May 1, 2016 — Micah Hanks

[Derek Wood]

I think Hanks himself illustrated the issue being discussed in this thread when he (Hanks) elaborated to excess in his answer to such a degree he had to be reminded by Gene what the question was. He is clearly engaging but can be too baroque.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Good grief. We "spastics", who in my case only said that Hanks is longwinded and probably does not intentionally convey what can be perceived as arrogance (obviously I dont think he is arrogant, thus my qualification of my statement), are now the bane of podcast forums. These are all just opinions, to which Some are apparently entitled, while those who disagree are now labelled "spastics". There are many guests I do not like to hear, thus I tune out, just as I said I do when I have had enough of extremely long-winded, wordy answers - from anyone. This says nothing of who Hanks really is. I am southern too - and like music (Hanks is great musician), and I like Rush Limbaugh, and I am fascinated by offbeat subject matter, so I bet I have more to like about Hanks than not. My comment was only about speaking style, which in my "spastic" *opinion* (which I apparently shouldn't dare voice) is valid commentary. As for politics, it is so laced with hypocrisy, half-truths, and often horrible logic and factual errors (from all political points of view), that I just hate having to tune in and out to avoid it on a show like the *Para*cast which is high among shows which deal with the paranormal (usually). I am now tired of my own longwindedness - but I am still a nice, albeit now "spastic", guy

lol Fair enough. Just FYI, it came across as somewhat 'spastic'. But your post didn't represent everyone I was referring to, it just inspired the commentary. Now that I know where you're coming from I can comment about another peeve of mine: How Easy It Is To Misinterpret These Damned Textual Communications! lol, as I so ably demonstrated (and do more often than I like to). But I think you'd agree there do indeed exist the spastics who authentically do the things I identified.

 

[Randall]

Yeah, I'm OK with Micah, too. Personally I'm tired of the ranters who bitch about someone's vocal tone or conversational style. Some guy on a vid I did not produce of my speech at the con in Texas was complaining about my vocals. Jesus, really guy? And the other thing I'm just done with are people who complain about someone's politics. News Alert: We all have differing politics. Micah mentioning Rush Limbaugh is not cause for alarm or disdain, just let it roll by. Getting worked up over something like that says more about the complainer than it does the person they're bitching about. Ranting about politics on social media is so friggin' stale. And the insistence on 'short answers'?? What the hell is that about? Half the reason for listening to interviews is just to kick back and enjoy the journey of discussion. Anyway, don't worry about one person's peculiar reactionary point of view, just do your show your way, I say. Let the guests be themselves and if a few spastics disapprove, they can simply not listen.

Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback .

 

[Micah Hanks]

OK, this remark is PERSONAL about Micah Hanks. I can't help it. I try so hard to give Micah a good sincere listen. But he uses so many words to say so little that my mind begins to wander, watching dust motes in the sun (which seem more exciting).... Therefore, listening to this Paracast was simply painful for me. Can the man never give short answers? That voice just goes on and on and on and on and on......by about half way through the show I burst out with "WILL YOU PLEASE JUST SHUT UP?" Then, I must confess (Gene) that I just had to turn it off. I realize this is probably a minority opinion that will not be affirmed by anyone else.

Hi folks, Micah here.

As always, it was a great time with Gene on our recent episode of The Paracast together. Also, I must admit that I usually don't trail the forums often enough, nor do I normally reply as I am doing now. I should hope to amend that in the future.

However, today I just had to jump in and respond to what "Beyondthestargate" had to say in his lead-off to this thread, which, of course, he states is merely a "personal remark". Personal though it is, there are some factual inaccuracies, based on presumption, and yes... what appears to be the good old "guilt shaming" of southerners which remains all-too common today. I found the statements too juicy not to respond in turn, so here goes:

Beyond, to quote you from your post, "I also have a hard time taking seriously a man who on his own G. Report refers to Rush Limbaugh and other right wingers with great respect and as reliable sources. Yes, he is a Southerner, but there is no excuse for such political immaturity. Rush Limbaugh?!?! Chuck Norris?!?!? Really?"

