Post: What is Ghislaine Maxwell doing in Quebec...?

Comments posted organically
Homepage

Articles by:
Curt_Anderson

Islander made a point that I don't want to be missed.
President by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (8 comments)

Indy, our RomanCatholicChurch-ophile, is gunna frigginLove this!
Humor by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (9 comments)

Pope body slams Trump, Brown Shorts and OD with one sentence...
Religion by Indy! (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (24 comments)

The 13yr Trump raped in 1994, spills the beans on the Predator-in-Chief
Crime by Indy! (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (46 comments)

More than 7,000 people attend vigil at Colorado State University for Charlie Kirk
Religion by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (82 comments)

Iran is also winning the Sh*t Talk War
Humor by Donna (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (21 comments)

Eric Swalwell is rapidly becoming a #metoo-ed Andrew Cuomo 2.0
Politics by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (49 comments)

"English is hard...
Politics by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (13 comments)

Did you know that Donald Trump is actually Jesus Christ...?
Role Playing Games by Ponderer (0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (46 comments)

The New Hungarian Politics
Government by oldedude (0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments)

Life Hack: Get Real Starbucks Taste At Home By Dumping Hot Water Over Cigarette Ashes
Food & Beverages by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments)

Public Service Announcement:
President by Ponderer (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (6 comments)

International selectors, pages, etc.

What is Ghislaine Maxwell doing in Quebec...?

By Ponderer
February 22, 2026 11:57 am
Category: International
(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post & Tips.

SelectSmart.com

...And who was that who testified as her before the House Oversight Committee...?

This is going to be big, gang.

Huuuuuge...

Comments Start Below

The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.

Comments on "What is Ghislaine Maxwell doing in Quebec...?":

by Indy! on February 22, 2026 1:04 pm

Fun to pretend, but the reality is these are the worst kind of conspiracy theories. There's barely any difference and there are so many things to consider, not the least of which is AGE. She's much older in the prison photo. Then there are all the things he mentioned - lighting, angles, make-up, etc... and one big one he didn't mention which ruins his entire premise - she's wearing glasses in the prison photo. It's easy to see the glasses are causing her ears to bend out slightly changing the height he's using to measure the eye placement. I could go on and on about it, but comparisons like this need the same lighting, angle, the eyes have to be open the same amount, she needs to have the same facial expression (not a frown in the prison photo and smiles in the others and most importantly - they need to be the same age. Age changes people dramatically.

Watch the Canada video and the real giveaway is the voice - the woman in the video has a totally different sounding voice than Ghislaine. Her's is very high and mousy whereas Ghislaine's is very low and deep.

by Ponderer on February 22, 2026 1:22 pm

The difference is quite a bit more than "barely", Indy!. Her old self matches her prison self and the person in the Quebec video. And the deposition version of her doesn't match any of them.

Too many things were way out of place from the Deposition Ghislaine compared to the Younger, Prison, and Quebec Ghislaines, while the latter three all match each other.

by Ponderer on February 22, 2026 1:27 pm

"Watch the Canada video and the real giveaway is the voice - the woman in the video has a totally different sounding voice than Ghislaine." -Indy!

She could have altered it a little. If she actually recognized the guy who was filming her, it may have been a knee-jerk reaction to do so.

What I want to see is some voice print analysis of her voice from another court appearance compared to the voice print of whoever that was who testified before the House Oversight Committee.

I think this is all gonna be analyzed six ways from Sunday.

by Donna on February 22, 2026 1:35 pm

The nose and jaw/chin line are completely different in the deposition video and it isn't because of the lighting.

Also, the deposition video is curiously out of focus. Why, when any cell phone camera will take a nice sharp video?

And why all the strict prison rules about other inmates being barred from speaking to her?

This is exactly the kind of ruse that djt would try to pull off and execute so poorly.

by Indy! on February 22, 2026 2:02 pm

As an artist - I can tell you that is not Ghislaine in Canada, wrong voice, wrong face, not tall enough, etc... and you compare 20 year old pictures to anyone today and they will look a little different.

But have fun with your little conspiracy as long as you understand the reality is this one is on the same level as the MAGAt videos claiming "actors" created the Sandy Hook "hoax". You're using the same exact "science" that they used - "this person looks just like this actor from New Zealand!"

by Ponderer on February 22, 2026 2:05 pm

Well, they can talk to her. It's just that the prisoners or the staff were told that they couldn't speak to anyone else about her, what she did, or who she saw or met with there.

by Donna on February 22, 2026 2:28 pm

Indy, the pic of the woman in Quebec wasn't compared to a 20 year old pic of Maxwell, he compared it with the 4-year old photo at the link below. If if were a 20-year old photo, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

en.wikipedia.org

by Donna on February 22, 2026 2:32 pm

"But have fun with your little conspiracy as long as you understand the reality is this one is on the same level as the MAGAt videos claiming "actors" created the Sandy Hook "hoax"." - Indy

I respected your opinion, but now you're getting hyperbolic.

by Indy! on February 22, 2026 2:37 pm

I'll show you how easy it is to change a person's face. Donna noted the resolution of the deposition photo was not clear enough - my guess is that's because it was taken from a courtroom video camera (those are the only photos I could find of the deposition). The camera probably had low resolution (all the photos I found were very low res) and we don't know how maybe times the video has been put thru some sort of alteration simply to post it on the internet or somewhere else (a very common problem in the graphic arts world - as you should know, Pondy).

