few non traditional and - in my opinion- alternate views of things...
now that is life and people are different...
But when it comes to being a flat out racist- that is another issue..
I am not going to say I was not a drunken idiot the night I wrote those things...
I AM SORRY FOR SAYING THINGS TO OFFEND YOU
I never meant anywhere in my heart to personally insult your kids...
but I did and I do hope they aren't being exposed to ideas which are universally unacceptable to anyone regardless of how they live there life
and Racism is one of those ideas..
Children live and grow how they are taught...
that matters to me..
it was a bad message that came from a good place...
for you AC I will work on my delivery
:)
Melee-
I was just trying to be funny- because I like some of what you say..
I dont want to fight with you
I really dont care about watching filthy people have sex lol
Star makes me sad because nobody cared enough to make a difference in her life..
she didn't go in that direction because she had many options...
see my post to AC about kids and how I feel about that....
this girl never had a chance, and somewhere- there are adults to blame for that
the only "thing" lol (one) I want to be with is the bedroom waiting on me...
good night all!!
Well, I will say one more thing. These young girls should never have been subjected to an older, more savvy man who took advantage of them.
And that includes the current girls du jour.
Hendrickson should have really pounced on this one, as he should have known there were underaged girls at the ranch being screwed, and he never reported it to anyone.
Thanks Hendrickson! That was really special.
"It's a man's world....but it wouldn't be nothin'...without a woman or a girl". Tom Jones.
Star is of age, works for a living, is an accomplished musician, artist, tailor and speaker for ATWA, and deeply involved in the environmental movement. She doesn't need anyone's sympathy. She is quite happy with Charles.
I'm not sure how anyone can say the "Manson" movie was a propaganda film for the family showing peace and love with a straight face.
Half the film has the three women holding guns while spouting such quality lines as "If someone gets in your way you kill them and move on."
Star is of age, works for a living thats great Ac but what does Star do for a living just curious?
"If someone gets in your way you kill them and move on."
Oh, that's where AC got it.
Adam...
I think Hendrickson treated the girls the way Burt Reynolds handled Dirk Digler and Reed Rothchild in Boogie Nights..
He let them think they were the boss of them...
But we know who was really calling the shots and who was serving whose greater purpose..
and who was going to make bank on it...
hey saint, while youre there definitely take pictures. i, for one, will continue to stare at the photos, no matter what they are. As for what you're expecting? Well, if you are like me at all. Theres this slim hope youll find an old .22 shell or some other relic that probably isnt there. Plus just like people who do the Jack The Ripper walk in London, you want to be where the action was. I think that is totally normal human nature.
I was also reading about when Melee said youre mostly interested in the fucking part of the story. I know that for me, thats just one of the many parts of this that i do think a lot about. I cant help when i see pictures of a lot of the girls to think (and try to picture) the specifics of the orgies. Hey, im just a man.
Also did i see you say youre a fellow Long Islander? Hope youre ready today for the approaching storm. were gonna get hit hard i think.
I'm the same. Everytime I see Sadie, Gypsy or Squeaky I can't help but imagine what they must have been like in the sack.
Well, me to. The bisexual side of myself keeps me very interested in that side of the story. I've always found young Clem sexy. Simi Sherry was hot too.
A-- Vera- no problem. Great to see you back. The brains in the room just doubled in size.
B-- Leary- I just regained a few ounces of respect for you.
C-- Saint- if you want to learn something, listen to smart people with no angle. A short list of bloggers comes to mind. I could elaborate.
D-- Now for Hendrickson's films. This is a complete no-brainer. It's amazing and nauseating, the conversation has lasted this long. Please allow Dickhead to set everyone straight, and end this pointless debate.
In 2011, the RH films are the closest any of us will EVER get to actually being there. Every other film has paid actors. These are not paid actors. These are the real fruitcakes in their natural habitat. The closest we'll ever get. Nuff said.
Hendrickson's motive-- money.
He was definitely at the right place, at the right time, with a camera. He was there to make money. Case closed.
The first film was professional, with solid narration. It's a classic. The second film, is quite obviously the "leftovers" from the first film. That's amazingly apparent. It's the "cutting floor clippings" pieced together, to make another buck. The narration is far inferior. It's like a faces of death film. "Danger lurking around every corner". But--- it's STILL the real fruitcakes in their natural habitat, and 40 plus years later, it's STILL the closest we'll ever get. Not half as professional as the first one, but still enough raw footage to get the Manson juices flowing.
Now for Melee's point---
80 percent of the films are just horses, ranch life, and a few bare asses. I don't see much porpaganda.
The other 20 percent is interviews.
YES Melee-- during the INTERVIEW portions, the girls definitely pedal their bullshit. But what else would one expect? Did the girls ever miss an opportunity to pedal their insanity? If you put a camera in front of these fruitcakes and ask them to speak, what do you expect them to say? They're not going to start whistling a different tune.
Nutshell--
Hendrickson was there to make money. The girls used the "interview" segments to push insanity. Hendrickson = Money. Girls = Bullshit interviews. Simple folks!!
Art-- No. Great documentary-- Yes.
The first RH film was spectacular. The second was inferior. Now, he's trying to market whatever clippings he has left, in any form possible. One day it's a movie, then it's a book, then it's a play. Next, he'll carve the audio into 3 minute sections and market it as lyrics to musicians! Example--"There's too much love in one place, sittin doin nuthin". lol He's embarrassing himself. He should have let the two films stand, and quit while he was ahead.
Hendrickson is no f#cking Steven Spielberg, not even close. But he WAS at the right place, at the right time, with a camera.
D-head...
I concur with what you say completely about these movies
as I think my posts have shown...
Andy- I live in So. Florida- but was born in Manhattan and grew up near Princeton NJ- which is about to get crushed as I type these words...
am going up there next week for the Holiday weekend...
I hope :)
I don't know, it's Saturday night and I must be drinking because Mr. Dickhead is clearly the voice of reason and authority on the movies. Nice summary on his part.
Who amongst us wouldn't have taken the opportunity that RH did? And who amongst us could have gotten those idiots to do anything but what they did.
That's the thing we keep losing sight of...how many folk from Al Springer to Harold True to dozens of others thought Charlie and his gang were complete idiots and morons. I fear we romantisize them. No wonder Charlie was the leader and had power, none of the others seemed capable of putting together an intelligent thought.
melee1969 said....
Andy, I understand your curiosity, and it's just that...curiosity. We're trying to find out what made those killers tick.
And we can't. Because we can't go back in time and be there. And I think some of you (I won't say us) want to, just to be involved and say "why"?
But Andy, what you have to realize is that you aren't seeing the whole picture. In all the films, photos, videos, you aren't seeing the violence portrayed there.
Why would you worship at the altar of a madman who raped a young girl? And urged others to do so.
Why would you worship at the altar of a man who beat women senselessly? Because he could.
Have you ever seen a woman with her teeth kicked out? Have you ever seen a pregnant woman who was kicked in the stomach area and lost the baby due to excessive bleeding.
i say....
i know those movies don't represent the whole picture. But that doesn't mean i can't just enjoy and maybe even learn a little something from them. I'm certianly not scolding you for not being into them, but really, i think they do give a little satisfaction to the curiosity about some of the "less important" parts of what makes this whole thing so interesting to me.
As for seeing those horrible things you mentioned? Well, i grew up hanging out on the lower east side of Manhatten so ive seen my share.
And lastly...why would people worship at the alter of a man who beat women senselessly?
I hate to say this to any parents who dont realize it, but the youth are led very easily. Look at all the little liiily white suburban kids who idolize jailbird "gangstas" How many have ruined their lives by joining gangs and doing something that ended up sending them to jail for years. Its not like the manson family is a once in a lifetime happening. Look up the Northport Long Island "satan murder" a bunch of regular suburban burnouts all idolized the biggest loser of the crowd. Some even helped him kill someone (over a drug burn) and countless others knew where the body was. Finally someone told the authorities. My point though, is that with drugs and some charisma, its not all that hard to get followers.
sorry for rambling.
Charlie, convinced himself that he was Christ, still liked going down on other fellas.
Sadie liked blowing children and taking dumps in hallways.
LuLu was convinced she had wings.
Hairy Katie, just a couple of years out of the convent, inflicted how many stab wounds?
Tex may really have believed he was the devil, bella donna will do that to ya.
Listen to those three stooges - Brenda, Sandy and Squeaky - on the Manson film. They are like cartoon characters.
