The gift of the sasquatch - part two

[Saru]

Yeah, where in his post was the words " hi Thomas my name is such and such"? Also where's the question " I would like to discuss these things with you if I may?"

If you require people to say "hello, my name is, may i discuss this with you?" in order to communicate then an on-line discussion board service is probably not the best venue from which to converse with others about your experiences, at the very least this requirement could have been stipulated at the start so people would know where they stand.

if you can't show common courtesy and respect to me

Common courtesy and respect works both ways.

I'm going to need to formally request that you discontinue the disparaging personal remarks and hostility towards other members, posts such as:

Oh Swede you have a nice time thinking you're better than anyone. My time will be better spent flushing used toilet paper. lol

are little more than personal insults and have no place here.

Now lets try and steer this conversation back towards the discussion of the original article.

Thank you.

[T Hues]

Mr Hues,

Have you ever heard of a rhetorical question?

It is a question posed, without expectation of a reply. It was posed, in this case, not to elicit information, but to set the basis for my further enquiries. In such a question, I am not "telling you what you are, or are not", but expressing my opinion (based on the knowledge I currently hold) of what, or what not, you are. This opinion can, of course, be modified based on whatever evidence provided that might modify the knowledge I hold.

As to the, rather interesting, definition of the "respect" you require, in my view that would be synonymous with requiring sycophancy from an inquirer. I appreciate that I may seem brusque or impersonal in many of my enquiries, however this is not a sign of disrespect, arrogance (although that is much more subjective), or prejudice. As I stated earlier, not everyone you meet will be willing to exhibit, or willingly exhibit, the kind of "respect" you desire and I appreciate it is your prerogative to then not have any interaction with those people.

However, that is not an excuse for the rudeness and aggression you have continually displayed. A polite denial of the request made would suffice, rather than a personal attack.

Oh believe me it wasn't a personal attack. You might try the same thing you do when you meet someone the first time minus the handshake of course as it is the internet. You saw the copy and past I did of Brad's introduction to me and his polite request and it's as simple as that. You don't see your behavior as rude and I can see that. I don't see aggression or personal attacks in my responses, I simply see what was warranted as you put it. I'm REAL BIG on common courtesy and respect because if you don't show it down here in the South, people won't have anything to do with you. Now you're more than welcome to spin that however you'd like but it's very simple to understand......I would think anyway. Also I don't require any sycophants around me since I'm not a person in a position of perceived power. As far as people not willing to show common courtesy and respect that's fine too, I simply won't share what I know with them.

Edited August 31, 2010 by T Hues

[T Hues]

If you require people to say "hello, my name is, may i discuss this with you?" in order to communicate then an on-line discussion board service is probably not the best venue from which to converse with others about your experiences, at the very least this requirement could have been stipulated at the start so people would know where they stand.

Common courtesy and respect works both ways.

That's rather interesting Saru since some people have forgotten how to use manners on the internet obviously. I've taken alot of flak from trolls for the last 2.5 yrs for relating my experiences at times.......so you might be able to understand why I don't just cooperate with people that don't observe simple manners. I digress though.

[BaneSilvermoon]

Masterfully done! Your facility for establishing your credibility is quite apparent.

.

Been thinking that since this thread began.

[T Hues]

Been thinking that since this thread began.

Your thoughts are your own.......keep them. 0-)

[BaneSilvermoon]

Your thoughts are your own.......keep them. 0-)

I can see why you deal with so many trolls in forums. After one makes enough responses that clearly don't understand, or entirely ignore, the words being presented to them. No one but the trolls remain to continue the conversation with.

[Saru]

Your thoughts are your own.......keep them. 0-)

Again with the insults - how can you comment on other people observing manners when you keep making posts like this ? You are continuously promoting your own standards of ettiquette but while making comments that are far less courteous than those of the people you are criticising.

Enough please.

Once again can we get this thread back on track and focused on the article for which it is intended.

[T Hues]

I can see why you deal with so many trolls in forums. After one makes enough responses that clearly don't understand, or entirely ignore, the words being presented to them. No one but the trolls remain to continue the conversation with.

An astute observation on your part. It's almost as though they have something to prove and attribute all sorts of things to me without knowing me at all. lol

In reality, I'm doing them a service by giving them a place to vent their emotions. lol

[T Hues]

Again with the insults - how can you comment on other people observing manners when you keep making posts like this ? You are continuously promoting your own standards of ettiquette but while making comments that are far less courteous than those of the people you are criticising.

