Full Version: Tools
Hey Richard, I was reading your blog at mondo and saw you photo of the roots, knots and story about finding them in deer. I would send these to you but dont have your email so im doing it through here. These came from Idaho a few years back, the witness says the sasquatch in the area used these for diging up wild onion and termites in stumps, and other things. She was really worried about sending tools? to me, she thought the bigfoots would notice she took them. Long story but the area is a great spot and he dauget has actually seen them wading in the water at the lake, screams heard at certian times of the year. Not saying these are what she claims, when i showed the tolls when i recived them not much was thought of it, i really dont tak issue with the claim, makes good sence to me ,always has.
photo
photo
photo
photo
I'm not sure if bigfoot could use these "tools" due to the lack of an opposite thumb. But I will leave that up to the physical anthropoligists.
But I loved the presentation that you made. White background and a good ruler. I wish more reports could be presented in this way.
But I loved the presentation that you made. White background and a good ruler. I wish more reports could be presented in this way.
Hey people, I know I am good at killing a thread - but this is getting bad. :surrender: There are some good questions here that can be asked. For example, does a b.f need an opposed tumb if it's hand is big enough to wrap around an object and the strength to hold it.
QUOTE(billkirbywofb @ Oct 3 2005, 03:16 PM)
I'm not sure if bigfoot could use these "tools" due to the lack of an opposite thumb....
I thought sasquatches were generally believed to have opposite thumbs?
I wish I could remember where I read that, it stuck in my mind. But then I have been know (certified) to be wrong before :doh: ( how come I think someone who really know the subject is going to give me a shovel to start digging the hole I am stepping into)
He's pulling your leg billkirbywofb... you wrote opposite thumbs when you meant opposable thumbs...meaning that you can grip an object easier!
So...I would think it was possible that the bigfoot has an opposable thumb as well, and therefore, has the ability to USE (vs. make) tools. As an archaeologist, I would have to examine the artifact to determine if it had been used, however, that won't tell me who used it (human, bigfoot, etc.)
QUOTE
The opposable or prehensile thumb is usually associated with the evolution of homo habilis, the forerunner of homo sapiens (the human being of today). This, however, is the result of evolution from homo erectus (around 1 million years ago) via a series of intermediate anthropoid stages, and is therefore a much more complicated link.
QUOTE
Many animals, primates and others, also have some kind of opposable thumb or toe:
Panda - Panda paws have five clawed fingers plus an extra bone that works like an opposable thumb. This "thumb" is not really a finger (like our thumb is), but an extra-long wrist bone that works like a thumb.
Koala - opposable toe on each foot, plus two opposable digits on each hand
Opossum - opposable thumb
Cebids (New World primates of Central and South America) - some have opposable thumbs
Bornean Orangutan - opposable thumbs so that its forefeet are really like hands. The interdigital grip gives them the ability to pick fruit. They also have an opposable big toe.
Panda - Panda paws have five clawed fingers plus an extra bone that works like an opposable thumb. This "thumb" is not really a finger (like our thumb is), but an extra-long wrist bone that works like a thumb.
Koala - opposable toe on each foot, plus two opposable digits on each hand
Opossum - opposable thumb
Cebids (New World primates of Central and South America) - some have opposable thumbs
Bornean Orangutan - opposable thumbs so that its forefeet are really like hands. The interdigital grip gives them the ability to pick fruit. They also have an opposable big toe.
So...I would think it was possible that the bigfoot has an opposable thumb as well, and therefore, has the ability to USE (vs. make) tools. As an archaeologist, I would have to examine the artifact to determine if it had been used, however, that won't tell me who used it (human, bigfoot, etc.)
Can you twist a tree branch without opposable thumbs? 
This is interesting timing...
In Montana this Summer, ran across a possibility of the Sasquatch
using a tool-like device that was placed at a location.
We may have encountered the animal there. And what came later.
It is under the (Independent Research - 'Might As Well Put It Here.')
Page two features the five pieces we located.
I just had a question as well. What part of Idaho did the possible tools
come from, if someone knows?
Thanks...
lookoutman.
In Montana this Summer, ran across a possibility of the Sasquatch
using a tool-like device that was placed at a location.
We may have encountered the animal there. And what came later.
It is under the (Independent Research - 'Might As Well Put It Here.')
Page two features the five pieces we located.
I just had a question as well. What part of Idaho did the possible tools
come from, if someone knows?
Thanks...
lookoutman.
Well, opposite thumbs makes sense to me 
My thumbs are on the opposite sides of my hands & point in the opposite directions, especially when my arthritis is bothering me! 
Anyway, I agree with billkirby... I don't think an opposable thumb is required to use this type of tool. It's large enough to wrap your hand around, but comfortable enough in size to get a good grip on.
