Friday, November 13, 2015

Lindsay Lohan dresses up as Sharon Tate

http://www.people.com/article/lindsay-lohan-dresses-up-sharon-tate-charles-manson-birthday?xid=rss-topheadlines

34 comments:

grimtraveller said...

Whether Lindsay Lohan knew it was Charles Manson's birthday is kind of a moot point. The question is how many people that initially saw the picture were aware that it was Charles Manson's birthday ?
How many people genuinely care ? Would it be less insensitive / not a big deal if she had done it a week before or three days later ?

katie8753 said...

Thanks Venus. I don't think she looks anything like Sharon Tate.

Dilligaf said...

Sharon Tate is still dead and apparently, so is Lohan's career. With Hitler's birthday just months away, I can't wait to see what this wacky girl comes up with for that.....

katie8753 said...

Hi Dill! Yeah I read somewhere that she wants to play Sharon Tate in some hapless Lifetime movie.

I never saw Sharon Tate in an outfit like that, and I never saw anyone in the 60's wearing mid-thigh boots.

Maybe she'd be better off playing Eva Braun. She could put all her "acting efforts" into making the public believe that living in a bunker with a syphilis-ridden brain dead guy was FUN! LOL.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"She could put all her 'acting efforts' into making the public believe that living in a bunker with a syphilis-ridden brain dead guy was FUN!"


He may have been syphilis ridden and awful in almost every way one can imagine, but brain dead isn't a term I'd apply to him. He smacked up much of Europe, got pretty much every country involved in fighting and set into motion events that still resonate today in the most powerful way, like we saw just three days ago.

katie8753 said...

Grim, When I said "brain dead", I didn't mean he was a vegetable. I'm no expert on Hitler, but I believe that when syphilis eats the brain up, it's pretty much done.

He did smack up most of Europe when his brain was still functioning. But when he attacked Russia I do think that his brain cells were deteriorating rapidly. He was ego-maniacal and thought he could beat anyone. He was advised against it, but even though Napoleon tried it and lost, he thought he could beat them. And of course, he couldn't.

In fact, I've read that in the "end days" of Hitler's life, when Berlin was being invaded and he was reduced to the Bunker, he was confused and scared.

katie8753 said...

Hitler was running, in a broad sense of terms, a "cult" formed by the German people.

Let me explain. Hitler came to power when the Germans were starving and on the bottom. The First World War left them devastated, and he rose to power promising them all kinds of goodies.

And they believed him. When he started bombing, destroying and taking over countries, it just escalated. He was the new "god" to save them. They were the "new race", according to Hitler. And they believed him.

But there were many in the Third Reich who didn't totally agree with his tactics. There was a population that thought his tactics were wrong. That his "mowing people down" was not part of the plan. I think by 1939 or 1940, Hitler really starting "busting a bulb" on his ego maniacal thinking, and starting scaring certain people. Certainly by the middle of WW II there were a lot of people re-thinking his motives.

sunset77 said...

I just ran across this story on another site, I was going to mention it here, but I see Venus beat me to it. I wasn't real sure who Lindsay Lohan was, I thought she was some type of singer, I looked and she does have a few songs and music videos. I didn't think any of them were good enough to even post a link to however. I must have her confused with some other singer.

I guess Lohan is that girl that's always getting in trouble for driving and getting sent to rehab. I looked on IMDB, she has a good many credits in what look to me like mostly B movies. Why she would dress up like Sharon Tate I don't know unless it's some type of publicity stunt. Sharon Tate was murdered about 16 years before Lohan was even born. From the little I know about Lohan, the words "train wreck" come to mind.

If anyone is interested, her Instagram page is-->HERE.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"Hitler was running, in a broad sense of terms, a 'cult' formed by the German people"


I remember being taught the WW2 history at school and it's taught a particular way. But rather like the entire Manson/Helter skelter/TLB episode, the "official" version is written from the glorified view of the victorious hunter. The real story is a lot more nuanced than the general picture we all get.
When Hitler insisted that Russia was attacked, it was the culmination of his hatred for them. He'd been thinking about getting rid of the Russians even before he became leader of Germany. He thought they were subhuman. Didn't stop him signing pacts with them though.
Hatred and overconfidence can be a powerful combo, often blinding one to common sense and logic. As Adolf found out.