Enough please.

Once again can we get this thread back on track and focused on the article for which it is intended.

Oh please explain for us how me stating his thoughts are his own and to keep them is an insult. That appears to be a matter of perception from you without any other data to go on. I could be wrong though. As far as other people having manners it would seem important for them to show them in the first place before I reflect said manners back to them hey? There's plenty of people on this forum that have shown common courtesy and respect and some of them I've spoken to on skype as well as sharing photos and recordings. They get respect from me in return. It's such a simple concept really that some people it just eludes. Ah well.

[Saru]

Back on topic please.

I'm not going to ask again.

[T Hues]

Back on topic please.

I'm not going to ask again.

Oh that's fine you don't have to. 0-)

[Leonardo]

Mr Hues,

I am curious regarding why telepathy should develop in a species capable of vocalisation. In your story, and other anecdotes, you describe both the Sasquatch and some humans (including yourself) as being capable of telepathy, yet you appear to be very capable of communicating verbally. After all, this is why we have well-developed vocal chords as well as a constructed language. The Sasquatch also are, at least according to other alleged encounters, very capable vocalisers.

I can understand the use of telepathy as a literary device to facilitate some communication between very different organisms without any common linguistic concepts, but I cannot understand why it should develop in real-life, when it's use would appear to be redundant.

I would like to enquire of your opinion as to why telepathy would develop in a species capable of vocal communication?

[T Hues]

Mr Hues,

I am curious regarding why telepathy should develop in a species capable of vocalisation. In your story, and other anecdotes, you describe both the Sasquatch and some humans (including yourself) as being capable of telepathy, yet you appear to be very capable of communicating verbally. After all, this is why we have well-developed vocal chords as well as a constructed language. The Sasquatch also are, at least according to other alleged encounters, very capable vocalisers.

I can understand the use of telepathy as a literary device to facilitate some communication between very different organisms without any common linguistic concepts, but I cannot understand why it should develop in real-life, when it's use would appear to be redundant.

I would like to enquire of your opinion as to why telepathy would develop in a species capable of vocal communication?

Well Leanord I wouldn't say it's something that's developed in humans as much as it is something humans have forgotten about. Humans do things everyday and attach some label to it inaccurately describing what they just experienced. The word coincidence occurs alot with people, other words like blind luck, intuition, instinctive and so on. You'll find most humans with altered thinking about what's possible and what isn't in this country at least because of the dogmas from science and religion. For myself and other life forms I've spoken with telepathy is much more efficient than spoken language. The mindspeak as I call it usually entails impressions, imagery, physical and emotional feelings of the topic and occasionally words. I'm usually very discerning with this and request or require validation before the gears can go forward. Aborigines have talked about having and using telepathy for centuries and to read about that just type in aborigine and telepathy and you'll find a boat load of websites on the subject. It was shocking for me to see in Avatar the thing I had been discussing with people for 2 years. Follow me here. When you speak the same thought processes are occurring that would occur when you're thinking quietly to yourself. What gets added to those thought processes are the mechanical thoughts of making your mouth move, air come out of you lungs and your vocal chords using that air. So when you talk out loud the same basic thoughts are there and when Sully was learning to ride the horse she said " you can tell her where to go in here (tapping her head), but for now simply say it out loud."

What I can say is that humans have abilities they aren't vaguely aware of and yet have experiences everyday. I'm sure just about every person reading this has had an experience where the phone rings they didn't look at caller i.d., weren't expecting that person to call and yet somehow they knew who it was before picking up the phone. When that happens most people think or say to themselves " wow what a coincidence". Or they've had an experience where they think of a certain song close to the end of the workday, then they get in the car to go home and turn on the radio and that very song is playing. Wow what a coincidence. Those are just 2 examples of things that happen to humans and they find an explanation to dismiss it as nothing but random luck. I hope this has been helpful in some way and if you have other questions, ask them.

[Swede]

Oh no sweety, you think whatever you'd like to hey. I know what I've said and there's always someone like you to put their own spin on it. lol

You just go right ahead and think whatever you want to but I'm not going to sit here and quietly take your ridicule. Keep that in mind. hehehehe

Once again, a rather interesting response. It may be speculated that an individual who has publicly professed (in multiple mediums) to have evidence of numerous phenomena and events that have yet to be documented by an extensive range of qualified scientific and historical disciplines would be a bit more forthcoming in said individuals willingness to openly address queries regarding these statements and positions.

One can only wonder how these exchanges are being assessed by the global readership of these pages.