A friend and I spread a dump truck load of mulch this summer. My "energizer bunny" younger friend loaded & carted the mulch around the yard, and never quit for 3 hours (in 85 degree humid weather). God, he was awesome! He's 32, I'm 58, and I had to hustle to keep up with him.
For the first half hour I helped him load the mulch into the wheel barrel & yard carts and then dump it where we needed it. Then he did the filling & dumping, & I did the spreading with a rake. It didn't take too long for me to get large blisters between my thumbs & forefingers from the way I was holding the rake. So, I moved my thumbs to grasp the rake so that my thumbs were in line with the rest of my fingers, and even with blisters, it worked just fine. There's more than one way to hold a rake, just like "there's more than one way to skin a cat". (yeah, yeah--I like cats...
)
Just because we naturally do something a certain way out of habit does not necessarily mean that it's the only way to do it. When I first saw the photos this morning, it reminded me of my mulch spreading experience. I thought about how I had held the rake, and also how I'd hold the roots/sticks if I were trying to dig bugs out of the ground or out of dead logs or whatever. The size of the hand & tool available & the angle that you want to dig all enter into how you choose to hold the tool. That doesn't mean that yes, for sure it's a bigfoot tool and that's what they used it for, but it could be.
I take little kids to the beach each summer and we make sand castles. Sometimes we use large sorta flat rocks to help us dig. Sometimes we (me & the kids, too) hold the rock so the part we are actually digging with is pointing out from between our thumb & forefingers. Sometimes it is aimed toward our wrists. Sometimes it's pointed in a funny direction that I can't even begin to explain. But they are tools we use. They may be rustic, but they work, and sometimes they work better than the plastic shovels kids have.
The next time you go out to do some yard work, or are lucky enough to go to the beach to make a sand castle, try to be really aware of what you're physically doing and how you're do it. Y'all might be surprised.
My thumbs are on the opposite sides of my hands & point in the opposite directions, especially when my arthritis is bothering me! Anyway, I agree with billkirby... I don't think an opposable thumb is required to use this type of tool. It's large enough to wrap your hand around, but comfortable enough in size to get a good grip on.
A friend and I spread a dump truck load of mulch this summer. My "energizer bunny" younger friend loaded & carted the mulch around the yard, and never quit for 3 hours (in 85 degree humid weather). God, he was awesome! He's 32, I'm 58, and I had to hustle to keep up with him.
For the first half hour I helped him load the mulch into the wheel barrel & yard carts and then dump it where we needed it. Then he did the filling & dumping, & I did the spreading with a rake. It didn't take too long for me to get large blisters between my thumbs & forefingers from the way I was holding the rake. So, I moved my thumbs to grasp the rake so that my thumbs were in line with the rest of my fingers, and even with blisters, it worked just fine. There's more than one way to hold a rake, just like "there's more than one way to skin a cat". (yeah, yeah--I like cats...
)Just because we naturally do something a certain way out of habit does not necessarily mean that it's the only way to do it. When I first saw the photos this morning, it reminded me of my mulch spreading experience. I thought about how I had held the rake, and also how I'd hold the roots/sticks if I were trying to dig bugs out of the ground or out of dead logs or whatever. The size of the hand & tool available & the angle that you want to dig all enter into how you choose to hold the tool. That doesn't mean that yes, for sure it's a bigfoot tool and that's what they used it for, but it could be.
I take little kids to the beach each summer and we make sand castles. Sometimes we use large sorta flat rocks to help us dig. Sometimes we (me & the kids, too) hold the rock so the part we are actually digging with is pointing out from between our thumb & forefingers. Sometimes it is aimed toward our wrists. Sometimes it's pointed in a funny direction that I can't even begin to explain. But they are tools we use. They may be rustic, but they work, and sometimes they work better than the plastic shovels kids have.
The next time you go out to do some yard work, or are lucky enough to go to the beach to make a sand castle, try to be really aware of what you're physically doing and how you're do it. Y'all might be surprised.
chronic,
I betcha ya can. Go out and twist a few small branches tomorrow. Do just little ones and concentrate on how you do it, then try grasping the branch in different ways. Some holds might not work as well as others, but if you really want to do it, you can probably find a couple of different ways.
Now if you consider that you aren't human & you still want to accomplish the same thing, then you realize that it might not be as an efficient a way to get the job done, but you can do it. People who have been born without hands and arms have learned to do amazing things for themselves using their feet/toes--like typing, writing, painting, cooking... It might sound uncomfortable, or even gross (cooking using your feet/toes), but it's effective, and grants them independence.
