Hannah Slander-son!? o_O

   First and foremost, anybody that's not aware of the Hannah Anderson kidnapping or all the soap-opera drama to follow has probably been living under a rock.  But the looming question is, is it as cut and dry as it seems, or is there more than meets the eye?

   Reason for the title, is it seems there's many that would defend Hannah Anderson to the death, similar to the idea of fanboys/fangirls that hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil.  While anybody who even remotely questions her is cast out as somebody just looking to slander a supposedly and purportedly completely innocent victim.  But just how much innocence is there?  And is it the same innocence of yesteryear, or has innocence been devalued by generational inflation similar to the national currency!?  To be perfectly honest, one thing that's certain, is current events of the past decade or two will prove concretely that there's no such thing as a completely innocent person anymore, and that people even younger than Hannah Anderson have committed even worse crimes... so her question of innocence based on just her age are complete bollocks!

   So many strange inconsistencies loom that make no sense whatsoever.  Like the fact Hannah's phone was found inside the burned house, yet she reportedly was using it to text DiMaggio thirteen times to tell him where to pick her up.  Also Hannah's role post-incident, where she's going out of her way to say, "they weren't calls, they were texts" -- yet, it's been proven by many that a cell phone company can tell the difference between the two, that they're not labeled the same, so for them to say they're calls, means they're calls, not texts.  Then throw in the fact that as SOON as Hannah got home, she instantly took to the interwebs to make sure to put out her own specific version of the story... which is typically the act of somebody who is either guilty or trying to cover something up -- after all, if everything is as she claims, and the facts would speak for themselves, why not let the facts speak freely without her imposition to sculpt them a certain way?  Yet she's consistently in the spotlight trying to push her "version" of happenings.

   Also seems rather strange that for somebody who should be traumatized she keeps wanting to continue to talk about and focus on the occurences.  I mean, let's lay it bare.  She survived being SUPPOSEDLY kidnapped at gun-point, half of her family is wiped out and massacred along with the family dog, and it's speculated that she was probably even raped (the two used condoms found in the house).  That's collectively THREE of the worst traumas any person can go through -- she goes through them at the age of 16; one would think she'd be institutionalized or at the very last in massive psychotic therapy... yet she's smiling, posing, getting her nails done, and taking every chance she can get to vogue for the camera!  No surprise Marilyn Monroe is her hero.  *facepalm*  I mean, fully grown, trained, and experienced military soldiers go through even less traumas and appear to be damaged worse than Hannah Anderson comes off as!? o_O

   Then rolling along, there's not only her massively strange behavior afterwards, but her lack of grieving, even her father's lack of grieving.  Since she got back, she can't help but post selfie after selfie, all smiling and posing in overly tight clothing and skimpy daisy-duke shorts; as well as continually getting together with friends and partying.  Not to mention the memorial, where she was witnessed laughing, giggling, having a good time, while chugging her Starbucks in the church; don't get me wrong, it's great for a supposed victim to be able to move on and recover, but so quickly AND at a memorial where a person is meant to mourn the deceased!?  Then the pictures that surfaced right after the memorial, where she's seen in the church, making the shape of a gun with her hand(s), as her friend does the same, while she's smiling/smirk-pouting in a pose, while labeling the image, "true thugs"??  Then there's the strange picture Hannah Anderson posted to her instagram showing her with her hand appearing to hold the Hollywood sign (obviously not), but the message read, "#bye #hollywood #bye #malibu #hello #river"; and coincidentally enough that's where they ended up going was the River of No Return in Idaho. 

   Should also point out the one strange photo from the memorial, with her massively over-exagerated facial expression of what we're supposed to believe is sadness!?  Kind of wondering if she's not a sociopath -- often times, sociopaths become so focused on themselves and so far gone, they become incapable of displaying emotions properly or correctly, and typically have to overly exagerate them in order to display them at all, albeit at times falsely display them (like over-acting while not even feeling it for the most part).

   Other oddities include the fact Hannah claimed that DiMaggio was creepy, yet she went away with him on several over-night trips between just the two of them to places like Malibu and Hollywood (how her mother even allowed that is beyond me; and what about trips for her brother Ethan!?).  Seems Hannah Anderson was a bit of a gold-digger... using DiMaggio (who she knew had a crush on her and had even stated as such) for shopping sprees and trips... even to the point DiMaggio was about to lose the house that burned because of his financial problems.  Perhaps Hannah knew the gravy-train was pulling into the station, and DiMaggio realized he wouldn't be able to hang on to his main squeeze of Hannah without the big green wad... for all anybody knows they could have staged the whole thing hoping to inherit the life-insurance AND the fire-insurance... it'd explain the timers on the devices used to set the fires, since it'd make it look like they're not in the vicinity when the fire starts and are eliminated as suspects as they claim, "oh, we were on yet another road-trip, it wasn't us".  But then that backfires, the police and fire-department find evidence otherwise, the Amber Alert is issued, and the rest is national news.

   The FBI and investigators are also remaining oddly tight-lipped, and their reasoning is that since she's a minor they don't want to say anything that could stick to her in the future.  Yet, it leads me to think they have more than they're letting on and perhaps are still trying to gather enough evidence to make a conviction.  I mean think about it, just like I said above, if she's completely innocent and the facts just all speak for themselves, and she's a victim irregardless of anything else, what's there to be worried about releasing that could possibly "stick to her"?  They'd just reveal what they have irregardless.  Are they afraid that people are going to learn she was carrying on a sexual relationship with a 40 year-old and she'd lose all credibility for the rest of her life or what?

