JDL Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I was browsing sites one evening and ran across a report of a Native American account passed down regarding disease and Bigfoot. I can't recall which site, but the thesis was that when european explorers first visited North America they transmitted diseases not only to the indigenous human population, but also indirectly to the indigenous bigfoot population (through the NA or through contaminated items "procured" by bigfoot from infected NA). The account stated that the epidemic hit the bigfoot population much harder than the NA population - so hard that for a few generations the NA thought that the bigfoot had been completely wiped out. The account also stated that prior to the epidemic bigfoot were far more numerous than at the time of the account's telling. This seems plausible to me, but I'd like to relocate the original reference and find other references from different sources before giving it too much credence. Has anyone else run across the same or similar accounts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaptainMorgan Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Is it possible you are referring to this posting last month on Cryptomundo? http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/yeti-inst/ bigfoot hunter responds: March 26th, 2011 at 8:33 pm The Siberian/Mongolian area is definitely the best hope for finding a hominid in my opinion. Although I believe there was a Pacific NW hominid, it just seems that it may have died out by now unfortunately. Another reason I think the asian hominid is more likely is because of the possibility of disease. Not sure anyone has made this correlation, but based on some recent research, over 90% of the indigenous Indians died out because of disease. (1491 by Charles Mann). If Sasquatch is hominid, is it possible that small pox and typhoid type diseases had an impact on that population? Since Yeti is old world, it wouldn’t be endangered by those germs. Just an idea. Man, if we could go back in time to around the 1850s, I am sure there were Bigfoots running all over the west. Since there are so many references to a Native American named Big Foot and a location named Bigfoot . . . I think it will take a lot more time to sift through all the references. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 Is it possible you are referring to this posting last month on Cryptomundo? http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/yeti-inst/ Since there are so many references to a Native American named Big Foot and a location named Bigfoot . . . I think it will take a lot more time to sift through all the references. . Thanks, CaptainMorgan. Unfortunately that isn't the reference I saw. I seem to recall that it was in the NA folklore section of a site I'd not seen before. It was presented as historical fact rather than in the usual allegorical manner. The cryptomundo poster makes me chuckle, though. Perhaps Russia/Siberia offers more opportunity, but they certainly have not died out here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 It would make sense, but by now populations would have had time to recover. In the PNW the NA's said they were still around, though lower in numbers. Probably the numbers have risen because of less hunting, less of an armed presence in remote areas, and more game for all the same reasons. Also despite the logging, food species of plants have been actually on the rise since logging helps them by opening up areas of new growth opportunities for low bushes such as thimbleberry etc. As long as there are areas to retreat to in times when loggers and trucks are in the area they live they would be fine, just avoid them until the loggers pass or winter comes. Also logging doesn't happen in steeply sloped canyons and there are plenty of those to provide refuges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 It would make sense, but by now populations would have had time to recover. In the PNW the NA's said they were still around, though lower in numbers. Probably the numbers have risen because of less hunting, less of an armed presence in remote areas, and more game for all the same reasons. Also despite the logging, food species of plants have been actually on the rise since logging helps them by opening up areas of new growth opportunities for low bushes such as thimbleberry etc. As long as there are areas to retreat to in times when loggers and trucks are in the area they live they would be fine, just avoid them until the loggers pass or winter comes. Also logging doesn't happen in steeply sloped canyons and there are plenty of those to provide refuges. I've never considered them scarce given my experiences. Looking at the way coyotes, cougars, wolves and bear are coming back (there are a lot of deer out there now) it seems probable that their populations are also on the rise. Before WWII most of us were still living rurally and hunting was still a means of daily sustenance. Now, most of our population lives in cities and even those who still live rurally have plenty of indoor entertainment to keep them busy and a Walmart near enough to forage in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Can humans transmit smallpox to other primates? Like chimps and gorillas? I haven't heard of a case actually, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted April 26, 2011 Admin Share Posted April 26, 2011 Hate to bring politics into it, but some on the left try to blame everything on the white man. This just sounds like an extension of that fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Can humans transmit smallpox to other primates? Like chimps and gorillas? I haven't heard of a case actually, so... Gorillas are susceptible to smallpox but not chimps. Gorillas and chimps are both susceptible to Ebola. HIV I jumped from chimps as a SIV and mutated into HIV I in humans back in 1950. They are just now finding out that 50% of chimps with simian immune deficiency virus(SIV) do go on to develop AIDS like symptoms. Don't forget it wasn't until the late 70's that we even knew what people who died of AIDS even had. It could go either way with small pox but it seems some kind of hemorrhagic fever wiped out the South American Indians ( Mayans)prior to the 1500's, possibly Ebola brought over from some marooned or ship wrecked African sailor. My point is it could have been anything or a combination of many things that killed the NA which also includes measles. The same is probably true for bigfoot and might even include contact with the Spanish flu or polio at the turn of the century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 27, 2011 Author Share Posted April 27, 2011 Gorillas are susceptible to smallpox but not chimps. Gorillas and chimps are both susceptible to Ebola. HIV I jumped from chimps as a SIV and mutated into HIV I in humans back in 1950. They are just now finding out that 50% of chimps with simian immune deficiency virus(SIV) do go on to develop AIDS like symptoms. Don't forget it wasn't until the late 70's that we even knew what people who died of AIDS even had. It could go either way with small pox but it seems some kind of hemorrhagic fever wiped out the South American Indians ( Mayans)prior to the 1500's, possibly Ebola brought over from some marooned or ship wrecked African sailor. My point is it could have been anything or a combination of many things that killed the NA which also includes measles. The same is probably true for bigfoot and might even include contact with the Spanish flu or polio at the turn of the century. Great rundown, Jodie. The reason I'm interested in the topic is because I believe bigfoot to be closer to human than to gorilla. I'd thought that high susceptibility to human diseases would be an indicator but, as you point out, several diseases can not only cross closely related species boundaries but also boundaries between unrelated species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 It has nothing to do with race, but it happens every time two closely related groups of individuals who have been separated for generations by a physical barrier ( and therefore had time to evolve differential immunities) contact each other. It happens with other animals as well. One example current today is the E. coli strains that go around. Once in a while a really virulent strain develops and wreaks havoc. Or the swine flu virus, for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Can humans transmit smallpox to other primates? Like chimps and gorillas? I haven't heard of a case actually, so... Again the assumption that BF is a primate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 28, 2011 Author Share Posted April 28, 2011 Again the assumption that BF is a primate... Just out of curiosity, what else might it be? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Can humans transmit smallpox to other primates? Like chimps and gorillas? I haven't heard of a case actually, so... Can humans transmit disease to other humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Can humans transmit disease to other humans? I guess you aren't serious when you ask this , but of course, that's why vaccines were developed and why they offer flu shots every year.... The OP's original question was a valid question and one many have asked before as a possible explanation for why bigfoot is so elusive or why there may not be very many of them left. Perhaps the numbers were decimated by prior plagues after first contact with white men in the America's. Although they may not have a concept of the disease process, bigfoot may have connected sickness with close contact with man. You do still get reports of bigfoot raiding dumpsters and stealing food from campers, but as I said, it isn't direct contact with man even though a disease could be contracted that way. The same thing works in reverse, man could very well contract a disease from a bigfoot carcass, hair, or poop so researchers need to be just as careful when coming into contact with this type of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Are you saying I shouldn't store my suspected BF feces samples with my Eggo Blueberry Waffles? Ruh-Roh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts