{"id":507,"date":"2021-07-28T21:41:38","date_gmt":"2021-07-28T21:41:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/?post_type=chapter&p=507"},"modified":"2021-08-05T22:06:46","modified_gmt":"2021-08-05T22:06:46","slug":"4-6-bigfoot-true-or-real","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/chapter\/4-6-bigfoot-true-or-real\/","title":{"rendered":"4.6 Bigfoot: True or real? (synthesis)"},"content":{"raw":"

March 2020<\/h3>\r\nOne of the, if not\u00a0arguably\u00a0the most, better known cryptids\u00a0with\u00a0many names has been alluring to humans\u00a0for decades.\u00a0He has many names depending on the region he has been sited\u00a0at. People call him the Yeti in the Himalayas, or Sasquatch if one happens to be from the South,\u00a0maybe even Skunk Ape, but most people know him as\u00a0the mighty\u00a0Bigfoot.\u00a0From the stories dating back centuries to the\u00a0modern-day\u00a0sightings, anyone that is anyone has at one point pondered on the existence to the big friendly ape-man-thing.\u00a0People have seen him (or at least they claim to have), many want to see him\u00a0while others do not, there is pictures and recordings of him-some more realistic than others. The real question comes into play when one contemplates on what draws\u00a0or does not draw one\u00a0into\u00a0the mystique of Bigfoot.\u00a0Could it be a neurologic disorder? Is it that the pranks are too\u00a0elaborate\u00a0to\u00a0tell? Are scientists covering it\u00a0up? Let's hope to be wrong about that one, but the answer seems to be a lot tamer. The answer is\u00a0found within the studies of\u00a0English.\u00a0In particular, secondary\u00a0discourses\u00a0fits\u00a0this whole puzzle together.\r\n\r\nTo debunk this question, four articles were examined to piece it all together.\u00a0We will begin with the big chalupa of the four; James Gee\u2019s \u201cWhat is Literacy?\u201d.\u00a0Gee talks about\u00a0what makes him or herself him or herself.\u00a0For example, everyone has his or her own \u201cidentity kit\u201d;\u00a0in\u00a0layman\u2019s\u00a0terms\u00a0that\u00a0means the way a person acts from something\u00a0as simple as speaking to the way he or she dresses\u00a0(18).\u00a0The way an identity kit is formed depends on the discourse one has encountered in his or her life.\u00a0People one has met, values, areas, language spoken,\u00a0etc.\u00a0all go under this umbrella\u00a0(18). The main parts of that whole equation\u00a0are\u00a0the primary and secondary discourses.\u00a0Discourse refers to any instance where speaking or reading is involved.\u00a0Secondary discourse is the\u00a0main focus\u00a0of this\u00a0particular study. As\u00a0Gee puts it, \u201csecondary\u00a0discourses\u00a0involve\u00a0uses\u00a0of language whether written or oral or both\u00a0that go beyond our primary discourse\u201d (22).\u00a0Basically, any situation to which language is used.\r\n\r\nThe first Bigfoot related article is Joe Student\u2019s \u201cEvidence for the Existence of Bigfoot (Free Style)\u201d.\u00a0Although it may seem quite innocent at first, it is a\u00a0hugely\u00a0misleading article. The whole point of it is to give a satirical view on the common sightings of Bigfoot\u00a0commonly\u00a0reported. The author Student is likely to be an acclaimed scientist that wrote that piece because of how easy it is to come up with a \u201csighting\u201d incident. The author\u2019s secondary discourse is revealed by the fact that the article was made as\u00a0a joke. The reader can decipher that the author does not believe in Bigfoot or the people that claim they have encountered him.\u00a0This is made most obvious when Student writes, \u201cThese sightings are not limited to wackos, quacks, or mugwumps\u201d (1).\u00a0If it is not clear enough there, he comes in the very next line by stating himself as a \u201cnormal\u201d person compared to the rest.\u00a0Student then goes on to write that his Bigfoot encounter happened after he consumed \u201cglaucoma medicine\u201d which puts the nail in the coffin concerning his\u00a0discourse\u00a0of the situation\u00a0(2).\r\n\r\nSecondly, comes Edward Simon\u2019s \u201cWhy Sasquatch and Other Crypto-Beasts Haunt Our Imaginations.