.

[Leonardo]

Well Leanord I wouldn't say it's something that's developed in humans as much as it is something humans have forgotten about. Humans do things everyday and attach some label to it inaccurately describing what they just experienced. The word coincidence occurs alot with people, other words like blind luck, intuition, instinctive and so on. You'll find most humans with altered thinking about what's possible and what isn't in this country at least because of the dogmas from science and religion. For myself and other life forms I've spoken with telepathy is much more efficient than spoken language. The mindspeak as I call it usually entails impressions, imagery, physical and emotional feelings of the topic and occasionally words. I'm usually very discerning with this and request or require validation before the gears can go forward. Aborigines have talked about having and using telepathy for centuries and to read about that just type in aborigine and telepathy and you'll find a boat load of websites on the subject. It was shocking for me to see in Avatar the thing I had been discussing with people for 2 years. Follow me here. When you speak the same thought processes are occurring that would occur when you're thinking quietly to yourself. What gets added to those thought processes are the mechanical thoughts of making your mouth move, air come out of you lungs and your vocal chords using that air. So when you talk out loud the same basic thoughts are there and when Sully was learning to ride the horse she said " you can tell her where to go in here (tapping her head), but for now simply say it out loud."

What I can say is that humans have abilities they aren't vaguely aware of and yet have experiences everyday. I'm sure just about every person reading this has had an experience where the phone rings they didn't look at caller i.d., weren't expecting that person to call and yet somehow they knew who it was before picking up the phone. When that happens most people think or say to themselves " wow what a coincidence". Or they've had an experience where they think of a certain song close to the end of the workday, then they get in the car to go home and turn on the radio and that very song is playing. Wow what a coincidence. Those are just 2 examples of things that happen to humans and they find an explanation to dismiss it as nothing but random luck. I hope this has been helpful in some way and if you have other questions, ask them.

Thank you for you honest reply, Mr Hues.

Regarding the 'telephone phenomenon' you describe, infrequently this happens to me. However, my conclusion of why this happens differs from your own, for several reasons.

First, usually those people who call us on the telephone most frequently are usually those whom we know most well; friends, family, etc, or those with whom we are currently engaged in some interaction with, otherwise. The number of 'random people' who call us on the telephone is actually extremely small. It is not unusual, therefore, that we would be able to guess correctly who's calling on more occasions than random probability would seem to imply, because those who are calling more frequently are a smaller set of well-known individuals. We get more 'positive hits' relative to our 'positive misses'.

Second, our brains are wired to particularly remember 'positive hits', over the 'positive misses'. I know I tend to remember those times when I have 'guessed correctly' and, over time, the memory of those times when I have not 'guessed correctly' tends to fade. This trick of my memory skews my perception of the phenomenon so that it appears I have some 'ability' to know who is calling before visual or verbal confirmation. In reality, I simply have guessed correctly on maybe a few more occasions than random probability would determine based on my first point.

This 'trick of memory' and the error of assigning results from a non-random set (the people who call you on the telephone) to a random probability calculation, is what makes this phenomenon appear paranormal. The same applies for the 'songs on the radio' phenomenon. The radio station you most frequently listen to will have a playlist of songs (with some new additions made every now and then), so the set you are gathering your results from is not random. Likewise, each DJ will tend to favour a particular 'set' of songs. Then we have the 'remembering only the hits', phenomenon of the memory, and voila! We are able to 'psychically' know what song will be played because our 'hit ratio' is higher than random probability would allow. But, as you can see, this conclusion is an error of perception.

So, you can appreciate, I hope, because I know all this, why I ask for evidence other than hearsay, anecdote, etc. It is not that I mistrust anyone, but I know how easily we dupe ourselves.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Leonardo

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

Oh please explain for us how me stating his thoughts are his own and to keep them is an insult. That appears to be a matter of perception from you without any other data to go on. I could be wrong though. As far as other people having manners it would seem important for them to show them in the first place before I reflect said manners back to them hey? There's plenty of people on this forum that have shown common courtesy and respect and some of them I've spoken to on skype as well as sharing photos and recordings. They get respect from me in return. It's such a simple concept really that some people it just eludes. Ah well.

The problem is you demand respect you havent earned.

Now, why wouldn't you take all of your photos, proof, etc to a legit universtiy to be studied. If what you are saying is true, this should be shared by the world. Not just put on a forum.

[Sweetpumper]

T Hues, I sent you a PM. I'd love to see these pictures.

