posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:17 AM
Let us analyse why there was a subscription on Giffords' YouTube page to Loughner's YouTube page (it has now been deleted). Whilst it it true that
people often make a link to other people's pages once they find these individuals have made a link to their pages, none of the individuals linked on
Giffords' page have a link on their own pages to her page. This indicates that there was NOT some staffer looking at people's YouTube pages and
searching for ones that had earlier been linked to Giffords' page. The existence of the link to Loughner is therefore not the automatic response by a
staffer to seeing his YouTube page linked (later deleted by him) to Giffords' page - that practice was not happening.
The crucial question is not whether the person who made the subscription to Loughner logged in two days prior to the killings or whether the last
login happened earlier. The question is why it exists at all. After all, it turns out that Loughner was totally against Congresswoman Giffords
for her support of Obamacare. There is nothing in his videos that would warrant a friendly link to them! I don't feel that the implications of this
question have been addressed thoroughly enough here.
If it is highly unlikely that either Giffords or one of her staff made this subscription (they had no motive to do so), then we have a smoking gun for
conspiracy, for then someone other than Loughner must have hacked into her YouTube account, obtained her password and added the link to Loughner's
page. Why conspiracy? Well, why would he have done this if he was planning to kill her a few days later? Killers simply don't reveal
themselves to their victims ahead of time - it's too risky. If he was planning to escape rather than kill himself after shooting Giffords, he would
hardly leave on her YouTube page a link to lots of material that revealed his identity! Of course, being mentally ill, he could have not been thinking
straight, and so we cannot be too sure about this argument. However, it might be argued that deliberately giving away his identity suggests that he
intended to shoot himself straight after finishing his shooting spree, in which case adding the subscription would not have mattered to him.
There are two other possible reasons for the presence of the subscription:
1. someone else hacked into Giffords' page in order, perhaps, to provide the police with an immediate identification when they compared eyewitness
accounts with pictures of him but, more likely, to provide a persona that would reveal his politics, etc, creating the desired cardboard cut-out for
all to see that would bring about the intended political responses to the murders. This is like dropping an undamaged 9/11 hijacker's passport in the
debris of the World Trade Center in order to confirm the official story of what happened that terrible day.
2. Someone hacked into Gifford's account who wanted the world to think that she had been the target, whereas it was actually one of the other shot
people that he or she wanted dead. In other words, Giffords' shooting by a mind-controlled "Manchurian candidate" was meant as a diversion. That
way, the REAL reason for the shootings would never come out because everyone (including the police) would assume from his YouTube page that Loughner
had hated her enough to kill her. That would be the reason why she had to be shot first. The real target was someone who everyone would thereafter
assume was unlucky enough to get in the way of a bullet.
My own current preference is #2 because Giffords posed no political threat to anyone in the corridors of power, and my judgment is that resorting to
killing an innocent person just for the national, political dividends it might bring would never have been judged as worth the risk. But new
information might alter that. After all, over 3,000 people were thought worth murdering for the political goal of creating public support for invasion
of Iraq and Afghanistan.....