\u201d\u00a0This article happens to be more interesting than the first, specifically because it dwells deep\u00a0into thought provoking territory. Simon\u2019s purpose is\u00a0to understand why people see fulfillment in cryptids such as Bigfoot\u00a0(117).\u00a0It all begins with people insisting on the\u00a0vitality of Bigfoot\u2019s existence. Simon\u00a0goes way back to begin his explanation, \u201c15th century\u201d to be\u00a0exact\u00a0\u00a0(117).\u00a0The time period is around where the first stories of creatures that resemble Bigfoot commenced.\u00a0Stories stemming across multiple regions of the world, not simply limited to the U.S or Asia.\u00a0Since then, man has been enchanted by the lore of Bigfoot and or creatures\u00a0similar to\u00a0it.\u00a0This is the part where discourse comes into play. Simon goes on to claim that this fascination is due to what Bigfoot\u00a0represents, in a metaphor\u00a0kind\u00a0of way, for mankind.\u00a0The first great tales ever told included characters (Enkidu, Nephilim)\u00a0that were examples of\u00a0man\u00a0at its most basic and beastly way of being (118).\u00a0This beastly character would morph into characters that had a beastly side with a gentle nature about them\u00a0(118).\u00a0People are drawn into that aspect of the character. The fact that a being is\u00a0so close to our primal instincts but have emotions that are advanced is what Simon thinks people want to\u00a0be able to\u00a0live.\r\n\r\nMoreover, Brian Regal puts this whole shindig together in his\u00a0compelling\u00a0historian\u00a0article \u201cAmateur versus professional: the search for Bigfoot.\u201d Regal\u2019s mission is to really cut into whether scientists or naturalists,\u00a0everyday men that have no \u201cacademic training\u201d\u00a0as\u00a0scientists do,\u00a0should have more say than the other concerning\u00a0Bigfoot\u00a0(53-54).\u00a0This debate dates\u00a0way, way\u00a0back to\u00a0the days\u00a0of the good old 1400s\u00a0(53).\u00a0Back then, it was the naturalists that were going out and recording what they experienced using their senses.\u00a0What one has come to know as modern-day science stems from the information first recorded by naturalists all those centuries ago. Science used it as a\u00a0steppingstone to get to where it is today.\u00a0The rise of science led to the downfall in popularity of naturalists; an evolution would occur.\u00a0As Regal states, \u201cout of a number of guises, including birdwatchers,\u00a0rock hounds, and outdoor recreation enthusiasts, the monster hunter was born\u201d (54).\r\n\r\nFurthermore, monster hunters differ from naturalists by simply being passionate about the wild with little education\u00a0behind it.\u00a0In the 1920s,\u00a0monster hunting\u00a0enthusiasm in Bigfoot-like cases began in the Himalayan Mountains.\u00a0Eric Shipton\u2019s, mountaineer, \u201cphoto of a \u2018snowman\u2019 footprint\u201d\u00a0in 1951 started discussion\u00a0(54).\u00a0As a result, zoologist Wladimir\u00a0Tschernezky\u00a0concluded that the \u2018snowman\u2019 could be a\u00a0descendant of the\u00a0Gigantopithecus.\u00a0<\/em>Fastforward to the 50s and after\u00a0some\u00a0reports, amateurs\u2019\u00a0quest to find Bigfoot was on.\u00a0Whether it be for scientific recognition, money, or adventure, monster hunters wanted to find Bigfoot. These men were proud to be amateurs since they\u00a0all seem to stem from humble beginnings. They believed \u201clab-bound eggheads\u201d were wrong about Bigfoot\u00a0(55).\u00a0However, two men were interesting cases; they were scientists that\u00a0counted as semi-amateurs\u00a0(since they did not have any relationship to an institution)\u00a0that\u00a0believed in Bigfoot;\u00a0Ivan Sanderson the Scottish naturalist and Bernard\u00a0Heuvelmans, a Belgian zoologist.\u00a0Heuvelmans\u00a0would write\u00a0On the Track of Unknown Animals<\/em>, and Sanderson wrote\u00a0Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life.