And check out the mug shot menage over on the evil site. Seriously, these people were certified idiots and morons.
Everyone likes to cite their middle class upbringing and education...IT"S CRAPOLA. Not all of them were born idiots, but by the time August '69 rolled around they were are full time residents of Idiotville.
Idiots, anger and guns - it's just a bad combination. Looking for ryhme or reason in TLB is like looking for good storylines in porn. It ain't there.
The Bug had to demonize these people. But I've always thought, just like Jimmy Breslin wrote "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" about a mafia family, someone should do the Manson book "The Gang That Couldn't Think Straight, 'or at all'" to illuminate what complete brainless morons these people were.
I keep coming back to Gypsy's quote, she being probably the brightest of the bunch.
"It took me ten years after Spahn to get my head straight".
That's an indication as to how far gone they were.
Returning to the theme, and (for once at least) agreeing with the Col when he said:
If this isn't a fucking movie, how come on here and Liz and Cats I always see quotes thrown around as if they fucking are accurate to the letter? They aren't.
And right on cue, Leary7 said...
Charlie, convinced himself that he was Christ, still liked going down on other fellas.
Sadie liked blowing children and taking dumps in hallways.
LuLu was convinced she had wings.
Hairy Katie, just a couple of years out of the convent, inflicted how many stab wounds?
Tex may really have believed he was the devil, bella donna will do that to ya.
And a bunch of other stuff.
How can we know any of this? And why do we just go on and on regurgitating the same unsubstantiated ideas?
It's not getting us any closer to the truth. In fact it's not getting us anywhere at all. And it sure isn't enjoyable.
FrankM
Come on Frank. We've been down this road before. You want to do your Zen moralizing about the elusiveness of truth, fine.
But a couple of dozen folk saw Charlie on his knees with Watkins. And CM pushed the homo stuff to break down barriers. To many people talked openly about it for it to be an urban myth.
Sadie and oral sex on kids - it came from the mouths of several who were there. And do you really want to argue she didn't take a dump at Nader's? Or that Tex didn't say at Cielo, 'I am the devil and here to do the devil's work.' He's admitted to doing so, why would he lie? And Lulu and her wings came from her father. Are you saying he lied.
We accept certain things as having happened because more than one, often several, folk talked openly about these things having occured. Did some folk lie or embellish? Of course they did. But you can't dismiss everything just because it was not caught on videotape. Some of these things, many of them in fact, ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN.
Until you have a Sadie quote denying the dump, or a Leslie quote contradicting her father's account of he wanting to cut holes for her wings, or ANYTHING of substance that refutes the common held TLB stories, then maybe you should hold off awarding yourself the mantle of "truth proclaimer".
Wasn't it that Watkins was forced to blow Charlie?
Leary said:
We accept certain things as having happened because more than one, often several, folk talked openly about these things having occurred.
No, Leary, we can't accept anything on that basis. If I want information of that kind I go down the pub. In a forum of knowledgeable people like those (well most of them) who frequent this blog I expect higher standards.
Until you have [...snip]... ANYTHING of substance that refutes the common held TLB stories, then maybe you should hold off awarding yourself the mantle of "truth proclaimer".
You know, that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. There's no onus on me to disprove wild speculation, rather on you to prove it. Well, not prove it, that's impossible, but at least give me some more compelling evidence than you have so far.
And I for one have never held myself to be a 'truth proclaimer'. Sheesh, I don't even know the truth, and all my training and background wouldn't allow me to do that.
What's of more importance (to me at least) is that these prurient matters are of no consequence. It really makes no difference to me - or to solving the case - when or where Susan Atkins took a dump, or who sucked off whom, when, how often and to what degree of success and satisfaction. In fact concern about these matters is (again, to me at least) rather sad.
Now if you get off on these details, fine - the world is big enough for you and me to stay away from each other. But there's nothing Zen about being a little rigorous about where you get your information, and there's nothing scientific or research-oriented about raking through the regurgitated detritus of web gossip.
Horses for courses.
FrankM
The vast majority of the more salacious stories about the family come from either Bugliosi's or Sanders' (and to a lesser degree Watkins', Atkins' or Watson's) book(s)... all of whom have definite agendas running..
I don't think Sanders ever claimed that all of the information & speculation in his book was accurate... more a kind of gonzo version of the News Of The World or the National Enquirer... an amusing read and an important source document but hardly reliable.
