A story that begins in academic publishing in the late 1950s ends up, decades later, in a small office suite near Harvard Square—captured in photographs I discovered inside the Epstein files. The connective tissue is power: the power to shape what gets published, what gets funded, who gets introduced to whom, and which ideas get to move from speculation to legitimacy. In this article, I’m laying out what I presented on YouTube1—carefully distinguishing what is documented, what is strongly suggested by the record, and what remains unproven.

From Pergamon to “peer review as a gate”

One thread I keep coming back to starts with Robert Maxwell in the 1950s and 1960s. Maxwell built influence through scientific publishing, most famously via Pergamon Press. In modern conversations, this era is often framed as the moment peer review became a true “gate”—a place where ideas can be validated, slowed down, shaped, or denied access to legitimacy. In a recent Diary of a CEO episode2, Eric Weinstein (mathematical physicist) speculated that Maxwell’s publishing empire could function as a control mechanism: not necessarily by censoring research directly, but by ensuring “revolutionary discoveries” get filtered through an approved framework. Whether you agree with Weinstein or not, the larger point matters: publication and validation are power.

And the Maxwell name matters for another reason. Robert Maxwell was the father of Ghislaine Maxwell, later known as Jeffrey Epstein’s closest associate. I’m not suggesting a straight-line inheritance of “peer review control” into Epstein’s world. I am saying that the Maxwell story provides a useful lens: the modern academy has choke points—publishing, peer review, funding, introductions—and those choke points can be exploited by someone who understands how institutional legitimacy works.

Eric Weinstein’s claim: Epstein and Harvard Mathematics

Weinstein, who earned his Harvard PhD in mathematics in 1992, has repeatedly stated that Epstein was connected to Harvard’s mathematics department and that Epstein knew far more about Weinstein’s work than would have been expected. Weinstein stops short of making certain allegations, and I’m not going beyond what he himself has said.

But his comments shaped my curiosity months before I discovered photographs in the Epstein files that were clearly at the Harvard mathematics department. This is the first visual confirmation of a mysterious meeting between Epstein, Noam Chomsky (the ‘father of linguistics’), and Harvard mathematics professor Martin Nowak.

The Harvard Crimson, the Harvard internal review, and the address that keeps appearing

Before getting to the photographs, it’s important to note that this story is not built only on images. Harvard itself conducted an internal review3 of Epstein’s ties to the university, published in 2020. That review acknowledged key facts that anchor the timeline:

  • Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to charges involving solicitation of minors and served an 18-month sentence.

  • After his release, he continued to visit Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics (PED), associated with professor Martin Nowak, located at 1 Brattle Square in Cambridge.

  • Harvard’s review states that Epstein likely visited that environment dozens of times after 2009, and that he was given unusually broad access—including office space and access credentials.

  • Epstein even sat in on one of Nowak’s undergraduate mathematics classes.

Then, in 2023, a Harvard Crimson report4 by Elias Schisgall added another piece: the reporting described a meeting in 2015 involving Epstein, Martin Nowak, and Noam Chomsky, and said it occurred at a Harvard office. That reporting built on earlier journalism. At the time, though, there was no visual confirmation of the meeting. That changed when All Things Unexplained began combing through the files.

The photographs: a documented meeting, now with images

While reviewing the Epstein files, I found a cluster of photographs that show Epstein in a small academic meeting. The room is an office in mathematics professor Nowak’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics (PED): chairs arranged for discussion, shelves of academic material, and a dry erase board. What caught my attention immediately was a detail on the board: “Math 153.” In addition, the bulletin boards in the office feature prominent displays—posters, articles, and more—of Nowak.

At Harvard, Math 153 is connected to mathematical biology/evolutionary dynamics, and in 2015, the primary instructor of that course was none other than Martin Nowak. The course label matches the institutional ecosystem described in Harvard’s internal review and in reporting about Nowak’s program in The Crimson. Based on the surrounding context in the file set and the way these images cluster, I believe the photographs correspond to the 2015 meeting described publicly. The reason I say that carefully is because visual material should never be treated as proof on its own; it must be tied to a documentary context. Here, the larger record already includes the claim that such a meeting occurred, and the photos strongly resemble what you would expect a private, small-group discussion at that location to look like.

Who appears in the images (and why I’m careful here)

The images show a small group seated in discussion. Multiple individuals appear across the set of photographs. In my YouTube video5, I discuss the names tied to these images based on identifying context and corroboration. The public reporting already associated Epstein, Martin Nowak, and Noam Chomsky with the meeting, and they are here in the photos. The photos also show a woman who appears to be recording. I initially wondered if she might be Ghislaine Maxwell; however, I determined she is not Ghislaine Maxwell.