\u00a0<\/em>Both men were on the side of amateurs in believing scientists were wrong,\u00a0choosing instead to believe in the reports, footprints found, and photographs and film taken. People such as Carleton Coon,\u00a0George\u00a0Agogino, William Charles Osman-Hill, and John Napier, who were all \u201cprofessional scientists,\u201d believed in Bigfoot for a brief amount of time before leaving it all behind them (55).\r\n\r\nSurprisingly, only one man of science has gone all in with the Bigfoot belief, and that man is Grover Krantz the\u00a0anthropologist.\u00a0During his high school years, reading reports of the Yeti caught his fascination;\u00a0his\u00a0fascination increased with more exposure to reports of sightings\u00a0and reading\u00a0Heuvelmans\u00a0and Sanderson\u2019s books. Krantz\u2019s very own visit to\u00a0Bluff Creek, California to see the spot of a famous Bigfoot track caused intrigue within him.\u00a0The biggest of highpoints for Krantz is in 1967 when the\u00a0world famous\u00a0Gimmlin-Patterson film of Bigfoot was released.\u00a0At first, he thought it was someone in a gorilla suit when he viewed stills of the film, but once he viewed the actual film, Grantz was on board\u00a0(56).\u00a0As Regal states,\u00a0Krantz\u00a0caught wind of researcher John Green\u2019s belief of a relationship between Bigfoot and\u00a0Gigantopithecus,\u00a0<\/em>that impressed him (56).\u00a0In 1969, there were\u00a0hundreds of 17 in. long\u00a0snow prints\u00a0believed to be a Bigfoot up\u00a0in\u00a0Bossburg\u00a0at Colville, Washington\u00a0(53).\u00a0The prints had a distinct feature in the form of the left foot having \u201cprotrusions on the outside edge\u201d and \u201coddly misshapen toes\u201d (53).\u00a0Krantz would wind up going to\u00a0Bossburg\u00a0to do further studies. While\u00a0there, he would meet\u00a0John Green and Ren\u00e9\u00a0Dahinden, both amateur naturalists.\u00a0Ironically,\u00a0Dahinden\u00a0thought the prints were fake, and Krantz believed them to be the real deal.\u00a0Dahinden\u00a0and Krantz, although\u00a0they\u00a0had an okay relationship, would come at each other\u2019s throats because of the other\u2019s stance on the footprints.\u00a0Krantz would go on to throw his whole reputation onto the case only to be treated like an amateur from fellow scientists.\u00a0His goal was to put Bigfoot \u201cout of the hands of professional anthropologists while at the same time leaving amateurs like\u00a0Dahinden\u00a0behind\u201d (57).\u00a0Even after\u00a0all of\u00a0these examples and more, the conflict between amateurs and scientists is still at odds to this today states Regal.\r\n\r\nIn continuation, Regal makes it easy since his whole article\u00a0brings up the secondary discourse\u00a0from Gee\u2019s article\u00a0in rich detail. Amateurs come from humble backgrounds and spend more time doing outdoor activities, and scientists spend the time learning on\u00a0everything\u00a0that has to do with that.\u00a0Of course, both sides will feel that they know more than the other, especially when it comes to Bigfoot.\u00a0Their argument truly is not on Bigfoot per se.\u00a0They are arguing over who\u2019s secondary discourse is correct and who\u2019s is wrong.\u00a0Take Krantz and\u00a0Dahinden\u00a0for instance. Each one fits\u00a0into either amateur or scientist, yet they end up doing the vice versa on their stance and arguing over it. Technically, they already had a pre-set notion because of their positions, but their secondary discourse led them to go against the norm.\u00a0Change Bigfoot to whatever argument one might like, and the same outcome will arise because one will always feel his or her\u00a0secondary\u00a0discourse to be the right one.\u00a0Joe Student\u2019s secondary discourse fits smoothly\u00a0into the side of the pool that is the scientists. Edward Simon\u00a0and Brian Regal\u2019 secondary discourse\u00a0fall into the pond where they do not believe we truly have an answer to the enigma that is Bigfoot.\u00a0They believe neither side is correct because there is no way to say who is right and who is not.\u00a0All in all,\u00a0the reasoning\u00a0behind Bigfoot is based on a person\u2019s discourse, and until we catch him, neither side will\u00a0be able to\u00a0agree on which side is right or wrong\u00a0and that just adds to the intrigue.\r\n

