A remarkable set of photos were taken of actress Sharon Tate prior to her alleged death on August 9, 1969. These photos bear closer scrutiny, but first some more basic questioning of assumptions. And please be advised that if you click to go beneath the fold, there will be one gory photo, a fake one, but gory.
There is widespread knowledge now that the Manson/Tate affair was a public hoax, the culmination of a long series of manipulations of public opinion via music, hair and dress, the hippie culture to alienate the mainstream from youth culture, and to take a burgeoning movement of intellectual freedom and exploration among youth of that era … and kill it. The Tate murders were the final act. No one died that night, and no one went to prison. Those still alive (who have not died of natural causes, that is) are free and of retirement age now.
But the antiwar movement died. The sixties ended. It was all walking corpses after the Manson/Tate affair.
Somewhere in the comments on this blog over the past couple of years there was some questioning, a bit facetious, about Sharon Tate’s baby – if she did not die, what became of the kid? He/she would be 47 as we questioned the matter, and some even went looking for movie stars bearing a resemblance to Tate of that age. However, our readers and the other writers here are a bit ahead of the curve on this, and asked a more basic question: Was Sharon Tate even pregnant?
The idea that Tate was killed, and that a maniacal charismatic hippie ordered her baby cut from her belly added to the horror of that evening. In 1969 photos were not disseminated of the supposed corpse, so people did not know that there was no indication of a baby cut from the womb.
OK then, that’s ugly. But do note that the belly is intact, no baby has been cut out, and what the hell are those objects strewn about to the left? They look like artificial roses. More on that later.
But once we’ve established that no baby-otomy was done, we need once again to be sure we are asking the right question. Is this even Sharon Tate? The head is obscured enough that it could be someone else. Here is a blowup of that portion of the photo.
Can you judge by this if that is the head of Sharon Tate? I cannot, not conclusively anyway. But let’s operate on the assumption that it is. Then take a closer look at the area to the right of the bottom of the face.
It looks like a gray mass of some sort, but is not hair. The end of the rope is wrapped around, but outside of that it looks like a mass of goo. Standing back, to me, it looks like photographic brushing, almost like something unimaginable, a subliminal suggestion. Please bear with me for one more blowup.
I am aware that if I look at a cloud long enough I will see bunnies, Abraham Lincoln and other faces. I know how highly speculative this is. But the orange arrows to me appear to be pointing at ears, the yellow to a snout, the black to a mouth and the gray to an eye. I am seeing a pig. That was, after all, the theme of that evening.
At the very least, however, we have some sort of darkroom monkey business to hide the imposition of Tate’s head on another body. I will label pig talk as highly speculative.
Addendum: The more I look at that creature, if it is that, the more I am seeing goat, and not pig. This led me to Baphomet, a symbolic goat of the Knights Templar, sum total of the universe, male and female, good and evil. However, if I am the only one seeing an animal there, maybe I will just quietly drop the matter. I’ll be in my apartment over my parents’ garage if you need me.
So assuming that is Tate’s head, and that it was superimposed on another body, we are again left with the question: Was Sharon Tate pregnant?
Here is a backyard photo of Tate, supposedly taken a few days before her death.
What is the object of this photo? It’s undignified, if you ask me. Women in the closing stages of pregnancy feel bloated and ugly, even grotesque. Some men will suggest that pregnant women at that stage are beautiful, but I never thought so. It is just a necessary part of reproduction. I suggest the object of this photo is to suggest “Look at me! Look at how pregnant I am!”
It’s an odd pose, elbow lifted up like that. She could have as easily allowed her arm to rest at her side, as the effect would be the same. There’s a reason for that. Here is the same photo, with contrast enhanced.
Are you seeing what I see? The effect of placement of her right arm is to divide the photo into two quadrants, that above, and that below the arm. Here’s a blowup of that arm portion of the photo:
Look at that line – that is darkroom splicing. What we are seeing are two images blended together. Are they both of Tate? Not very likely. Why would they do a splice when they had the whole woman there? The head of Sharon Tate has been place on another body, and the arm was used as a photographic masking device to hide the work.
One other thing … the lighting does not work. While the sun is obviously in front and to her right, the shadow cast by the arm on the clothing is from above and to the left. I doubt it is even a shadow, but rather just some more darkroom work so that the line running through the arm does not look so out-of-place.
Here’s the original photo now with two more things highlighted, and I want to thank Tyrone for spotting this:
There is one lone flower in the photo, a rose. I looked at it and thought it odd, but I know nothing of growing seasons in southern California, and so assumed that anything can bloom at any time down there. Tyrone was more insightful. Look to the right … a cross. A rose and a cross.
