Special reportWe check the critics tooChecked September 18, 2026

Elephant Graveyard took on Joe Rogan. Here's what checks out.

A YouTube channel called Elephant Graveyard put out an 83-minute video arguing that Joe Rogan got pulled into Peter Thiel's world, and through Thiel, closer to the Jeffrey Epstein circle. It went everywhere. We checked 12 of its claims against sources you can open.

See the verdicts Watch the original

12 claims•20 sources linked•Updated September 19, 2026

Watch on YouTube

The video we checked

How Comedy Drowned in a Radioactive Cesspool of Corruption and Depravity

The Elephant Graveyard · September 10, 2026 · 83 minutes · Artwork by the creator

Start here

First, what this video is

Elephant Graveyard is a YouTube channel that makes long, heavily edited video essays about comedy, narrated by an unnamed host with a soundboard. Its last video went after the Austin comedy scene that grew up around Rogan. This one, posted on September 10, 2026, picks up from there and spends most of its 83 minutes on one question: how did the guy who spent a decade warning about secret elite networks end up best friends with Peter Thiel?

The film runs on clips. It plays old Rogan segments against new ones, splices in interviews, and repeats a few lines (“he's in the Bilderberg group”) until they turn into punchlines. The narrator calls Thiel “Pete” and Epstein “Jeff” the whole way through. Some of what it says is documented. Some is the narrator's theory. Some is a joke. Our job here is to sort out which is which.

We read the full captions, not a summary, and pulled the claims a viewer would actually repeat. Quotes below are from the captions, lightly cleaned. Timestamps land a few seconds before each line.

The quick read

The verdicts at a glance

Twelve claims, four verdicts. The connections in the video are real. The conspiracy built on top of them isn't proven.

6Accurate

The factual claim checks out against a source you can open.

2Needs context

True as far as it goes, but a detail changes what it means.

1Unverified

We couldn't confirm it or knock it down. That's not the same as false.

3Not proven

The video presents a conclusion the evidence doesn't get you to.

What holds up

The Thiel and Epstein ties are documented.

The $40 million into Thiel's fund, the 2015 emails, Thiel's seat on Bilderberg's steering committee. All of it has a source you can open.

The moment worth watching

Rogan got the Epstein timeline wrong, on air.

He said Epstein hadn't been arrested yet when Thiel met him. Thiel corrected him. The film keeps the correction in, and gets credit for it.

Where it overreaches

Connections don't prove control.

The recruitment plot, Rogan “in” Bilderberg, the two million deaths. Those are the film's theory and its jokes, not findings.

All 12 claims, in the order the video makes them

Tap one for the evidence

01Epstein put $40 million into Peter Thiel's fund, Valar Ventures.Reporting backs this. Forbes and The Stanford Daily both put Epstein's commitments to Valar at $40 million across 2015 and 2016.Accurate
02Thiel is mentioned more than 2,000 times in the Epstein emails.We couldn't reproduce this number. Years of correspondence are documented. The exact count isn't.Unverified
03Rogan excused Thiel's Epstein contact by saying Epstein hadn't been arrested yet. He was wrong.The original episode confirms it. Rogan got the timeline wrong, Thiel corrected him on the spot, and the film keeps the correction in.Accurate
04In 2015, Epstein asked Thiel whether the bad press gave him pause. Thiel reassured him.The email exists. A released Justice Department document from January 2015 shows the exchange, and The Stanford Daily reported the same message.Accurate
05Epstein tried to get to Rogan and failed. The two never met.Rolling Stone reported the 2017 attempt, made through physicist Lawrence Krauss. Rogan says he refused. The film says so too, twice.Accurate
06Thiel and his friends deliberately recruited Rogan and changed how he thinks.This is the film's thesis, and it's an interpretation. The dinners and friendships are documented. A plan, and its effect on Rogan's views, are not.Not proven
07Thiel isn't just a Bilderberg guest. He's part of the leadership.Bilderberg's own website lists Peter Thiel on its steering committee.Accurate
08Young blood transfusions have a rejuvenating effect, and that's part of Thiel's appeal to Rogan.The medical claim in the clip is unproven. The FDA says there's no evidence young donor plasma helps with aging and warns it carries real risks. The vampire stuff is a bit.Needs context
09Rogan is in the Bilderberg group now too.It's a soundboard joke, not a finding. Thiel is on the Bilderberg list. Rogan isn't, and nothing shows he has attended.Not proven
10Vance would only come on if Epstein talk was kept to a minimum, and Rogan agreed.Half of it has a source. The New York Times reported that Vance pitched the appearance and told colleagues other topics could fill the time. Nothing shows a condition put to Rogan, or Rogan agreeing to one.Needs context
11Palmer Luckey's company Anduril is building AI fighter jets.The Air Force designated Anduril's YFQ-44A in March 2025. It's an uncrewed, autonomous combat aircraft built to fly alongside piloted jets.Accurate
12You can attribute more than two million deaths to Joe Rogan.There's no calculation behind this. It's the film's closing joke, and it shouldn't get repeated as a statistic.Not proven

