The Music of Charles Manson

cruasder777 · 23-07-2012 10:27pm

Great song, totally real, from the Heart. This is as real as it gets.

Charles Manson: Clang Bang Bang (The Iron Door)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34YCZzY9ORY&feature=related

The man is loved all over the world. Read the comments.

viadah · 23-07-2012 10:55pm

cruasder777 wrote: »

Of course you did.

Why dont you stay off the thread instead of trying to disrupt it and pretend to speak for everyone who clicks on it.#

You keep listening to Bono my friend.

I speak for myself and from my observations. Your insults are getting worse by the way.

Bobby Baccala · 23-07-2012 11:27pm

I just bought Josef Fritzls new album, it's almost as good as Charles Mansons. Thinking of getting a cd of the speeches of Adolf Hitler next time I'm in HMV.

cruasder777 · 23-07-2012 11:55pm

P4DDY2K11 wrote: »

I just bought Josef Fritzls new album, it's almost as good as Charles Mansons. Thinking of getting a cd of the speeches of Adolf Hitler next time I'm in HMV.

Manson never killed anyone.

3 mins 5O secs, " Manson used to make voodoo dolls out of coloured socks and say to guards this is you and stick pins in them "......Lol

My friend is on this !!! Shes so hot ! 4 mins 20 secs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLDxNiy2rt0&feature=related

viadah · 23-07-2012 11:58pm

SHAKE DAT!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhE-F8Zw-3o

Da Shins Kelly · 24-07-2012 12:03am

P4DDY2K11 wrote: »

I just bought Josef Fritzls new album, it's almost as good as Charles Mansons. Thinking of getting a cd of the speeches of Adolf Hitler next time I'm in HMV.

To be honest, I find the work of Osama Bin Laden more inspiring than Adolf Hitler. A nice contemporary feel to it, and the gritty realism of those videos.... The man's the outstanding artist of the century. Shame he had to go so soon.

Oscorp · 24-07-2012 12:03am

cruasder777 wrote: »

Terry Melcher and other producers were close to Manson, as were various Hollywood stars.

He states he did not want to live in the world of having to do things.

Even Neil Young states Manson was a great musician, but to wild to ever do it in an organised way.

Why cant you accept like Manson says, he did not want to have to do things on their terms.

He lives in his own world, without clocks, calanders, etc.

Manson does not believe in stuff like contracts, to claim he was chasing contracts is bs.

His trip is getting into peoples minds, not money.

Why do you accept everything Manson says?

Your entire counter-argument at points seems to be "but Manson denied that", "he said so himself", "Manson says.." etc.

You're reading from the Gospel according to Charlie.

Namlub · 24-07-2012 12:04am

cruasder777 wrote: »

Manson never killed anyone.

Neither did Hitler tbh

cruasder777 · 24-07-2012 12:10am

Oscorp wrote: »

Why do you accept everything Manson says?

Your entire counter-argument at points seems to be "but Manson denied that", "he said so himself", "Manson says.." etc.

You're reading from the Gospel according to Charlie.

Why do accept the version of journalists and people out to make money ?

I would rather listen to what he has to say.

Bobby Baccala · 24-07-2012 12:21am

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

To be honest, I find the work of Osama Bin Laden more inspiring than Adolf Hitler. A nice contemporary feel to it, and the gritty realism of those videos.... The man's the outstanding artist of the century. Shame he had to go so soon.

He was the Tupac of the middle east.

Oscorp · 24-07-2012 12:21am

cruasder777 wrote: »

Why do accept the version of journalists and people out to make money ?

I would rather listen to what he has to say.

When Manson raided convenient stores was he not just out to make a quick buck at the expense of innocents?

And I reckon journalists would gain more coverage, recognition and money if they ran pieces on how Manson was "framed." That would probably be the media scoop of the century.

smokedeels · 24-07-2012 2:23am

It's telling that the murders will always come up when discussing his music.

cruasder777 · 24-07-2012 8:12am

Namlub wrote: »

Neither did Hitler tbh

What a ridiculous comparison.

cruasder777 · 24-07-2012 8:22am

Oscorp wrote: »

When Manson raided convenient stores was he not just out to make a quick buck at the expense of innocents?

