This photo has been going around social media, but they both don't look as they did in 2003. Id say it's more than likely AI but Im still curious about this alleged photo spoken of by Mark Epstein. Mark is also a liar who always acted like he and his brother weren't that close when he was on the island more than anyone. 

(11-23-2025, 12:42 AM)Dulles Wrote: This photo has been going around social media, but they both don't look as they did in 2003. Id say it's more than likely AI but Im still curious about this alleged photo spoken of by Mark Epstein. Mark is also a liar who always acted like he and his brother weren't that close when he was on the island more than anyone. 

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...AEayTr.jpg]

The date stamp thig is the most obvs bit of fakery for me. That shit was so early 90s

(11-23-2025, 12:42 AM)Dulles Wrote: This photo has been going around social media, but they both don't look as they did in 2003. Id say it's more than likely AI but Im still curious about this alleged photo spoken of by Mark Epstein. Mark is also a liar who always acted like he and his brother weren't that close when he was on the island more than anyone. 

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...AEayTr.jpg]

Mark Epstein (Jeffery Epstein's brother) has allegedly commented that the "Bubba" referenced in the e-mail, wasn't Clinton.

My guess is that the photo is also most definately a fake.

The first thing I noted was the graininess of the image, just a bit too much for a camera circa 2004.

So, I zoomed the image to look at the pixels.

If this were an original digital image, then the smallest element of the picture would be a pixel. If there is detail within a pixel, then the pixellization is fake - the result of a digital filter post-processing. This is exactly what is visible.

The elements of 'picture grain' seem to be smaller than a pixel, and this makes the picture grain appear to be a filter applied to the already pixellated image. There is no reason to do this except to hide edit details and make the photo appear 'old and grainy' and a bit 'analogue'.

Also, regarding the edits, the area around the interface of Trump's dark jacket and hairline has what looked like some overlapping strands of hair, but zoomed in, the pixels are far too high in contrast and far too 'chunky' to represent strands of hair. By comparison, there are very fine details of the jacket adjacent, which are still quite visible and hairs would have been similarly fine, and the pixels would render fine hairs as far more diffuse.

Similarly, there is something that seems 'off' about the angle of Clinton's face compared to the positioning of the shoulders.

Nor does the shadows behind Clinton's head match to the position of the light source, which to me, from the rest of the photo, appears to have been a flash photo, with the flash mounted on the camera.

And the vertical detail on the woodwork behind Clinton's head cuts off really suddenly and for no apparent reason, as does the reflection of the books on the shelf beside it (even if the shadow behind his head was legit, the reflection from the books would be bringing in light from a different angle and so would not suddenly disappear).

And 'face swapping' edits have been a thing, long before AI deepfakes (which I suspect this to be).

(11-23-2025, 02:23 AM)chr0naut Wrote: Mark Epstein (Jeffery Epstein's brother) has allegedly commented that the "Bubba" referenced in the e-mail, wasn't Clinton.

Mark Epstein also recently stated in an interview that he heard from a source that the reason the files are being released (following recent congressional action) is that they are being "sanitized" to protect Republican politicians. So what is he lying about, and what is he telling the truth about?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newslette...tein-files

LOL...AI!!
The dems are really getting desperate to deflect from their love affair with Epstein.
How many dems took a hit from their close association with Epstein last week?
More on the way soon.