The full check

Claim by claim

Each card gives you the claim, the line from the video, our verdict, why it matters if you haven't watched, and the sources. Nothing is hidden behind a click.

Claim 01 of 12 Hear it at 30:52

Accurate

What the video claims

Epstein put $40 million into Peter Thiel's fund, Valar Ventures.

“Jeff invested a cool 40 mil into Thiel's company, Valar.”
Narrator, 30:56

Our verdict

Reporting backs this. Forbes and The Stanford Daily both put Epstein's commitments to Valar at $40 million across 2015 and 2016.

Why it matters

This is the financial spine of the film's Thiel section. A friendship can be waved off. Forty million dollars moving into a fund Thiel co-founded is a relationship with paperwork. One nuance the film skips: the money went into a fund, not into Thiel's pocket.

What we found

Forbes reports commitments totaling $40 million in 2015 and 2016 to Valar, which Thiel co-founded. The Stanford Daily also reports the amount and links an underlying DOJ document. Calling it an investment in Thiel-linked funds is more precise than suggesting a personal payment to Thiel.

What it doesn't prove

We did not independently reconcile fund statements or cash transfers. This supports a financial connection, not proof that Thiel knew of, facilitated or participated in sexual abuse. An investment, an invitation and an allegation are different kinds of evidence.

Check the sources

Link to this claim

Claim 02 of 12 Hear it at 30:52

Unverified

What the video claims

Thiel is mentioned more than 2,000 times in the Epstein emails.

“Pete is mentioned over 2,000 times in the emails dug up from those Jeffstein files.”
Narrator, 30:52

Our verdict

We couldn't reproduce this number. Years of correspondence are documented. The exact count isn't.

Why it matters

Big round numbers travel, and this one is already getting quoted on its own. Whether it's 2,000 mentions or 200 depends on what you count: one email forwarded ten times, a name in a CC line, a message actually written to Thiel. Nobody has shown the search that produced it, so we can't call it right or wrong.

What we found

The reviewed reporting establishes repeated correspondence over several years. It does not provide a reproducible search, corpus version or deduplication method for this exact total. Repeated copies of an email, forwarded chains, third-party mentions and direct messages cannot be treated as interchangeable.

What it doesn't prove

We are leaving the numerical claim unresolved, not calling it false. A defensible count needs the searched files, query and counting rules. A mention total would still not measure wrongdoing.

Check the sources

Link to this claim

Claim 03 of 12 Hear it at 31:48

Accurate

What the video claims

Rogan excused Thiel's Epstein contact by saying Epstein hadn't been arrested yet. He was wrong.

Rogan: “Well, how could you have known back then? He had never been arrested.” Thiel: “This was 2014. It was post arrest.”
JRE #2190, replayed at 31:48

Our verdict

The original episode confirms it. Rogan got the timeline wrong, Thiel corrected him on the spot, and the film keeps the correction in.

Why it matters

If you only watch one clip from this whole thing, make it this one. Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008. Thiel met him in 2014. Rogan's first instinct was to hand his guest an excuse that didn't exist, and the guest had to give it back. The film gets credit for showing the whole exchange instead of cutting away before the correction.

What we found

The original #2190 captions confirm the exchange at about 2:12:47. Thiel immediately says the introduction was in 2014, after the arrest; Rogan acknowledges the earlier case. DOJ's review dates Epstein's state guilty plea to June 2008. Elephant Graveyard retains this correction in its edit, which deserves credit.

What it doesn't prove

This supports a specific timeline error and a criticism of the interview. It does not establish that Rogan lacked all prior knowledge of Epstein's conviction, or that either man participated in Epstein's crimes. Thiel also acknowledges that he did not ask enough questions.

Check the sources

Link to this claim

Claim 04 of 12 Hear it at 37:57

Accurate

What the video claims

In 2015, Epstein asked Thiel whether the bad press gave him pause. Thiel reassured him.