And I reckon journalists would gain more coverage, recognition and money if they ran pieces on how Manson was "framed." That would probably be the media scoop of the century.

Manson was convicted on very flimsy evidence.

There are so many unanswered questions about the whole thing, including the real motives, few are aware Sharon Tates house was used to make porn films which some famous Hollywood stars were in, the Manson girls had previously been there etc. Its alleged the tapes were selling in the early 70s for 25k a time, sold by cops who had them in their possession. Some say this was the motive of the botched robbery which turned into a murder, get the tapes and blackmail Hollywood.

Then there was the black book of the La Biancas, who had strong Mafia and drug connections.Some say it listed the names of various Hollywood stars who were customers, such things were a big deal at the time.

The cops who investigated were very incompetent.

Anyone who has tried to get to the truth was bought off by Hollywood.

Namlub · 24-07-2012 2:06pm

cruasder777 wrote: »

What a ridiculous comparison.

It's fine, you don't need to get offended on his behalf

cruasder777 · 24-07-2012 2:09pm

Namlub wrote: »

It's fine, you don't need to get offended on his behalf

And you dont need to get offended from the lies you have read.

al28283 · 24-07-2012 2:18pm

cruasder777 wrote: »

Anyone who has tried to get to the truth was bought off by Hollywood.

Except for you eh OP? Everyone else is deluded and you're the only smart enough to see through all the BS. That's what this thread is really about isn't it?

viadah · 24-07-2012 2:42pm

Where's the proof behind your allegations? The prosecution's case is literally there in black and white, where's the proof of this massive buy out? And please don't counter-argue that the prosecution case is flimsy and lies and all that, you've already said so. Cold hard proof, help your cause, help Charlie's cause, with some cold hard proof. As I said before, lot of people with open minds here, and I for one am never afraid of admitting I'm wrong. It'll help your cause if the evidence is not based on the word of ex-Family members.

Will I Amnt · 24-07-2012 2:51pm

viadah wrote: »

It'll help your cause if the evidence is not based on the word of ex-Family members.

Or hot friends

cruasder777 · 24-07-2012 3:37pm

viadah wrote: »

Where's the proof behind your allegations? The prosecution's case is literally there in black and white, where's the proof of this massive buy out? And please don't counter-argue that the prosecution case is flimsy and lies and all that, you've already said so. Cold hard proof, help your cause, help Charlie's cause, with some cold hard proof. As I said before, lot of people with open minds here, and I for one am never afraid of admitting I'm wrong. It'll help your cause if the evidence is not based on the word of ex-Family members.

Ed Saunders who wrote the Family decided to follow up with a book called the Motive, he dropped it due to death threats.

Manson knew Sharon Tate, there are pictures of some of the Manson girls in her pool, the claim they had never been there and it was a random murder to create a race war is bs, Tex Watson knew the La Biancas and is still good friends with their daughter.

None of the above came out during the trial.

Nothing is black and white.

viadah · 25-07-2012 12:09am

I've never read the book, but a cursory search through Google had nothing forthcoming on 'The Motive' or any death threats. I did however find a well written article about Squeaky Fromme, and also this delightful bit of information:

'Ed Sanders concludes in The Family - based on a number of witness statements - that the Manson clan was involved in the production and distribution of snuff films (as well as child pornography).'
http://www.whale.to/b/manson.html

Wow. Really?

cruasder777 · 25-07-2012 8:16am

viadah wrote: »

I've never read the book, but a cursory search through Google had nothing forthcoming on 'The Motive' or any death threats. I did however find a well written article about Squeaky Fromme, and also this delightful bit of information:

'Ed Sanders concludes in The Family - based on a number of witness statements - that the Manson clan was involved in the production and distribution of snuff films (as well as child pornography).'
http://www.whale.to/b/manson.html

Wow. Really?

Child porn, would refer to orgies filed of the Manson family with some girls being under 18, not children in the true paedophile sense, but illegal.

There were people bringing their 14 yr old daughters to Manson for "enlightenment", inc a preacher who Manson had given LSD to and showed himself as Christ. Angela Lansbury the actress gave her daughter to Manson who was 14.

Snuff films ? Not that Im aware of and none have ever turned up. But there were more then 25 unexplained deaths around the Manson family.

