This is my personal opinion, and I do not insist on it. I am
simply sharing my observations here. What is presented to
us as photographs from Epstein's archive is classic
disinformation. It is the product of inept work by hired PR
technologists under 30 years old. In these documents, as has
already become evident to me, real photographs are mixed
with images that have been photoshopped or involve doubles.
Thousands of media outlets reproducing this nonsense fail
to see the obvious: the photos depict two different Clintons.
This is a primitive forgery. If we are talking about genuine
photographs from the late 1990s to early 2000s, professional
editing of that era, done for such purposes, would be
flawless and indistinguishable to the untrained eye even
today. But what we see here is so amateurish that it either
was hastily assembled or is an intentional "trace" meant
to later claim falsification and discredit the entire Epstein
story. In one photo, there is a person with natural,
familiar facial expressions, consistent with their age and
anatomy - ears and jawline are normal. In another, the
character's facial features appear distorted, as if
stretched over a digital mannequin (such as in the Jackson
photo) or, for example, a shot in a hot tub. This is
especially noticeable in the jawline and the placement of
the ear, which do not match the previous images. Many
high-profile figures have used look-alikes (doubles) for
years to divert attention, test security routes, or craft a
public image while they are elsewhere. Epstein, as a master
of blackmail and orchestrator of "services," likely knew
about this practice and used it for his clients' benefit.
When Epstein's so-called archive was seized, the operation's
handlers needed to secure it. They selected several real
photos featuring doubles - such as a person resembling
Clinton but with anatomical differences. Authentic
professional editing for such purposes would have been done
with expensive, inaccessible tools - possibly even at a
government level - and would leave no obvious traces. The
use of "shoddy" Photoshop, detectable even by ordinary users
like myself, is a clear mark of amateur work. Some of these
fakes are evidently generated by AI tools but stylized to
look like late 90s or early 2000s photographs - note the
bottles, tableware, and other small details. What year there
is it? Damn it, we're not amnesiacs; we also lived through
in the late 90s and early 2000s. These are deliberately
forged images pretending to be scans of old photos. A real
public figure's wrinkles form over decades; they are a
unique facial fingerprint. In the "Jackson" version, these
folds are unnaturally deep and sharp, as if drawn with
a primitive "scratching" tool in basic editing software.
Jackson has died, right? No one can ask him? These images
do not mimic natural expressions; they are static, like masks.
Pay attention to skin texture: in one photo, the skin
appears alive, with red pores, capillaries, fine wrinkles,
and uneven tone. In another (the photo with Clinton in
shirts in the center), there is a perfectly blurred reddish
plastic sphere, as if a "Surface Blur" filter or something
similar with exaggerated settings was applied to hide
inconsistencies in lighting and shadow. The lighting in
these images is inconsistent - one source from the left,
another from above right? This is basic design student
level, not "secret archive" quality. Look at the bottles in
the hot tub or on the yacht. Yes, their shapes could vary,
but the barcode or label? They are poorly stitched, at
unnatural angles. The label doesn't match the cylindrical
shape of the bottle. Were such bottles in real? And most
importantly, the print quality: in the 2000s, labels weren't
so faded and perfectly printed. This looks like modern
digital printing, simply copied from a Google image and
stretched onto a 3D model of a bottle. They didn't even
bother to scan real textured paper with grain; they took
a digital fake and added noise and scratches - something.
I can do too, to create retro-style photos! But they did
it mindlessly. Scratches and pixels overlay all objects,
including people. A real film scratch would be beneath the
image layer; here, the girl in the foreground appears over
"historical scratches" (like from PhotoFiltre 2008?), which
pass over her body - this is also an obvious mistake.
Regarding clothing - where they are not naked - modern AI
generators when still struggle with complex textures like
lace, knitted patterns, or burlap. These often blur into a
mess. Examine the clothing in questionable frames: where
texture should be, there are blurry pixel elements. And why
is everything so dark? In the 90s, we already had camera
flashes! It seems that after assembling this collage, it
should have been color-corrected, adjusted for contrast and
sharpness. But they failed at that too. You can see patches
with different sharpness and color noise - one person is
sharp, another blurry; one has "noise" from high ISO,
another is perfectly clean. It's like combining two
different photos from different cameras, which is unlikely
for a single archive. It feels like children who've never
shot on film edited these images. On old digital photos,
if they are digital at all (because I can't even tell what
I'm seeing), there are often color fringes (purple, green)
around objects. In these fakes, they are either absent or
poorly added with crooked "Lens Correction" filters, visible
where they shouldn't be. In group photos, shadows from
people should fall in the same direction. In the most
dubious images, shadows are inconsistent: one person's
shadow points left, another's right - clear evidence of
editing. They took images from different sources, shot at
different times of day, and simply cut out the characters.
Either they are complete idiots or have never photographed
or processed old film images. This is pure disinformation
aimed at fools, created by people under 30. When this matter
reaches court, lawyers will display these lousy photos on a
big screen and argue: "Your Honor, we will provide an expert
analysis proving this is primitive photo manipulation.
Shadows do not match, anatomical features differ.
Consequently, the entire so-called 'archive' is compromised
and cannot be considered evidence." The media will
immediately pick up: "The court dismissed Epstein-related
evidence, declaring it falsified." And that will be the end.
The genuine, shocking images that might have been stored
in the curators' archives - if they ever existed - will never
see the light of day because they will be overshadowed
by these pathetic forgeries.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Shipwrecks & Shibboleths [San Francisco, CA - USA] (700:100/72)