That's how we change. Learning & improvising & changing how we do things. I think animals do too. (Change = evolve, and this a separate thing from the religious aspects of the subject). We change how we do something just because it's opportune, easier, or like a bolt-out-of-the-blue suddenly occurs to us, or happens and we adapt it for our use.
NO WAY should this dis-evolve into a religious debate-- that is not my intent. I'm talking strictly about the ability to change, ie, improvisation, and learning by either accident or experience.
First I saw a bigfoot way back when I was a kid. I was pretty well obsessed from then on.
Then in the late 1960's I came across African Genesis, Territorial Imperative, and The Social Contract, all books by Robert Audrey (a British author, I think). They were all about studies of animal behavior and how & why these animals did the things they did. I wish I could reread them today! These books also implied why we (humans) do the things we do. I have no idea if he was right or wrong in his assessment, but it all got me to thinking, and analyzing what, how and why we do the things we, as people, do. His books I think have definitely influenced how I have viewed the world since I first read them. I started paying attention to details that I never would have noticed before, and started seeing similarities among species. I dare say that this man whom I know very little about simply changed my whole outlook on the world.
I think it's presumptuous of us humans to think we are the only intelligence in the universe. I also don't think "they", the aliens, are here either. (Also don't want to wander off into that "aliens" off-topic discussion). It's also pretty presumptuous of us to think that we humans are so far elevated above other primates that we have some special set of rules that apply only to us. We're all flesh & blood. Natural laws apply to us equally. Evidence of this are the recent hurricanes. Humans & animals both suffered, and continue to suffer.
I think the greatest problem with the bigfoot issue is that they seem so human, from many accounts, that it gets really uncomfortable for people. "Human" implies intelligence, and all the foibles we encounter with the people we meet everyday. It's pretty scary to think of a wildman out there, occasionally bumping into members of our pretty well organized society, and that this creature might have an intelligence akin to ours. Utterly unthinkable!! Tool use!! Oh boy!! That's what people do, not animals!! And the size of a bigfoot in your "average" encounter is certainly intimidating... Let's see... A primate... Flesh & blood, not alien or whatever... Intelligent, but how much so?... Looks like an ape, but also like a human...does this lower us to the mere category of animals? Or does it lift the bigfoot into our "superior" category of "almost but not quite" human? And BIG!! VERY, VERY BIG! As in much more physically powerful than even the most physically fit in our collective society... Aggressive or docile? Who knows? Consider the humans in your community... That's a very uncomfortable place for us ordinary humans to be.
With all that, tool use throws the whole thing over the edge. That's too human. That's uncomfortable. It's no wonder that the general public is enthralled by a big scary critter roaming around the countryside freaking out campers & hikers & motorists, and occasionally peeking into windows or beating on a mobile home, eating a chicken or screaming an eerie cry in the night that makes dogs cower under the front porch. Just about everbody loves a scary story. 'Tis the season of Halloween, right? But that's all it is, a story, right? It couldn't possibly be true...
So what do you really expect the general population to do, and the media too? The concept of bigfoot really challenges our basic belief system and all our underlying values. We really want to not just think, but KNOW, that we are the superior beings on earth, and that nothing even comes close. The comfort zone... Bigfoot challenges that concept simply because of it's physical size and strength, and the possibility of intelligence akin to ours. Scary prospects!
This is way too long. I'm going to bed. Maybe I'll apologize for this torrent in the morning, but I don't think so...
:edit: for typos and a little content
I betcha ya can. Go out and twist a few small branches tomorrow. Do just little ones and concentrate on how you do it, then try grasping the branch in different ways. Some holds might not work as well as others, but if you really want to do it, you can probably find a couple of different ways.
Now if you consider that you aren't human & you still want to accomplish the same thing, then you realize that it might not be as an efficient a way to get the job done, but you can do it. People who have been born without hands and arms have learned to do amazing things for themselves using their feet/toes--like typing, writing, painting, cooking... It might sound uncomfortable, or even gross (cooking using your feet/toes), but it's effective, and grants them independence.
That's how we change. Learning & improvising & changing how we do things. I think animals do too. (Change = evolve, and this a separate thing from the religious aspects of the subject). We change how we do something just because it's opportune, easier, or like a bolt-out-of-the-blue suddenly occurs to us, or happens and we adapt it for our use.
NO WAY should this dis-evolve into a religious debate-- that is not my intent. I'm talking strictly about the ability to change, ie, improvisation, and learning by either accident or experience.
First I saw a bigfoot way back when I was a kid. I was pretty well obsessed from then on.
Then in the late 1960's I came across African Genesis, Territorial Imperative, and The Social Contract, all books by Robert Audrey (a British author, I think). They were all about studies of animal behavior and how & why these animals did the things they did. I wish I could reread them today! These books also implied why we (humans) do the things we do. I have no idea if he was right or wrong in his assessment, but it all got me to thinking, and analyzing what, how and why we do the things we, as people, do. His books I think have definitely influenced how I have viewed the world since I first read them. I started paying attention to details that I never would have noticed before, and started seeing similarities among species. I dare say that this man whom I know very little about simply changed my whole outlook on the world.
I think it's presumptuous of us humans to think we are the only intelligence in the universe. I also don't think "they", the aliens, are here either. (Also don't want to wander off into that "aliens" off-topic discussion). It's also pretty presumptuous of us to think that we humans are so far elevated above other primates that we have some special set of rules that apply only to us. We're all flesh & blood. Natural laws apply to us equally. Evidence of this are the recent hurricanes. Humans & animals both suffered, and continue to suffer.
I think the greatest problem with the bigfoot issue is that they seem so human, from many accounts, that it gets really uncomfortable for people. "Human" implies intelligence, and all the foibles we encounter with the people we meet everyday. It's pretty scary to think of a wildman out there, occasionally bumping into members of our pretty well organized society, and that this creature might have an intelligence akin to ours. Utterly unthinkable!! Tool use!! Oh boy!! That's what people do, not animals!! And the size of a bigfoot in your "average" encounter is certainly intimidating... Let's see... A primate... Flesh & blood, not alien or whatever... Intelligent, but how much so?... Looks like an ape, but also like a human...does this lower us to the mere category of animals? Or does it lift the bigfoot into our "superior" category of "almost but not quite" human? And BIG!! VERY, VERY BIG! As in much more physically powerful than even the most physically fit in our collective society... Aggressive or docile? Who knows? Consider the humans in your community... That's a very uncomfortable place for us ordinary humans to be.
With all that, tool use throws the whole thing over the edge. That's too human. That's uncomfortable. It's no wonder that the general public is enthralled by a big scary critter roaming around the countryside freaking out campers & hikers & motorists, and occasionally peeking into windows or beating on a mobile home, eating a chicken or screaming an eerie cry in the night that makes dogs cower under the front porch. Just about everbody loves a scary story. 'Tis the season of Halloween, right? But that's all it is, a story, right? It couldn't possibly be true...
So what do you really expect the general population to do, and the media too? The concept of bigfoot really challenges our basic belief system and all our underlying values. We really want to not just think, but KNOW, that we are the superior beings on earth, and that nothing even comes close. The comfort zone... Bigfoot challenges that concept simply because of it's physical size and strength, and the possibility of intelligence akin to ours. Scary prospects!
This is way too long. I'm going to bed. Maybe I'll apologize for this torrent in the morning, but I don't think so...
:edit: for typos and a little content
Eloquently put, littlefoot. If we add the final straw to the camel's back - BF's apparently possible capacity for articulated language - our egotistical, human superiority collapses in a heap. Now what becomes of our 'god-given' (as most religions maintain) stewardship of the planet. Hmmm... maybe those whale songs are somewhat articulated too...Dudlow
Yeah, it really makes you wonder how much of our research is modified by our preconceived notions without even realizing it. And I don't mean just bigfoot research, but the whole gamut. :rolleyes:
Yes, as an archaeologist, I would have to say to use that tool in the manner in which it was described that you would have to have an opposable thumb.
Opposable thumbs = grip (a strong grip). Animals with non-opposable thumbs have very flat hands, so to experience what they can do, isn't the same as just taking your own thumb out of the picture. Try taking a fork and placing it between your index and middle finger and eating dinner. you might be able to stab a few things, but it wouldn't be comfortable. In the end, you'd find it more satisfying to just grab the food with your hands.
Same with tools. Using a tool requires a dexterity, or else it would just be easier to dig in the dirt. The tool has to help to gain an advantage, not make your life harder.
Using tools also implies a certain brain capacity...but I won't get into that here!
Opposable thumbs = grip (a strong grip). Animals with non-opposable thumbs have very flat hands, so to experience what they can do, isn't the same as just taking your own thumb out of the picture. Try taking a fork and placing it between your index and middle finger and eating dinner. you might be able to stab a few things, but it wouldn't be comfortable. In the end, you'd find it more satisfying to just grab the food with your hands.
Same with tools. Using a tool requires a dexterity, or else it would just be easier to dig in the dirt. The tool has to help to gain an advantage, not make your life harder.
Using tools also implies a certain brain capacity...but I won't get into that here!
Hairy Man-
My thoughts as well - a certain cleverness must be present in the animal - to
pattern, select, and have an outcome for the use of such things.
The Sasquatch has to be doing something right, limited documentation on
the biped available to us - visuals thus far the best resource to draw from,
if most sightings can be relied upon.