Works Cited<\/p>\r\n

Gee, James Paul. \"What is literacy.\"\u00a0Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures<\/em>\u00a0(1998): 51-59.<\/p>\r\n

Simon, Edward. \"Why Sasquatch and Other Crypto\u2010Beasts Haunt Our Imaginations.\"\u00a0Anthropology of Consciousness<\/em>\u00a028.2 (2017): 117-120.<\/p>\r\n

Student, Joe. \"Evidence for the Existence of Bigfoot (Free Style).\"<\/p>\r\n

Regal, Brian. \"Amateur versus professional: the search for Bigfoot.\"\u00a0Endeavour<\/em>\u00a032.2 (2008): 53-57.<\/p>","rendered":"

March 2020<\/h3>\n

One of the, if not\u00a0arguably\u00a0the most, better known cryptids\u00a0with\u00a0many names has been alluring to humans\u00a0for decades.\u00a0He has many names depending on the region he has been sited\u00a0at. People call him the Yeti in the Himalayas, or Sasquatch if one happens to be from the South,\u00a0maybe even Skunk Ape, but most people know him as\u00a0the mighty\u00a0Bigfoot.\u00a0From the stories dating back centuries to the\u00a0modern-day\u00a0sightings, anyone that is anyone has at one point pondered on the existence to the big friendly ape-man-thing.\u00a0People have seen him (or at least they claim to have), many want to see him\u00a0while others do not, there is pictures and recordings of him-some more realistic than others. The real question comes into play when one contemplates on what draws\u00a0or does not draw one\u00a0into\u00a0the mystique of Bigfoot.\u00a0Could it be a neurologic disorder? Is it that the pranks are too\u00a0elaborate\u00a0to\u00a0tell? Are scientists covering it\u00a0up? Let’s hope to be wrong about that one, but the answer seems to be a lot tamer. The answer is\u00a0found within the studies of\u00a0English.\u00a0In particular, secondary\u00a0discourses\u00a0fits\u00a0this whole puzzle together.<\/p>\n

To debunk this question, four articles were examined to piece it all together.\u00a0We will begin with the big chalupa of the four; James Gee\u2019s \u201cWhat is Literacy?\u201d.\u00a0Gee talks about\u00a0what makes him or herself him or herself.\u00a0For example, everyone has his or her own \u201cidentity kit\u201d;\u00a0in\u00a0layman\u2019s\u00a0terms\u00a0that\u00a0means the way a person acts from something\u00a0as simple as speaking to the way he or she dresses\u00a0(18).\u00a0The way an identity kit is formed depends on the discourse one has encountered in his or her life.\u00a0People one has met, values, areas, language spoken,\u00a0etc.\u00a0all go under this umbrella\u00a0(18). The main parts of that whole equation\u00a0are\u00a0the primary and secondary discourses.\u00a0Discourse refers to any instance where speaking or reading is involved.\u00a0Secondary discourse is the\u00a0main focus\u00a0of this\u00a0particular study. As\u00a0Gee puts it, \u201csecondary\u00a0discourses\u00a0involve\u00a0uses\u00a0of language whether written or oral or both\u00a0that go beyond our primary discourse\u201d (22).\u00a0Basically, any situation to which language is used.<\/p>\n

The first Bigfoot related article is Joe Student\u2019s \u201cEvidence for the Existence of Bigfoot (Free Style)\u201d.\u00a0Although it may seem quite innocent at first, it is a\u00a0hugely\u00a0misleading article. The whole point of it is to give a satirical view on the common sightings of Bigfoot\u00a0commonly\u00a0reported. The author Student is likely to be an acclaimed scientist that wrote that piece because of how easy it is to come up with a \u201csighting\u201d incident. The author\u2019s secondary discourse is revealed by the fact that the article was made as\u00a0a joke. The reader can decipher that the author does not believe in Bigfoot or the people that claim they have encountered him.\u00a0This is made most obvious when Student writes, \u201cThese sightings are not limited to wackos, quacks, or mugwumps\u201d (1).\u00a0If it is not clear enough there, he comes in the very next line by stating himself as a \u201cnormal\u201d person compared to the rest.\u00a0Student then goes on to write that his Bigfoot encounter happened after he consumed \u201cglaucoma medicine\u201d which puts the nail in the coffin concerning his\u00a0discourse\u00a0of the situation\u00a0(2).<\/p>\n