This takes us back to the black and white (actually sepia) photo of the corpse above with what appear to be roses laying about.
What is the significance of the rose and the cross? Rosicrucians, a masonic order, are leaving a signature. This whole affair was laden with symbolism of freemasonry.
Here’s another Sharon Tate look-how-pregnant I am photo:
Again with the rose and cross! This photo will not require much analysis, as it is hokey on the surface. It has been blurred to some degree, and again the lighting is strange. Look at how the arms are completely black. Look at the arching curve under the belly. The question is, what has been done with this photo?
I enhanced the contrast here to make it look more like a painting, because this is what they have done in the darkroom. The right arm (her right) is grotesquely long, and while she appears to be shielding herself from the sun with the other arm, not much shielding is going on. The arm, again, is out of place.
It appears that the head and the part of the right arm extending from the elbow have been superimposed in this photo. The shadow under the chin is suggestive, as it extends entirely under the neck, allowing a darkroom splice to be hidden. The rest of the body, from her right elbow down to below her knees, is our stand-in. I can think of no other reasons for the distortions.
Again the rose. It gets moved around. This is a nice image, she and her dog. The lighting all looks normal, in my view. The setting is the same as the other photos.
Just one odd thing about this photo: She does not appear to be pregnant. Supposedly the blouse is covering the distended womb, but this looks nothing at all like the very pregnant woman above. This is just a photo of Sharon as she was at that time. Maybe they had plans for this photo, maybe a reason for her holding a dog. Maybe they decided that the mere suggestion that she was pregnant was well enough planted that they could just run this photo with a mild belly bump.
Do you sense, along with me, that this task is getting easier? The kitchen photo is of a woman in a full house dress of some kind. It is big enough to hide a pregnant woman, but there is no indication of a pregnant woman underneath. If there is monkey business in the photo on the right, I cannot see it, but we all know that in show business a woman can be made to look pregnant by means of pillows and stuffing. I would guess her to be maybe six months along at that point, if she is even pregnant. Since we have no convincing evidence she was ever nine months pregnant, six months would be speculative. I don’t like to speculate, as you can tell.
This is Tate with Voyteck Froykowski, the photo supposedly taken by Jay Sebring. Here we might see the real purpose of the dog, to hide a photo splice of the head. But it could just as easily be Tate with the blouse puffed out to appear to be hiding the pregnant belly. I must say, without wanting to be prurient, that Tate’s behind and thighs are very nicely shaped, not at all like that of a nine-month pregnant woman.
Froykowski looks awkward, holding the camera in such a way that it might suggest it to be used to hide yet another head splice. And we might wonder, why is Jay Sebring taking a photo of Froykowski taking a photo? What cut-ups! But in the end I accept this as a real photo, the problem being that Tate does not look pregnant, not really.
This is Tate and Frowkowski again. Daddies do this sort of thing, listen for the heartbeat. Of course, Voyteck is not the daddy, but this is Hollywood.
Bending over as he is, Frowkowski looks to be a much heavier set man than the photo above, but that could be the way we all look hunched over. More importantly, Tate is wearing her hair long in this photo, and it curves around under the chin. Her face looks off, as if she is fake smiling … the mouth smiles, but not the eyes. The lighting is confusing to this amateur, but it appears as though her left arm changes tone just below the shoulder. That could be just a photo defect. What I suggest, however, is that her head has again been superimposed on the stand-in, which is why her hair is tightly wrapped in all other photos, but free-flowing here.
I wanted to add one last photo – it has the usual problems, the dark area below her head, the thin face for a nine-month pregnant woman. The face appears to be more sharply defined than the rest of the body. But again, this photo overall could be real. Leering me says that her midsection looks like that of an attractive young woman, and that the blouse could be merely puffed out to make her look pregnant. The lighting appears right.
Something else stands out about this photo: body language. She is leaning into him, and would fall over if he were not there. His smile looks real, she looks natural. I don’t want to speculate here – after all, I have avoided all speculation so far, right? To me, these look like two people who like each other. I am not enamored by his near-Speedo shorts, as “it” is kind of out there, making this an R-rated blog. But they are both comfortable with him in a state of near undress, with his unit on obvious display. Perhaps we are looking at lovers.
That’s all I got. As always, I look forward to comments. I learn so much that way.
I wish to give credit where due here to Annette and some of the others who kicked these photos around for quite a while. My piece here is the culmination of that process, and I am sure I have overlooked other aspects. I wanted to get it off the shelf.