Venus said...

I actually think Lindsay Lohan is talented--or she was, anyway. This caught me off guard tho. For one thing, as Katie said, the boots are all wrong. Maybe she is a Sharon fan and meant it in a good way, but her timing was a bit off. I was unaware it was Manson's birthday and maybe Lindsay was too. It could've been just some unfortunate timing on her part.

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt here. I think she was maybe trying to post a genuine tribute to Sharon and, if so, that's nice. The clothes weren't really correct tho.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Venus!!

Venus said...

Katie!!!!!!

katie8753 said...

Venus I was re-reading Debra Tate's book about Sharon "Recollection" and she mentions Lindsay Lohan giving Sharon a tribute with a t-shirt.

What Lindsay should have done was hire someone to re-create one of Sharon's outfits to model.

I doubt if Lindsay knows when Manson's birthday is. In fact, isn't there a question on when his real birthday is??

grimtraveller said...

Yeah. Some say November 11th, some say the 12th. A birth date shrouded in mystery.....just like Jesus !
One can start to see why, during the hippy era when every minute detail of a person's life, music, movies, clothes etc was given some kind of mystical significance, Charlie's young and impressionable friends came to see him as the 2nd coming, what with not knowing his biological Dad, an unsure birth date, him predicting the fall of the Haight and it happening etc......

Dilligaf said...

The demise of Haight was seen by many before the Wooly Hophead supposedly called it. The Death of The Hippie mock funeral signified the changes in the area by late '67, so the Wooly Hophead was hardly a prophet on that one. Maybe more of a profit, taking money off of others...

beauders said...

I think Manson's actual birthdate is November 11, 1934 but he often says he was born on November 11, 1934 because that is Armistice Day (today it is Veterans Day) and easier to remember. The question is how difficult can it be to remember your own birthday?

maudes harold said...

LOL beauders

grimtraveller said...

Dilligaf said...

"The demise of Haight was seen by many before the Wooly Hophead supposedly called it. The Death of The Hippie mock funeral signified the changes in the area by late '67, so the Wooly Hophead was hardly a prophet on that one. Maybe more of a profit, taking money off of others..."


That rather misses the point. Whether or not most of the USA could see the demise of the Haight, most of the USA wasn't in the close proximity to Charlie's growing band of young, impressionable friends. You still had runaways flocking to the Haight in large numbers {which, ironically contributed to it's demise}, the Dead, Big Brother, Janis J, and the Airplane and a number of Bay Area bands still lived in or around there, John Lennon wanted to live there, George Harrison visited there in the summer of love {in fact, he was one person who was disgusted by what he saw and gave up acid as a result} and many still clung to the Hippy dream and Haight Ashbury was it's Mecca. And in that context, Charlie saying he could see it's demise and that going on to happen{ in a way, the mock funeral may well have emphasized Charlie's "vision"} would have been, in conjunction with a number of other factors, something that made a deep impression on them.
It certainly was to his profit.
My point is about the kind of things that brought so many young people to start seeing Charles Manson as Jesus, not whether or not it was justified or a sensible conclusion to come to.

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

"The question is how difficult can it be to remember your own birthday?"


You'd be surprised. In many African and Asian countries, up until the 60s and 70s, many people didn't even know their birthdays because it was not really regarded as an important thing. In fact, biblically, you find a similar thing. No specific dates.
It was mainly when people came over to Britain and other Western countries where one's 'birthday' is almost sacrosanct that people found they had to select birth dates as "born on the third Market day at the time Mpopelonkwe had seven of his cows stolen just before we saw half of a moon covered by the sun" meant nothing to the Western mind, though everyone locally knew exactly what was meant. But those Africans and Asians that had to "select" dates for convenience could often forget those dates !

Dilligaf said...

