Bigfoot Prankster Claims Violation of Free Speech

Excerpts from an article with the headline "Summit stunt: ‘Big Foot’ cries free-speech foul." This article was written by Jessica Arriens of the New Hampshire Sentinel Source

JAFFREY — In early fall, Keene resident Jonathan C. Doyle had a spontaneous idea: Dress as Bigfoot and appear atop the summit of Mount Monadnock.

He surprised some 80 hikers, then shot video (embedded below) of interviews with them and posted the clip on YouTube.

Doyle and crew were stopped by a park ranger and told to leave, because they did not have a permit to perform at the park.

Through the N.H. Civil Liberties Foundation, Doyle is arguing that the expulsion violated his First Amendment rights, by curbing free speech in a public forum — a state park.

In a Dec. 14 letter to George Bald, commissioner of New Hampshire’s Department of Resources and Economic Development (which includes the Parks Department), Foundation Staff Attorney Barbara R. Keshen says the special permit rule is vague, giving “unchecked discretion” to the park director.

Doyle said he hasn’t received any reply from the parks department.

Despite the free speech challenge, Doyle said it’s important for people to remember that the Bigfoot performance — and accompanying film — is still the absurdist, humorous idea it started out as.

While we agree with Doyle the Bigfoot performance is absurd, however, we would not go as far as saying it is humorous--or entertaining or interesting for that matter. Watch it at your discretion.



You can read the whole New Hampshire Sentinel Source article here

UPDATE: I've been holding on to this post for a while, and I'm glad I did. CBSNews is calling him an artist.

Smithsonian's Formal Reply Letter to Bigfoot Inquiries

The Smithsonian Institution is an educational and research institute with an associated museum complex, administered and funded by the government of the United States. Other fundings sources include its endowment, contributions, and profits from its shops and its magazines.

In 1988, due to a high volume of inquiries on the subject of Bigfoot, The Smithsonian developed a formal response letter. We can only guess the high volume of inquiries were due to the success of "Harry and the Hendersons" the year before in 1987, but that's just our amazing intelligence division connecting the dots.

Below is the formal response letter from the Smithsonian Institution.

The Museum of Natural History often receives requests for information concerning the "Abominable Snowman," "Yeti," "Sasquatch," or "Bigfoot," and other unknown creatures said to exist in certain mountain regions of the world, particularly the Himalayas, western Canada and northwestern United States. Though the term "Abominable Snowman" can refer to all these creatures, generally the terms "Snowman" and "Yeti" refer to an Asiatic creature, while "Sasquatch" and "Bigfoot" refer to North American creatures.

The actual existence of a "snowman" has not been definitely proven. Most evidence submitted so far is based on photographs of previously unknown animal tracks, unusual scats (dung), and some hair samples. Among the many explanations offered on the basis of the above evidence, one that has appealed greatly to the popular imagination is that the animal in question is a huge, human like ape, or possibly a surviving race of early man. Because of its terrifying aspect, the animal, supposedly of Himalayan origin, came to be called "abominable snowman"; it is this intriguing name that is probably responsible for such widespread interest in these creatures in various parts of the world.

Many zoologists who have reviewed the evidence have come to the conclusion that the tracks of the Himalayan "snowmen" were really made by bears, monkeys, or other already known animals. A few disagree saying there is little similarity.The tracks attributed to the Sasquatch of the northwestern United States are much more human like but of vast proportions (15-18 inches in length). With the large publicity the "snowman" has received in recent years, many popular articles of little scientific value have been written. Some of these are convincing to read, but they are mostly based on circumstantial evidence of "sightings," tracks, hair, scats, and some doubtful pelts and skull caps.

While most scientists believe the likelihood of the existence of such a creature is small, they keep an open mind as scientists should. One cannot prove anything on the basis of negative evidence, and the only satisfactory proof that an animal fitting the description of the "snowman" exists would be either to capture one and study it or to find undisputed skeletal evidence. Only these kinds of finds would result in the universal recognition of the "snowman" by all scientists.