“He was talking to Jeff the whole time, and Jeff even asked Pete if his bad press gave him pause, and tagged on a nice little island invite there too.”
Narrator, 37:57

Our verdict

The email exists. A released Justice Department document from January 2015 shows the exchange, and The Stanford Daily reported the same message.

Why it matters

This answers the "how could he have known" question a second time. By 2015 the lawsuits were back in the news, and Epstein himself brought it up. Thiel kept the conversation going. What the email doesn't show is Thiel ever going to the island. His spokesperson says he didn't, and nothing we found says otherwise.

What we found

The published text of document EFTA02512323 contains the January 25, 2015 exchange. Thiel expresses sympathy and proposes a New York meeting. The Stanford Daily independently links the same response to a DOJ release. That supports the film's narrow point: renewed adverse publicity did not end the correspondence.

What it doesn't prove

The document transcription was accessible; the DOJ-hosted copies presented an age-verification gate in this research session. This is not independent forensic authentication. The email alone does not establish exactly which allegations Thiel knew, an island visit, or criminal involvement. His spokesperson has said he never visited the island.

Check the sources

Link to this claim

Claim 05 of 12 Hear it at 40:28

Accurate

What the video claims

Epstein tried to get to Rogan and failed. The two never met.

“Jeff tried to infiltrate the Rogan sphere long before Pete did, but failed to pass Joe's legendary [bleep] detector.”
Narrator, 40:28. Repeated at 65:12: "Joe never linked up with Jeff directly."

Our verdict

Rolling Stone reported the 2017 attempt, made through physicist Lawrence Krauss. Rogan says he refused. The film says so too, twice.

Why it matters

This is the film being careful, and it matters because plenty of people will assume the opposite. Rogan's name being in the Epstein files means Epstein wanted a meeting, not that one happened. The film's actual argument is about Rogan's guest list, not a handshake.

What we found

Rolling Stone reports Epstein's 2017 request to Lawrence Krauss for an introduction, Krauss's follow-up messages, and Rogan's later account that he refused. That supports an attempted introduction and Rogan's stated refusal. Elephant Graveyard preserves this important distinction at approximately 40:28 and 65:12.

What it doesn't prove

The records reviewed do not establish a completed meeting. A name in a released email is not evidence of abuse or complicity. Nor can these records prove a universal negative about every possible encounter.

Check the sources

Rolling Stone · attempted introduction and Rogan's response, February 13, 2026ca.rollingstone.com

Link to this claim

Claim 06 of 12 Hear it at 45:02

Not proven

What the video claims

Thiel and his friends deliberately recruited Rogan and changed how he thinks.

“Pete and his pals exploited Joe's rising anxiety. They washed Joe's fear away and massaged his bruised ego. And we watched this guy who spent over a decade warning everybody about these secretive elite networking schemes like the Bilderberg Group get recruited into one.”
Narrator, 44:50

Our verdict

This is the film's thesis, and it's an interpretation. The dinners and friendships are documented. A plan, and its effect on Rogan's views, are not.

Why it matters

Everything else in the film hangs on this idea, so it's worth being precise. The pieces are real: Thiel hosts dinners, Rogan's friends go to them, Rogan's politics shifted. Stringing those into "recruitment" is the film's reading of Rogan's psychology. It might even be right. Nothing in the record proves it, and the film mostly argues it through jokes and feelings rather than documents.

What we found

Access, friendship and an opportunity to influence someone are different from demonstrated control. The film's sequence can support a hypothesis about influence, but it does not establish a recruitment agreement or isolate the cause of changes in Rogan's views.

What it doesn't prove

The film frequently frames this in terms of feelings, psychology and satire. We do not score speculation as a lie. We also do not upgrade it to a verified explanation of someone's private motives.

Check the sources

Link to this claim

Claim 07 of 12 Hear it at 47:19

Accurate

What the video claims

Thiel isn't just a Bilderberg guest. He's part of the leadership.

“He's in the Bilderberg group. Deep, deep, deep in the top. They're way up there. They're very powerful.”
Narrator, 47:50

Our verdict

Bilderberg's own website lists Peter Thiel on its steering committee.

Why it matters

The film's running gag is built on a true fact. Bilderberg is a real, invitation-only annual meeting of politicians, executives and financiers, and Rogan spent years treating it as a shadowy cabal. Thiel really is on the committee that runs it. Being on that list says nothing about crimes. It says plenty about the irony the film is pointing at.

What we found

Bilderberg's own steering-committee page lists Peter Thiel. This is a direct institutional source for the film's factual point. The organization also publishes participant lists and describes its invitation-only meetings.