GT,

I got your point, I guess I disagree that "many young people to start seeing Charles Manson as Jesus". I believe that more people saw him for the charlatan that he was rather than the Pied Piper he envisioned himself to be.

I grew up a couple of hours away from there, and my own sister and her friends would make trips to The City during that time, but even they saw that it was a fool's dream to try to be a long term participant of it rather than a weekend visitor.

katie8753 said...

Well Manson isn't African or Asian. He's just a meathead that likes to say he was born on Veteran's Day.

grimtraveller said...

Dilligaf said...

"I got your point, I guess I disagree that 'many young people to start seeing Charles Manson as Jesus'"


I didn't make that point. Most young people that came into contact with him never saw him as Christ.
But a significant number did, including Linda, Susan, Leslie and Tex. I mean, it was only Family members that would have seen him that way but it was sufficiently well known for LASO officers to tell that to LAPD officers on August 10th '69.

katie8753 said...

"Well Manson isn't African or Asian"


If he was, he still might not be au fait with his birth date !

Dilligaf said...

GT,

From your post "My point is about the kind of things that brought so many young people to start seeing Charles Manson as Jesus, not whether or not it was justified or a sensible conclusion to come to."

At the risk of being pedantic, if this was your post, then it was your point. You stated that there were many things that caused many young people to see the Wooly Hophead as Jesus, and then you backpedal and say that a significant number did. Significant by whose estimation? Society's? Those in SF, or those in LA? Or was it significant by the Wooly Hopheads standards? Seems to me that the Wooly Hophead turned off far more people than you want to believe that he turned on. He was nothing more than one of the dregs of society with a Rasputian quality that preyed upon weak-minded adolescents for his own amusement and use. It could be argued that he picked them more than they picked him, using them until they no longer served a purpose to him. Not quite a Christ-like figure by most peoples definition.

katie8753 said...

Grim said: If he was, he still might not be au fait with his birth date !

But he's not....

candy and nuts said...

hi Katie babe! lindsay confirmed to play brenda nancy pitman a few years ago in some manson girls film so i doubt shes unaware of mansons bday,,plus it was trending ,lindsay maybe a crackhoe whatever but im sure shes smart enough to know what shes posting,,,,eva braun rem the seinfeld,,,hmmm what do u wear in a bunker,,,ive watched ll in meam girls and the parent trap she can act she also posed as Marilyn Monroes reenactment of mm last nudies nice but noone can fkn be MS,MONROE

Dilligaf said...

You can call me a cynic if you like, but I have been doing some thinking about this, and have concluded that this was a cold-blooded, selfish attempt to earn a job. When you look at her post and the hashtag cancer meets aquarius, one cannot help but make the connection to the Manson television show on NBC. It is my belief that she was using the memory of a murder victim for her own gain. I have referred to her as a whore in the past, but I believe that is speaking ill of whores, and is unfair to them....

candy and nuts said...

lol dil

grimtraveller said...

Dilligaf said...

At the risk of being pedantic, if this was your post, then it was your point. You stated that there were many things that caused many young people to see the Wooly Hophead as Jesus, and then you backpedal and say that a significant number did. Significant by whose estimation? Society's? Those in SF, or those in LA?


Hey, Dil, let's not have an internet fall out as is often the custom in cyberspace, eh ?
After Katie and I had stopped talking about Hitler and WW2, in my 4th post, I begin talking about the Family and the kind of things that caused some of them to see Charlie as Christ. If you look at that post, it is them and only them that I'm referring to. I specifically refer to them as his young and impressionable friends.
In my next post, I refer to them in the same way and at no point do I talk about anyone other than those in the Family. When I think about any of them coming to see him as Christ, it is pretty amazing that one did, let alone two, let alone the number that actually did. So in the context of that group, "so many young people" doesn't strike me as an out of place observation. I used the terms "so many" and "a significant number" interchangeably. I was certainly not backpedalling. The way I used them they mean the same thing --> a number that is not fixed as such, but which comprises of enough elements for me not to simply write off or ignore. If 10 of the Family thought he was Christ, that's a significant number to me. And that's "so many young people" to me.

