3 ms·

Surely you can link me to the exact "planted" images you are talking about... who planted them?

• Zambyte 10mo ago
  https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.com/post/3mag7myutmc2d https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.com/post/3mag7myutmc2d Here's at least one notable image.
  • Arn_Thor 10mo ago
    That's not the exact same image, though. It's a separate image, from the same time and place. The one released may have been in Epstein's possession and therefore part of the files. Either some DoJ drone just redacted all children and non-celebrities due to procedure, or it was deliberately done in such a way as to make Clinton and Jackson look suspicious. Whatever the reason, this was not a Getty stock image planted in the files.
    • Zambyte 10mo ago
      You can see the erroneously redacted image here: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r38ne1x2mo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r38ne1x2mo
      • Amezarak 10mo ago
        It wasn’t erroneous. The DoJ said they were redacting the faces of all non-celebrity women and children under the presumption they could be victims.
        • Arn_Thor 10mo ago
          In that case it makes perfect sense
      • Arn_Thor 10mo ago
        I know what picture we're talking about. 1) it's not the same as the Getty stock image everyone seems to mistake it for. 2) we don't know if the redaction is erroneous or intentionally misleading, but either way the non-celebrity faces were redacted even though another image of them exists in the public domain. Probably easier to just apply a blanket policy when handling all these images rather than observing edge cases.
        • wahnfrieden 10mo ago
          The redaction is a distraction. The concern is that it is from a charity event that is seemingly unrelated to Epstein
          • Arn_Thor 10mo ago
            If Epstein had the photo in his possession, then that would explain why it's there!