In my particular cases 1974 and 1985 - I saw above average intelligence
for a creature of the forest. It needs little added to accomplish it's goals I'm
sure - watching it using a fence with the left arm, then stopping halfway up a
hillside to weigh out the situation - they have a little extra for mental prowess.
And if our Mother was correct in her observations. Upon her possible encounter
of 1970, the Sasquatch stopped to view her, with it's hand on a gate, opening
it, about to enter a yard fifty feet away from her. In all three accounts, we've
put together, the creature stopping when the jig was up - each time viewing
the situation at hand - very well thought out.
A caseload of sure reports might clarify a direction in the case of tools. At
the moment, a person has to wonder if Sasquatch learns from what it
witnesses in it's travels or what it may see others do. But you're right - it
would take quite some thought process.
My thoughts as well - a certain cleverness must be present in the animal - to
pattern, select, and have an outcome for the use of such things.
The Sasquatch has to be doing something right, limited documentation on
the biped available to us - visuals thus far the best resource to draw from,
if most sightings can be relied upon.
In my particular cases 1974 and 1985 - I saw above average intelligence
for a creature of the forest. It needs little added to accomplish it's goals I'm
sure - watching it using a fence with the left arm, then stopping halfway up a
hillside to weigh out the situation - they have a little extra for mental prowess.
And if our Mother was correct in her observations. Upon her possible encounter
of 1970, the Sasquatch stopped to view her, with it's hand on a gate, opening
it, about to enter a yard fifty feet away from her. In all three accounts, we've
put together, the creature stopping when the jig was up - each time viewing
the situation at hand - very well thought out.
A caseload of sure reports might clarify a direction in the case of tools. At
the moment, a person has to wonder if Sasquatch learns from what it
witnesses in it's travels or what it may see others do. But you're right - it
would take quite some thought process.
QUOTE(Dudlow @ Oct 7 2005, 12:07 AM)
...Now what becomes of our 'god-given' (as most religions maintain) stewardship of the planet....
Whatever we make of it, because it's damned sure a stewardship (unless you're willing to relinquish authority to the camels, chickadees, or some such).
Period.
When you consider our behavior concerning sasquatchery, I'd say that we're blowing it. You can blame that on God, or you can blame it on arrogant humans who deny the obvious.
I choose to blame it on the arrogant humans.
Is it a done deal?
Not yet, as far as I can tell.
Now what?
You may as well pray, cause voting won't affect the situation one bit.
At least until Joe Sixpack drags a carcass in and rubs it all over "Science" (the other "god").
The wood knots where found at Round lake in ID, this contact has seen where she believes the bigfoots live, sent photos to me but really need to be there i guess to see what the lady is talking about. Also says the bigfoot peel the husk of cornm has found it some distance from the garden. Lots of other things alo but not worth going into detail about.
Squatchworks-
Thanks for the follow-up.
lookoutman.
Thanks for the follow-up.
lookoutman.
There have been reports noting the thumb, showing them both ways; some opposable some not. Why would it not be opposable? What advantage would that be? Granted it may not be as well developed (lacking the thenar pad), but for the life of me I can not see a Sasquatch hand without an opposable thumb from all the reports that state so.
How would they groom or pick at things? Who ever wrote that they don't (Grover Krantz?) based it off of an Ivan Marx hand cast. Other hand casts show it differently. Remember a cast is just a representation of the object that made an impression, it is not the actual object.
Just my thought on it. I am going to continue to believe an opposable thumb is more likely, then the other way.
How would they groom or pick at things? Who ever wrote that they don't (Grover Krantz?) based it off of an Ivan Marx hand cast. Other hand casts show it differently. Remember a cast is just a representation of the object that made an impression, it is not the actual object.
Just my thought on it. I am going to continue to believe an opposable thumb is more likely, then the other way.
I lean that way too Rick, and I've gotta think that if they DO have an opposable thumb, then the thenar eminence (as well as the hypothenar on the opposite side, which acts mainly on the 5th digit), which is just a big chunk of muscle, would be highly developed, with the grip strength corresponding directly to the forearm, upper arm, and shoulder strength.
Seems to me that I've read reports that sasquatch fingers are rather short, and the overall hand was short and stubby.
Patty's hands appear that way.
Patty's hands appear that way.
Would someone please ship me a new shovel - I'm wearing out the one I have now digging the hole I'm in. :surrender:
Bill. I would send you a shovel but I can't get out of the hole I've dug to send it. :help:
QUOTE(Huntster @ Oct 8 2005, 10:59 AM)
Seems to me that I've read reports that sasquatch fingers are rather short, and the overall hand was short and stubby.
Patty's hands appear that way.