Seems to me that the Wooly Hophead turned off far more people than you want to believe that he turned on


Ouch !
It's not really a matter of what I want to believe. It's a matter of remarking upon what I have noted. I don't disagree with you at all. Just going through the Spahn raid mugshots and trial testimony tells me that your point there is bang on the money.
I tend to address the kind of observations I made earlier towards those that he did turn on because it's those he turned on that went on to play most {or let's say, many} of the major roles in discussions that tend to crop up on these pages. I'm not really interested in those that weren't turned on, unless it's people like Terry Melcher.

It could be argued that he picked them more than they picked him, using them until they no longer served a purpose to him


It indeed could be argued that. It seems pretty clear to me that he was the deciding factor as to whether someone stayed as part of the group. I've never disputed that. At the same time, there was also something about him that drew those young people, which, while some of it was negative, not all of it was. Relationships between people rarely seem to me to be black and white or straightforward and simple to explain. Especially where you find power broker arrangements that don't seem like that to those on the bottom rungs.

Not quite a Christ-like figure by most peoples definition


By most peoples' definitions, no. But in this matter, we're not dealing with most peoples' definitions, we're dealing with the definitions of those who were under the delusion. The "most people" that you & I refer to would have comprised of many of the people {and by extension, their values and definitions} that that young brigade had rejected which partly was what drew them near Charles Manson in the first place.

grimtraveller said...

it's those he turned on that went on to play most {or let's say, many} of the major roles in discussions that tend to crop up on these pages


That should read "it's those he turned on that went on to play most {or let's say, many} of the major roles in events that give rise to many of the discussions that tend to crop up on these pages."


Pardonez Moi.

katie8753 said...

Hey Grim, are you a Charlie supporter? Just wondering...The way you talk, it's hard to figure out.

Manson was a grifter, a con man who preyed on people with problems, lesser mentalities, no self esteem, losers.

Do you agree?

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Hey Grim, are you a Charlie supporter? Just wondering...The way you talk, it's hard to figure out


As I pointed out in a recent thread, I'm neither pro nor anti Charles Manson.
I'm not one that thinks he is in prison under some USA govt conspiracy. While it is a matter of record that he, by his own hand, killed no one at Cielo or Waverly, that in itself does not make him innocent {I'd make the same observation of Susan Atkins}. Leaving aside the fact that he shot Lotsapoppa with every intention of killing him {and indeed, for 9 months was under the impression that he had done just that}, dealt a blow to Gary Hinman that the coroner said was potentially fatal and stabbed Shorty Shea in the event that killed him, I honestly do not think that those murders would have happened without him acting as a major catalyst and by the Californian laws of conspiracy at the time, he is guilty.
I'm not one that thinks he should be paroled or even re~tried, though I have stated on a number of occasions that I think that him being denied pro~per status was a clanging error, though I understand why.
But neither am I anti Manson. I don't think he's the most evil man alive or the most dangerous person in the known world. I do think he had a raw deal in the beginning of his life and having spent the last 32 years working with kids and having contact with some of them right up into their 40s and seeing people beyond childhood that I knew in childhood, to dismiss his start in life simply because others in similar or worse situations never went down the same path is something I won't do. Life is not that simple.
One of the things I like about Manson {though I say this about every human being} is the way he embodies all the contradictions of the human condition. There are certain people that just seem to demonstrate it in a more jazzy way than others but we all do if one looks hard enough.
So yeah, you're right in a way, I can see how it can appear that I flow one way then another when it comes to him and other Family members for that matter. But it really depends on what we happen to be talking about. At times I'll emphasize what a liar he's been. Other times I'll remark on how loving he could be. And at other times I'll remark on how he did himself no favours. I'll take a variety of angles with him because I've yet to come across the human being that is mono~dimensional.

Manson was a grifter, a con man who preyed on people with problems, lesser mentalities, no self esteem, losers
Do you agree?



Yes and no. Put like that, I find it too simplistic and it ascribes far too much intent on his part and makes him quite the mastermind. Ironically, the qualities of those you say he preyed on could describe Charlie himself.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Grim! I have another question for you. If you've answered it before, my apologies, but I'll ask again.

