I believe that it's much more probable that the text is just AI hallucinated gibberish (ask an AI about this) than your theory which seems quite a bit too apophenic.
There is a critical threshold where "outside the box" thinking collapses into poor judgment.
Hardly. I am a human + being with no need to ask AI about this as you suggest. Unlike AI, human + beings, are prone to connect dots in a manner that can be useful to the further understanding of events and circumstances. To compare what I posted using a link that infers schizophrenia is, at the very least, incorrect. To speak to one so dogmatic as you which you repeatedly demonstrate is a waste of time. Please refrain from crapping on this post any further with your diatribe.
I meant asking about how and why AI systems hallucinate text.
Image models generate text by probabilistic pattern matching. When the signal is weak, they produce plausible-looking gibberish. This image carries a SynthID watermark, which indicates AI generation, so the garbled text is most likely a model error rather than an intentional message.
Trying to link a typo to a specific steakhouse is a huge reach.
I could just as easily claim it refers to Aengus, the Celtic god of love, or any other Angus in the phone book. If you look for a pattern hard enough, you will find one. That does not make it real
As for being dogmatic, I do not know how else to put it. I can add more words like "I believe" or "probably" (like I had already done) to soften the blow, but the math is what it is.
Based on things like my knowledge in AI, conspiracy theories, trolling etc etc I feel that the odds of this being a secret cannibalism code are much lower than the odds of it being a software bug are near 100%. Favoring the highest-probability explanation is basic evidential reasoning.
I do not believe that using the word apophenia is not the same thing as accusing someone of schizophrenia.
Pointing it out was critique of how your conclusion was reached, not a statement about your mental health. It addresses the argument’s structure, not the person making it.
I did not intend to crap on your post, bitterly abuse (diatribe) etc you. I was criticizing the reasoning, not trying to dismiss or insult you.
Understood.
Les Wexner Dybbuk Demon article: https://ia800700.us.archive.org/10/items/les-wexner-dybbuk-demon-article/Les%20Wexner%20dybbuk%20demon%20article_text.pdf
Max Lowen grew up in various countries and is tri-lingual in Italian, Spanish and English. She is a survivor of satanic ritual abuse, torture and trafficking who went on to do her healing work and train in trauma and recovery to help other survivors and those trapped in the cycle of violence. Max created a show called Unbroken where she interviews survivors, truth warriors, healers and teachers. Max integrates the knowledge she has about the global deep state political machine with issues such as child trafficking and trauma-based mind control to help educate people about the global control structure that keeps humanity trapped in cycles of individual and collective trauma and control. Knowing the truth facilitates finding solutions to the myriads of issues facing humanity and Max shares her knowledge about healing and recovery in an effort to assist individuals in looking inward and doing their shadow work. Max authors articles analyzing the truth behind a variety of geopolitical programs and is currently working on a book about her life. She also offers seminars on a variety of relevant topics such as mind control, SRA and the Vatican. The restoration of humanity and our beautiful planet begins with each individual healing themselves and stepping into their fullest potential and power. Inner awareness and outer awareness of the social engineering and harvesting of humanity and all life on the planet are necessary components to achieving freedom within and without. Source: Insights21Podcast.
The odd quality of the images caught my eyes so I found the original video. Googling for it didn't quite work but Google Gemini delivered:-
Here is the official government source for the video, which is the most "original" version available (not a YouTube re-upload):
- Official Congress.gov Video Player: https://www.congress.gov/committees/video/house-oversight-and-government-reform/hsgo00/aLJ7hyTz-Nk (Look for the entry titled "The Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell on the Epstein Probe" dated 02/09/2026)
That video which I believe is the most original version available to the public has a quality that looks like this:-
and NOT like this:-
or this:-
which I strongly believe are AI "sharpened" or "enhanced", which is really generated, created, hallucinated, dreamed up, assumed).. in other words fakes.
Who made them, how, and why and with what understanding? Probably someone without the proper know how of these things who thought they could sharpen the face properly using AI tools.
Yes her nose appear quite a bit wider but we have to take into consideration things like age (noses grow) , puffyness... and primarily:-
Here's a video about lense distortion. However in this case it's not a wide lense close to the face
To me her voice and way she speaks sounds VERY much like her as in this old interview of her and her ears look very different.
Here's an example for nose difference where the reason is camera lenses etc + age
EDIT: a "better" AI upscale to 1) demonstrate AI "upscaling" 2) give e better sense of what she might look like instead of the very poor quality low res+compressed original footage and understanding of the nose
I thought so too. CNN's deposition clip of Ghislane pleading the Fifth Amendment.
IMO, she was not considered to be as important of an asset as Jeffrey was; after all her dad was reportedly murdered (thrown off his yacht) after his alleged threat made to Rothschild. That she is in jail and will remain there sounds about right. Time will tell if she gets a pardon or not.
It can be that it is just someone who looks exactly like her.
Two problems: 1. No one looks exactly the same. 2. You could say this about anyone, making the observation pointless.
I realize this may seem pedantic, and I understand you likely meant 'virtually identical' rather than literally 'exact.' However, I value precision. We have many specific terms that convey this meaning accurately, such as virtually identical, a doppelganger etc.
I do not belive that exact body doubles exist
Definition of Exact
in great detail, or complete, correct, or true in every way:
The exact distance is 1.838 metres.
The exact time of the accident was 2.43 p.m.
to be exact "I still owe you £7, don't I?" "Actually, it's £7.30 to be exact."
The exact location of the factory has yet to be decided.
exact
adjective
: exhibiting or marked by strict, particular, and complete accordance with fact or a standard
: marked by thorough consideration or minute measurement of small factual details
exactness ig-ˈzak(t)-nəs noun
We do not know exactly what the person in prison/under deposition looks like as we've just been presented with roughly 250x250 pixels of her in a video that is so compressed that we can barely see her features, eyes etc properly.
I hope I was able to explain the issue with not relying on some random youtubers AI "enhanced" version instead of finding and looking at the original footage and the lighting and other issues which could explain the nose.
The video could also be AI generated although I see no tell-tale signs in the original video. Only in the "enhanced" video and image.
BTW. The new Chinese models that came out last week, Kling 3.0 and Seedance 2.0 make quite good looking footage now as you might have encountered online.
I took another look at the video and noticed that she turns her head here, and when she does it the lighting on her nose changes and it doens't look that fat anymore and you see some form (the shadows) on the sides on it.
Please also note that there's a bit too much light on the ridge of her nose which overexposes it white so that the shape isn't clearly seen and might seem too pointy .
Also her profile and ears match up with an older picture
You might wonder why I keep going on about this.
Well, to me this example was interesting because of how the initial analysis (and there are many out there) seemed to be correct; that it seemed obvious that it's someone else. The way this is presented, the keyboard warrior expertise and next gen conspiracy theorist social media personality etc etc.
But then with careful investigation we learn that the material being analyzed has been poorly modified by someone and all the explanations and details in my original post.
Another interesting aspect of this is Brandolini's Law, which means The amount of energy needed to refute b.s is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it.
Neither do i.
And thank you for understanding that i really did not mean the word exactly, but rather someone who looks identical.
If we take two flowers, who looks identical for the human eye and measure them with a laser tool, it would be a difference between them.
Under exact measurements, even twins will not be exactly.
The history is full of doppelgangers and this can be the case here.
Adolf Hitler is one example.
Some say this is not true, others say otherwise.
But here is some examples:
https://everything.explained.today/Alleged_doubles_of_Adolf_Hitler/#google_vignette
So it can point in this direction.
Good insights and explanations but I don't agree with everything.