As for Bugliosi & Watkins, they were respectively a lawyer & a snitch. I may well be one of those "bad guys" that everyone keeps going on about or perhaps it's just a class thing... personally though I figured out some time in my teen years that anything coming out of the mouths of people like THAT had to be taken with a very large grain of salt.
Cops lie, DAs lie, government informants lie. I'm sorry but they do. They lie, collude and rehearse their "facts" so as to achieve a specific aim... as do criminals. Neither side is particularly believable. Throw in some megabuck book contracts and the talk show circuit and within a year or two it all becomes "fact" in the public mind. Throw the internet into the mix and it REALLY gets messy.
Three simple words folks... "in my opinion"...
no worries Frank, you're right, there are a dozen ways to look at TLB. One can pick and choose. Clearly you prefer the emperical approach and that is great.
But for some of us we enjoy the more "anthropological" analysis dealing with group dynamics and such. For that, like old Margaret Mead, we have to rely allot on oral histories and testimonies. Are some of those crap - exagerated and such? Of course. But does that old saying about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater fit??? I mean just because the Bug had it in his book or a snitch was the source or an imbicile was the source does not automatically make it untrue. Everyone has to use their own power of reason to decide what seems logical and feasible.
My arguement with you and the Col is that you seem so hellbent on debunking HS you seem to want to dismiss everything in it as invalid and irrelevant.
That just seems shortsighted to me, no offense.
As to my "ridiculous" asssertion - you seem to, for example, want to dismiss the story of Leslie believing she had wings as just rumor nonsense. But the story came from Leslie's father. What motive would he have to make it up? And has Leslie ever denied it? If you want to dismiss Manson stories like this one then I think you have to have some solid refutation other then your own insistence.
Dismissing the Manson stories I cited as "unsubstantiated ideas" (and thank you starship, Watkins down, right} when multiple people gave depositions that they were true just seems...I don't know, like the Catholic heirarchy ignoring all the abuse testimony.
People are flawed, and some lie, but when several cooberate something it is just plain arrogant to dismiss it as an "unsubstantiated idea".
But you and I clearly are never going to agree on anything, and that is fine with me. But please do allow me to point out that in the last ten posts or so it was you again that went on the offense and were clearly dismissive if not insulting to anyone who accepted some of the Manson stories as legitimate.
That is just a game I refuse to play.
trial testimony and depositions, Frank....NOT 'regurgitated detritus of web gossip".
If you are going to insult and be dismissive of people, at least try and deal in facts.
Frank your posts can be close to brilliant at times- and I have said so before.....
but you put to much about other poeple in every one of them that is more your opinion about them or there opinions- than the subject of the post or argument...
Leary is right...
D-head told me your a great source for this, and I have liked so much of what you write...
You dont need to call other out to be right yourself...
most people will buy into what you say- I usually do...
So if Lulu had wings would that make her Pegasus the flying horse?
amen, Saint. thank you. I actually like Frank's posts too, minus the personal attacks. And I love the Col's stuff, I just don't get his need to denounce and degrade anyone who thinks differently than he does.
Oh well, it's a Manson site. A certain amount of beligerance is do be expected I suppose.
Thanks for the kind words. You know, you guys are a bit sensitive. Go back and you'll see I only ever attack what people say, not the people. But I guess it doesn't always feel that way.
And for what it's worth, I've never said I believe or disbelieve the HS theories. I think the truth incorporates some aspects of that, but I don't think things were ever really preconceived or coherent.
But the good thing here is that we can agree to disagree, and the world is big enough for that to be possible.
FtankM
Here Here to that :)
bobby said...>>>>>
That has allways been a tuff one one for me to take:
I'm Not attacking you ,just what you are saying.
I'm not attacking the performer just the performance.
dont take it so personal.
Why are you so defensive ?>>>>>
Hi bobby,
I always feel the underlying message in the phrases you mention (along with the classic 'oh you're just too sensitive') is something along the lines of 'spare me the responsibility of having to care about your feelings...'
But hey, that's just my opinion, and i am very sensitive. :)
After a bit of thought, i think it's more 'i sometimes feel' than
'i always feel'...