First, I don't "admire" Rush Limbaugh, or reference him "with great respect"... any more than I would admire Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Ed Schultz, or any other talking head. I realize that what they offer is simply opinion, and if anything, I disagree with Limbaugh far more than I find common ground with the man. And yes, on my Gralien Report podcast I recently cited Chuck Norris and his WND article on "chemtrails"... which was rather obviously intended to be a deconstruction of some of the fallacies with the argument he presents! I'm somewhat amazed that by mere mention of Norris and his article, that this had been taken by anyone as being support for his ideas. I realize (and no offense to you, nor any taken here) that you state how your mind wanders as you listen... however, if you listened at least a bit more closely, you might have realized that mentioning someone is NOT an endorsement of their beliefs. In this case, it was quite the contrary. Simply put, I don't buy the chemtrail theories, and I don't think Chuck Norris presented a convincing argument for their existence either.

Despite my own political centrism (I have been registered Independent since becoming legal voting age), I have noticed something similar to this in the past that, in a sociological sense, is interesting: on rare occasions, I've had people who listened to things I say, and interpreted my views as being the complete opposite of their own political beliefs pertaining to the subject I discussed (this happens most often with those of a far-left or progressive political persuasion, but that is not always the case; I have opinions that are liberal on many issues, and conservative on others). Recently, another of my listeners condemned me for having a "leftist agenda," which further illustrates my point: a person of a centrist or independent mindset is sometimes hard to peg... and thus, we become targets for those with more polarized political views. In other words, if I don't appear to take a hard stance "for" or "against", and I instead merely report something that another (like Norris) has said, this is taken as support of that person's claims by someone else who disagrees with them.

Why is this the case? Well, I have a theory... I worry that some people are merely "looking for fights" in this modern age of Internet "trolling". Hence, the interpretation of what they hear becomes a reversal of the intention, since they are seeking to argue, rather than to listen. In other instances, it seems clear that based on my regional dialect, and my place of residence in the Southeast, these individuals are merely judging me based on the stigma attached to southerners.

Hence, to quote you again, "Yes, he is a Southerner, but there is no excuse for such political immaturity."

Ahem.

Beyond, I will make no apologies for residing in the region in which I live, and frankly, I find it disgraceful that you try to make such an association... based on your own erroneous assessment of my political stances, no less! Rather than having a discussion, or listening, you chose to stereotype me instead. That's not intelligent... in fact, it's antithetical to intelligence. It's called ignorance.

Sure, it's a common misconception that here in the south, we're all "backwards hillbillies" and rightwing nut-jobs. Once again, putting our stereotypes and preconceptions aside, my hometown of Asheville, North Carolina, is actually quite a "hub" for progressive liberalism (I'd invite you to ask any of my liberal friends here in town their feelings about "guilt shaming" of southerners and our "backward" ideas). Yes, North Carolina has become infamous recently due to the controversial HB2, otherwise known as the "bathroom bill". However, not everyone in this state supports the legislation, and no, not all southerners are right wing extremists.

I will conclude here by saying that, in truth, I appreciate your commentary Beyond, and I thank you for your candor and your honesty. So please don't think I'm laying into you... however, I get irked when people state plainly that they aren't actually listening to what I say for any reason or another, and then proceed to make erroneous statements about my beliefs, as well as presenting stereotypes about my regional culture. I think that's unfair, and simply unnecessary, if our aim is to have a sincere dialogue about the subjects addressed here in this forum, on the Paracast program, on my own podcasts, or in any other similar medium. Let's keep the discussion based around the subjects, rather than our stereotypes about others here on the forum.

Finally, I want to thank Walter Bosley for his comments here. Walt, you're one of my favorite researchers, and it's always great to see your thoughts on things at hand.... whether or not it's coming out in defense of me and my "kooky southerner" beliefs!

Thanks guys, and once again, it's always a pleasure to join Gene and Chris on The Paracast.

