Hasta La Gadget!

Warning! This post is dark and full of spoilers!

You know nothing about crazy, Jon Snow.

By now most “Game of Thrones” fans have heard about “R + L = J,” a theory about Jon Snow’s true parentage. Many fans are also aware of various other theories, like how Tyrion may not really be a Lannister. These have been widely accepted, but they’re just a few of the many theories out there. Yeah, a lot of theories are easy to dismiss right away. But the craziest thing of all is that some of the wildest actually make a lot of sense.

Here are seven “Game of Thrones” theories that are so crazy they have to be true:

1. Robb Stark is alive

What we’re supposed to believe:
The King in the North was betrayed by the Freys and the Boltons at the Red Wedding, which led to his death, his mom’s death and freakouts across the Internet.

The theory:
Robb Stark is about to send his regards to the Lannisters. The Starks clearly have an uncanny ability to warg into animals. The theory, which can be found on various fan message boards, states that before Robb’s death he warged into his direwolf, and later into some other kind of animal when the wolf was killed. There’s actually evidence that this is possible, as shown by the wildling Orell, who wargs into an eagle as he dies.

2. The true identity of Jon Snow’s parents is not R + L = J

What we’re supposed to believe:
This idea actually runs counter to the most popular theory in Westeros. “R + L = J” argues that Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark are Jon Snow’s real parents. It’s believed that it was Lyanna’s dying wish for Eddard to claim Snow to protect him. Plus, Eddard is pretty much the most honorable dude around. Could he really cheat on Catelyn?

The theory:
Hells yeah he cheated on Catelyn. George R.R. Martin has said he doesn’t think there are characters in the story who are “wholly good or wholly evil.” Well, except for Eddard Stark, right? Unless, of course, he is actually Snow’s father. If so, Snow’s real mother could be Lady Ashara Dayne or even the wet nurse Wylla, who is actually mentioned in the show.

3. Jon Snow will become a White Walker

Image: Giphy

What we’re supposed to believe:
Jon Snow is pretty much running the show at the Wall at this point. New clips show him seemingly trying to get Mance Rayder on his side in the fight against the White Walkers. The guy just doesn’t like them.

The theory:
The book series is called A Song of Ice and Fire. If Daenerys and her dragons are the fire, what’s the ice? As noted above, Martin has said his characters aren’t all good or all evil. Considering some events that occur in Martin’s novel A Dance with Dragons, it’s theorized that Snow will join up with the White Walkers in the fight against House Targaryen.

4. Jamie and Cersei are Targaryens

What we’re supposed to believe:
Jamie and Cersei are a couple of twins who have carried on a seriously disturbing incestuous relationship for years, and their father either didn’t know or never acknowledged it. This relationship results in three kids who should clearly not be sitting on the Iron Throne.

The theory:
In the books, it’s stated that the Mad King Aerys took some liberties with Tywin Lannister’s wife, Joanna, on Tywin’s wedding night. Also, as Reddit user tuna_HP points out, there are hints in the books that seem to support this idea. This can be seen in a statement said to Jaime by his aunt:

Tyrion is Tywin’s son, not you. I said so once to your father’s face, and he would not speak to me for half a year. Men are such thundering great fools. Even the sort who come along once in a thousand years.

This, along with the fact that incest was a pretty common thing with the Targaryens, has led many to believe that perhaps Jaime and Cersei aren’t Lannisters after all. If that’s true, Cersei’s children might actually have a claim on the kingdom, and Jaime would be a kinslayer, not a Kingslayer.

5. Syrio Forel is Jaqen H’ghar

What we’re supposed to believe:
Syrio Forel, the former First Sword of Braavos, becomes Arya’s swordfighting “dancing” instructor and dies offscreen while defending her from Lannister guards following Eddard Stark’s arrest. He must be dead, because Ser Meryn Trant, one of his adversaries, continues to appear in the series, and that dude seems fine.

The theory:
Syrio Forel is actually one of the Faceless Men from Braavos — i.e., an assassin who can change his appearance. If that’s the case, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to suppose that Forel is also Jaqen H’ghar, the Faceless man who killed three people for Arya. It makes sense. As this Dorkly video points out, both Forel and H’ghar are from Braavos, they both offer Arya their help and they both call her “boy.”

