We know that Sharon Tate did not die that night, but was she even pregnant?


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.

CorpseOK 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.

Corpse dropped

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.

Corpse cropped with arrows

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.

Corpse with pighead

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.


BaphometAddendum: 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.

Tate 1

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.

Tate 1 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:

Tate 1 contrast enhanced enlarged

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:

Tate 1 Rosy Cross

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.

Corpse with arrows at rosesThis 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:

Tate 5

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?

Tate 2 COntrast enhanded

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.

Yet another:

Tate 3

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.

Tate 11

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.

Tate 6

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.

Tate 12

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.

48 thoughts on “We know that Sharon Tate did not die that night, but was she even pregnant?

  1. That rose and cross sealed it for me. That was definitely staged. And a damn sharp eye to catch it. Good work.


  2. I don’t think the “rose” is a flower. It looks more like one of the outdoor Christmas light bulbs my family used in the 70’s. Especially in the photo with the dog. Rather than moving the “rose” to appear in the dog photo, I suspect a string of lights ran along the top of the wooden fence. Some of the bulbs point upwards, like in the fist photo, and others have flopped over and point towards the camera, like in the dog photo. In the dog photo, Sharon stands in front of a different section of the fence than in the fist photo, as the horizontal fence posts behind her are mismatched in the dog photo. So we’re seeing a second light bulb from the string of lights in that photo. Also, in the dog photo you can make out a string or wire running along the top of the horizontal fence post to Sharon’s left and apparently connecting to the red bulb. I don’t mean to suggest that the idea of the rose and cross symbolism isn’t valid — I think it is. Symbols, after all!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. As I am reading your post I just want to clarify that there has been an official explanation of the “rose” thise are Christmas lights that were placed on the fence by Candice Bergen when she lived in the Cielo house with Terry Melcher and it has been mentioned that it served for two purposes: help guests identify the house from the highway below and purely decorative. There photos of the Cielo house at night with thise lights on, very spooky


    1. Yes, I see clearly now that those are bulbs, but still suggest the effect was to suggest a rose, as the color red appears in each photo. These photos were staged and altered in my view, by people knowing the fake deaths were on the horizon (and Terry Melcher was right the the heart of the Laurel Canyon scene to boot.) as another of our writers has suggested, these clues are left deliberaly, as a means of confession, so that those who pull off these gruesome stunts can ease their consciences by saying “we left enough clues for you to figure it out.”


  4. I see a kinda grinning goat- but then again . . .

    And the aside joke about living above the parents in the garage . . . That’s definetly a created meme directed at the younger generation- many of whom now spend upwards of half their take home to live in crappy apartments just so they can say they don’t live at home. When did that start by the way? My parents were in their mid twenties in the early sixties when they got married. They both lived at home until they got married. That was common back then- the bachelor/bachelorette pad was before marriage existed basically for people like Hugh Hefner- and was not at all normal.


    1. Nothing personal against kids still living at home. I just knew that I was going to be the only one seeing a beast there, so tried to deflect criticism by acknowledging it in advance.


      1. Great catch on the “beast”, I think it has some merit…it you look at the extreme closeup and include the “bloody” rope…the rope looks a bit like one of baphomet’s horns.


        1. Why do you assume she had a choice? Her father was military intelligence, so she was probably chosen for the role by people overseeing his activities. She merely morphed into her younger sister and lived on, but apparently did not have an easy life after the fake massacre.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. And is Roman Polanski staying in Europe becauase that is where Sharon is in hiding and not due to extraction laws surrounding criminal activities? Just a thought my opinion is still out on the pictures being fake. I’ll keep looking at them and make a better decision.


  5. Glad this topic was finally posted. Yes, the rose is a bulb and I will assume it is a Rosy Cross allusion and could certainly have something to do with the metallic bulb like objects aligned on the bloody carpet to look as if dropping from the keister of the model playing the strangled Sharon. That money shot photo of “Sharon” is probably ladened with symbols beyond the Baphomet head. If there is anyone here up on the hoo haw that goes with astrology/astronomy, maybe there is a constellation embedded in the patterns that give another clue as to what this ritual hoax was about. The mundane aspects are blatantly obvious now.
    PS- Best guess on the body double: A stenographer from the LAPD intelligence unit who was on maternity leave. She probably married one of the detectives and was more than happy to help out on a need to know basis. She knew well enough not to ask questions and probably never saw the photo until the internets, if then.