-Micah Hanks

 

[Wade]

Why is this the case? Well, I have a theory... I worry that some people are merely "looking for fights" in this modern age of Internet "trolling". Hence, the interpretation of what they hear becomes a reversal of the intention, since they are seeking to argue, rather than to listen. In other instances, it seems clear that based on my regional dialect, and my place of residence in the Southeast, these individuals are merely judging me based on the stigma attached to southerners.

This is probably true but my theory is the crying need for validation by many people in our society today hence the popularity of instagram and twitter.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Micah,

My mom's from Montgomery, as was her brother my late mentor. I am Southern by proxy, to a degree, in spite of my Western birthplace.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I started my radio career in Alabama, and lived for a couple of years in Charleston, SC. I'm in the Phoenix area now, but I was born in Brooklyn. But I've lived over a third of my life in red states where people are heavily armed.

 

[Gajejean]

How Easy It Is To Misinterpret These Damned Textual Communications! lol, as I so ably demonstrated (and do more often than I like to). But I think you'd agree there do indeed exist the spastics who authentically do the things I identified.

Now that first sentence is GOLD! Right on target. And yes I do agree there are some spastics out there, and in here. Just had to have a little fun at the expense of your broad brush stroke. I am too mild-mannered to worry too much about this stuff.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Yeah, I hear you. I've moved down the stream myself. Away from the maddening crowd.

 

[technomage]

@Micah Hanks,

Regarding "chem-trails", I recommend you go to Geoengineering.org where Dane Wigington provides a large amount of evidence and testimony from scientists, pilots, etc. on stratospheric spraying and solar radiation management programs.

 

[wwkirk]

@Micah Hanks,

Regarding "chem-trails", I recommend you go to Geoengineering.org where Dane Wigington provides a large amount of evidence and testimony from scientists, pilots, etc. on stratospheric spraying and solar radiation management programs.

The site you mention is just a filler for an unclaimed URL.

 

[technomage]

The site you mention is just a filler for an unclaimed URL.

Thank you for pointing this out. Here is the correct site: Geoengineering Affects You, Your Environment, and Your Loved Ones

 

[Micah Hanks]

Actually, on the subject of "geo-engineering", a recent global threat assessment that appeared in a report issued by the Swedish Global Challenges Foundation, in collaboration with the University of Oxford's Global Priorities Project, discussed the current risks to humankind that, within the next five years, may present grave, and even unforeseen threats to humanity. An article at the Science Alert website details the following in relation to the report which resulted from the study:

"According to the report, the most likely high-risk global catastrophic events that could occur in the next five years are pandemics – either natural, or engineered by humans – and the prospect of nuclear war.... Other high-risk threats – but ones considered less likely to wreak havoc in the next five years – are catastrophic climate change, catastrophic disruption from artificial intelligence (AI), and the potential failure of geo-engineering, which refers to how our attempts to address climate change via things like carbon sequestration could end up backfiring."

So in this context, surprising though it may appear, I was quite amazed that artificial intelligence and the possible threat of geo-engineering "backfiring" actually ranked higher than asteroid impact and volcanic eruptions, as far as global threats to humanity that may occur within the next five years.

One might argue that the broader implications of this study are well worthy of further consideration... anyone interested in reading the report can access it here: http://globalprioritiesproject.org/...atastrophic-Risk-Annual-Report-2016-FINAL.pdf

 

[kanakaris]

Thank you for pointing this out. Here is the correct site: Geoengineering Affects You, Your Environment, and Your Loved Ones

Climate change deniers ?Really ?

 

[Micah Hanks]

Climate change deniers ?Really ?

Allow me to be clear, regarding my own response about geo-engineering, that this does not involve denial of the scientific reality of climate change (by the way, this is PRECISELY what I was talking about in my initial posting on this thread: about individuals taking what I say, and spinning it 180 degrees. It's a bit troubling that I have to spend so much time clarifying my positions, since people apparently don't read, and choose to leap to conclusions instead).

The global risk assessment report which I linked, involving a joint study between Oxford University and the Swedish Global Challenges Foundation, merely cites geo-engineering in response to concerns over climate change, and the possible threat of such human-related actions "backfiring" on us.