6. Eddard Stark is alive

What we’re supposed to believe:
Eddard Stark is accused of treason. Then, after Joffrey decides to be the gracious king he is, the Stark patriarch loses his head and the world goes nuts.

The theory:
What if it wasn’t Eddard who was killed that day? If Forel was in fact a Faceless man, he could’ve changed his appearance and taken Stark’s place, and there’s always that whole Stark warging thing. Could Ned do it too?

Users on A Forum of Ice and Fire have marshaled what they claim is evidence from the book series that Eddard is alive, including Sansa not necessarily recognizing his face after his death and Catelyn’s comments about his bones not appearing how she expected. Though if Joffrey did have the real Eddard killed, it offers a good excuse to watch this:

Image: Giphy

7. “Hodor” has a secret meaning that could change everything

What we’re supposed to believe:
Hodor is a simpleton who is loyal to the Starks. He’s just this awesome guy who carries Bran around and can only say “Hodor,” which can pretty much mean anything.

The theory:
Hold on to your Hodors. Hodor’s real name is actually Walder. In the books, Old Nan explains that “Hodor” is just what he says. But what if there’s actually more meaning to it?

Martin hasn’t really revealed how Hodor came to say “Hodor.” Fan forums claim that Hodor’s name was inspired by the Norse god Hod, and that the character has a connection to darkness and winter, perhaps being an agent for the Great Other who is the enemy of Melisandre’s Red God. Others even claim the word could have something to do with controlling dragons.

So what do you think about that, Hodor?

Image: Giphy

Well said.

The fifth season of “Game of Thrones” premieres Sunday, April 12, on HBO.

Huawei apparently just can’t wait to show some of the wearable tech it has in store this year. While the company isn’t supposed to reveal its Mobile World Congress plans until a press event on March 1st, it has already posted both videos and airport …

You probably don’t realize what a struggle putting clean underwear on is. Taking off your pants and shoes just to change your drawers? Who has the time? To one underwear company, the struggle was all too real, which is why Claspies released panties that front clasps. Now you can take an easy task like changing you underwear and make it even easier.

WASHINGTON — It could hardly have been a more perfect storm, and it was all because of a single question in a routine briefing.

On Feb. 19, U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for military operations in the Middle East, gave reporters a standard background briefing about the ongoing campaign against the Islamic State. The official who conducted the briefing responded to one question with a discussion of a particularly sensitive part of the campaign: the U.S.-led coalition’s plans to take back Mosul, a key Iraqi city that the Islamic State captured in a shocking victory last summer. The official indicated that 20,000 or more Iraqi troops would ideally start the Mosul offensive in April 2015.

Within hours, headlines were screaming with the apparently sensitive information CENTCOM had released.

Opponents of the Obama administration screamed too. “Never in our memory,” hawkish Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote to President Barack Obama the day after the briefing, “can we recall an instance in which our military has knowingly briefed our own war plans to our enemies.”

And almost immediately, the notoriously leak-phobic Obama administration entered damage control mode.

The White House said it could not confirm the comments, instead punting the question to the Department of Defense. Meanwhile, hours after the briefing, newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Ash Carter refused to address the specifics, even though they had already been provided to reporters. Asked about the timing of the Mosul offensive, Carter said, “Even if I knew exactly when that was going to be, I wouldn’t tell you.”

To make matters worse, the two U.S. partners who are essential to the plan’s success — the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Kurds — seemed equally perturbed. Iraq’s government issued a protest over the revelation, and the Kurdish region’s representative to the U.S., Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, said on Thursday that her government was “surprised” by the announcement.

Neatly wrapped in newsprint, a little scandal had landed in the laps of skeptics who have long questioned the White House’s strategy to combat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. After a week of mixed messaging from all corners of the Obama administration, the Pentagon indicated late on Friday that the attack is likely to come in the fall. The announcement leaves last Thursday’s briefing seeming even more puzzling and the White House’s strategy looking even clumsier and more disorganized.

The ongoing confusion about who knew of the Mosul details and who approved their release has given critics two equally powerful lines of attack: first, that officials are careless enough to release details of war strategy that could prove helpful to U.S. enemies; and second, that the administration can’t even coordinate the release of its own sensitive information.