In my video,6 I further explain how I identified the woman as Valeria Wasserman (Chomsky’s wife), based on a matching outfit seen in later public photography in a Daily Mail report.7 That detail matters for two reasons. First, it helps corroborate that the photos genuinely involve the people reported to have been present. Second, it demonstrates why responsible investigation must be concrete: not “it looks like,” but “here’s why we think it’s the same person.”

Another figure who appears in the photos is Mikhail Gromov, a prominent mathematician. Additional individuals include well-known Harvard genetics professor George Church, and Danny Hillis, an AI expert who was Vice President of Research and Disney Fellow at Walt Disney Imagineering. These images are striking because they show Epstein not as a distant donor but as someone present in the room during intimate, high-level discussions.

The “unknown woman” and why we are redacting

One photograph is different. It shows a woman seated with the group who is not clearly identified in the document set itself. Online observers have suggested she could be Karyna Shuliak, but I cannot state that as fact. A media outlet has claimed this identity;8 however, I do not know what basis they used, and I will not treat a claim as proof. In the article version of this work, I will redact her face. That is the only responsible choice when identification is uncertain, especially in a case involving highly sensitive material and a history of exploitation.

Gravity: why this theme keeps surfacing

A major reason this meeting matters is not just who attended—it’s what Epstein repeatedly pursued: physics, spacetime, and gravity. Weinstein emphasized Epstein’s “focus on gravity,” including Epstein’s role in hosting a high-profile gravity conference in 2006 (“Confronting Gravity”), where major scientific figures such as Stephen Hawking discussed fundamental questions about what gravity is.

In the Epstein files, the gravity theme reappears in another form: forwarded conversations and speculative discussions about spacetime, propulsion, and how advanced technologies might operate. Some names in those conversations overlap with the UAP discourse world, such as George Knapp, Jack Sarfatti, and Robert Addinall. Others in the group discussions included a wide range of scientists such as Ruth Kastner, Saul Paul Sirag, and Fred Alan Wolf. The group discussions between these figures DID NOT include Epstein. Rather, they were forwarded to Epstein by someone in the group: new age guru Deepak Chopra. Was Epstein using Chopra as an unwitting mole to gain access to these physics discussions?

I’m not claiming that physics discussion equals UAP evidence. I’m saying the pattern is consistent: Epstein gravitated toward the hardest questions in science and toward the people whose work touches foundational issues.

Why any of this matters

The final question is the one people always ask: Why? Why embed in academic ecosystems? Why cultivate meetings? Why obsess over gravity?

Here is my conservative framing: funding and access are powerful incentives in academia. Harvard’s own review acknowledged that Epstein provided money, and that he used introductions and meetings as a recurring strategy. For some academics, the motivation may have been funding and institutional support. For others, it may have been intellectual curiosity or social proximity to a patron.

But there is also a broader implication that is not about scandal—it’s about power and technology. The last time physics fundamentally rewired human capability, it produced world-altering consequences. That’s why gravity becomes such a symbolic obsession: if a true breakthrough in gravity manipulation ever occurred, it would reshape propulsion, energy, surveillance, and possibly navigation through spacetime. I am not claiming such a breakthrough exists. I am explaining why someone seeking asymmetric advantage would be drawn to the topic.

What comes next

Harvard has recently signaled renewed scrutiny of Epstein’s ties. That matters, because institutions are often slow to confront uncomfortable histories until new evidence or public pressure makes avoidance impossible. The photographs we found do not, by themselves, answer every question—but they add something that was missing: visual documentation consistent with a meeting that had already been reported. This is where we stand: documents and reporting establish that Epstein had unusual access to Harvard-linked academic environments after his conviction; reporting described a 2015 meeting; and now images appear to align with that meeting. The remaining work is careful work—separating verified facts from inference and refusing to turn uncertainty into accusation. That’s what we will continue to do.

Notes

1, 5, 6 Epstein’s Harvard Math Dept. Meeting — Photos We Discovered & UFO - UAP Links at YouTube.
2 You’re watching the end of the world in real time at YouTube.
3 Report Regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s Connections to Harvard at Harvard University.
4 Jeffrey Epstein Met With Harvard Professor Martin Nowak and Noam Chomsky in 2015 in Harvard Office at The Crimson.
7, 8 Inside Epstein's obsession with brunette immigrant he molded into Ivy League dentist: 'Not enough kisses, not enough time, not enough sex' at Daily Mail.