:)
There are certain things that we believe about the case which, unfortunately, are not provable...but as long as they are plausible and they are based on some sort of fact as it were...statements, testimony, police reports, etc, then there shouldn't be any real reason not to believe they occurred.
On for instance with me: I believe that Manson and at least one, probably two others did indeed go to Cielo Drive after the murders...why? Because in all of the accounts of what occurred at Cielo, and they are all similar, there is no mention of the steamer trunks being knocked over...of the horned rimmed glasses being planted, of the towel being nicely tucked over Jay's head underneath the noose around his neck...yet that is what the police found the next day...
So, I feel that it is not really too much of a stretch for me to believe what I believe.
Now, Katie, I'm sorry, I am going to pick on you...she believes that Rosemary LaBianca's daughter and boyfriend at the time were involved in that murder. Recently she said she believes it because Rosemary didn't approve of her relationship with the boyfriend and that Rosemary was threatening to cut her daughter out of her will. Ok, there is substantiation for the first part...that there was trouble in Rosemary's relationship with her daughter about the boyfriend...it's even in the police report. But as for the second part, that Rosemary was going to cut her daughter out of her will, well that's just a pure speculative leap based on the first part. It's possible, I suppose, but doesn't neccessarily follow.
Hi bobby, I hope you know what I meant...that calling someone too sensitive is sometimes a lazy excuse for not being accountable... :)
Which is why it is my wish...
that everyone state there opinions and leave each other alone...
except for praise...
you can make a counter argument with facts and opinions about the subject- and people will know you disagree...
let the readers decide for themselves who they agree with and don't...
and the rest of us can respect each other and move on to the next subject and try again
getting into wars of words with people gets boring, and then frustrating, and then I end up saying stupid things which make no sense- because I just feel like trying to overpower the person into submission to squash situation....
but of course that never works- because nobody can over power anybody on-line at the end of the day...
boy/girl big/small tough/weak
we all have the same power on here...
what will ultimately set us apart in this world is what we have upstairs....
and lord knows I cant win many battles like that
:) So lets all get along
Sorry to break-up the lovefest, but there's a moron who must be insulted for the good of humanity.
In regards to the Michigan Loader being burned, "Revitron" said on Liz's blog---
"It's not so dumb a crime, they just got caught".
DH responds---
What??? Revatron, you are a complete Retard. Please eat shit and die immediately.
I reposted here, as my comments at Liz's generally disappear.
So after all the bashing you've gave Liz and her Blog a few weeks ago, you say that you still visit there? Isn't that a tad hypocritical?
lolol
far be it from me to get in the way of the good for humanity...
I never thought about it that way
oh well I tried.
I could be wrong but Revitron strikes me as someone for whom English may be his/her second language.
About 20 years ago I was on an indoor jogging track. A young man was also on the track. He was clopping his feet on the track rather clumsily as he ran and making a lot of noise. I was getting very irritated with him. I remember thinking, "can't he hear himself?". A few minutes later he signaled to me that he wanted my attention. He took a pad out of his pocket and wrote "How many laps is one mile?". The kid was deaf... I felt very foolish.
That was a great lesson in humility and patience for me that I never forgot.
I posted the following on Liz's blog---
Revatron--- Matt suggested that I address you as someone, for whom english is a second language. So, I'm going to try this as politely and simply as humanly possible. No tricks or insults, just straight language. Here goes.
Revatron---
You have clearly stated twice, that burning the Michigan Loader "was not dumb".
Are you saying, burning this equipment was an intelligent act? Are you suggesting this was a noble and justifiable deed?
Because to me Revatron--- DUMB is the only way a sane person could characterize a malicious, senseless, criminal act of vandalism.
I await your reply.
You my friend are...dumb.
Earlier in the thread Katie implied that burning the loader was a dumb thing to have done. Sure, in hindsight I suppose it was, considering it brought so much attention upon them.
But had they not been caught for it, I don't see why burning the loader could be classified as a dumb thing to have done. Is it any dumber than killing people?
You seem to be concerned about the "malicious, senseless, criminal act of vandalism" from a legal standpoint. I don't care at all about that. You are a girl.
"is that you arguing with Harold True" was a question..but then I called you dumb, so... What can I say, it was a bad assumption. You guys know all about those.
Revatron, how in the hell could I be arguing with Harold True. I never even met the guy. How could I be arguing with him!!!