  6. It looks to me as if (other than the two b/w photos), Tate is wearing the exact same “blouse” and bikini bottom in all these photos.
    Were they all taken the same day? It would seem not, based on the apparent discrepancy in the stages of her pregnancy in the pics.
    Maybe she just really like that outfit and chose to wear it in all the time. You know, like most glamorous, starlets do.


    1. I haven’t thought much about that except to assume there was Sharon and a very pregnant woman, maybe as Ty says an LAPD gal on maternity leave. They crafted identical outfits for them but the really pregnant gal was busting at the seams. Sharon’s was probably propped out by some mechanical device. She looks twenty pounds lighter than her stand in however, so it is only power of suggestion that helps us imagine she is pregnant.


  7. I also notice, in the photo where Sharon is facing the camera and shielding her eyes, that the canyon background of trees has been removed and replaced with a blue background…more obvious photo tinkering.


    1. I remember that now from the emails circulating back then. Please add anything from your notes from the flurry of research … I know there is more to uncover here. There is always much to be learned in comments.

      There are also more photographs. There is one of Tate laying down on a couch, showing off her baby bump, where I just know the head has been superimposed in the darkroom. I could have gone on and on …

      Liked by 1 person

    2. The canyon comes and goes just like Sharon’s bump. The fence in the profile shot is in the exact same position as the shading the eyes shot but there the canyon has indeed vanished.
      For my own purposes, I think the LAPD stenographer loaned her pregnant torso and possibly her arm(s) but those might be Sharon’s legs. The bikini bottom would be the logical place to do the splicing. ST’s cheesecake shots strongly suggest those are her legs.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. There must be something about that tacky “favorite outfit” that made tinkering with the photos a bit easier.


      2. You could be right. We are agreed that Tate was not pregnant, so how they did it is the issue. I saw the arm position as awkward, and imagined that they had both models pose in that fashion with scores of photos where the arms were in alignment so that they could make a splice there. But I can see a swimsuit line being easier too, if the leg width aligns.


  8. At first glance a saw a demon face in the crime scene blowup but then weirdly as I stared at it I saw cat faces or racoon faces, can’t decide. The treeline in the fence pix lines up with where the splice would most likely be. The dog pic where she’s holding her dog to her throat is just plain weird. I’ve cuddled my dog and he’s tiny but I’ve never clutched him to my throat like a scarf or something. The Rosicrucian makes sense to me too. The pic with the man with his ear to her belly looks different from the others in that both look heavier than other pix; his stomach and her tighs really caught my eye. The last pic is absolutely manipulated and both heads look added. Idk who the man is supposed to be but in that pic he looks to have a scar running down from his shoulder & across his chest and if the man being represented there doesn’t have the same mark then there’s proof. Regardless it does look as tho pix were manufactured to give the appearance of pregnancy. Very very nice catch and something I’d never thought about before. I had boiled the entire thing down to Manson and crew as being CIA MK-ULTRA victims.


  9. Not all women are huge at the time of delivery. As a nurse I have seen many you would never know was even pg if you didn’t turn them side ways. Also if you notice the rose/light bulb was first on the right side of the pic and with the dog it is to the left of her. That strange move she is making is a cheerleader move that was popular at that time. Also the “mush” you see under her neck on the floor is what a throat looks like cut open, murder isn’t neat, seen too many. The cross is a fence rail that is being used for a trealese. Rose grow all year except the hot months out west. I live in AZ and roses are the only thing I can’t kill lol. Sharon Tate was a beautiful actress. Oh as for the speedo, Roman, like most Europeans wear them and find nothing wrong with them.


  10. That is not a rose behind Sharon Tate .
    Theiy Christmas lights that Candace Bergen put up when she lived at the house with Terry Melcher . There are lots of other picture is where you can see the whole set of lights .