Patty's hands appear that way.
Here's a little of what Albert Ostman had to say on Sasquatch anatomy and hands:
QUOTE
The old man must have been near eight feet tall. Big barrel chest and big hump on his back — powerful shoulders, his biceps on upper arm were enormous and tapered down to his elbows. His forearms were longer than common people have, but well proportioned. His hands were wide, the palm was long and broad, and hollow like a scoop. His fingers were short in proportion to the rest of his hand. His fingernails were like chisels. The only place they had no hair was inside their hands and the soles of their feet and upper part of the nose and eyelids. I never did see their ears, they were covered with hair hanging over them.
The following day I did not see the old lady till about 4:00 p.m. She came home with her arms full of grass and twigs and of all kinds of spruce and hemlock as well as some kind of nuts that grow in the ground. I have seen lots of them on Vancouver Island. The young fellow went up the mountain to the east every day, he could climb better than a mountain goat. He picked some kind of grass with long sweet roots. He gave me some one day — they tasted very sweet.
The following day I did not see the old lady till about 4:00 p.m. She came home with her arms full of grass and twigs and of all kinds of spruce and hemlock as well as some kind of nuts that grow in the ground. I have seen lots of them on Vancouver Island. The young fellow went up the mountain to the east every day, he could climb better than a mountain goat. He picked some kind of grass with long sweet roots. He gave me some one day — they tasted very sweet.
If a Sasquatch does use its hands to harvest or pick nuts, grass and twigs, perhaps they could also use simple tools?
I have a good friend that once observed a Sasquatch pick an armful of apples just as easy and quickly as you or I would.
Bushman
Yes, convenience/usability are the reasons for tool use. If it doesn't serve a purpose, why use it? I wasn't thinking in terms of silverware! (As in sit down to dinner, eat like a lady or gentleman using the socially accepted utensils for the job).
I was thinking along the terms of using one of these twig or root tools initially, to break up hard earth or a log, then dropping the utensil to do the fine-tuned work of breaking up the looser soil or wood pieces to get to whatever food was inside using fingers and fingernails. At times I use a trowel or garden trowel to break up soil, then use my hands/fingers to work out a weed root or to plant a seedling. It's to my advantage not to break off my fingernails, but keep them for the "finer" work.
There may be some real fallacies in my assumptions. You guys tell me. You're the pros! I assume that a larger wild creature would have thicker stronger fingernails. It would seem to me to be an advantage to a creature to use tools for the "rough" work, preserving their fingernails for the more fine-tuned work of probing or flicking insects or other small matter from within the substrate material. I read alot & go on the personal HUMAN activites that I have experience doing. When I think of animals, I often compare what I physically do, to what they might be capable of doing. It's not an optimal scientific approach, but it's the best I have to work with. It's hypothetical. It does help me sort out my thoughts.
I was thinking along the terms of using one of these twig or root tools initially, to break up hard earth or a log, then dropping the utensil to do the fine-tuned work of breaking up the looser soil or wood pieces to get to whatever food was inside using fingers and fingernails. At times I use a trowel or garden trowel to break up soil, then use my hands/fingers to work out a weed root or to plant a seedling. It's to my advantage not to break off my fingernails, but keep them for the "finer" work.
There may be some real fallacies in my assumptions. You guys tell me. You're the pros! I assume that a larger wild creature would have thicker stronger fingernails. It would seem to me to be an advantage to a creature to use tools for the "rough" work, preserving their fingernails for the more fine-tuned work of probing or flicking insects or other small matter from within the substrate material. I read alot & go on the personal HUMAN activites that I have experience doing. When I think of animals, I often compare what I physically do, to what they might be capable of doing. It's not an optimal scientific approach, but it's the best I have to work with. It's hypothetical. It does help me sort out my thoughts.
I also can't imagine being a bird! What, no hands? I'd go nuts! But then birds probably think, "What? No wings?" 
God seems to have a sense of humor...
(Am I allowed to say that?...)
God seems to have a sense of humor...
(Am I allowed to say that?...)