Its claimed Peter Sellers, Steve McQueen and Yul Brynner were all in porn films with Sharon Tate.

Tate was also into the occult, orgies etc, her caretaker admitted he had previously seen Manson at the property with her.

....Even Ed Saunders says he does not think it was just random murders.

Manson claimed her husband Roman Polanski was into children years before he got busted with a 13 yr old girl.

al28283 · 25-07-2012 8:19am

cruasder777 wrote: »

Ed Saunders who wrote the Family decided to follow up with a book called the Motive, he dropped it due to death threats.

Manson knew Sharon Tate, there are pictures of some of the Manson girls in her pool, the claim they had never been there and it was a random murder to create a race war is bs, Tex Watson knew the La Biancas and is still good friends with their daughter.

None of the above came out during the trial.

Nothing is black and white.

A race war would be fairly black and white

cruasder777 · 25-07-2012 8:32am

al28283 wrote: »

A race war would be fairly black and white

What about the Asians ?

al28283 · 25-07-2012 8:37am

cruasder777 wrote: »

What about the Asians ?

That's racist

viadah · 25-07-2012 2:18pm

cruasder777 wrote: »

Child porn, would refer to orgies filed of the Manson family with some girls being under 18, not children in the true paedophile sense, but illegal.

There were people bringing their 14 yr old daughters to Manson for "enlightenment", inc a preacher who Manson had given LSD to and showed himself as Christ. Angela Lansbury the actress gave her daughter to Manson who was 14.

Snuff films ? Not that Im aware of and none have ever turned up. But there were more then 25 unexplained deaths around the Manson family.

Its claimed Peter Sellers, Steve McQueen and Yul Brynner were all in porn films with Sharon Tate.

Tate was also into the occult, orgies etc, her caretaker admitted he had previously seen Manson at the property with her.

....Even Ed Saunders says he does not think it was just random murders.

Manson claimed her husband Roman Polanski was into children years before he got busted with a 13 yr old girl.

Even to take all these statements at face value just for the sake of them, none of them exonerate Manson, nor provide any kind of excuse for committing the crime he was convicted of. None of it helps prove anyone's innocence. And since Garretson only came up with a lot of the details he claims to know years after he was released from suspicion (and had ample time to read the media surrounding the case) anything he says is suspect. The most telling of the above statements is 'there were more than 25 unexplained deaths around the Manson family', which hardly helps when trying to cast someone involved in an innocent light.

cruasder777 · 25-07-2012 5:59pm

viadah wrote: »

Even to take all these statements at face value just for the sake of them, none of them exonerate Manson, nor provide any kind of excuse for committing the crime he was convicted of. None of it helps prove anyone's innocence. And since Garretson only came up with a lot of the details he claims to know years after he was released from suspicion (and had ample time to read the media surrounding the case) anything he says is suspect. The most telling of the above statements is 'there were more than 25 unexplained deaths around the Manson family', which hardly helps when trying to cast someone involved in an innocent light.

Im interested at getting at the truth, legally the case against Manson was very weak, much based on hysteria.

I am simply stating the facts.

25 murders, but remember lots of people came and went, from outlaw biker gangs to runaways etc.

Shorty shea's murder was done by the family as was the murder of Mansons uncle who was hacked to death, he used to make Manson go to school dressed as a girl. Most likely others to, but info is vague and theres alot of journalistic bs.

"Shea was murdered in 1969 on or around August 26.[citation needed] Manson had decided to have Shea killed because they believed he had reported them to the police resulting in a raid on the ranch on August 16 where the family were taken into custody on suspicion of car theft.[citation needed] Family member Bruce Davis, claimed that the decision to kill Shea came from Manson because he considered Shorty to be a "snitch".[citation needed] Manson told Davis, Tex Watson and Steve Grogan to ask for a ride to a nearby car parts yard on the ranch.[citation needed] According to Davis, he sat in the back seat with Grogan, who then hit Shea with a pipe wrench and Watson stabbed him.[citation needed] They brought Shea down a hill behind the ranch and stabbed and brutally tortured him to death".