This is what I'm talking about. You dare to call me dumb! You don't even know the first thing about it.
You come out of the box with stupid unfounded accusations, and then try to defend your actions.
Unbelievable!!!
You know what...this is an "exercise in futility".
I'm tired of this mess.
You're just a guy that I don't even know, and don't care to know, so just go away. OK?
I've said my piece and I'm done. Go bother someone else with your ignorance.
End of Story.
Revatron---
Your own words are proof-positive, that you are a moron.
Shall we?
Revatron said---
"had they not been caught for it, I don't see why burning the loader could be classified as a dumb thing to have done".
If they weren't caught, this would have been a brilliant act of genius??? Are you really this stupid?
Revatron said---
"Is it any dumber than killing people"?
WOW. MORE great logic and reasoning skills. We're comparing "depth of dumbness" now? You sir are truly the dumbest.
Revatron said---
"You seem to be concerned about the "malicious, senseless, criminal act of vandalism" from a legal standpoint".
BINGO! You figured that out! I guess cutting and pasting my words exactly was a great aid.
You're only half right though. I'm concerned about the "malicious, senseless, criminal act of vandalism" from an ethical standpoint. Ethics--- something you evidently have ZERO of.
Revatron said---
"I don't care at all about that. You are a girl".
You don't care AT ALL about "malicious, senseless, criminal acts of vandalism"??? You sir, are not only stupid, but a complete shitbag. If having a brain and a conscience makes me "a girl", then I'm guilty as charged.
I guess I just need to stop and think how I would feel if I were a Michigan loader. Would I want somebody to burn me? I have been unfair. It still had plenty of dirt to move and who am I to disrespect that?
Revatron---
The more you speak, the worse it gets. Going forward, anyone with a brain will surely dismiss your posts as trash. Please stop. I'm almost starting to feel guilty. I'm starting to believe, I'm picking-on someone with legitimate special needs.
Matt---
You can actually defend this freak (Revatron) with a straight face??? Now I understand why your avatar has a shit-eating grin. lol This guy is not a foreigner, or deaf. He just has no brain or conscience.
Matt---
You're a laid-back guy. I can respect that. However, your post about--- "not saying anything your mother wouldn't approve of", is a bit of an exaggeration. You've gotten pretty heavy into the sex acts discussions, and blowjobs on many occasions. You might be clean, but not squeaky (pun intended) clean. Everything is relative.
As for your blog---
You keep saying everyone is welcome, as long as they are civil. I went there this afternoon, and simply "seconded" a comment made by "Candy". I cut and pasted her words exactly, and wrote-- "Well said. Thank You" afterwrds. It was deleted immediately.
If I'm not welcome that's cool. Given my complete honesty and candor regarding your blog's practices in the past, I understand. But why not state that openly? You keep saying everyone is welcome as long as they remain civil. I have NOT experienced that to be true. How can re-pasting a previous comment possibly be un-civil???
Candy and Nuts said---
"nice way to promote ATWA start a gasoline fire of a machine and let all the air, plants, people and desert animals get full of pollution".
Well said! Thank You!
Revatron also fails to recognize, that taxpayers paid for that equipment with their hard-earned money. Of course, he obviously has no conscience or class, and we're back to square one.
Dickhead said...
Crime is bad and it is wrong and it is illegal.
You are a girl scout.
Please get a vasectomy.
Dickhead, FWIW I personally have never deleted any of your comments. Other admins have but I understand why. It may have gotten to the point where somebody was so sick of it that they were shooting on sight, I don't know. We do agree though that you are articulate and knowledgeable in the subject matter and could be a great contributor over there if you wanted to be.
Certain things just aren't tolerated at Eviliz. If you stay away from those things you will see that you are welcome to participate.
I've wasted enough of the Col's time. My apologies...
Vera wants to hear this Harold True vs. someone skirmish!
Where could one find it, please?
Vera,
Revatron was referring to an interview with Harold True by Judy Hansen (a colleague of Bill Nelson).
It can be viewed at...
http://www.youtube.com/user/qjxbljsc6?feature=mhee#p/u/29/UZfRsYavQ90
Vera, see for yourself http://www.lsb3.com/?zx=fcfd9c0ca3840999
I was linked there through Katie's profile which is why I thought she might be involved. I guess they just reposted it from somewhere else.
