Micah Hanks on Bigfoot DNA
Posted by: Nick Redfern on December 10th, 2012
Micah Hanks gets into a certain saga of Bigfoot and DNA…
“Within just the last few weeks, an all new variety of controversy has emerged pertaining to the existence of the creature known as Bigfoot. Believed to exist (by some, at least) in the remote wilds of America, faith in the presence of such an animal has persisted due to scant provisions collected by researchers and enthusiasts over the years, ranging from footprints and blurry photos, to recordings of Bigfoot “vocalizations” and, yes, hair samples.
“The most recent significant development in Bigfoot research circles deals with claims that DNA extracted from various samples, believed to emanate from Sasquatches traversing North America, have been used to in the sequencing of Bigfoot’s genetic origins. Thus, a DNA sequence for Sasquatch now exists, according to some, as credible evidence of the creature’s existence as an actual physical, flesh and blood being.”
And here’s Micah’s complete article, at Mysterious Universe.
About Nick Redfern
Punk music fan, Tennents Super and Carlsberg Special Brew beer fan, horror film fan, chocolate fan, like to wear black clothes, like to stay up late. Work as a writer.
Not to be mean, spiteful, or anything resembling it: who is this guy, and why is his equivocation of any real interest? (If you were interested by it, please forgive me, and explain why. Only if you want to.)
And using the term “fiasco”? Now, THAT’S premature, and a bit snippy to boot, if you ask me. Not that you did.
Unless I missed something this weekend (bad case of Redskins fever), this thing hasn’t proved a “fiasco” yet. Not even close.
I’d just weigh in to ask Mr. Hanks, what, exactly, does this sentence mean ?
“And of course, the most recent developments pertaining directly to Ketchum and her escapades are now purporting that the peer-review of her scientific presentation of DNA evidence for the existence of Sasquatch has been rejected.”
Come again there, huh?
The snytax makes my skull pound, but I also have to chuckle at this attempt to pass rank speculation and unsupported hearsay off as truth by tagging it as “developments” that apparently are capable of “purporting” something. Well, O.K. then…
Look, Melba Ketchum might be crazy as an outhouse rat for all I know, but until I see a communication from somebody outsider her project who has reviewed her methods and data, I’m in no position to draw any conclusions whatsoever. Neither is this guy.
mixed feelings about this one but only time will tell.
I will freely admit that, upon seeing Hanky’s smirking picture, I summed him up prior to reading the piece. It’s a piece, all right… a directed HIT piece, and a poor one, at that. The stomach-churning syntax notwithstanding.
The two highly-charged weasel words are “escapades” and “rejected”, not to mention the aforementioned “fiasco”. Agenda “journalism”. Hey, WHO IS THIS GUY, AND WHY IS HE SMIRKING AT US? That’s the “I know it all” expression. Seen it before, where? Oh yeah, Joe Vialls.
Who is Micah Hanks? I don’t know. Never heard of him, so I went and looked at some of his stuff. Seems to be all over the map from what I read on his website.
Here submitted for your edification. I note that his actual qualifications to comment on pretty much anything is not listed.
http://micahhanks.com/about/
If I were able to listen to COAST TO COAST AM more often (instead of nearly never), I probably would have heard of him before.