NEW Epstein Footage Metadata Reveals INSANE Clues

Wired is now reporting that there is

something sus about the meta data in the

Jeffrey Epstein prison video that the

prison video was likely modified. Okay,

let's try to understand this for a

moment because there's a lot. Obviously,

what we're referring to is that missing

minute first in the Jeffrey Epstein

prison footage. Now, keep in mind

regarding the Epstein uh CCTV footage

that that missing minute where people

have meme'd Hillary Clinton walking in,

right? Which is funny, but we got to

focus on it seriously for a moment. Why

would the cameras go, whether or not

this is even the correct angle that we

need, why would the cameras jump from

11:59

to 12? Watch then in about 5 seconds

here.

bada and boom.

It's odd, right? It's almost like these

cameras run 23597

instead of 24/7, which is odd. You know,

were the cameras restarting during that

time? Is that even necessary at that

point? A lot of conspiracies around

this, but this is now new information.

The Justice Department released nearly

11 hours of footage of what it described

as the full raw surveillance video from

the camera positioned near Jeffrey

Epstein's prison cell. And again,

they're referring to this as the raw

footage, so unedited. The release was

intended to address conspiracy theories,

but instead of putting those suspicions

to rest, it made them it may fuel them

even further. Meta data in the video

analyzed by Wired and independent video

forensic experts. Imagine that as a job

title. Yeah, I'm an independent video

forensic expert. Damn, that's a

mouthful. But anyway, shows that rather

than being a direct export from the

surveillance system, the footage was

modified, likely using the editing tool

Adobe Premiere Pro. So, in other words,

like when when you record a video file,

uh you would normally just get that

directly from your camera, raw, right

out of the camera. You don't have to go

drag it into some form of processor

unless maybe you're going to do a little

bit of editing to it. For example, when

I make videos, uh, like the video that,

uh, you know, we're making now, here's

an example of what they look like when I

make them. So, I just go in here and I

get these raw MP4 files because that's

how we record them on a Windows PC,

which then, you know, beams over to this

share Dropbox on the network. Well,

these files would not show up in uh, you

know, ever go in in Final Cut Pro.

Whereas, if I now take a file that I'm

going to export, I might be able to drag

those pieces uh into, let's say, Final

Cut Pro, for example, here's the WTF

video file. And what I'm able to do is

I'm able to go in here and cut out the

beginning or add some music or whatever

to the front or maybe cut out, you know,

a minute, which actually is what I do in

my footage, except I'm not running, you

know, prison CCTV footage. But as you

can see, this is exactly the same file

right here, but when I drag it into

Final Cut, I'm actually doing here is

I'm going to cut out that little front

portion of Dead Space where I'm not

saying anything, right? Uh, and then

there you go. The file footage basically

now lines up. But now when I export it,

the metadata is going to say it was

manipulated in Final Cut rather than

coming from my recording source. Right.

Okay, that's really interesting. The

files appear to have been assembled from

at least two source clips, which in

fairness, if you look really, I mean,

you don't even have to look that

closely, but when you look at this video

clip, you could see the sort of like

change in in uh angle almost, or not

maybe angle, but this positioning like

why why does it look like the

compression is slightly different or

like somebody dragged it out a little to

the left more the video clip? See how

one looks wider than the other? Right?

Weird. Uh those things could be

mistakes. Like if I'm in here, I could

theoretically grab this clip and

accidentally have it be zoomed in a

little bit more. So it would actually

look like this when it clicks over. See

that little punch in right there? It's

because it's been manipulated. So it

doesn't actually help prove that it

wasn't manipulated. In fact, it just

proves that it probably was manipulated.

Like even if the camera restarted during

that time, why would it have to go into

an editing software, right? Like I have

I have a lot of CCTV cameras as well.

And usually if you're going to have

cameras set to a restart, you'd have an

overlap angle. So when one's restarting,

the other one's not restarting at the

same time. And they cover each other.

That's that's the point of personal

surveillance technology. But anyway, or

in this case, commercial prison cell

technology where you would expect it to

be perfect. But anyway, the files appear

to have been assembled from at least two

source clips, saved multiple times,

exported, then uploaded to the DOJ's

website where it was presented as raw

footage. Don't tell us something's raw

when it's not raw. Experts caution that

it's unclear what was changed, and the

metadata does not prove that it was

deceptive. The video could simply have

been processed for public release. I

mean, that's also possible. I could drop

it in here, right? If I go into uh Final

Cut, let's go back into here. And let's

say I go to a file export uh and I want

to pick a file type. I could go in here

and I could choose uh H.264

or I could do Apple ProRes. The problem

is if I go Apple ProRes full, it's going

to be a 90 gigabyte export. Whereas, if

I go to H.264, it's a 4 gigabyte export.