So here's two photos of the non-prison era Ghislaine - one from the actual Canada video and the other from Pondy's original conspiracy video. I sized the conspiracy photo down in photoshop using a non-lossy technique to make it the same size as the photo from the Canadian video. So the Canadian video image on the right has not been altered in any way by me. What's the most obvious "difference" between the two? The noses look totally different. Why? Lighting and resolution. Depending on the light source being on the top, side, front, looking up or down - you can change the shape of the nose (and other features) dramatically. For instance - what's missing on the right photo that is quite definitive on the left? The shadow under the nose. Remove that with the lighting and the nose "changes shape". The lower resolution photo on the right (the one I did not alter in any way) loses some of the subtleties of her face - causing the nose to flatten out making the bridge not as prominent. Simple little changes and you have a different person.

by Ponderer on February 22, 2026 2:38 pm

"But have fun with your little conspiracy as long as you understand the reality is this one is on the same level as the MAGAt videos claiming "actors" created the Sandy Hook "hoax"." -Indy!

Oh, okay. Sorry, Indy!. That's what I get for not checking with you first before using my own judgement and eyeballs to form an opinion about something. Thanks!

You know, when you're like this, your skill at making an equitable comparison isn't a whole lot better than a MAGA Hat's.

by Indy! on February 22, 2026 2:49 pm

Well, I just explained it far well enough for two intelligent people to understand. There is no way for me to pass close to 40 years of working with photos of people onto you without wasting far too much of all of our time - but I can tell you the woman at the deposition is certainly Ghislaine. It's a fun little conspiracy but for me there's absolutely no way to buy into it knowing what I know and having the experience I have. Like I said - it really is on the same level, using the same "science" as the Sandy Hook "hoax" people or - since Donna wants to be involved too - the "science" most ufologists use to "prove" we're being visited by aliens from other planets. To be fair - I'd love to believe both, but the first thing that would require is the suspension of disbelief via facts that make sense. A better Epstein conspiracy is he's not dead - they spirited him out of prison and he's living somewhere out there in the ether. But - alas - I have no proof of that one either. 😟

by Donna on February 22, 2026 4:00 pm

Start from the 3:47 mark in the video in Ponderer's OP. To me, and also to the videographer, those noses look completely different even taking into account the shadows. All photos of Maxwell I've seen show that she has a fairly pronounced hook at the tip, which is almost absent on the deposition photo. You don't need to be an artist to see that.

The woman in Quebec could be a doppleganger, but to me the woman in the deposition photo looks like when SNL cast members impersonate celebrities.

But we'll probably never know either way because trump isn't allowing anyone at the prison to speak to any outsiders about what they know. Hmm.

I'd like to hear from others here on this.

by Indy! on February 22, 2026 4:16 pm

The deposition photo the guy is using in his video is a lo-res photo that has been blown up. Everything you do to a photo alters the original image. The worst thing you can do - especially to a lo-res image - is to blow it up. Why? Because then you are dependent on the software to create more photo that did not exist before. One pixel becomes 4, 4 become 16, etc... That's IF the person doing the enlargement knows how to do it correctly. Then there is the actual process of making the video. Video is far lower resolution than a printed image or a photograph from a camera. To create a sharp image in print - you need double the line screen of the final printed piece. So for a magazine - you need 300ppi. For the lowest line screen commonly used, you need 140ppi to get the sharpest images. For video all you need is 72ppi - the rest of the image is tossed out by the video software (4 pixels become 1, etc... IF it's done correctly). So he's taking a 72ppi image (from the court room camera - video) and that image is put on the internet somewhere and probably either enlarged or reduced by whoever did that. Then he's taking it and putting it in his video which we know requires another enlargement because it's bigger than the court room photos on the internet.

Soooo... we're talking a MINIMUM of 2 size changes if it has gone directly from the courtroom to his video. Most likely - more. That is why the image - as you noted yourself - is so blurry. The camera is only the first step - which we didn't even discuss... What kind of camera is it? How old is it? What kind of lens is it using? Is the lens clean? Is there a zoom feature in play? Yada, yada, yada... The variables are unlimited.

by Donna on February 22, 2026 4:45 pm

Of course I coukd be wtong, but I don't think that the person in the deposition video is Maxwell. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

by Indy! on February 22, 2026 6:00 pm

That's because both of you are going about it the wrong way - looking for one or two things that might be different using unscientific methods like the guy in the video. If you watch the video, there is a scene where he switches from the deposition photo to the older "free" Ghislaine photo (or maybe it's vice versa) and the two faces are virtually identical as it transforms from one face to the other. That - alone - carries more weight than the nose "looking different" and the eyelids "not being the same". She's been in prison for years and who knows how much sleep she's getting - that could account for that. His measuring line nonsense is meaningless.

