Bigfoot (Smallpox) Epidemic In 1500's

[Guest]

Are you saying I shouldn't store my suspected BF feces samples with my Eggo Blueberry Waffles? Ruh-Roh

Depending on the mil's of the ziplock baggie, or container it should be OK! :D

[Guest Tsalagi]

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.

Its not a matter of anyone blaming the white man. Smallpox did not exist in North America prior to non-Indians coming into the country. It devastated the Native American peoples because they had no antibodies against it. It killed many in Europe as well. It's thought smallpox was originally a rodent virus that jumped species and believed to have originated in China.

[Guest BuzzardEater]

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.

Sorry for my flippant response. What I am getting at is that there may be no species barrier to jump. BF might be men. Sasquatch certainly might be. They are smarter than chimpanzees or gorillas, I think, because we found those. There are many speculations about, regaurding intermarriage. If they can produce offspring, aren't they, by definition, human? What is the breadth of human possibility? How big can humans get? How hairy?

Edited April 29, 2011 by BuzzardEater

[Guest]

Are you saying I shouldn't store my suspected BF feces samples with my Eggo Blueberry Waffles? Ruh-Roh

Ummmm, not advisable if you want to avoid Giardia or C. diff.

[Guest]

Sorry for my flippant response. What I am getting at is that there may be no species barrier to jump. BF might be men. Sasquatch certainly might be. They are smarter than chimpanzees or gorillas, I think, because we found those. There are many speculations about, regaurding intermarriage. If they can produce offspring, aren't they, by definition, human? What is the breadth of human possibility? How big can humans get? How hairy?

Humans can get just as big. Cheif Tuscaloosa was over 8 feet tall supposedly. That speaks well for the nutrition available for the NA indians in the southeast. As for disease susceptibility there are differences in how virulent a disease can be for a group depending on previous exposure and genetics. Not all died from the black plague, some communities were more susceptible than others. As for the definition of human, I imagine that with the advent of DNA analysis and further improvements for analysis techniques that we will find a way to redefine ourselves other than through similar physical qualities among species, if I had to guess.

[Guest CaptainMorgan]

Sorry for my flippant response. What I am getting at is that there may be no species barrier to jump. BF might be men. Sasquatch certainly might be.

How\why are you distinguishing the difference between Sasquatch and BF? Does one have a Canadian accent eh? "Sasquatch" is just a local word that got coined.

At least in this Western - PNW corridor running North and South from Canada to California, the descriptions are pretty much the same.

I can't find any solid reference that the Northern\Mid-Western\Southern\Eastern states look any different either.

[Guest]

The South Americans gave Europeans syphilis in return for measles, although you don't hear much about that.Syphilis didn't exist in Europe until the 1500's. It was considered the "new plague" in the old world and the primary reason condoms were invented. The spread of new diseases usually works in both directions.

[Guest Tsalagi]

The South Americans gave Europeans syphilis in return for measles, although you don't hear much about that.Syphilis didn't exist in Europe until the 1500's. It was considered the "new plague" in the old world and the primary reason condoms were invented. The spread of new diseases usually works in both directions.

Not that this has anything to do with Bigfoot, but if the European evaders had kept it in their pants and not raped the South American women they wouldn't have contracted syphilis.

[Guest]

Not that this has anything to do with Bigfoot, but if the European evaders had kept it in their pants and not raped the South American women they wouldn't have contracted syphilis.

I believe you have completely missed the point I was trying to make that we are just as susceptible to disease from bigfoot as they are from us......

[Guest ajciani]

Actually, syphilis was probably present in Europe in Roman days. It may have vanished from Europe for a time, for unknown reasons.

It is an interesting idea that the bigfoot population could have been hammered by an epidemic. It would require that bigfoots are highly social among bigfoots. A couple of bigfoot kidnappings, the Ape Canyon story, and the Honobia incident all point to large social groups.

Also, bigfoot populations might not grow as fast as other animal populations. Wolves and coyotes can be ready to pump out pups in a couple years, or less, and have litters of 4 to 6 (typical). It is going to take them 100 years to repopulate. If bigfoots are human analogues, then it takes them 7 times as long to start pumping out babies, and 1 at a time. So if bigfoots were starting from the same point as wolves, it would take them something like 35 times as long to repopulate. However, bigfoots probably have a larger range than wolves, so they would only need to hit about 1/4 the density, which knocks that down to about 9 times as long. Also, bigfoots probably started from a better position than wolves. Bigfoots can also take advantage of human refuse.

It could be that bigfoot populations are getting back to normal, or even over normal, especially in the last 50 years. It could be that there are increases in encounters, because they are recovered from some population catastrophe, and conditions are more favorable for larger numbers of bigfoots.

[Guest BuzzardEater]

How\why are you distinguishing the difference between Sasquatch and BF? Does one have a Canadian accent eh? "Sasquatch" is just a local word that got coined.