 

[technomage]

The site I posted doesn't deny man-made climate change, it actually posits geoengineering as the major "culprit" behind negative climatic changes. It's critical of those that deny the reality of climate change and those that deny that geoengineering is the primary cause of climate change.

 

[Randall]

Hi folks, Micah here ... As always, it was a great time with Gene on our recent episode of The Paracast together ... However, today I just had to jump in and respond to what "Beyondthestargate" had to say in his lead-off to this thread ...

Glad you responded to the comment by @beyondthestargate. I had posted a response here asking for some clarification by way of suggestions and examples. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any ( yet ). My 2¢ worth of advice is that no matter how well intentioned we may be, it seems there's always somebody whose waves are at a frequency that clashes with ours in a way that produces these random negative spikes that to us, seem to come completely out of left field. So even though it was targeted at you that way, try not to take it too personal. My opinion based on what I've heard so far is that your spirit for the cause is in the right place, and we could use more like you in the field.

That being said, I still have to post some comments regarding your suggestion for UFO classification systems. There are a few fuzzy spots, and I've done a bit on that myself. At some point, if you're interested, I'd like to see if we can get on the same page regarding some of the core concepts, including classification systems. My experience is that it's great to think of better ways to do things, but putting them into practice is a whole other matter. Ideally it would take a lot of cooperation and/or funding to get a proper fee-free UFO database with an updated classification system in place.

 

[Micah Hanks]

@ufology, thank you for the response! I appreciate the dialogue, and I hope you can post some of your suggestions here regarding the classification systems. In my article on this subject at my website (which I've linked below for those interested), I actually expressed hopes that others would begin to offer ideas about revisions, restructuring, and frankly, the kind of constructive criticisms that would be necessary to make any system along these lines of better use, and greater scientific relevance to the subject at hand. Also, if you would ever care to correspond directly on this subject, I can be reached at [email protected]. Again, thank you for the feedback.

Finally, here's the link to that article: Toward a Better UFOlogy: Applying Science to the Study of UAP - Micah Hanks

 

[withoutlimits09]

Yeah, I'm OK with Micah, too. Personally I'm tired of the ranters who bitch about someone's vocal tone or conversational style. Some guy on a vid I did not produce of my speech at the con in Texas was complaining about my vocals. Jesus, really guy? And the other thing I'm just done with are people who complain about someone's politics. News Alert: We all have differing politics. Micah mentioning Rush Limbaugh is not cause for alarm or disdain, just let it roll by. Getting worked up over something like that says more about the complainer than it does the person they're bitching about. Ranting about politics on social media is so friggin' stale. And the insistence on 'short answers'?? What the hell is that about? Half the reason for listening to interviews is just to kick back and enjoy the journey of discussion. Anyway, don't worry about one person's peculiar reactionary point of view, just do your show your way, I say. Let the guests be themselves and if a few spastics disapprove, they can simply not listen.

I enjoy Micah as well. It is refreshing to hear someone in this field who strays from the liberal sheep heard while showing some flexibility with his political ideology. I find him to be pretty open-minded and fair when it comes to politics, rather than totally one sided. I also don't mind his cadence or vocabulary. There are enough poorly spoken people in this field, it is refreshing to hear a younger intelligent guy give his perspective on these issues. Finally, he is accessible. If you e-mail Micah, he will almost always send back a thoughtful reply. I always appreciate that. After all, what good is all of this if we can't exchange ideas and communicate freely.

 

[technomage]

I was listening to Micah more carefully this time and the reason why some may get the impression that he is overly wordy is not because he uses 10 words to say what can be said in 3; it's that he wants to make sure he is precise in what he is saying; but also because he does tend to digress to side stories or points of interest in some detail so that the entirety of what comes out tends to be much longer. So there is both more depth and more breadth to his answers and they may stretch outside the scope of the (literal) question asked. Since this is not a court room or a forum where he has to finish the interview in 20 minutes, I think digressing and providing extended and expanded answers is not only just fine, but very nice. It does require maintaining your focus and not letting your mind wander, so he would not be good for people with ADD.