But cool - we can agree to disagree - because even if you secretly do agree, you'd never admit it on the board. The prison photo is her - I have no doubt.

by Ponderer on February 23, 2026 8:00 am

"Well, I just explained it far well enough for two intelligent people to understand." -Indy!

You certainly did. It was a well laid out explanation. Unfortunately, what you explained didn't comport with the same things that Donna and I actually looked at and can see.

"but I can tell you the woman at the deposition is certainly Ghislaine." -Indy!

You can tell us all manner of things. Unfortunately, your telling us something doesn't automatically make them correct.

Donna and I look at a couple photos and can plainly see all the detailed similarities, but you tell us those similarities are not there. We see a lot of detailed differences, but you tell us those differences are not there. Where are we supposed to go from here in this conversation?

"The deposition photo the guy is using in his video is a lo-res photo that has been blown up." -indy!

Just because a photo is low res, it won't reposition features of a face all around to the degree that is evident to us. Her eyes wouldn't shift position relative to her nose. Her ears won't shift lower or higher. And again, what was the reason for doing such a terrible video in the first place when anyone's phone in that room could have done a better job?

"Everything you do to a photo alters the original image. The worst thing you can do - especially to a lo-res image - is to blow it up. Why? Because then you are dependent on the software to create more photo that did not exist before. One pixel becomes 4, 4 become 16, etc... That's IF the person doing the enlargement knows how to do it correctly. Then there is the actual process of making the video. Video is far lower resolution than a printed image or a photograph from a camera. To create a sharp image in print - you need double the line screen of the final printed piece. So for a magazine - you need 300ppi. For the lowest line screen commonly used, you need 140ppi to get the sharpest images. For video all you need is 72ppi - the rest of the image is tossed out by the video software (4 pixels become 1, etc... IF it's done correctly). So he's taking a 72ppi image (from the court room camera - video) and that image is put on the internet somewhere and probably either enlarged or reduced by whoever did that. Then he's taking it and putting it in his video which we know requires another enlargement because it's bigger than the court room photos on the internet.

Soooo... we're talking a MINIMUM of 2 size changes if it has gone directly from the courtroom to his video. Most likely - more. That is why the image - as you noted yourself - is so blurry. The camera is only the first step - which we didn't even discuss... What kind of camera is it? How old is it? What kind of lens is it using? Is the lens clean? Is there a zoom feature in play? Yada, yada, yada... The variables are unlimited." -Indy!

I really hate to say this, Indy!. In fact, this may be the worst thing that I have ever said to you Indy!, but... You're olde duding us with all that. I don't mean that in any cruel way, but I don't see much of any of all that coming into play here, fellow graphics artist person.

But as you say, we can agree to disagree.

by Indy! on February 23, 2026 10:35 am

Thought maybe that one wouldn't fly over your head because I know you have at least a little experience with graphic imaging. Guess I was giving you too much credit. And btw, that's not even the short version - that's the miniscule, try to keep it on the 6th grade level version. So I'll just say it again...

The person wearing the glasses is Ghislaine Maxwell. I have no doubt. We don't need the conversation to go anywhere from there because that is the reality of this situation.

by Ponderer on February 23, 2026 9:37 pm

"The person wearing the glasses is Ghislaine Maxwell. I have no doubt." -Indy!

And I guess I'll have to simply console myself with that. As I am not allowed to consider that my doubt is worth anything.

😔

by Indy! on February 24, 2026 9:03 am

You can believe whatever you want, Pondy. But don't be surprised when you find out I was right and the tinfoil hat guy in the video is not a very good investigator.

One thing I never addressed - the red line. The "evidence" his entire theory rests on and one you can test yourself using a piece of string and a mirror. Stand in front of a mirror, hold the string (stick, ruler whatever) underneath your eyes and see where it lines up in regards to your ears. Now move your head back a couple inches and see where the line is now. Not where it was before - a simple angle of the head can move that line an inch or more off the ears.

Science. Sometimes it's not a mystery. 👊😎

by Ponderer on February 24, 2026 9:32 am

No, Indy!, you don't have to keep trying to convince me that the evidence of my own eyes is wrong. I have accepted it. Your flat-out insistence that I am not seeing what I am actually seeing is bulletproof. There's no way I could argue against it or the avalanche of proof that your mere insistence that I am wrong presents. It's all good.

by Ponderer on February 24, 2026 9:36 am

Something that I was fully unaware of though that you have enlightened me on is this:

Stand in front of a mirror, hold the string (stick, ruler whatever) underneath your eyes and see where it lines up in regards to your ears. Now move your head back a couple inches and see where the line is now.

I now realize that this is the position that most people walk around half their lives in. Especially for pictures. I had no idea.

Thanks again.

Go To Top

Comment on: "What is Ghislaine Maxwell doing in Quebec...?"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart^® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page