[T Hues]

Thank you for you honest reply, Mr Hues.

Regarding the 'telephone phenomenon' you describe, infrequently this happens to me. However, my conclusion of why this happens differs from your own, for several reasons.

First, usually those people who call us on the telephone most frequently are usually those whom we know most well; friends, family, etc, or those with whom we are currently engaged in some interaction with, otherwise. The number of 'random people' who call us on the telephone is actually extremely small. It is not unusual, therefore, that we would be able to guess correctly who's calling on more occasions than random probability would seem to imply, because those who are calling more frequently are a smaller set of well-known individuals. We get more 'positive hits' relative to our 'positive misses'.

Second, our brains are wired to particularly remember 'positive hits', over the 'positive misses'. I know I tend to remember those times when I have 'guessed correctly' and, over time, the memory of those times when I have not 'guessed correctly' tends to fade. This trick of my memory skews my perception of the phenomenon so that it appears I have some 'ability' to know who is calling before visual or verbal confirmation. In reality, I simply have guessed correctly on maybe a few more occasions than random probability would determine based on my first point.

This 'trick of memory' and the error of assigning results from a non-random set (the people who call you on the telephone) to a random probability calculation, is what makes this phenomenon appear paranormal. The same applies for the 'songs on the radio' phenomenon. The radio station you most frequently listen to will have a playlist of songs (with some new additions made every now and then), so the set you are gathering your results from is not random. Likewise, each DJ will tend to favour a particular 'set' of songs. Then we have the 'remembering only the hits', phenomenon of the memory, and voila! We are able to 'psychically' know what song will be played because our 'hit ratio' is higher than random probability would allow. But, as you can see, this conclusion is an error of perception.

So, you can appreciate, I hope, because I know all this, why I ask for evidence other than hearsay, anecdote, etc. It is not that I mistrust anyone, but I know how easily we dupe ourselves.

and that's what I'm talking about Leanord when I say people will come up with words or phrases to explain what's going on. It was blind luck or a good guess. Science and Religion have brainwashed it out of us that it's possible to know things that have nothing to do with guessing. Let me put the definition of guess in here though so we can analyze how that word would apply.

guess (gs)

v. guessed, guess·ing, guess·es

v.tr.

1.

a. To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.

b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.

2. To form a correct estimate or conjecture of: guessed the answer.

3. To suppose; think: I guess he was wrong.

I can see where hearing the phone ring and not seeing caller i.d. is insufficient information, especially if you weren't expecting that person to call. Typically though you don't have time to guess since people don't typically stop and ask themselves who is calling and then make a guess, it just hits them. Then there's the song playing on the radio when you turn it on that you've been thinking about for half an hour or more. Blind luck right? What I can tell you on that is, if I had stuck with those explanations instead of postulating theories on my experiences and going forward with those theories........I wouldn't have had the experiences that I have. In my observation of humans and how they approach the scientific method, they usually forget to postulate new theories because already in their mind is what's possible and impossible. This is seen all the time in photos, recordings and other evidence of Sasquatch and UFO's. The evidence is right there and most people will dismiss it as fake or come up with some explanation to wash it away instead of really analyzing the evidence and seeing what's truly there. This is why so many Sasquatch photos get dismissed because people put expectations on what they should be able to see in the photo. I look for certain details when analyzing a Sasquatch photo from someone and if I don't see those details, I just tell the person there could be one there but I'm not seeing the details I need to make a conclusion. I won't tell someone their full of it and there's nothing there, I just simply tell them I can't see what they see. I also don't say things are impossible I simply ask the question " how is that possible?". Then I don't ignore the evidence when the answers to that question start coming in. So what you might try on many things is re-analyzing the explanations you have and asking yourself why that is the best and only explanation. That's entirely up to you though.

[Leonardo]

and that's what I'm talking about Leanord when I say people will come up with words or phrases to explain what's going on.

People will 'come up with explanations for what's going on' in the same manner you have 'come up with a explanation'. Different people know different things, so quite often those 'explanations' for something do not match. How we then determine what 'explanation' is the most likely is by examining the evidence that is not (or hopefully not) subject to interpretation or opinion, and that is usually what we might call 'hard evidence' and not simply what someone says.

This is not to say we must consider people dishonest, simply that, as I said above, different people know different things.

It was blind luck or a good guess. Science and Religion have brainwashed it out of us that it's possible to know things that have nothing to do with guessing. Let me put the definition of guess in here though so we can analyze how that word would apply.