Secondly, comes Edward Simon\u2019s \u201cWhy Sasquatch and Other Crypto-Beasts Haunt Our Imaginations.\u201d\u00a0This article happens to be more interesting than the first, specifically because it dwells deep\u00a0into thought provoking territory. Simon\u2019s purpose is\u00a0to understand why people see fulfillment in cryptids such as Bigfoot\u00a0(117).\u00a0It all begins with people insisting on the\u00a0vitality of Bigfoot\u2019s existence. Simon\u00a0goes way back to begin his explanation, \u201c15th century\u201d to be\u00a0exact\u00a0\u00a0(117).\u00a0The time period is around where the first stories of creatures that resemble Bigfoot commenced.\u00a0Stories stemming across multiple regions of the world, not simply limited to the U.S or Asia.\u00a0Since then, man has been enchanted by the lore of Bigfoot and or creatures\u00a0similar to\u00a0it.\u00a0This is the part where discourse comes into play. Simon goes on to claim that this fascination is due to what Bigfoot\u00a0represents, in a metaphor\u00a0kind\u00a0of way, for mankind.\u00a0The first great tales ever told included characters (Enkidu, Nephilim)\u00a0that were examples of\u00a0man\u00a0at its most basic and beastly way of being (118).\u00a0This beastly character would morph into characters that had a beastly side with a gentle nature about them\u00a0(118).\u00a0People are drawn into that aspect of the character. The fact that a being is\u00a0so close to our primal instincts but have emotions that are advanced is what Simon thinks people want to\u00a0be able to\u00a0live.<\/p>\n

Moreover, Brian Regal puts this whole shindig together in his\u00a0compelling\u00a0historian\u00a0article \u201cAmateur versus professional: the search for Bigfoot.\u201d Regal\u2019s mission is to really cut into whether scientists or naturalists,\u00a0everyday men that have no \u201cacademic training\u201d\u00a0as\u00a0scientists do,\u00a0should have more say than the other concerning\u00a0Bigfoot\u00a0(53-54).\u00a0This debate dates\u00a0way, way\u00a0back to\u00a0the days\u00a0of the good old 1400s\u00a0(53).\u00a0Back then, it was the naturalists that were going out and recording what they experienced using their senses.\u00a0What one has come to know as modern-day science stems from the information first recorded by naturalists all those centuries ago. Science used it as a\u00a0steppingstone to get to where it is today.\u00a0The rise of science led to the downfall in popularity of naturalists; an evolution would occur.\u00a0As Regal states, \u201cout of a number of guises, including birdwatchers,\u00a0rock hounds, and outdoor recreation enthusiasts, the monster hunter was born\u201d (54).<\/p>\n

Furthermore, monster hunters differ from naturalists by simply being passionate about the wild with little education\u00a0behind it.\u00a0In the 1920s,\u00a0monster hunting\u00a0enthusiasm in Bigfoot-like cases began in the Himalayan Mountains.\u00a0Eric Shipton\u2019s, mountaineer, \u201cphoto of a \u2018snowman\u2019 footprint\u201d\u00a0in 1951 started discussion\u00a0(54).\u00a0As a result, zoologist Wladimir\u00a0Tschernezky\u00a0concluded that the \u2018snowman\u2019 could be a\u00a0descendant of the\u00a0Gigantopithecus.\u00a0<\/em>Fastforward to the 50s and after\u00a0some\u00a0reports, amateurs\u2019\u00a0quest to find Bigfoot was on.\u00a0Whether it be for scientific recognition, money, or adventure, monster hunters wanted to find Bigfoot. These men were proud to be amateurs since they\u00a0all seem to stem from humble beginnings. They believed \u201clab-bound eggheads\u201d were wrong about Bigfoot\u00a0(55).\u00a0However, two men were interesting cases; they were scientists that\u00a0counted as semi-amateurs\u00a0(since they did not have any relationship to an institution)\u00a0that\u00a0believed in Bigfoot;\u00a0Ivan Sanderson the Scottish naturalist and Bernard\u00a0Heuvelmans, a Belgian zoologist.\u00a0Heuvelmans\u00a0would write\u00a0On the Track of Unknown Animals<\/em>, and Sanderson wrote\u00a0Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life.\u00a0<\/em>Both men were on the side of amateurs in believing scientists were wrong,\u00a0choosing instead to believe in the reports, footprints found, and photographs and film taken. People such as Carleton Coon,\u00a0George\u00a0Agogino, William Charles Osman-Hill, and John Napier, who were all \u201cprofessional scientists,\u201d believed in Bigfoot for a brief amount of time before leaving it all behind them (55).<\/p>\n