Pursuing this further through more definitive and reliable means, but for now some information found on the internet specifically addressing the hands of Afarensis:
Also it's worth noting on the quadrupedal end of apes a group of chimpanzees is known for using stones to break open nuts.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...23TVchimps.html
Dang found quite a bit more here in regards to chimps and tool use:
http://www.primates.com/chimps/chimpanzee-info.html
QUOTE(http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wilson-hand.html)
 The advances in Lucy's hand are nearly impossible to appreciate without studying her wrist bones--fitting them together, moving them around, and comparing them to the wrist bones of other anthropoids. Having spent some years doing exactly this, Marzke concludes that Lucy's hand is at least partially "modern." The most impressive evidence for its modified design resides in the joint surfaces at the base of the thumb, index, and middle fingers, and in the changes in the size and orientation of the joint surfaces of the wrist bones closest to those digits. The thumb is long in comparison with the fingers, the ratio approaching that found in modern humans and in few other primates. Taken together, these changes move the radial (or thumb) side of Lucy's hand dramatically toward the twentieth century. The apparent functional advantages of the changes are:
* the thumb, index, and middle fingers can form a "three-jaw chuck," which means the hand can conform to, grasp, and firmly retain irregular solid shapes (such as stones);
* finer control can be exerted over objects held between the thumb and the tips of the index and middle fingers;
* rocks can be held within the hand to pound repeatedly on other hard objects (nuts, for example), or to dig for roots, because the new wrist structure is able to absorb (dissipate) the shock of repeated hard strikes more effectively than in the ape hand.
* the thumb, index, and middle fingers can form a "three-jaw chuck," which means the hand can conform to, grasp, and firmly retain irregular solid shapes (such as stones);
* finer control can be exerted over objects held between the thumb and the tips of the index and middle fingers;
* rocks can be held within the hand to pound repeatedly on other hard objects (nuts, for example), or to dig for roots, because the new wrist structure is able to absorb (dissipate) the shock of repeated hard strikes more effectively than in the ape hand.
QUOTE(http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/39772/ABSTRACT)
This study asks whether there are discernable links between precision gripping, tool behaviors,[Note ] [The term tool behavior has been variously used in the literature, in some cases implying exclusively tool making distinctive of humans (Susman, 1991) and in others referring variably to tool using and/or tool-making abilities, some shared with us by other animals (Susman, 1988a,b, 1994). In this paper the term is used to include both tool using and tool making behaviors of humans and non-humans; the term tool making is used in place of tool behavior whenever the discussion is focused upon distinguishing a capacity for removing flakes from stone preforms from a more general capacity to manipulate stone tools.] and hand morphology in modern hominoids, which may guide functional interpretation of early hominid hand morphology. Findings from a three-pronged investigation answer this question in the affirmative, as follows. (1) Experimental manufacture of early prehistoric tools provides evidence of connections between distinctive human precision grips and effective tool making. (A connection is not found between the fine thumb/index finger pad precision grip and early tool making.) (2) Manipulative behavior studies of chimpanzees, hamadryas baboons, and humans show that human precision grips are distinguished by the greater force with which objects may be secured by the thumb and fingers of one hand (precision pinching) and the ability to adjust the orientation of gripped objects through movements at joints distal to the wrist (precision handling). (3) Morphological studies reveal eight features distinctive of modern humans which facilitate use of these grips. Among these features are substantially larger moment arms for intrinsic muscles that stabilize the proximal thumb joints. Examination of evidence for these reveals that three of the eight features occur in Australopithecus afarensis, but limited thumb mobility would have compromised tool making. Also, Olduvai hand morphology strongly suggests a capacity for stone tool making. However, functional and behavioral implications of Sterkfontein and Swartkrans hand morphology are less clear. At present, no single skeletal feature can be safely relied upon as an indicator of distinctively human capabilities for precision gripping or tool making in fossil hominids. Am J Phys Anthropol 102:91-110, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Also it's worth noting on the quadrupedal end of apes a group of chimpanzees is known for using stones to break open nuts.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...23TVchimps.html
Dang found quite a bit more here in regards to chimps and tool use:
http://www.primates.com/chimps/chimpanzee-info.html
QUOTE(Bushman @ Oct 8 2005, 02:54 PM)
...His hands were wide, the palm was long and broad, and hollow like a scoop. His fingers were short in proportion to the rest of his hand. His fingernails were like chisels. The only place they had no hair was inside their hands and the soles of their feet and upper part of the nose and eyelids. I never did see their ears, they were covered with hair hanging over them....
Sounds just like what I think I see in the PG film.
QUOTE(Huntster @ Oct 9 2005, 10:14 PM)
Sounds just like what I think I see in the PG film.
You have hit the nail on the head again, Huntster.
Albert Ostman described in his amazing story many details about Sasquatch anatomy, and possible feeding habits that are only now being discovered and still ring true today. Albert Ostman's story entitled "Kidnapped Prospector Lived Several Days With Giant Family" first appeared in John Green's AGASSIZ-HARRISON - The Advance on Friday, May 5, 1961. And all this took place several years before Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin filmed a possible live Sasquatch at Bluff Creek, California in October 1967.
IMHO, from what I have witnessed with my own eyes, as well as heard from others, I believe we may be seriously underestimating Sasquatch's overall capabilities and the dexterity and abilities in the use of its hands.