And this is 1080 at 30, right? So, this

is just an example where sure you could

also use Adobe just to compress the file

footage, but again, missing minute, it's

in an editor, one spread a little wider

than another. Come on. Like, as a video

creator, it smells a little sus, you

know? Especially when you tell us it's

raw,

you know? It's kind of like Pam Bondi.

It's on my desk. What desk?

The memes. Anyway, uh the video may

simply have been processed for public

release. Sure. Case is already clouded.

For months leading up to the joint memo

published Monday, Pam Bonnie promised

the release of files relating to Epste.

However, rather than re revealing new

information, the memo largely confirmed

conclusions reached years earlier that

he was found dead by suicide. And

basically they just reiterated uh you

know the the conspiracy information

basically or not the conspiracy the the

original information from which people

started you know scratching their heads

a little bit going this isn't lining up

right because what to say conspiracy

almost sounds like we're discounting

what's going on which we don't want to

do that because what's going on is it is

weird and foil just happened to also

suddenly die a few months ago also kind

of weird just saying, but anyway, she

was a big, you know, uh, a big person in

terms of, uh, uh, you know, making these

allegations against Epstein and coming

forward with details around whom she was

basically, uh, you know, escorted around

with. But anyway, according to the FBI,

anyone entering the area containing

Epstein's cell during the relevant time

frame would have been visible on that

camera. Wire downloaded the video file

released by the Department of Justice,

which was described as a full raw

surveillance footage. Epstein's prison

cell the night before he was found dead.

To analyze the metadata, we ran the file

through a tool called XIF tool. Below is

the embedded metadata which information

related to the reporter's personal

device. Oh, with information related to

the personal device excluded.

So, this is the size. This is the tool

they ran. MP4

uh compatible brands blah blah blah.

Okay, whatever. Working with two

independent experts, Wired examined the

footage using metadata tools, exporters

analyzed both,

oh, this is too much for me. XIF uh and

XMP data. Okay. To identify signs of

post-processing, okay, basically putting

it into like Adobe, right? The raw files

show clear signs of having been

processed using an Adobe product based

on metadata that specifically references

file extensions used by Adobe. Well,

this is like a pitch for Adobe here. Uh

Adobe leaves traces in exported files,

often embedding metadata that logs which

assets were used and what actions were

taken during the edit. In this case, the

metadata indicates the file was saved at

least four times over a 23 minute time

span by a Windows user account called MJ

Cole 1. Who's MJ Cole? Find MJ Cole now.

The meta data does not show whether the

footage was modified before each time it

was saved. Uh the embedded data suggests

that the video is not a continuous

unaltered export from a surveillance

system.

Uh these entries appear under metadata

sections labeled ingredients as part of

Adobe's internal schema.

An expert analyzed the detection of

manipulated data and has detected you

know blah blah blah. He says the

metadata rises immediate concern raises

immediate concerns about the chain of

custody and the document handling of

this. If a lawyer brought me this file

and I asked if it was suitable for court

and I was asked if it was suitable for

court, I'd say no. Go back to the source

and do it right. do a direct export from

the original system. No monkey business.

The video's aspect ratio also shifts

noticeably as several points. Exactly.

That's that stretchy thing I was showing

you. Now, they caution that while

metadata clearly show the video was

modified, the changes could be benign.

For example, converting footage from

Yeah, but but sure, proprietary

surveillance format to MP4. That's fine.

Like I showed you with the Apple ProRes

in this case to MP4. But why did the

aspect ratio change at that moment? It's

just weird.

Uh had around 150 cameras. Why don't

they show all the other cameras that

have a missing clip? I mean, I guess

they could just edit those, too.

Apparently, only two operational cameras

despite the facility having 150 cameras.

Weird. Uh the footage confirms from the

time that Epstein was locked in his cell

between 10:40 p.m. to 6:30 the next

morning, no one entered the tier where

he's located. However, the recording

includes a noticeable gap. About a

minute and 2 seconds is missing. Video

resumes immediately afterwards. Blah

blah blah. The gaps in the video along

with this metadata are certainly

suspicious. Wow. The story just keeps

going. This is crazy.

Well, let's just say

I would never kill myself. And

I have life insurance thanks to

medcaven.com/life,

a sponsor of the channel. Go check them

out. medkaven.com/life.

You know me now. So, medcaven.com/life.

Paid sponsor of the channel. Get life

insurance in as little as 5 minutes.

Apple Pay or Android Pay.

>> Kevin is very talented, but I don't know

if it's going to be him, but he's a very

talented guy.

>> Why not advertise these things that you

told us here? I feel like nobody else

knows about this.

>> We'll we'll try a little advertising and

see how it goes.

>> Congratulations, man. You have done so

much. People love you. People look up to

you.

>> Kevin Praath there, financial analyst

and YouTuber. Meet Kevin. Always great

to get your take.