Jim from NY used to always refer to these murders as HTLB (Hinman, Tate, LaBianca), but I like to refer to them as HTLBS (Hinman, Tate, Labianca, Shea).

My question is this: do you think Charlie ordered all of these murders?

I personally think that he ordered them all EXCEPT Hinman. I do think he sent Bobby to Gary's house to get money, but I don't think Charlie told Bobby to kill him. I know Bobby has changed his story many times, but the story I believe is that he killed Gary because he was afraid he was going to the police if he lived.

I think Charlie did order all the other murders AFTER Hinman.

What are your thoughts on this?

grimtraveller said...

Although it probably is the appropriate word, I've always felt funny about the word 'order', I don't know why.
But I agree with you in part. I think he shot Lotsapoppa and I'm rather dubious about the self defence angle but I don't think he went there with murder in mind. But I think as an opportunity presented itself, especially with TJ backing out, Charlie took advantage. His story always sidesteps TJ's supposed role and it's TJ's role that casts a suspicious light there for me. Crowe was almost duty bound to go for Charlie once it became apparent that TJ was meant to be there for more than just moral support.
With Hinman, I don't believe murder was in the overall plan. But once Charlie had sliced Gary with the sword, then matters became dicey. It's interesting: Charlie complained to George Stimson that he was convicted for telling Bobby "You know what to do" and Bobby feels he was manipulated by Charlie in the situation. However, if you look at one of the points that determines whether or not something is a conspiracy, knowledge that there is a high degree of a death occurring during some base anti social activity is enough and Charlie's "You know what to do", given that Hinman wanted medical attention {he may have died if his face wound wasn't dealt with according to the medical examiner} which would have brought in the police, can it be seriously taken as anything other than "stop the guy talking" ? And how do you stop a guy talking ? Permanently ?
Whether Hinman was a robbery gone wrong or an attempt to put right a drug deal gone awry is actually irrelevant because the result for each participant is the same in both versions. So in Charlie speak, I would say that he put it to Bobby to get rid of Gary but in such a way that you couldn't really say "Charlie ordered this."
Tate/LaBianca, as far as I can determine, with all the evidence, with Charlie's explanations and attempts to side step the question over the years, with what the actual killers have said cumulatively over 46 years, with heaps of opinions from hundreds of bloggers on loads of sites over a 10 year period, and taking into account Charlie's unique way of getting people to do things without always being direct {something that actually happens a lot in the world, every day, if one looks hard enough}, they were Charlie's babies. Unlike probably most people, I do believe that HS has plenty of credence. I don't think it was the only motive {different murders carry with them slightly different motives in part} but I reckon it was not only in the air, it was on the ground too and helped the Family cohesion. It was the one thing that made them utterly different from so many other strands of the counterculture, with whom they had much in common.
And as for Shorty, I think that was his too. He admits to cutting Shorty and did any of the other participants really have that much of an axe to grind with Shorty ? Clem knew and worked with him pre the Family, Tex may have been a bloodthirsty maniac once given direction but there has emerged no evidence that he had any kind of hassles with Shorty. Bruce didn't seem to have hassles with him.
It seems to me that Charlie was used to getting whammed by the judiciary then he found himself in a situation for a couple of years where despite hassle from 'the man', he was still involved in crime yet nothing was sticking and I really do believe that psychedelics caused him to think he was Christ and as such could predict/prophesy events and get away with pretty much anything.

katie8753 said...

I agree, I don't think murder was the plan with Hinman, it was money. Charlie telling Bobby "you know what to do" could mean several things. I don't think Hinman's death would be beneficial to Charlie, but money would. So I conclude that he didn't want Hinman dead, he wanted his money.

But Hinman didn't have any to give. So after several days of torturing him, Bobby, Susan & Mary killed him.

Not under Charlie's orders, but it was Bobby's decision.

I do think that Charlie didn't particularly care that Hinman was dead until Bobby got arrested. I think that upset him because he was afraid he'd be implicated in Hinman's death.

Hence, the TLB murders????