I'd say it's a small argument when the interviewer is insisting that Suzanne knew Tex. Harold is clearly sick of hearing that old question.
Vera, this Revatron idiot is referring to a thread dated August, 25, 2011 on LSB3.com.
This is a telephone interview with Harold True, probably occurring back in the 80's or 90's, and he alleges that I was arguing with Harold True, which of course is imbecilic and impossible, as I was not involved in the phone conversation.
>>Revatron just said: I was linked there through Katie's profile which is why I thought she might be involved. I guess they just reposted it from somewhere else.>>>
I'm not sure what this even means. This is his usual bullshit. If he got it off my profile, then he saw it on the LSB3.com blog. He's blowing shit as usual because he's too stupid to live.
You're welcome to read through the threads if you wish. There is no instance that I argue with Harold True. Dumb, dumb & dumber.
We have already established that you are not the interviewer. I just stated that I found it on the lsb3.com site that I was linked to through your profile.
Do you guys have any affiliation with the interviewers at all? Because you have LSB3.COM plastered across the video. Can you see the confusion?
Revatron, the LSB3.com is posted on material posted on that blog, just as evilliz.com is posted on the material that Liz has on her blog.
Does that mean she invented it??? No!
It means she's watermarking it in case someone wants to take it.
That's all it means.
And I'll say one more thing. Matt made a big dissertation about people blogging on that blog, that if you're civil, your comment won't be deleted.
I know from personal experience that's bullshit.
I've posted nice comments over there, and invariably I was attacked by some "member" that doesn't like me, because "I think I know everything" and tells me to fuck off, then I reply heatedly, and the "fight is on".
Matt likes to say that everyone can comment on that blog. That's bullshit. That's why they don't get a lot of comments on that blog, because you're all a bunch of fucking bullies.
You included.
Patty and Ken have commented on LSB3.com many times, and even after they have often told me to fuck myself, I never attack them. Never.
I would just like the same consideration applied to me. Don't delete me or attack me, simply because I said "hi".
That's fucking bullshit.
I don't do that to them. In fact, if Matt or Liz commented at LSB3.com, I would just say hi. I wouldn't attack them.
That's the difference between the two blogs.
And I'll say one more thing. Sometimes I have made comments that were a little heated, but I've seen other comments that were a little heated, but not deleted.
Matt, if you're listening, sometimes it's interesting to hear another side. Not just this sickening "nice photo, thanks."
Jesus. Get some life into the subject.
We're talking about Charles Manson here. It's not like walking in a meadow and picking daisies. We're talking grisly death.
There are lots of opinions. Sometimes they don't jive with yours. And that should be okay.
If you don't agree, then volley. Don't just fucking delete!!!
The watermarks over at Evilz must be pretty light because I can't seem to see them.
Thanks (didn't mean to start a scrap up! Or continue one),
Revatron, the last time I've seen the evilliz.com watermark posted is the August 11, 2011 thread about Diane Lake. Before that, it was on everything.
I'm guessing she stopped doing that, because on that thread, people were complaining about her stealing pictures off facebook. Diane asked her to take some pics off that she was offended by. This is the first time Liz was confronted by a family member about the pics she was stealing off Facebook. I'm guessing she got scared.
After that, she's not posting it.
LSB3.com doesn't steal pictures off Facebook. Period.
I'm not sure why you are asking me questions about this cult thread you're following. If you have questions about their doings, ask them.
You've worn out your welcome.
Get lost!!
Vera, no problem. I tried to explain it to you simply, but then the traffic started, so it got into a big convulted mess.
HA HA.
Not your fault at all. :)
Katie said...
I'm not sure why you are asking me questions about this cult thread you're following. If you have questions about their doings, ask them.
Are you saying you're not affiliated with LSB3? It's under "My Blogs" in your profile. Anyway, I don't follow them.
You know, I thought that might be the case. I was even hoping so because, you see, the problem is I never asked you any questions about Evilz.
Katie said...
"Patty and Ken have commented on LSB3.com many times, and even after they have often told me to fuck myself, I never attack them. Never."
Katie, I've never told you to fuck off once. Never have and never will. It takes a lot to get me there and when I do, I just turn the computer off.
As for the assumptions some of you are making about Eviliz, for the most part, that's all they are and that's a fact.
