Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » Today, 6:08 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:08 am

About the claim itself

• Over the years, various outlets and social-media posts have circulated photos from 1980s–1990s New York society events and charity galas where guests wore elaborate costumes or drag as part of themed parties.
• Some publications (including Vanity Fair, in commentary pieces rather than forensic reports) have reported or repeated claims that a person in one such photo was Trump, often citing second-hand accounts or party anecdotes—not conclusive proof.
• No independently verified, primary-source confirmation (e.g., Trump acknowledging it, event records explicitly naming him in that costume, or contemporaneous reporting) has ever settled the matter definitively.

Vanity Fair could be wrong, and a caption alone is not proof.Here’s the key point, stated plainly:
 A magazine caption is not evidence. It’s an editorial assertion, and those can be mistaken—especially for old party photos with costumes and incomplete records.A few important clarifications:1. Captions are not fact-checked like investigative reporting

• Captions are often written by editors using:
  • prior anecdotes,
  • social-circle lore,
  • secondhand attributions,
  • or assumptions repeated from earlier commentary.
• They usually do not cite primary verification unless the piece itself is an investigation.

2. Vanity Fair has editorial credibility — but not infallibility

• VF is reputable in culture, fashion, and commentary, not forensic identification.
• They are not immune to errors, especially in retrospective society gossip from the 1980s–90s.
• A caption saying “this is X” does not mean:
  • the person confirmed it,
  • the identity was verified,
  • or that documentation exists.

3. Why this specific claim remains weak

• No contemporaneous reporting from the event identifying him that way
• No on-record confirmation from Trump or the event organizers
• No multiple independent primary sources backing the claim
• The photo itself provides no verifiable identifiers, especially given costume, makeup, lighting, and angle

So the correct epistemic status of the claim is:

“Asserted by a publication, but not independently established.”

That’s very different from “proven,” and it’s completely reasonable to be skeptical—especially if the visual resemblance doesn’t persuade you.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...