Our Fight in the Fake News Jungle - How We Dismantle Digital Forgeries and Why They Block Real Research

While we review original files, cross-check references, and analyze legal documents sentence by sentence, a second front runs in parallel: the stream of digital forgeries that slows down any serious investigation. It is no longer enough to read documents. We must dissect images, examine videos frame by frame, compare layouts, verify timestamps, and identify digital watermarks.

The alleged Truth Social post by Donald Trump about “cementing volcanoes” is a good example. The image appeared formally correct: profile picture, username, typical layout. Yet a comparison with the actual account revealed no corresponding entry. A reverse search showed versions of the text already circulating in 2022 - at that time without any connection to Trump. The supposed presidential post had been constructed afterward. Moreover, the content contradicts basic geology: volcanoes already possess massive rock caps. Magma breaks through miles of earth. A concrete plug at the surface would physically prevent nothing.

Similarly, the supposed dinner photo of Jeffrey Epstein and Chuck Schumer. The first clue here was a small abbreviation in the corner: DFF. It stands for an account that openly declares it produces digital forgeries to trick people. In addition, a digital marker within the image indicated the use of Google generators. A reverse image search revealed no journalistic source. No photographer, no archive, no report of such a meeting. A real political earthquake would have left traces. This image left none.

The alleged Noem quote about the “English Bible” could be refuted through contextual analysis. The original source was a page clearly labeled as satire. Intentionally inserted spelling errors such as “Fox Mews Chanel” or “Homelad Suckretary” served as signals. These elements disappeared in later reposts, stripping away the satirical frame. A comparison with public appearances and official statements yielded no evidence for the quote.

The most complex case was the video that supposedly showed Trump, Epstein, and alleged minors. The starting point was a real photograph from 1997 at a Victoria’s Secret event. This image is documented and has been published, including in book form. The original shows only adults. The circulating version had been technically animated. Signs of manipulation appeared in unnaturally uniform skin texture, inconsistent lighting, jerky motion sequences, and the lack of physical interaction between figures and surroundings. Individual image elements did not respond logically to perspective or shadow. It was a static photograph to which artificial movement and additional people had been added.

Each of these forgeries consumes resources. Each demands technical analysis, source comparison, archive searches, and forensic examination. Meanwhile, authentic documents recede into the background. That is precisely the side effect: the noise of digital constructions makes it harder to focus on verifiable material. Anyone seeking clarity cannot rely on first impressions. A logo, a layout, an emotionally charged motif are now enough to reach millions. The task is to trace origins, identify digital fingerprints, and establish context. It takes time. But without this work, every debate becomes the plaything of the next fabrication.