ALERT!!!:  On a side note, anybody that's curious about this case, do yourselves a favor and completely AVOID "Hannah Anderson is Guilty" on Facebook at all costs!  The page is run by a bunch of complete psychopaths.  I became unfortunately banned from their page, when I simply tried to link an article on AllVoices.com that referred to the strange photo of Hannah Anderson saying, "bye hollywood, bye malibu, hello river".  Reasoning?  It'd appear that the author of the article put on a podcast which was mentioned in the article, and it seems the people behind the Facebook page tried to call in, and the author of the AllVoices article wouldn't answer their call because it was a blocked number; so the owners of the Facebook page got overly upset and started accusing the AllVoices article author of stealing all their facts and tidbits from their page... as the Facebook page owner was going on about how they deserved on-air recognition and props.  After they deleted my linking of the article, and said what they did, I tried to reply by saying, "I thought the purpose of this page was to get to the bottom of the truth behind the Hannah Anderson story, not props or recognition??".  They thend deleted that comment and banned me.  Talk about sacking the messenger.  The owners of the Facebook page are glory-hounds only looking to make a name for themselves, not to get to the real truth.  Not to mention, it's not like the information on their page isn't sourced from other places (yet they accuse the AllVoices author of "stealing" the stuff from their page!?); I know I contributed a lot to the page, and they sacked me without even blinking... where was my "recognition"!?  *facepalm*  Bunch of snot-nose hypocritical loser asshats!

Their exact message was this:
"Hannah Anderson is Guilty The podcast which I advertised as an event was full of **** I covered in my own podcasts. If u have a 30 minutes dont take breaks and answer calls u said u would when I was on hold be it private number but answer it. The podcast was bull****! All info from my page give my page props dont just mention it in chatrooms mention it on air! Anyhow that's why ur comment was deleted! Bull****!
1:13am (38 minutes ago) · Edited" (Curse words censored out by me.)

That post can be seen here. (Link no longer seems to work.)

Can see the article in question here on AllVoices.com.  (I also mentioned the same in the comments under the article...)

UPDATE: Just found out the "Hannah Anderson is Guilty" Facebook page has been yanked down!  W00H00!  Thank GOD for small miracles!  Those psychotic witches didn't deserve to be running a page claiming to be searching for truth, since the only thing they were obviously looking for was their egos! ^_^

D.C. Naval Yard Massacre

   News is pouring in about the horrific massacre shooting at the D.C. Navy Yard.  Simply horrific to say the least.  Even worse that it's yet another entry in a long and ongoing chain of public mass shootings, while being even more reason for better gun control and regulation; noting that does NOT mean taking away all weapons from all people as many extreme gun activists would believe.

   Many news outlets are calling it "the worst shooting to take place on a U.S. military base", and then compare it to Fort Hood.  Yet, I'm left to wonder, what exactly is the basis for that comparison?  By that I mean, at Fort Hood there were thirteen casualties.  While there were also thirteen casualties at the D.C. Navy Yard.  However, in the D.C. Navy yard, the shooter is actually among the thirteen casualties, meaning only twelver were innocent bystanders; while at Fort Hood, the shooter went on to be tried in a court of law, stating that all thirteen deaths at Fort Hood were innocent bystanders.  Now, if the comparison was being made under the ratio of military personnel versus civilian, that perhaps there was more military than civilian killed at Fort Hood, maybe I could understand the comparison... but as far as I know, they're not releasing information on the victims of the D.C. Navy Yard shooting yet, so it wouldn't be possible to be able to make even that kind of comparison??  *shrugs*

   
   As much as I'd love to see better gun regulations put into play (note: not as the extreme gun activists think, not to take away all firearms from everybody, just better safety precautions) like psychological screenings for firearms, etc... there's still the chance it might not fully resolve all issues.

   I do have an idea that will sound crazy, but may make sense, somewhat. What about the ability to manufacturer and/or upgrade all firearms to have minimal WiFi in them, and I know, sounds crazy, but hear this idea out:
 
   Set it up so that everytime the trigger is pulled, a quick data packet is sent to a data server, simply logging firearm serial number (as well as a quick search to see whether or not the firearm is legally registered), exact coordinates (in three dimensions [X,Y,Z] to also note not only where at, but also to note exactly how high from the ground the firearm is, like standing, squatting, laying down, etc) the shot occured at, the trajectory of the shot in comparison to the firearm and how it's positioned, and perhaps some way of tagging ammo as to be able to register what kind of round is/was fired. Even though it may not fully deter shootings, it would at the very least, if people knew about it, make them aware that as soon as they pull the trigger, their shot is being instantly registered, the collected data would also help investigators (like in the Zimmerman case, where they weren't sure what the exact trajectory of the shot was, if he was laying down or standing up, or even how quickly/aimed the shot was fired). Also have failsafes in the weapons so that if the WiFi in the weapon is tampered with whatsoever, the gun locks up and becomes unusable (forced safety engagement). This isn't any form of "big brother watching", since there are many setups now to simply listen for a gunshot to go off and alert that a gun was fired in a certain/specific vacinity, it'd just be a more thorough means of gathering data of the shots that are fired. Again, it obviously wouldn't stop all these incidents from happening, but it would make it much harder, for instances where people do fire off a weapon, to escape or have a giant "unknown" as far as post-ballistics analysis after the fact go, while being able to have the ballistics assertained and collected as soon as a round has been fired. Not to mention the simple data gathering wouldn't at all interfere with the Right to Bear Arms. ^_^

   Just a thought... it may have certain issues, but I'm sure there'd be a way to work out the kinks over time. I mean, if WiFi can now be put into refrigerators and such, why not into firearms? Q:)