    1. yes, that has been brought to our attention before….but how do you know for certain that it is true? Did you see Candice Bergen string up the lights or only read about it?


  11. Early photo fakery of the Atom bomb tests have now been exposed. They were all faked. And they were really poor fakes, but the public was way more gullible back then. The moon shots were all faked, again, easily exposed due to upgrades in technology and due to whistleblowers. And yes, the whole Manson case was a hoax as you have proven with others. Now they still do fake shooting events, Sandy Hook was faked, and a very poor fake, exposed by many, Boston Marathon bombing was fake, again, exposed by many. The list goes on, dozens of fake shootings.


  12. Just released, The Haunting of Sharon Tate, movie about the Tate event.

    The role of Abigail Folger, heiress to the Procter & Gamble coffee imperium of her dad, is played by none other than Lydia Hearst, actress daughter of actress Patricia Hearst, better known as Patty Hearst, who acted in the kidnapping event by the Symbolic Hibernation Army and great-granddaughter of William Randolph “Citizen Kane” Hearst, the inventor of fake news.

    But please let this curious coincidence not wake anyone up, let’s stick to Walmart levels, everything else is “meltdown”.


      1. Starting with the fact that the cause of the ship’s sinking is hotly debated. If you go to the “Sinking” section of the above Wikipedia page on the U.S.S. Maine itself, you’ll learn that shortly after news of the disaster came to light, it was first reported to have been an “accident”. Later, it was suggested that the Maine was attacked and sunk by the Spanish Navy, possibly by a mine the Spaniards implanted on the sea-bed near where the ship foundered.

        Further digging of the abovementioned Wikipedia link also leads us to the “Investigation” section. In it, the page mentions that shortly after the disaster, several inquiries were held into the cause(s) of the maritime disaster. The first one was held in 1898 by the Spanish Crown (Del Peral and De Salas inquiry), which concluded that the sinking was caused by a “spontaneous combustion of the coal bunker, located adjacent to the munition stores” inside the ship, implying that it was a unplanned explosion, thereby an accident.

        That same year, the United States held its own inquiry into the disaster (Sampson Board’s Court of Inquiry), which concluded that “based on the fact that the majority of witnesses stated that they had heard two explosions and that part of the keel was bent inwards” the ship was blown up by a mine. (Ironically, it’s claimed that the Sampson inquiry “has been unable to obtain evidence fixing the responsibility for the destruction of the Maine upon any person or persons”, leaving open to various theories as to who was responsible if she was sunk by an outside force. So why did America go to war with Spain if it wasn’t proven beyond any doubt that they were responsible for what happened?)

        Years later, in 1910-11, a second inquiry was held in the United States (Vreeland Board’s Court of Inquiry), which also focused on retrieving the maritime disaster’s dead victims from the wreck of the U.S.S. Maine (more on that later). The inquiry concluded that the wreck’s demise was caused by an “external explosion” that “triggered the explosion of … magazines” found within the bowels of the ship, although they also said that “the bending of frame 18 was caused by the explosion of the magazines, not by the external explosion.” The “frame 18” part, I suppose, is meant to refer to the bending of metal plates on/inside the vessel. What makes no sense to me, however, is the fact that in one instance they claim the event was sparked by an “external explosion”, whereas in another instance they say otherwise. Unless I’m getting it wrong, you can’t have it both ways.

        The latest inquiries were held in 1974 (Rickover investigation), 1998 (National Geographic investigation), and 2002 (Discovery Channel Unsolved History investigation). The first and third inquiries agree with the Del Peral and De Salas inquiry’s version that the disaster was an accident that was caused by a coal-fire explosion within the bunkers of the ship. The 1998 inquiry’s verdict was inconclusive, stuck between the versions provided by both the Spanish and American inquiries into the disaster – that it was either an accident caused by “spontaneous combustion” or that it was a premeditated assault caused by an underwater mine explosion.

        The numerous contradictions found in the inquiries alone suggest that we’re looking at a fake here, but I don’t intend to stop with just those examples. Stayed tuned for more info coming up.