All the minions on Evilliz blog think that Matt is the second coming.
I just want to know from Ken & Patty.
Matt said they deleted all the comments, not him.
I just want to know if that's true.
Ken...Patty....is it true? Are you the ones who sensely deleted??? Is Matt truly the god-like hero?
Oh, and Patty, please stop referring to yourself as "Patty". It's so fucking creepy.
I can't believe that no one has addressed that before.
And does your husband like being referred to as "the Patties"?
Jesus. Does he have an identity? A name?
Breaking Story at LSB3.COM!
Debra Tate's house has been robbed... Sharon's stuff stolen!!
Debra believes she knows the thief.
Screw this conversation... check it out!
Right. I follow evilz, but I never asked you any questions about them. Capiche? You are arguing with yourself at this point.
Don't let me stop you.
That's old news from 4 days ago.
http://truthontatelabianca.com/topic/4480-some-of-sharons-things-stolen/page__fromsearch__1
Yet another interesting thread bogged down by the raving's of some nutbag. This is no doubt why Liz deletes comments at her site so we don't have to wade through all this shit everytime we want to read a new post.
Well said, adam.
i work in an elementary school and theres less drama and bickering. Im all for laughing at all sides of internet fights, but this is crossing over the line of pathetic now. Whatever happened to the funny arguments of the
"onions" VS the "minions" now those were some classics.
wait, are people saying Star is Charlie's girlfriend? just curious...
The Colonel should try to remember that back then, in those pre-feminist days, women were brainwashed from birth to find a man to give up their identities to. They even gave up their names. They became Mrs John Smith, no longer even existing.
When you are socialised like this from the start and then all the men in your life have been a let-down, and then along comes this very special man, who simultaneously gives out deep love, yet is forceful and powerful too, where is the mind likely to go?
And it is a mistake to under-estimate Charlie's sexual abilities. To this day, I hear men say that they think having a big cock and being able to bang away for hours is what women want. If they watched any Youporn, they would see how bored and fed-up the women are with this. How fast all those 'uh-uh-uhs' stop when the guy does. What I mean is, it is still rare for a man like Charlie to come along, a man who actually seems to find beauty in any woman, who gives them confidence, helps them to love themselves, and then applies total consideration during sex, spending all the time on GENTLY exploring her, taking hours of teasing foreplay. It made Mary his slave, she couldn't do enough for him.
Same for the others. This is the kind of thing that will make you start over-looking a man's flaws. It is that rare. Add in LSD, the real stuff, isolation in that weird make-believe movie set, and group psychosis will do the rest. I mean honestly, not brainwashed. Get real. go and read about the Stanford prison experiments to see how fast it can happen. Some of those girls were with Charlie for over two solid years. As if their minds were in the right place.
No, the one who really should take blame for murder is Bobby! He came and went, was not under Charlie's influence, and brutally murdered a gentle hippie, afterwards strutted about it and has told a dozen different stories since! Many of those stories traducing his victim! I am at a loss to understand why the Colonel 'adores' him, while the terrified brain-washed Leslie, who had to be forced to stab a dead woman and is bitterly remorseful, is termed 'a murdering harlot"!
Charles Manson was the catalyst or causitive agent that turned these people from normal, decent human beings into killers.SAYS MELEE
NOPE HE DIDNT. IT WAS DRUG BURNS AND $$$$ THAT STARTED EACH MURDER EXCEPT PARENT. LINDA SHOULD HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH. CHARLIE DIDNT SEND THEM ANYWHERE, THAT WAS TEX AND DECARLOS THING.
JUST AS TODAY WE HAVE PEOPLE KILLING THEIR PARENTS AND FAMILY FOR $ TO BUY CRACK/METH.
TEX KNEW HE HAD FUCKED UP AT TATES AND DECARLO WAS THERE TO PROMISE A WAY OUT . TEX TOOK IT AND DECARLO SKIPPED TOWN WITH SHERRI. LONG LIST OF OFFENCES IN TORONTO WITH DANNY AND SHERRI..BUT ONCE AGAIN...ALL IN THE PAST.
T
truth finally told by Nick!
If by "Nick" you mean Shreck, he has written so much supposition and inaccuracy in his book that the best one can call it is "fairy tale." It makes Ed Sanders look like the apostle Paul !
Post a Comment