Liberal Forum

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• They usually do not cite primary verification unless the piece itself is an investigation.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...

Vegas » 22 Dec 2025, 4:52 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 4:52 pm

Since BV only reads like 5 words, this is way too long for him, so I will break it down:

VF made an editorial assertion, not a caption based on evidence. In other words, neither BV nor VF can prove that it is Trump any more than it can be proved that it isn't. 

**** moron. 

Vegas » 22 Dec 2025, 4:52 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 4:52 pm

Since BV only reads like 5 words, this is way too long for him, so I will break it down:

VF made an editorial assertion, not a caption based on evidence. In other words, neither BV nor VF can prove that it is Trump any more than it can be proved that it isn't. 

**** moron. 

Vegas » 22 Dec 2025, 4:52 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 4:52 pm

Since BV only reads like 5 words, this is way too long for him, so I will break it down:

VF made an editorial assertion, not a caption based on evidence. In other words, neither BV nor VF can prove that it is Trump any more than it can be proved that it isn't. 

**** moron. 

 A magazine caption is not evidence. It’s an editorial assertion, and those can be mistaken

Vegas » 22 Dec 2025, 4:52 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 4:52 pm

Since BV only reads like 5 words, this is way too long for him, so I will break it down:

VF made an editorial assertion, not a caption based on evidence. In other words, neither BV nor VF can prove that it is Trump any more than it can be proved that it isn't. 

**** moron. 

Blackvegetable » 22 Dec 2025, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 7:12 pm

It isn't a "caption"...It is an attribution...of copyrighted material.......as required under law.

You are so **** stupid, you should be shot....

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...

Vegas » 22 Dec 2025, 4:52 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 4:52 pm

Since BV only reads like 5 words, this is way too long for him, so I will break it down:

VF made an editorial assertion, not a caption based on evidence. In other words, neither BV nor VF can prove that it is Trump any more than it can be proved that it isn't. 

**** moron. 

• Mariette Pathy Allen's Credibility: Allen is a highly respected and pioneering photographer known for her extensive documentation of the transgender and gender-variant communities over nearly five decades. Her work is in the permanent collections of major museums like the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and her archives are held at Duke University. She is a credible and authoritative documentary photographer.
• The Photograph: The specific photograph of Roy Cohn and Donald Trump at a social event (likely a party at Le Club in June 1979, per Getty Images metadata for similar photos) is a genuine historical document of their association. The documentary used many archival photos and footage from Cohn's personal collection to build its narrative.
• The Documentary's Use: The image is used as a factual representation of the well-documented mentor-mentee relationship between Cohn and Trump during the 1970s and 1980s. 

Vegas » 22 Dec 2025, 7:57 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 7:57 pm

    No *******. It is not required by law.. People publish copyrighted lies all the **** time. 

Moron. Loser. There is zero evidence that VF even bothered to fact check this before they published it.

Blackvegetable » 22 Dec 2025, 8:01 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 8:01 pm

Here's what AI ACTUALLY says about THAT photo

AI Overview
Yes, the attribution is highly credible. The still image used in the documentary 
Where's My Roy Cohn? is a legitimate, widely-cited photograph taken by Mariette Pathy Allen. 

• Mariette Pathy Allen's Credibility: Allen is a highly respected and pioneering photographer known for her extensive documentation of the transgender and gender-variant communities over nearly five decades. Her work is in the permanent collections of major museums like the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and her archives are held at Duke University. She is a credible and authoritative documentary photographer.
• The Photograph: The specific photograph of Roy Cohn and Donald Trump at a social event (likely a party at Le Club in June 1979, per Getty Images metadata for similar photos) is a genuine historical document of their association. The documentary used many archival photos and footage from Cohn's personal collection to build its narrative.
• The Documentary's Use: The image is used as a factual representation of the well-documented mentor-mentee relationship between Cohn and Trump during the 1970s and 1980s. 

The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source.

• VF frequently licenses images from:
  • Getty / Condé Nast archives
  • Private collections
  • Third-party estates
    …and misattributions do happen, especially with older event photography.

How to actually verify authorshipTo be certain, one of the following must exist:

• A credit line in the original publication (magazine issue, exhibition catalog, contact sheet)
• The image listed in:
  • Mariette Pathy Allen’s archive
  • A museum collection (e.g., ICP, MoMA PS1, etc.)
  • A licensing database (Getty, Magnum, Condé Nast Archive)
• A negative or slide number tied to her estate

If Vanity Fair’s caption does not cite an archive, collection, or estate, then it is assertive, not evidentiary.

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...

Vegas » 22 Dec 2025, 8:13 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 8:13 pm

Nice try. But no. AI will deliver what is slanted according to what you prompted it to. I would need to see what you put in AI's prompt. Obviously you slanted it. Duh. 

My prompt was non-biased. I uploaded the pic and simply said: "Confirm if the person on the right is Trump. Taken from VF. Captioned by VF as Trump."

Let's see your prompt. Here is another non-biased prompt. I am confident that VF did none of these verifications.

Blackvegetable » 22 Dec 2025, 8:01 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 8:01 pm

The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source.

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...

Blackvegetable » 22 Dec 2025, 8:19 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 8:19 pm

My prompt was "Is the following attribution credible?"

Take the loss, you **** loser.

Tell all your loser friends.

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...

Vegas » 22 Dec 2025, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 8:28 pm

Nope. That was not it. You lied. You forced it. I proved why on my last response. 

Dude, don't debate me when it comes to AI. That's my domain. You don't know **** about how it works. Just like Huey kicks your *** in the gun debate, I will kick your *** in anything AI.

• Critique from Others: Fellow posters often characterize his contributions as lacking original intellectual thought, sometimes accusing him of relying on copy-pasting or simply seeking attention. 

Vegas » 22 Dec 2025, 8:25 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 8:25 pm

One more thing. This is proof that you guided AI to say what you wanted. AI can only read contextual cues, match a narrative, and fills gaps with probabilities, not evidence. 

Ai, on its own, would never say "The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo..." AI cannot confirm the identity of real people in images in a reliable way especially when costumes are involved, makeup is heavy, lighting is theatrical, or the event includes performers, escorts, or look-alikes

Blackvegetable » 22 Dec 2025, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 8:05 pm

VF is reprinting copyrighted material, you **** brick......they have no "Fair Use" exemption....

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...

Vegas » 22 Dec 2025, 4:52 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 4:52 pm

Since BV only reads like 5 words, this is way too long for him, so I will break it down:

VF made an editorial assertion, not a caption based on evidence. In other words, neither BV nor VF can prove that it is Trump any more than it can be proved that it isn't. 

**** moron. 

JuCo 5 percenter...72 “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with? "Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."

Blackvegetable » 22 Dec 2025, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 8:35 pm

It just did....

You need to stop acting as if you know ANYTHING....

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...

Vegas » 22 Dec 2025, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2025, 8:35 pm

    God you are one dumb mother ****. Copyright and fair use have nothing to do with whether the caption is factually correct. Licensing allows publication; it doesn’t independently verify identity. Those are separate questions.