What it doesn't prove

A private meeting is not proof of a criminal conspiracy. The official listing supports Thiel's role; it does not establish every claim made about what participants do behind closed doors.

Check the sources

Link to this claim

Claim 08 of 12 Hear it at 49:55

Needs context

What the video claims

Young blood transfusions have a rejuvenating effect, and that's part of Thiel's appeal to Rogan.

“They take that blood and pump it into your system and they fill your body up with young blood. Apparently it has some crazy, like, rejuvenating effect on you.”
Rogan, in an older clip replayed at 49:55

Our verdict

The medical claim in the clip is unproven. The FDA says there's no evidence young donor plasma helps with aging and warns it carries real risks. The vampire stuff is a bit.

Why it matters

The film plays an old Rogan clip about billionaires buying young blood, then uses it to explain why Rogan is drawn to Thiel. Two different things are going on. The clip repeats a health claim that doesn't hold up. The film's story about Thiel and vampires is satire, and it doesn't show Thiel getting transfusions or Rogan chasing them.

What we found

FDA says it is not aware of evidence demonstrating clinical benefit from young-donor plasma for aging or memory loss and warns that transfusions carry risks. The clip therefore should not be treated as proof of a working anti-aging treatment.

What it doesn't prove

This medical finding concerns the inserted clip, not an assertion that the narrator sincerely believes in vampires. Interest in longevity research also does not establish that Thiel personally receives transfusions, or that access to them explains Rogan's friendship.

Check the sources

FDA · updated young-donor plasma warningfda.gov

Link to this claim

Claim 09 of 12 Hear it at 66:51

Not proven

What the video claims

Rogan is in the Bilderberg group now too.

“He's officially part of the secret club whom some might call the Epstein class.”
Narrator, 67:04, over the "he's in the Bilderberg group" soundboard clip

Our verdict

It's a soundboard joke, not a finding. Thiel is on the Bilderberg list. Rogan isn't, and nothing shows he has attended.

Why it matters

The film hits the "he's in the Bilderberg group" clip over and over until it lands on Rogan himself. Read it as the film's metaphor for who Rogan's friends are now. If you came away thinking Rogan attends Bilderberg, that's the edit working on you, not the evidence.

What we found

The film establishes its argument through juxtaposition and a recurring comic refrain. Thiel's official listing cannot be transferred to Rogan. No attendance record or appointment for Rogan is established by the evidence reviewed here.

What it doesn't prove

Read this as the creator's metaphor for social alignment unless separate evidence supports literal membership. Absence from the steering committee alone would not prove that someone never attended a meeting.

Check the sources

Link to this claim

Claim 10 of 12 Hear it at 67:10

Needs context

What the video claims

Vance would only come on if Epstein talk was kept to a minimum, and Rogan agreed.

“James said he'd only come on if they kept the Jeff talk to a minimum. And Joe said, "Okay, yes, sir."”
Narrator, 67:25

Our verdict

Half of it has a source. The New York Times reported that Vance pitched the appearance and told colleagues other topics could fill the time. Nothing shows a condition put to Rogan, or Rogan agreeing to one.

Why it matters

This is where the film turns reporting into dialogue. A vice president's team planning how to steer an interview is normal, and it was reported. The film then writes Rogan's "yes, sir" for him. That line is a dramatization. One more caveat: we could only read the Times story through a copy on another site, so this stays provisional.

What we found

A reproduced June 10, 2026 New York Times report says Vance proposed appearing on Rogan and argued to colleagues that other subjects could occupy part of the interview. That is evidence of Vance's reported strategy. It does not itself establish a condition imposed on Rogan or Rogan's agreement to suppress questions.

What it doesn't prove

The original Times page was inaccessible in this session; the text was read through a third-party reproduction. The film's dramatized assent should not be quoted as a documented private conversation. This distinction remains provisional pending direct verification of the original reporting.

Check the sources

Third-party reproduction of Haberman and Swan's Times report · access limitation notedarmwoodlaw.com

Link to this claim

Claim 11 of 12 Hear it at 68:00

Accurate

What the video claims

Palmer Luckey's company Anduril is building AI fighter jets.

“They pumped him full of money, whispered a few spells in his ear. Now he's in the secret club making AI fighter jets.”
Narrator, 67:59

Our verdict

The Air Force designated Anduril's YFQ-44A in March 2025. It's an uncrewed, autonomous combat aircraft built to fly alongside piloted jets.

