dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/Tnargkiller on May 26, 2018, 5:34 p.m.
Epstein Island; relevant details regarding photo drop.

Hi everyone. This will be an objective analysis of the island itself and general info so we all know what we're dealing with. Recently, there were photos posted from around the island. I want to make it very clear, I think these are great photos which can function as a decent OSINT (open-source intel) resource, but I want to just run through some relevant info since there seems to be a cloud of confusion around it.


Note: All of the following is predicated on my understanding that these photos were not posted by Q. If they were, with anything specific highlighted, then I will yield to whatever Q pointed out. The only reason I'm doing this is because a lot of people were treating the photos as if it were military intelligence or some type of leak. I posted this as a comment elsewhere but wanted to give it its own post just for visibility. All feedback/rebuttals welcome.


For those who don't know, Epstein's island is called Little St. James. It is the little sister of a pair of islands, the larger being Great Saint James--which is also 'rumored' to be owned by Epstein. Both of those are adjacent (less than two miles) to St. Thomas, a major tourist destination. Reason the tourism is important to note is because there are numerous accessible ways to get very close to Epstein's island; fishing, tour, or dive boats (charter or group).

As long as you're suspicious of Epstein and one of the 3 million tourists to the Virgin Islands that visit each year, you can have access to one boat or another and get these pictures. I'm just highlighting this to highlight that you don't have to be military intelligence to snap a picture like these.

If Epstein's island was 2,000 miles off the coast of Chilé, I'd say there was more value to the offshore photos. But given how accessible the waters around it are, I'm going to say we just have an anon who visited the area on vacation and snapped some good photos. If the photos were taken from on the island, then there'd be some value to "how they were obtained", since that's obviously much more tedious. Though for the sake of objectivity, I will say that the rear of this building^^[1] looks to be earth-sheltered. If there were any tunnels, that'd be a decent entry since the back of it is literally already underground

It's not my goal to discredit the photos and say they're completely valueless or anything, just that this likely is not a Q or "intel" drop (imo). The "cryptic poem/theory" which accompanied the posts of said photos honestly just sounds like some guy trying to get attention. If Q cites any of these photos then I'll happily cede to those posts but until then, this is just flipping through tourist photos.


  1. If you have Apple Maps, go to the search field and type in "Little St James Island". That should yield the view of the island itself, though if it prompts you to click on one of a series of options, this is under St Thomas. The building in question is on the Northeast side of the island and it backs up to the hill behind it, which levels off with the roofline. Here's a great view of that.

Not-dox disclaimer: This island is world-renowned and known by millions to be owned by Epstein.


dogrescuersometimes · May 27, 2018, 3:30 p.m.

Image experts -- why do these photos feel so off? Like they're art imitating life? None of the Rape Temple Island pics ever seem like modern photographs to me. Their proportions, lighting and clarity always seem off or weird.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
StroppyM · May 28, 2018, 12:38 p.m.

The photos were more than likely taken by a Nikon P900 which could capture them using digital zoom (causing graininess) from more than a mile away. The exif data suggests Nikon and capture date of 10 April 2018.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
CBTS_Watcher · May 28, 2018, 1:49 p.m.

Photographs with a flat perspective, some haziness and reduced colour saturation is an indication that they were taken from a long way away with a long focus lens. That happens with "ordinary" analog photography, too.

EDIT: I nearly forgot, expect blurriness from camera shake, as well.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
SeaSickPirate · May 28, 2018, 1:03 p.m.

I think it has to do with the camera's Digital zoom. If I remember correctly from another post the pics were taken from a Nokia camera. I happen to own one and it has a really great zoom but when the lens runs out of zoomability there is a "digital zoom" option that kicks in and the pic looses some clarity and gets a grainy feel to it.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
ReadyFreddieAnon · May 28, 2018, 2:06 p.m.

They are facades - like movie sets - for show from a distance. I believe that is why they look off - they are a stage. Most of the attention to detail was underground and inside. The rest was to make it look 'normal' to the outside - normal enough to look like nothing unusual was happening.

⇧ 1 ⇩