At least in this Western - PNW corridor running North and South from Canada to California, the descriptions are pretty much the same.

I can't find any solid reference that the Northern\Mid-Western\Southern\Eastern states look any different either.

I have seen Sasquatch people up close. They are people.

Bigfoot is not what I saw. At all. Sasquatch do not look like apes. They do not have black skin or fangs. They have human faces with human noses. They are much bigger.

Bigfoot does not range north of Oregon. They are a southern variant. Each variety has the ability to leave thier range, but this is rarely noted.

Niether resemble the Skunk Ape or Australian Yowie.

[Guest]

How\why are you distinguishing the difference between Sasquatch and BF? Does one have a Canadian accent eh? "Sasquatch" is just a local word that got coined.

At least in this Western - PNW corridor running North and South from Canada to California, the descriptions are pretty much the same.

I can't find any solid reference that the Northern\Mid-Western\Southern\Eastern states look any different either.

I will respectfully suggest you read reports from BFRO, Bigfoot encounters and any other sourse providing them. The regional differences are noted in the reports. Both physically and behaviorally.

Irregardless of whether Sasquatch is a seperate sub-species from Swamp apes or not there are differences.

[Guest]

Actually, syphilis was probably present in Europe in Roman days. It may have vanished from Europe for a time, for unknown reasons.

http://www.archaeology.org/9701/newsbriefs/syphilis.html

It is an interesting idea that the bigfoot population could have been hammered by an epidemic. It would require that bigfoots are highly social among bigfoots. A couple of bigfoot kidnappings, the Ape Canyon story, and the Honobia incident all point to large social groups.

Large social groups are not necessary if the disease mechanism is air borne/ water borne and the pathogen can survive several days outside the host. HIV lives less than a second outside a host, hepatitis can live up to two weeks( wipe shopping cart handles before touching them when you go shopping).

Also, bigfoot populations might not grow as fast as other animal populations. Wolves and coyotes can be ready to pump out pups in a couple years, or less, and have litters of 4 to 6 (typical). It is going to take them 100 years to repopulate. If bigfoots are human analogues, then it takes them 7 times as long to start pumping out babies, and 1 at a time. So if bigfoots were starting from the same point as wolves, it would take them something like 35 times as long to repopulate. However, bigfoots probably have a larger range than wolves, so they would only need to hit about 1/4 the density, which knocks that down to about 9 times as long. Also, bigfoots probably started from a better position than wolves. Bigfoots can also take advantage of human refuse.

Human refuse would provide a possible disease vector for a bigfoot plague if they are susceptible to anything we carry, like the live polio virus in diapers or that gets into the water shed from children who are vaccinated with live virus vaccine, for example, or any disease that is transferred via the fecal/ oral route.

It could be that bigfoot populations are getting back to normal, or even over normal, especially in the last 50 years. It could be that there are increases in encounters, because they are recovered from some population catastrophe, and conditions are more favorable for larger numbers of bigfoots.

Maybe, maybe not. I can't decide if the increase in reports is related to the increase in the human population ( more eyes to see) or whether it is the bigfoot population that is increasing. It might be both???

[Guest Tsalagi]

I have seen Sasquatch people up close. They are people.

Bigfoot is not what I saw. At all. Sasquatch do not look like apes. They do not have black skin or fangs. They have human faces with human noses. They are much bigger.

Bigfoot does not range north of Oregon. They are a southern variant. Each variety has the ability to leave thier range, but this is rarely noted.

Niether resemble the Skunk Ape or Australian Yowie.

Sasquatch is a name that came from the aboriginal people of British Columbia said to mean "wild man" or "hairy man". Sasquatch is used interchangeably with the American word Bigfoot for the same creature. People argue over what Bigfoot/Sasquatch is. What I have seen is some sort of ancient man. People also disagree on whether Skunk Ape is the same thing or something different from Bigfoot/Sasquatch. My opinion is Skunk Ape is nothing special just an escaped ape or more likely gibbon from a Floridian collector or zoo that has learned to live and reproduce in the southeastern forests and not related to the Sasquatch/Bigfoot people. I do believe he does range north of Oregon because the Canadians have sightings of him and their vast wilderness would be perfect for him though he may migrate in and out. Skunk Ape may not be able to handle the northern climate however. One has to remember just because some of the most famous footage shows monkey/ape bodies and behaviors does not mean the footage is even real depictions of Sasquatch/Bigfoot.

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but I have never seen any report of black skin and fangs.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Tsalagi

[Guest]

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but I have never seen any report of black skin and fangs.

Go back and look when you get a chance, there are more reports of those with black skin than there are those with fangs that I have either been told or read about. If they can interbreed with humans, then that might have occurred more frequently with escaped slaves, since they usually hid in the swamps, here in the south to account for the difference in skin color or it just might be an adaptation due to climate here just like in humans.I don't know about all of the Skunk Ape reports being mis-identification of some escaped primates since what people report down here is something running on two legs very swiftly.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Jodie