Why it matters

The film uses Luckey as a second example of someone Thiel's circle "flipped." The company and the aircraft are real, and Thiel's Founders Fund did back Anduril. The recruitment story around it, and the film's predictions about what these jets will do, are a separate matter the record doesn't settle.

What we found

The Air Force announced Anduril's YFQ-44A in March 2025 alongside General Atomics' YFQ-42A. It describes uncrewed aircraft with autonomous capabilities designed to operate with crewed aircraft. The program is not an invented element of the film's argument.

What it doesn't prove

The announcement supports the program's existence and intended capabilities. It does not verify the surrounding story of secret recruitment or establish civilian casualties caused by these aircraft. Predictions about future harm are not recorded events.

Check the sources

US Air Force · YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A designations, March 3, 2025aflcmc.af.mil

Link to this claim

Claim 12 of 12 Hear it at 79:51

Not proven

What the video claims

You can attribute more than two million deaths to Joe Rogan.

“You can easily attribute over 2 million deaths to Joe. It's not quite up there with Hitler and Stalin yet.”
Narrator, 79:51

Our verdict

There's no calculation behind this. It's the film's closing joke, and it shouldn't get repeated as a statistic.

Why it matters

The logic goes: Trump credited Rogan for the election, Trump's policies caused deaths, so the deaths are Rogan's. The film follows it straight away with a gag about unconceived children, which tells you how seriously to take the math. If this number shows up in your feed as a fact, this is where it came from.

What we found

No reproducible calculation, defined period or causal method accompanies this figure in the reviewed captions. Endorsing a candidate does not by itself quantify deaths attributable to one endorser. A credible estimate would need identified outcomes and a defensible account of what would otherwise have happened.

What it doesn't prove

The surrounding dictator comparisons and subsequent joke about hypothetical unconceived lives make the satirical register clear. This is not a verified mortality statistic and should not circulate as one. We do not count an obvious satirical passage as a conventional factual falsehood.

Check the sources

Original film · closing sequence from 1:19:51youtube.com

Link to this claim

The bigger picture

The connections are real. The conspiracy isn't proven.

If you skipped the 83 minutes and just want to know whether the video is “true,” the honest answer is that it's two videos stitched together.

The first video is a research piece, and it mostly holds up. Peter Thiel sits on the Bilderberg steering committee. That's on Bilderberg's own website. Epstein put $40 million into Thiel's fund. Thiel kept emailing Epstein in 2015, after the lawsuits were back in the news, and reassured him when Epstein asked whether the bad press bothered him. Anduril really is building autonomous fighter jets. And when Rogan tried to excuse Thiel by saying Epstein hadn't been arrested yet, he was wrong, and his own guest corrected him on air. Six of the twelve claims we checked came back accurate. That's a better record than most viral takedowns manage.

The second video is an argument about Joe Rogan's mind. That one you can't fact-check, and the film mostly knows it. It says Rogan got flattered at dinner parties, had his anxieties soothed by rich new friends, and drifted into the club he used to warn people about. Every piece of that is plausible. The dinners happened. The politics moved. But plausible and shown are different words, and the film gets from one to the other with a soundboard clip and a lot of confidence.

Treat the documents as documents and the jokes as jokes. The trouble starts when a joke gets clipped to thirty seconds and the wink gets cut with it.

Where it goes too far

Three spots. The claim that Rogan is “officially” part of the Bilderberg set. The scene where Vance sets a condition and Rogan says “yes, sir,” which is written dialogue, not a reported quote. And the two million deaths, which is a joke with a number in it. None of those are lies, exactly. They're the film doing what the film does. The problem is what happens once those clips leave the film and start circulating on their own.

Credit where it's due

The video keeps in the moment where Thiel corrects Rogan. It could have cut away right after Rogan's mistake and let it hang. It didn't. It also says clearly, twice, that Rogan never met Epstein, when leaving that vague would have played better. A lot of takedowns wouldn't bother.

How to watch it

The friendship with Thiel is real. The money between Thiel and Epstein is real. Rogan being wrong about the timeline is real, and it's worth sitting with, because it's the exact kind of thing this site exists to catch. The rest is one comedian's theory about another comedian, told well. Enjoy it as that. Just don't quote the body count.

We're not against Joe. We're not against Elephant Graveyard either. We're for checking.

Quick answers

Questions people are searching for

Did Joe Rogan meet Jeffrey Epstein?

No record shows a meeting. Epstein tried to arrange one in 2017 through physicist Lawrence Krauss, and Rogan says he refused. The Elephant Graveyard video says the same thing.

