The Guccifer 2.0 Chat Hoax

The Private Twitter Conversation between Robbin Young and Guccifer 2.0 is a Hoax…But Why?

**UPDATE — There is a Second Part to this Article HERE

Whether you know the story behind the alleged Russian hacker or not, you’ve likely heard his name — Guccifer — technically, Guccifer 2.0. There was a first iteration hacker with the same name.

I’m not going to go into the entire backstory of Guccifer 2.0. You can read up on his WikiPedia bio HERE.

For more interesting info on Guccifer 2.0, including alternate theories, I highly recommend reading Guccifer 2.0 — Game Over by Adam Carter.

In fact, you could say this article is an addendum to Adam Carter’s theory.

Recently, a Twitter direct message conversation, which allegedly took place between Guccifer 2.0 and actress, Robbin Young, was released by Young with the approval of Guccifer 2.0. You can read the entire conversation on Young’s site HERE.

What makes this particular private conversation noteworthy, is the reference to a whistleblower named Seth. The obvious conclusion one draws, is the whistleblower Guccifer 2.0 is speaking of, is murdered DNC employee, Seth Rich.

The rumor that Seth Rich had been the inside source who leaked the DNC’s emails to WikiLeaks started shortly after Rich was found murdered in Washington, D.C. — a murder still unsolved to this day.

The goal of this article is to prove the Twitter conversation provided by Robbin Young in a series of screen captures, has been altered.

The only reason I decided to look into this chat further was a claim made by a reliable and credible source who was adamant no such conversation ever took place.

I have no idea what this person knew about the situation, but his claims piqued my curiosity. Upon closer examination of the chat screen shots, it is obvious this person knew something.

First, I will show what a direct message conversation should look like using a screen capture from a chat of my own. I’ve blurred out the other participant to protect their privacy.

Robbin Young was the user in the conversation she posted.

The person you are chatting with, or the guest, always appears on the very top of the chat window.

The user side displays little check marks by their avatar, along with the date.

The guest side does not show the checkmarks.

As the user moves their cursor over the chat window (sometimes called mouse-over), the symbols (or icons) for deleting the message (a garbage can), and in the case of the guest only, a small circle with a line through it (crossed-circle), appears with the garbage can.

The cross-circle symbol is for blocking, or more accurately, flagging the guest user as a person you do not want to chat with again.

The next picture shows the symbols, or icons, which appear when the user moves their cursor over the spot indicated by the red arrow.

Remember, the two symbols, the crossed circle and the garbage can, only appear on the same elevation as the guest’s comments.

The user side only ever shows the garbage can by itself.

If you are a Twitter user, you can check your own conversations to test this feature.

Here, the cursor (indicated by the red arrow) is hovering over the user side — notice, only the garbage can icon shows up.

**Note: the cursor itself doesn’t show up in the screen shots. The red arrow indicates where I held the cursor at the time of the screen capture.

This last shot shows the chat window when the mouse cursor is completely moved away.

*Notice, no symbols (or icons) appear when the mouse cursor is not present.

Below are several of the screen captures offered by Robbin Young as evidence of the conversation she claimed to have had with Guccifer 2.0

The shot below shows evidence the picture was altered simply by the crossed-circle symbol, along with the garbage can on the user side of the chat window.

This does not happen ever, nor would it make sense — the crossed circle is for flagging an unwanted guest.

The user cannot flag themselves.

.

This picture shows Guccifer 2.0 was the guest as his name is on the very top of the chat window.

This time, the symbols appear properly for the guest as she moved her mouse over the screen — the crossed circle and the garbage can.

The following picture is correct in the layout of the symbols. It is also the one time in the conversation where the name Seth is mentioned.

The next two pictures show more evidence of tampering — the incorrect symbols showing up on the user’s side of the conversation.

And again, more manipulation of the screen shot. There are several more examples of tampering in Ms. Young’s full conversation.

One example of photo manipulation is enough to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the entire conversation. The fact there are several instances only compounds the doubt.

This last screenshot doesn’t have any errors with the symbols, but I found it interesting due to the comment Guccifer 2.0 makes about Julian Assange and the Russians. Take from that what you will.

I’m not ascribing any meaning to any of the changes made to the screenshots or the dialogue itself.

I do not claim to know the purpose behind releasing a modified chat, or what the motives of Ms. Young or Guccifer 2.0 might be. I am simply showing the conversation, as it was released, has been altered in several areas for some purpose.

I will leave the interpretation up to the reader, and the person who has been studying this in much greater depth than I have — Guccifer 2.0 — Game Over by Adam Carter. @with_integrity

If you wish to contribute to the family of Seth Rich in their quest to obtain additional investigative services to solve the murder of their son, you can contribute to their GoFundMe campaign.

The parents of Seth Rich say thank you.

*I reached out to Ms. Robbin Young asking for a comment on this information. As of time of publishing, I had not yet received a response. I will update the article accordingly if either Ms. Young or Guccifer 2.0 issue a statement.

HM

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.