The McCain-Graham letter exemplified the first criticism. And in an interview with The Huffington Post on Tuesday, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, turned to the second: “I can’t believe [Obama and Carter] are claiming they didn’t know, were out of the loop,” he said, calling the entire episode “baffling.”

A large part of the problem is that the administration has struggled to issue a clear response to the briefing.

The White House continues to say it was not involved in the briefing, and has referred reporters asking questions to the Department of Defense. Meanwhile, the Defense Department will say only that Carter was aware of the briefing but not of its content. And CENTCOM will not specify who authorized the briefing.

Immediately after the Mosul disclosure, some officials attempted to make a more robust defense: that the revelations would actually help the U.S. score a victory against ISIS.

A Pentagon official told The Washington Post the day after the briefing that the announcement was intended to put ISIS fighters “into a defensive crouch, which saps their energy.”

The same day, The Post published a separate story quoting another unnamed defense official who said the comments were intended to make most ISIS fighters flee Mosul prior to the U.S.-aided Iraqi assault.

In the days since, a different explanation has surfaced. The briefing, several officials said, was not intended to cover the details on Mosul that ended up grabbing the headlines.

“If a question about Mosul didn’t come up, it wouldn’t have been covered in such detail,” one official involved in organizing the briefing, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told HuffPost on Wednesday.

The administration has also faltered in its efforts to clarify just how consequential the revelations were. When Carter told reporters on Feb. 20 that he would be disinclined to share the planned date of the offensive even if he knew it, he implied that publicizing the timing would, in fact, be a risk to U.S. strategy.

But then came the turnaround. That same day, deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes downplayed the episode, arguing in a CNN interview that nothing was revealed that was different from what the administration had already been saying about the plan to retake Mosul. “The bottom line is that this operation will be conducted when the time is ready,” Rhodes said.

Defense officials have since picked up that refrain.

“Pretty much everything that was briefed has been discussed before in different fora,” one defense official who asked not to be named told HuffPost, adding that the information in the briefing should have been considered “heavily caveated.”

“We’ve seen timelines shift,” the official said. “Come April, if it’s not where we’re at, it’s not the end-all be-all. There is no timeline: It’s a snapshot of what we think could happen.”

Maj. Curtis Kellogg, a spokesman for CENTCOM, said in a Wednesday email that the details discussed in the briefing “revealed nothing of operational value” to the Islamic State.

This is the present approach: Just play down the importance of the briefing. But opponents continue to latch onto the discrepancies in the administration’s line.

McCain dismissed the idea that the president and defense secretary didn’t know about the briefing’s content. “It was sort of an immaculate conception?” he scoffed. “One then wonders about the chain of command.”

The Arizona Republican added that his inquiry to the White House about who authorized the briefing had not yet been answered. As the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain helped guide Carter to his confirmation to the Pentagon’s top position just weeks ago.

Burr expressed similar doubts.

“I think there are a lot more people in the dark on that decision than there were knowledgeable that it was going to happen,” he said. “There’s nothing that happens in this government that the White House doesn’t sign off on.”

Some analysts share that suspicion, and have hinted at strategic reasons for the revelations, just like some administration officials did early on after the briefing. To Joel Wing, a widely cited independent researcher on Iraq, the incident looked like a conscious response to mounting pressure on the administration — including from the Iraqis — to show something tangible for its monthslong military offensive against the Islamic State.

Speculation aside, it is clear that the criticism has had an impact just as the Obama administration is attempting to win support in Washington for the fight against ISIS, including congressional approval for an authorization to use military force. The fact that the Pentagon is now signaling a complete shift in plans from what was indicated at the briefing is likely to bolster skepticism about the administration’s strategy.

The department seems aware that damage control is in order. Kellogg, the CENTCOM spokesman, assured HuffPost in his email that the Pentagon would “respond appropriately to [McCain’s and Graham’s] concerns and in an expeditious manner.”

Beltway Democrats may not deserve good luck, but it looks like they could have plenty in the next presidential race. Heading into the weekend, Scott Walker, a man born to be slaughtered in a general election, is suddenly leading the Republican pack in the Iowa polls.