How to Spot Fake, Manipulated, or Unreliable Epstein Documents
Disinformation is a real threat to EpsteinWiki. Bad actors — political operatives, trolls, conspiracy theorists, and people trying to protect powerful individuals — will attempt to plant fake documents or altered evidence.
This guide teaches you how to recognize suspicious material and what to do when you find it.
Our rule is simple:
If a document’s authenticity is uncertain, treat it as unverified and flag it.
Common Types of Fake or Manipulated Epstein Material
Contributors should be prepared to encounter:
• Altered PDFs with added names or redacted sections removed
• AI-generated “court documents”
• Fake flight logs with changed passengers or destinations
• Screenshots pretending to be FOIA releases
• Fabricated emails or internal memos
• Photos with swapped faces or false context
• Conspiracy graphics falsely linking individuals
• Documents with metadata that doesn’t match their supposed creation date
You are never expected to make a final determination yourself — only to recognize when something seems off and flag it.
Red Flags That a Document May Be Fake or Manipulated
1. Missing or Incorrect Legal Formatting
Real legal documents have consistent elements:
• Case number
• Court name
• Filing date
• Page numbering
• Signatures
• Stamps or headers
• Proper fonts
Red flags include:
• No case number
• Inconsistent spacing or margins
• Fonts changing mid-document
• Incorrect jurisdiction names
• “Perfect” redactions (AI blur instead of real black boxes)
If it looks “almost right,” it’s probably wrong.
2. Metadata Inconsistencies
Every digital file has metadata. Warning signs:
• Creation date after the document was supposedly released
• Author listed as unknown software
• Modified date far before creation date
• Odd file origins (e.g., “user123” or AI tools)
• Extremely small file sizes for large documents
If metadata contradicts the story of the document, flag it immediately.
3. Names Added or Deleted
Many fake Epstein documents exist solely to smear or protect specific individuals.
Red flags:
• A known public figure appears in only one version of a document
• One name is a different font size or style
• Spacing around a specific line looks altered
• A page looks “cleaner” or “newer” than the rest
• The name only appears in viral social media versions
If one name feels “tacked on,” it might be.
4. Image Manipulation
Fake evidence often comes from altered images.
Red flags:
• Lighting or shadows inconsistent
• Facial features blurred or swapped
• Background mismatched
• Cropped or overly zoomed sections hiding context
• Image uploaded as a low-res screenshot instead of the original file
If you wouldn’t trust it in a court case, don’t trust it here.
5. Dubious Source Chains
A document is suspicious when:
• It appears only on social media
• It came from anonymous accounts
• The uploader cannot explain where it came from
• There’s no matching version in reputable archives or reporting
• It claims to be a “new leak” with no provenance
EpsteinWiki requires a clear chain of custody. If there isn’t one, flag it.
6. Overly Sensational or Convenient Content
If a document feels “too perfect” — conveniently proving a point, attacking a political figure, or supporting a narrative — it may be disinformation.
Examples:
• A document listing dozens of celebrities in one place
• A “leaked memo” that appears timed for political effect
• A convenient confession sheet or “roster of abusers”
Real documents are messy and boring.
Fakes are dramatic.
What Contributors Should Do When Something Feels Off
Step 1: Stop. Do Not Publish.
Do not summarize it, do not upload it to a page, do not name individuals based on it.
Step 2: Add a Clear Note
Write:
“Potentially manipulated document — needs moderator review.”
Step 3: Upload Only to the Review Queue
Never attach suspicious material to a live wiki page.
Step 4: Provide Any Context You Have
Where you found it, who shared it, when it was discovered, and what seems inconsistent.
Step 5: Wait for Moderator Decision
Moderators will check:
• Metadata
• Known authentic versions
• Expert opinions
• Legal formatting
• Source history
• Contextual consistency
You don’t need to prove it’s fake — only recognize risk.
How to Handle Partially Suspicious Documents
Sometimes only part of a document is questionable.
Safe contributor steps:
• Summarize only the confirmed portions
• Mark questionable sections as:
“Unverified / authenticity unclear.”
• Leave interpretation to moderators
• Avoid naming individuals in uncertain sections
When in doubt: redact and flag.
Examples of Safe Contributor Phrasing
• “This document appears inconsistent with known filings and has been flagged.”
• “This claim cannot be verified through reputable reporting.”
• “The authenticity of this page is uncertain.”
• “This appears to be an altered version of a known document.”
• “This image contains signs of manipulation.”
Stick to facts. No speculation.
Why Disinfo Rules Protect the Project
Because:
• Disinformation harms survivors
• False naming can destroy innocent lives
• Fakes can discredit years of real research
• Bad actors will try to bury truth under noise
• Credibility is the foundation of EpsteinWiki
Our work must be unimpeachable — stronger than the network we are exposing.