      2. And here are the important parts of this story: as we all know, the press, under the thumb of media publishing giants and credited god-founders of “Yellow Journalism” Hearst & Pulitzer, immediately went with the latter scenario suggested by the contemporary Sampon Board case of the sinking being foul-play by Spain in order to inflame public sentiment against the Spanish so as to justify America going into a costly conflict with Spain, which was a huge boom for the war economy, not to mention a great opportunity for the victors to claim more natural resources, which opens up more opportunities for business interests such as the sugar barons to establish plantations and cultivate highly-desired crops or foodstuffs for the West. (Cuba, for example, has a multi-billion-dollar sugar industry, which is great for the ruling class’s monetary investments in the sector. It once belonged to Spain before the late 19th century, which coincides with the Maine event.)

        According to my research, $10.33 billion was the cost of the Spanish-American War in 1898. In 2022 dollars, it would cost almost $370 billion, if my calculations are correct. Nice steal, eh? And shortly after the war ended, under the terms & conditions of the Treaty of Paris (1898), Spain got from America $20 million in reparations “to cover infrastructure” as compensation for losing its territories (Cuba and the Philippines) to the United States, which in today’s money would be $650 million. Our tax dollars hard at work, as usual. (I’d also like to mention that the war lasted from April 21August 13, 1898, which would be 3 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days. They always love to put their own numbers in such stories.)

        Learn more about the details at:




  13. I find it very hard to believe, that the murder of Sharon Tate did indeed happen?!!,…What would it benifit, to have “faked” this all, after all, there was more than one person who was murdered at that time,….as anyone thought to ask if where they are now,….other than in the graveyard???


    1. In fact, no one died that night. This was like the final act of something called “Operation Chaos,” designed to kill the Vietnam protest movement by associating long hair and drugs with some of the most deviant characters ever invented. Here’s an 80-page paper to read on the subject, if you have it in you. http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf

      Sharon did not die. She became her little sister, Patty, who has since died, as far as I can tell.


      1. Omg she’s not patti!!!! Idk who the hell this patti person is but Sharon would not change her looks just to change them! I don’t think patti is her sister but it’s not Sharon!!!! Why make yourself uglier ?


      2. Don’t be surprised if they’ll stage a fake murder of a “renown doctor” by a “crazed anti-vaxxer” to completely discredit the anti-vaccination movement in the same way these parasites destroyed the Vietnam protest movement’s credibility by associating them with the phony Tate-LaBianca murders.


  14. Quentin Tarantino’s movie Also suggests she didn’t die. Can you compare Heath Ledger and Sebastian Gorka? One ‘dies’ in 2008 and the others paper trail begins in 2008. Same voice, teeth, eyes etc.


  15. I think it’s entirely rude to speculate Sharon wasn’t pregnant you guys! I definitely think she was and I’m pretty sure she DID die. I don’t think it happened like they said no, but it’s not some fake cover up, there’s a lot that doesn’t add up I admit! The pictures and even the crime scene photos are entirely strange… she doesn’t look pregnant in her autopsy photos… something is up. But I think there’s something to it that doesn’t involve Sharon. The photos of her on the lawn are clearly different times in the same outfit , she loved that outfit not weird. But why is there a cross??? Shouldn’t the fence go all the way to the end? Why does it cut off in the middle? Also videos and photos were not of good quality back then… that could explain some of the things you guys are seeing, but the rose is actually Christmas lights. As for her stomach being different sizes I don’t know… it’s definitely weird. But I do think she was pregnant. Always will be a mystery surrounding their deaths.


    1. Part of the psyop was forceful removal of a fetus from the mother’s body. So even though Sharon was not pregnant, they had to do some photo trickery to make it appear so. The death scene was never meant to be seen by the public at large, only imagined. Ergo, they goofed it up pretty good, including Sharon’s shiteating grin.


    1. We know that it is a Christmas light. We’ve known that from the beginning. It is also used as a symbol. That you know that she had lights up all year is a highly changeable statement. You’re just a blog commenter. You could be anyone.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s