Surprisingly, only one man of science has gone all in with the Bigfoot belief, and that man is Grover Krantz the\u00a0anthropologist.\u00a0During his high school years, reading reports of the Yeti caught his fascination;\u00a0his\u00a0fascination increased with more exposure to reports of sightings\u00a0and reading\u00a0Heuvelmans\u00a0and Sanderson\u2019s books. Krantz\u2019s very own visit to\u00a0Bluff Creek, California to see the spot of a famous Bigfoot track caused intrigue within him.\u00a0The biggest of highpoints for Krantz is in 1967 when the\u00a0world famous\u00a0Gimmlin-Patterson film of Bigfoot was released.\u00a0At first, he thought it was someone in a gorilla suit when he viewed stills of the film, but once he viewed the actual film, Grantz was on board\u00a0(56).\u00a0As Regal states,\u00a0Krantz\u00a0caught wind of researcher John Green\u2019s belief of a relationship between Bigfoot and\u00a0Gigantopithecus,\u00a0<\/em>that impressed him (56).\u00a0In 1969, there were\u00a0hundreds of 17 in. long\u00a0snow prints\u00a0believed to be a Bigfoot up\u00a0in\u00a0Bossburg\u00a0at Colville, Washington\u00a0(53).\u00a0The prints had a distinct feature in the form of the left foot having \u201cprotrusions on the outside edge\u201d and \u201coddly misshapen toes\u201d (53).\u00a0Krantz would wind up going to\u00a0Bossburg\u00a0to do further studies. While\u00a0there, he would meet\u00a0John Green and Ren\u00e9\u00a0Dahinden, both amateur naturalists.\u00a0Ironically,\u00a0Dahinden\u00a0thought the prints were fake, and Krantz believed them to be the real deal.\u00a0Dahinden\u00a0and Krantz, although\u00a0they\u00a0had an okay relationship, would come at each other\u2019s throats because of the other\u2019s stance on the footprints.\u00a0Krantz would go on to throw his whole reputation onto the case only to be treated like an amateur from fellow scientists.\u00a0His goal was to put Bigfoot \u201cout of the hands of professional anthropologists while at the same time leaving amateurs like\u00a0Dahinden\u00a0behind\u201d (57).\u00a0Even after\u00a0all of\u00a0these examples and more, the conflict between amateurs and scientists is still at odds to this today states Regal.<\/p>\n

In continuation, Regal makes it easy since his whole article\u00a0brings up the secondary discourse\u00a0from Gee\u2019s article\u00a0in rich detail. Amateurs come from humble backgrounds and spend more time doing outdoor activities, and scientists spend the time learning on\u00a0everything\u00a0that has to do with that.\u00a0Of course, both sides will feel that they know more than the other, especially when it comes to Bigfoot.\u00a0Their argument truly is not on Bigfoot per se.\u00a0They are arguing over who\u2019s secondary discourse is correct and who\u2019s is wrong.\u00a0Take Krantz and\u00a0Dahinden\u00a0for instance. Each one fits\u00a0into either amateur or scientist, yet they end up doing the vice versa on their stance and arguing over it. Technically, they already had a pre-set notion because of their positions, but their secondary discourse led them to go against the norm.\u00a0Change Bigfoot to whatever argument one might like, and the same outcome will arise because one will always feel his or her\u00a0secondary\u00a0discourse to be the right one.\u00a0Joe Student\u2019s secondary discourse fits smoothly\u00a0into the side of the pool that is the scientists. Edward Simon\u00a0and Brian Regal\u2019 secondary discourse\u00a0fall into the pond where they do not believe we truly have an answer to the enigma that is Bigfoot.\u00a0They believe neither side is correct because there is no way to say who is right and who is not.\u00a0All in all,\u00a0the reasoning\u00a0behind Bigfoot is based on a person\u2019s discourse, and until we catch him, neither side will\u00a0be able to\u00a0agree on which side is right or wrong\u00a0and that just adds to the intrigue.<\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/p>\n

Gee, James Paul. “What is literacy.”\u00a0Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures<\/em>\u00a0(1998): 51-59.<\/p>\n

Simon, Edward. “Why Sasquatch and Other Crypto\u2010Beasts Haunt Our Imaginations.”\u00a0Anthropology of Consciousness<\/em>\u00a028.2 (2017): 117-120.<\/p>\n

Student, Joe. “Evidence for the Existence of Bigfoot (Free Style).”<\/p>\n

Regal, Brian. “Amateur versus professional: the search for Bigfoot.”\u00a0Endeavour<\/em>\u00a032.2 (2008): 53-57.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":253,"menu_order":13,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["anonenglish102"],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[68],"license":[],"class_list":["post-507","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","contributor-anonenglish102"],"part":71,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/507","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/253"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/507\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":522,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/507\/revisions\/522"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/71"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/507\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=507"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=507"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}