Accurate See the evidence

Is Joe Rogan in the Bilderberg Group?

Nothing shows Rogan has attended a Bilderberg meeting. Peter Thiel is on Bilderberg's steering committee, which is public. The video's "he's in the Bilderberg group" line about Rogan is a running joke, not a documented fact.

Not proven See the evidence

Did Jeffrey Epstein invest in Peter Thiel's company?

Yes, according to Forbes and The Stanford Daily. Epstein committed $40 million to Valar Ventures, a fund Thiel co-founded, in 2015 and 2016.

Accurate See the evidence

Did Joe Rogan get the Epstein timeline wrong?

Yes. On JRE #2190 Rogan suggested Epstein hadn't been arrested when Thiel met him. Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 and Thiel met him in 2014. Thiel corrected Rogan on air, and the video keeps that correction in.

Accurate See the evidence

Is the "two million deaths" number real?

No. There's no calculation behind it. It's the video's closing joke, delivered next to comparisons with Hitler and Stalin and followed by another gag.

Not proven See the evidence

What is Elephant Graveyard?

A YouTube channel and Substack that makes long, heavily edited, satirical video essays about comedy. This video is a follow-up to its earlier one about the Austin comedy scene around Rogan.

Not proven See the evidence

Behind the check

How we checked it

Same rules as every episode on this site. Supported claims get credit. Missing evidence stays missing. Satire doesn't get scored as a lie.

How the whole site works

What we did

We read the full YouTube captions of the video, about 83 minutes, and picked out the factual claims and the big inferences a viewer would walk away with. We compared each one with the sources linked on the cards. We also pulled the captions from the original Rogan and Thiel episode, JRE #2190, to check the timeline exchange ourselves. Timestamps are caption landmarks, so they can be a few seconds off. The claim headlines are our plain-English summaries; the quotes are the video's own words.

What we didn't do

This is a transcript check, not a frame-by-frame review. Captions can't always tell us who's speaking in an inserted clip or what's on screen. We didn't check every joke, edit or allegation in the film, including the joke-theft montage, the older stand-up material or every guest's history. Skipping something isn't endorsing it. A few sources were hard to reach: the Justice Department's own copies of the Epstein emails sat behind an age gate, and the New York Times story on Vance was only readable through a copy on another site. Those limits are noted on the cards they affect.

What the verdicts mean

Accurate The factual claim checks out against a source you can open.
Needs context True as far as it goes, but a detail changes what it means.
Unverified We couldn't confirm it or knock it down. That's not the same as false.
Not proven The video presents a conclusion the evidence doesn't get you to.

Unlike the episode pages, this report shows accurate claims, because the point is to tell you what to trust. It doesn't produce an accuracy percentage and it doesn't feed any episode's Jamie Meter. A friendship, a meeting or a name in a released file doesn't by itself establish anyone's involvement in a crime. This is AI-assisted research with the limits stated out loud.

Updates

First published September 18, 2026. Rewritten for clarity on September 19, 2026; the findings and sources didn't change. New primary records, fuller clip context or a reproducible email count could change individual verdicts. If you think we got one wrong, tell us and show us the source.

Stay curious. Stay up to date.

Keep the evidence coming.

Follow new checks in your RSS reader, or catch up with the weekly briefing on the site.

Follow the RSS feed

Email signup is currently unavailable.

Prefer to catch up here? Read the weekly briefing.

RSS feed

First, what this video is

We read the full captions, not a summary, and pulled the claims a viewer would actually repeat. Quotes below are from the captions, lightly cleaned. Timestamps land a few seconds before each line.

Claim 04 of 12 Hear it at 37:57

Accurate

What the video claims

In 2015, Epstein asked Thiel whether the bad press gave him pause. Thiel reassured him.

“He was talking to Jeff the whole time, and Jeff even asked Pete if his bad press gave him pause, and tagged on a nice little island invite there too.”
Narrator, 37:57

Our verdict

The email exists. A released Justice Department document from January 2015 shows the exchange, and The Stanford Daily reported the same message.

Why it matters

What we found

What it doesn't prove

Check the sources

Link to this claim

The connections are real. The conspiracy isn't proven.

If you skipped the 83 minutes and just want to know whether the video is “true,” the honest answer is that it's two videos stitched together.

Treat the documents as documents and the jokes as jokes. The trouble starts when a joke gets clipped to thirty seconds and the wink gets cut with it.

Where it goes too far

Credit where it's due

How to watch it

We're not against Joe. We're not against Elephant Graveyard either. We're for checking.