viadah · 26-07-2012 1:02am

The prosecution case seems pretty plausible, and as Bugliosi himself said circumstancial evidence is still evidence. If the court transcripts are lying, I've never seen that contested. If Manson's spectacular defense strategy of firing and threatening his own lawyers had been successful, the prosecution would still have won the case based on their argument. Manson did himself no favours, and I'm going to have to err on the side of the prosecution as the most rational and reasoned characters in the story. Contest whatever unexplained events you want, all it does is draw the argument into conjecture. Manson was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in the cases of Tate and LaBianca. The Process, the Straight Satans, Shorty Shea, the Mafia, all this is just time wasting. The fact is he was convicted of a crime that most people who defend Manson have almost tried to ignore in favour of unproven conspiracy theories. Even if you contest the Tate decision, he was a party to the crimes against the LaBianca's by his presence at the scene.

The media turned Manson into the boogeyman. His followers turned him into some kind of sainted martyr. The truth is he was neither. He had a fine line in psychobabble bull****, he wasn't the first, he won't be the last. The prejudice against the corner of society he represented was fertile ground for fanatics on both sides to create what they saw fit in the circus environment of the trial. Manson remains ambiguous on details of what happened those nights, at times he seems to dig himself deeper, but as he uses his notoriety mostly to espouse his own beliefs rather than to rationally declare his own innocence, it can be taken that he is a misguided, damaged person with very little concern as to why he is in prison and more to his own image.

Charles Manson is never going to be fully understood, and that suits him just fine I imagine. Better to live as an enigma then to die as just another f*ck up.

cruasder777 · 26-07-2012 8:27am

viadah wrote: »

The prosecution case seems pretty plausible, and as Bugliosi himself said circumstancial evidence is still evidence. If the court transcripts are lying, I've never seen that contested. If Manson's spectacular defense strategy of firing and threatening his own lawyers had been successful, the prosecution would still have won the case based on their argument. Manson did himself no favours, and I'm going to have to err on the side of the prosecution as the most rational and reasoned characters in the story. Contest whatever unexplained events you want, all it does is draw the argument into conjecture. Manson was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in the cases of Tate and LaBianca. The Process, the Straight Satans, Shorty Shea, the Mafia, all this is just time wasting. The fact is he was convicted of a crime that most people who defend Manson have almost tried to ignore in favour of unproven conspiracy theories. Even if you contest the Tate decision, he was a party to the crimes against the LaBianca's by his presence at the scene.

The media turned Manson into the boogeyman. His followers turned him into some kind of sainted martyr. The truth is he was neither. He had a fine line in psychobabble bull****, he wasn't the first, he won't be the last. The prejudice against the corner of society he represented was fertile ground for fanatics on both sides to create what they saw fit in the circus environment of the trial. Manson remains ambiguous on details of what happened those nights, at times he seems to dig himself deeper, but as he uses his notoriety mostly to espouse his own beliefs rather than to rationally declare his own innocence, it can be taken that he is a misguided, damaged person with very little concern as to why he is in prison and more to his own image.

Charles Manson is never going to be fully understood, and that suits him just fine I imagine. Better to live as an enigma then to die as just another f*ck up.

Lol, the prosecution is simply idea of one man Bugoliosi, who then sold his idea and made millions from a film and books.....Its not based on any evidence just speculation. Its a theory......Infact its a conspiracy theory.

Bugoliosi has also written conspiracy theory books on Kennedy, OJ Simpson and others.

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=conspiracy%20theories&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Aconspiracy%20theories%2Cp_lbr_one_browse-bin%3AVincent%20Bugliosi&page=1

The fact Manson actually knew the victims blows the random murder theory out of the water.

Manson was convicted on the word of one girl, if he had had money for a serious legal defence he would have walked.

Manson was also denied his constitution right to represent himself, because he might "influence the jury,".

Manson is 77 and still going strong, hardly a f..k up. He does not live in your world of fear. He says prison is a state of mind, inside and outside is an illusuion, he is happy there, he does not want to come out.

s_carnage · 26-07-2012 9:20am

cruasder777 wrote: »

Manson is 77 and still going strong, hardly a f..k up. He does not live in your world of fear. He says prison is a state of mind, inside and outside is an illusuion, he is happy there, he does not want to come out.

Great so everyone is happy

The Music of Charles Manson

Comments