Below is a list of references through which you can pursue this topic further:

Bryne, Peter. The Search for Bigfoot: Monster, Myth or Man? Washington, D.C.: Acropolis Books Ltd., 1975. (Summary of the evidence collected over the years by a "believer" in the "snowman's" existence.)

Halpin, Marjorie and Michael M. Ames, eds. Manlike Monsters on Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1980. (Explores Sasquatch like creatures and summarizes reports of sightings.)

Hillary, Edmund and Desmond Doig. High in the Thin Cold Air. New York.: Doubleday and Co., 1963. (The famous Mt. Everest climber recounts searches for the "snowman" in the Himalayas.)

Izzard, Ralph. The Abominable Snowman Adventure. Toronto: Modder and Stoughton, 1954. (Concerns the search for the "snowman" in the Himalayas.)

Napier, John. Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1973. (An eminent primatologist discusses his views on the possibility of the "snowman's" existence. Concludes no "hard evidence" exists though allows for some "soft evidence.")

Sanderson, Ivan T. Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life; The Story of Sub Humans on Five Continents from the Early Ice Age Until Today. Philadelphia and New York: Chilton Co., 1961. (Sifts the accumulated evidence for and against the "snowman's" existence rather thoroughly. For a critical comment on this book see Carleton S. Coon's review in the January 1962 issue of Natural History Magazine.)

Sprague, Roderick and Grover S. Krantz, eds. The Scientist Looks at the Sasquatch. (Anthropological Monographs of the University of Idaho, no. 3.) Moscow, Idah: The University of Idaho Press, 1977. Collection of articles first published in Northwest Anthropological Research Notes.)

Suttles, Wayne."On the Cultural Track of the Sasquatch," Anthropological Research Notes 6(1):65 90, 1972. (Discusses Native American views of the Sasquatch. Article also in Sprague.)

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
1988

Is the Word "Bigfoot" Losing its Definition?

When Google became a verb it was a good thing for Google. The same is true for many other brands that become so ubiquitous, it becomes an action or category. For example you can Xerox or FedEx a document, and Kleenex and Q-Tips are really brands for tissue and cotton swabs. Unfortunately I fear the same can not be said for Bigfoot.

First, there are a lot of things called Bigfoot, Sasquatch, or Yeti that are not Bigfoot, Sasquatch, or Yeti.

Allow our "Collage of Google Image Search Results for Bigfoot, Sasquatch or Yeti" to illustrate.



Don't worry, I don't have an issue if Bigfoot, Sasquatch or Yeti are used in popular culture, especially since all the pictures above are references to Bigfoot, Sasquatch or Yeti--Except for the two pictures that are literally big feet!

I'm concerned about something different. Going back to what I was saying in the beginning, when Google became a verb it was good for Google. We can't say the same with Bigfoot. The word "bigfoot" has become common vernacular for journalist and it has nothing to do with our favorite forest dwelller.

Recently the blog the Word Detective enlightens a reader on the history of this journalistic term.

...since about 1980, “bigfoot” has been used as slang among journalists to mean “a prominent or well-known columnist or political reporter,” i.e., a “celebrity” journalist. According to an explanation offered by William Safire (himself just such a “bigfoot”) back in 1985, the term was coined as a joke during the 1980 US presidential campaign, when Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Hedrick Smith of the New York Times appeared on the press plane with his injured foot encased in a large cast.

Once considered a compliment of sorts, the Word detective goes on to elaborate how the word "bigfoot" has evolved into more of a derogatory slang among journalist. To "bigfoot” is “to snatch a story away from a lower-ranking reporter. In this use, as a transitive verb, "bigfoot" is quickly expanding to a more general definition, “to throw one’s weight around” or “to bully,”

For us Bigfoot will always be, first and foremost, a capitalized noun--not to mention an elusive hirsute bipedal hominid that we hope the world will someday discover.

You can read the Word Detective's more detailed column about the journalistic version of "bigfoot" here.