Science is no more 'brainwashing' than someone's belief that the paranormal or supernatural exists. It could, in fact, be argued it is less brainwashing because science relies less on what someone says and more on the hard evidence. Science also uses a method which tends towards explanations which are independent of opinion. You seem to hold a rather low opinion of science, however that may be because there is considerable science which disagrees with explanations you have arrived at for your experiences?

That is called bias. I say that not to offend, but because it is what it is.

What I can tell you on that is, if I had stuck with those explanations instead of postulating theories on my experiences and going forward with those theories........I wouldn't have had the experiences that I have.

I would tend to agree. We all are biased towards explanations which fit our world-views, beliefs and knowledge. In that, you are no different than any other human being.

In my observation of humans and how they approach the scientific method, they usually forget to postulate new theories because already in their mind is what's possible and impossible. This is seen all the time in photos, recordings and other evidence of Sasquatch and UFO's. The evidence is right there and most people will dismiss it as fake or come up with some explanation to wash it away instead of really analyzing the evidence and seeing what's truly there. This is why so many Sasquatch photos get dismissed because people put expectations on what they should be able to see in the photo.

In respect to Sasquatch, I would disagree that "the evidence is there". Yes, numerous photographs have been produced and the majority of those have an explanation rather more mundane than a large, bipedal cryptid. Most of the rest are indistinct or otherwise poor quality and can be interpreted to show a Sasquatch just as they could be interpreted to show any of numerous other animals or curious, and coincidental, patterns of light and shadow.

The P-G film is one, extremely rare, example of reasonable quality hard evidence. Yet there has been much debate over whather the P-G film is a hoax based on claims of people who were involved with Patterson or Gimlin at the time of it's shooting. I have my doubts over these claims of hoax, as it seems to me the hoax claimants may simply be seeking notoriety, and no-one has produced any definitive proof of a hoax. So, I am undecided about the P-G film, but lean towards the experts in photography, cinematography, special effects, biomechanics, etc, who express the opinion this film, and the subject of it, could not have been hoaxed so convincingly at the time it was shot.

Still there is doubt, so I cannot say the P-G film represents the hard evidence sought after.

I look for certain details when analyzing a Sasquatch photo from someone and if I don't see those details, I just tell the person there could be one there but I'm not seeing the details I need to make a conclusion. I won't tell someone their full of it and there's nothing there, I just simply tell them I can't see what they see. I also don't say things are impossible I simply ask the question " how is that possible?". Then I don't ignore the evidence when the answers to that question start coming in. So what you might try on many things is re-analyzing the explanations you have and asking yourself why that is the best and only explanation. That's entirely up to you though.

Are the 'details' you look for in a Sasquatch photo a product of your belief and experiences? I am not asking you to not believe what you do, but will ask if you can see the point that, if what you believe regarding Sasquatch can colour (bias) your perception of the evidence, then it is not unreasonable of someone to enquire from a position of non-belief so as to, hopefully, remove that bias (if it exists)?

[T Hues]

People will 'come up with explanations for what's going on' in the same manner you have 'come up with a explanation'. Different people know different things, so quite often those 'explanations' for something do not match. How we then determine what 'explanation' is the most likely is by examining the evidence that is not (or hopefully not) subject to interpretation or opinion, and that is usually what we might call 'hard evidence' and not simply what someone says.

This is not to say we must consider people dishonest, simply that, as I said above, different people know different things.

Science is no more 'brainwashing' than someone's belief that the paranormal or supernatural exists. It could, in fact, be argued it is less brainwashing because science relies less on what someone says and more on the hard evidence. Science also uses a method which tends towards explanations which are independent of opinion. You seem to hold a rather low opinion of science, however that may be because there is considerable science which disagrees with explanations you have arrived at for your experiences?

That is called bias. I say that not to offend, but because it is what it is.

I would tend to agree. We all are biased towards explanations which fit our world-views, beliefs and knowledge. In that, you are no different than any other human being.

In respect to Sasquatch, I would disagree that "the evidence is there". Yes, numerous photographs have been produced and the majority of those have an explanation rather more mundane than a large, bipedal cryptid. Most of the rest are indistinct or otherwise poor quality and can be interpreted to show a Sasquatch just as they could be interpreted to show any of numerous other animals or curious, and coincidental, patterns of light and shadow.