Bushman
One morning ABC news had a story about the observation of wild gorillas using tools and having more complex problem solving skills than first thought. They showed a female gorilla using a stick to measure the depth of a river before crossing, an amazing piece of video. :notworthy:
Wild Gorilla Tool usage.
Wild Gorilla Tool usage.
QUOTE(Bushman @ Oct 10 2005, 12:04 AM)
...IMHO, from what I have witnessed with my own eyes, as well as heard from others, I believe we may be seriously underestimating Sasquatch's overall capabilities and the dexterity and abilities in the use of its hands....
I strongly agree with that.
QUOTE(Huntster @ Oct 10 2005, 08:42 AM)
I strongly agree with that.
I would agree with that also.
Unless they're approaching my throat,, I won't be a lookin at hands!!!!!!!
Crew Chief
Crew Chief
Here's some mentions of hands/usage from the various newspaper stories I found. Of course, they are just old newspaper stories!
tirademan
ps- the full stories can be found in this thread (see link below)...or you can purchase them from me in a compiled book form on CD-R at www.mcclean.org:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=5705
tirademan
ps- the full stories can be found in this thread (see link below)...or you can purchase them from me in a compiled book form on CD-R at www.mcclean.org:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=5705
In a low resolution game cam pic that I've seen, the clearest aspect of the photo is what looks to be an opposable thumb. Just thought I'd help some of you guys dig. :notworthy:
I have always thought that an opposable thumb was a slam dunk because it would be very difficult to twist off branches, build nests, or throw rocks without one.
When I dig in the dirt looking for roots and bugs I don't like using my fingers. They aren't pointy, it makes my fingernails dirty and it hurts when I hit a rock. HMMMMM... maybe they feel the same way. I think they're human. Different than us, but human. They're using tools just like we would if we were digging and had no commercial tools. They didn't just grab any old branch. These tools obviously took some care to select for the specific purpose. I agree with the previous post that states that we are intimidated by another human coexisting with us. Is it so hard to come to terms with? It shouldn't be. They have a complex family structure, they have a spoken language, a hand language, and a code language, they mate like we do (face to face), they hold grudges and get revenge, they use clubs to kill prey sometimes, they laugh, they kidnap, they mate with us on rare occassion. So...it's not too far fetched that they'd use a digging stick. It makes sense.
I agree with most of what you say, MOBF. Don't know about the language part, but I do think they are darn intelligent and using tools to help them did would be easy and natural for them. WC
DDA and Squatchworks, are there any marks on these wood pieces and suspected tools, and can you show closeup photos of them?
To what extent and type that sasquatch use tools, I cannot say. In 92 I found a portion of Cotten-wood tree branch about 5 feet long that had been discarded by an animal with a very large hand(sweaty palm print)that was laying over three distinct sets of tracks that were an hour and one half old. The narrow end appeared to have been used for digging in a soil that was made up mostly of sand which was inherent to the area. The end was also very well worn which left me with the impression that it had been used for some type of action for a lengthy period of time.
I believe that sasquact are tool "using" animals but to what extent, I am not certain.
I believe that sasquact are tool "using" animals but to what extent, I am not certain.
QUOTE(wolftrax @ Nov 17 2005, 01:00 AM)
DDA and Squatchworks, are there any marks on these wood pieces and suspected tools, and can you show closeup photos of them?
No marks on the one I collected.
The tips appear to be worn by dirt, the lady who sent the tools? to me said the bigfoot dig with em, she was worried about takng the tools , thinking she might upset the bigfoots.
QUOTE(squatchworks @ Dec 16 2005, 09:56 PM)
The tips appear to be worn by dirt, the lady who sent the tools? to me said the bigfoot dig with em, she was worried about takng the tools , thinking she might upset the bigfoots.
Can you post closeup pics of the ends of the wood pieces, showing these marks?
During one BFRO report I took, someone claimed that a bigfoot had made a tool. Using it's teeth to carve the handle for easier gripping.
Had him send it too me.
It was driftwood
It was also chewed on by beavers.
It fit perfectly in my hand.
But for a sassy to use it, would be too small for him or her.
Witness was a bit upset.
So I went to my local beaver dam and pulled out a few sticks and shipped it back to him.
He thought I was trying to be funny.
Trying to show him what I was seeing.
Never heard from him again after sending back his beaver tool
m e l
Had him send it too me.
It was driftwood
It was also chewed on by beavers.
It fit perfectly in my hand.
But for a sassy to use it, would be too small for him or her.
Witness was a bit upset.
So I went to my local beaver dam and pulled out a few sticks and shipped it back to him.
He thought I was trying to be funny.
Trying to show him what I was seeing.
Never heard from him again after sending back his beaver tool
m e l
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.