Why Is Gifford Subscribed To Loughner's YouTube?

Her husband is an astronaut. I have a feeling that her husband knew a little ''too much'' and someone made an example of his wife and her co-workers. Maybe her co-workers were told about something that they shouldnt have known eather. Who knows ?



Sigh.

I wondered how long it would take.




No you didn't. You didn't wonder "how long it would take." You wanted to post it yourself and are kicking yourself for missing the opportunity.




LOL,

Yeah, as soon as I found that out the conspiracy mind just kicked in. Also, Im going to research this further but I doubt we'll be able to get much more info on her husband. Since everything NASA does involves them being tight-lipped.
Or at least they try to be.

Ok, so I looked at this with an open mind.

Her current YouTube page has her accessing her channel 10 hours ago. It is currently 11:30 EST on Sunday, so it would be 9:30 MST, which means somebody accessed her channel around midnight on Saturday night (after the shooting).

In short, based on the information available on YouTube, nothing is awry, as it seems very reasonable that somebody in her family could have subscribed after the shooting.

But, the Imageshack file posted here suggests that she was subscribed BEFORE the shooting.

Which creates a few possibilities:

1) The Imageshack file has been altered.
2) The Congresswoman subscribed for some reason.
3) Somebody in her family or staff subscribed.
4) Somebody hacked her account and subscribed.

The Imageshack file does not have a date on it, but if it is real, it had to be created before midnight on Saturday night (when the "last login" date was updated). Assuming whomever took the screenshot did it on Saturday after the shooting, then the last login would have been sometime on Thursday afternoon/evening, which means IF THE IMAGESHACK IMAGE IS GENUINE, either:

1) Someone close to the Congresswoman was aware of Loughlin and interested/concerned enough to subscribe to his channel.

2) Her channel had been previously hacked and the hacker had subscibed her.

I would personally like to see some evidence that the Imageshack image is genuine. It is just too easy to alter an image like that, but if it is genuine, this was not some random act. The Congresswoman or her staff KNEW of Loughlin.

Still needs a pin

Ok, so I looked at this with an open mind.

Her current YouTube page has her accessing her channel 10 hours ago. It is currently 11:30 EST on Sunday, so it would be 9:30 MST, which means somebody accessed her channel around midnight on Saturday night (after the shooting).

In short, based on the information available on YouTube, nothing is awry, as it seems very reasonable that somebody in her family could have subscribed after the shooting.

But, the Imageshack file posted here suggests that she was subscribed BEFORE the shooting.

Which creates a few possibilities:

1) The Imageshack file has been altered.
2) The Congresswoman subscribed for some reason.
3) Somebody in her family or staff subscribed.
4) Somebody hacked her account and subscribed.

The Imageshack file does not have a date on it, but if it is real, it had to be created before midnight on Saturday night (when the "last login" date was updated). Assuming whomever took the screenshot did it on Saturday after the shooting, then the last login would have been sometime on Thursday afternoon/evening, which means IF THE IMAGESHACK IMAGE IS GENUINE, either:

1) Someone close to the Congresswoman was aware of Loughlin and interested/concerned enough to subscribe to his channel.

2) Her channel had been previously hacked and the hacker had subscibed her.

I would personally like to see some evidence that the Imageshack image is genuine. It is just too easy to alter an image like that, but if it is genuine, this was not some random act. The Congresswoman or her staff KNEW of Loughlin.

I have no reason to doubt that the ImageShack image is genuine.

I have no reason to doubt that the ImageShack image is genuine.


It's blurry & small... better copy needed to analyze.

The shooter had been in personal contact with her before as noted in the news. Their meeting was breif, however, perhaps she was convinced enough to subscribe to his account?

The shooter had been in personal contact with her before as noted in the news. Their meeting was breif, however, perhaps she was convinced enough to subscribe to his account?


THIS is your answer you idiots. This is true and is being reported in the news. This person answered the question accurately on the first page of this silliness.

The shooter had been in personal contact with her before as noted in the news. Their meeting was breif, however, perhaps she was convinced enough to subscribe to his account?


THIS is your answer you idiots. This is true and is being reported in the news. This person answered the question accurately on the first page of this silliness.

This is what I think happened.

Do not use account for 2 days.
Login to account after 2 days and add shooter.
It will say last login 2 days ago and have the subscription to the shooter.

Ok, so I looked at this with an open mind.

Her current YouTube page has her accessing her channel 10 hours ago. It is currently 11:30 EST on Sunday, so it would be 9:30 MST, which means somebody accessed her channel around midnight on Saturday night (after the shooting).

In short, based on the information available on YouTube, nothing is awry, as it seems very reasonable that somebody in her family could have subscribed after the shooting.

But, the Imageshack file posted here suggests that she was subscribed BEFORE the shooting.

Which creates a few possibilities:

1) The Imageshack file has been altered.
2) The Congresswoman subscribed for some reason.
3) Somebody in her family or staff subscribed.
4) Somebody hacked her account and subscribed.

The Imageshack file does not have a date on it, but if it is real, it had to be created before midnight on Saturday night (when the "last login" date was updated). Assuming whomever took the screenshot did it on Saturday after the shooting, then the last login would have been sometime on Thursday afternoon/evening, which means IF THE IMAGESHACK IMAGE IS GENUINE, either:

1) Someone close to the Congresswoman was aware of Loughlin and interested/concerned enough to subscribe to his channel.

2) Her channel had been previously hacked and the hacker had subscibed her.

I would personally like to see some evidence that the Imageshack image is genuine. It is just too easy to alter an image like that, but if it is genuine, this was not some random act. The Congresswoman or her staff KNEW of Loughlin.

2. The person taking the screenshot WAS logged in under Giffords account (would suggest this whole series of threads is some unbelievably creepy inside disinfo campaign)

The shooter had been in personal contact with her before as noted in the news. Their meeting was breif, however, perhaps she was convinced enough to subscribe to his account?


THIS is your answer you idiots. This is true and is being reported in the news. This person answered the question accurately on the first page of this silliness.

The first question that needs to be answered was whether she was really subscribed BEFORE the shooting. That is still an open question.

2. The person taking the screenshot WAS logged in under Giffords account (would suggest this whole series of threads is some unbelievably creepy inside disinfo campaign)

Extremely unlikely. When you're logged in and look at your own profile page, it's a bit different (there's some extra text, no Subscribe button, etc)

(And yeah, you could Photoshop it out, but why do that when you could just log out and take a screenshot then )

The shooter had been in personal contact with her before as noted in the news. Their meeting was breif, however, perhaps she was convinced enough to subscribe to his account?


THIS is your answer you idiots. This is true and is being reported in the news. This person answered the question accurately on the first page of this silliness.

[link to img717.imageshack.us]

I am not sure how this would work because I don't understand YouTube's methodology for "last visit", but people could coordinate to test it.

[link to img717.imageshack.us]


Higher resolution version, please!