The P-G film is one, extremely rare, example of reasonable quality hard evidence. Yet there has been much debate over whather the P-G film is a hoax based on claims of people who were involved with Patterson or Gimlin at the time of it's shooting. I have my doubts over these claims of hoax, as it seems to me the hoax claimants may simply be seeking notoriety, and no-one has produced any definitive proof of a hoax. So, I am undecided about the P-G film, but lean towards the experts in photography, cinematography, special effects, biomechanics, etc, who express the opinion this film, and the subject of it, could not have been hoaxed so convincingly at the time it was shot.

Still there is doubt, so I cannot say the P-G film represents the hard evidence sought after.

Are the 'details' you look for in a Sasquatch photo a product of your belief and experiences? I am not asking you to not believe what you do, but will ask if you can see the point that, if what you believe regarding Sasquatch can colour (bias) your perception of the evidence, then it is not unreasonable of someone to enquire from a position of non-belief so as to, hopefully, remove that bias (if it exists)?

Leanord I don't have any beliefs as belief only occurs in the absence of evidence. When I can see the white of the eye, the color of the eye, the pupil of the eye, sometimes a human looking nose and nostrils upon close examination, then back off and see the same color hair in the bushes as is around those eyes or eye........it's pretty conclusive what I'm looking at. I could be wrong on that but I also saturate the photo to different color spectrum's and also remove all color from the photos to look for inconsistencies through a range of colors and no color. I also reverse the photo to make it look like a film negative and look for any detail changes that shouldn't occur.

As to the PGF there is compelling evidence brought forth by footprint casts, length between each footprint taken within 5 days of the filming. Bob Titmus had an encounter with one at night in that same location a few days after that while hiding in the creekbed, a story you can find on the internet. Too many people throw conjecture at that film as evidence of a hoax and yet they can't seem to provide solid proof or even a costume to match what's in that film. The Munns Report analyzed it from a different angle and drew very similar conclusions to what others have said in their analysis and that's from a film expert. There certainly are details on the body of the subject they would have a difficult time at best replicating unless they used CGI. Another incident occurred in 2007 with Ben Matine in Canada and everyone calls it hoax as well. Can I say it's real? No. The still images look genuine in comparison to what I've seen the film portion is a dramatization as stated in the clip. You can find that here.......

On the subject of science and scientists they do brainwash people into believing what's possible and isn't possible. They tell us all the time that Sasquatch couldn't possibly exist and yet footprints keep being cast and people keep seeing them all over the world. They tell us that there's global warming and yet history shows us that all these weather trends have happened before. They tell us CO2 is bad and yet plants breath CO2, and there's alot more plants than humans. Ten years ago scientists would have laughed at you for suggesting nanotubes and yet everyday their experimenting and developing new nanotubes. Science on this planet is still very much in it's infancy and yet most people of a scientific nature get offended when you suggest that.

As for the evidence for Sasquatch it's very much there, however it doesn't meet the criteria of most people. On the subject of footprints, far too often people will say that's fake. So yeah I can see the motive and benefit to people to hoax footprints with the same morphology present in the footprint in N. America and Australia. Witness reports.......probably just peoples imagination. Recordings of vocalized speech being transcribed by Scott Nelson, a navy trained cryptolinguist........too inconclusive probably since they can be hoaxed as well. Native American history and stories......what can I say about that, everyone dismisses what they say anyway. It's interesting though since the Apaches have stories about taking some of the hairy folks as mates and having children with them. It's also well know that many of the Apache went into Mexico to avoid the U.S. Govt. So if there were hybrid children they would look just like and have the physical abilities just like the Wolf Boys of Mexico every 4th or 5th generation of offspring yes? That's what geneticists say about unusual traits from my understanding. Here's a link to the wolf boys, scientists call it hypertrichosis......

http://www.mexicancircus.com/wolfboys.htm

Here's another site on them

http://www.free-news-release.com/Wolf-Boys-are-not-freaks-Detail_2860.html

I mean I'm sure there's logical and rational explanations for these 2 men having hypertrichosis, but do those explanations omit the Apache history and limit the consideration to suppositions? I can tell you another reason I have the experiences I do and it was told to me by a Cree elder on blogtalkradio. I asked him why I'm having all these experiences with wild rabbits, deer, squirrels, crows, hawks and golden eagles in the woods. He asked me " what nation are you my brother?". I told him " I'm part cherokee with ancestors on the Dawes Rolls.". He said " the answer is simple my brother; the wildlife and that Sasquatch people see in you what you don't see in yourself and they're calling you home." Ya know, I understand exactly what he was saying to me. Makes ya wonder doesn't it.