- Class 1a
- Class 1, Corroboration: Reports involving a sighting, and accompanied by another form of support.1a A sasquatch/bigfoot specimen has been collected (alive or dead).
- Class 1b
- Class 1, Corroboration: Reports involving a sighting, and accompanied by another form of support.1b A report investigation results in a sasquatch observation or the documentation of clear tracks or other forms of physical evidence by an investigator.
- Class 1c
- Class 1, Corroboration: Reports involving a sighting, and accompanied by another form of support.1c An investigator determines that a visual encounter with a sasquatch/bigfoot by a very reliable observer is a distinct possibility, tangible corroborating evidence is documented, and all other sources can be reasonably ruled out.
- Class 1d
- Class 1, Corroboration: Reports involving a sighting, and accompanied by another form of support.1d A visual encounter with a sasquatch/bigfoot is a distinct possibility involving two or more reliable observers, and all other sources can be reasonably ruled out.
- Class 2
- Class 2, Competency: Reports involving sightings by professionally trained or highly skilled observers.2 Investigator determines that a visual encounter with a sasquatch/bigfoot is a distinct possibility, the observer is exceptionally trustworthy, professionally trained, and experienced in the outdoors and/or is accustomed to looking for and recording details (e.g., biologist, anthropologist/archaeologist, ranger, trapper/tracker/seasoned hunter, bird watcher, game warden, naturalist, law enforcement), and other explanations can be reasonably excluded.
- Class 3a
- Class 3, Credibility: Sightings or possible wood ape evidence reported by credible witnesses.3a Investigator determines that a visual encounter with a sasquatch/bigfoot is a distinct possibility, the observer is credible, and all other sources can be reasonably ruled out.
- Class 3b
- Class 3, Credibility: Sightings or possible wood ape evidence reported by credible witnesses.3b Unidentifiable vocalizations were reported and there is accompanying tangible evidence to possibly indicate the presence of a sasquatch/bigfoot, the observer is very reliable, and other sources can be reasonably ruled out.
- Class 3c
- Class 3, Credibility: Sightings or possible wood ape evidence reported by credible witnesses.3c No visual encounter occurred, but physical evidence was found to indicate the presence of a sasquatch/bigfoot (tracks, hair, scat, etc.), the observer is very reliable, and other sources can be reasonably ruled out.
Case: 01040011
Class 3aYoung woman sees and photographs distant subject in rice field near South Texas Project.
Report Details
Occurrence date: June/2004
Location: Matagorda County, TX
Nearby/Vicinity: Bay City
Time / Conditions: 2:30 PM — Clear. Rice field.
# of Witnesses: 1
Location: Matagorda County, TX
Nearby/Vicinity: Bay City
Time / Conditions: 2:30 PM — Clear. Rice field.
# of Witnesses: 1
Witness Account:
My granddaughter while driving saw a man walking out into a flooded rice field, where you never see people walking. As this a very sensitive area due to 9/11 she turned around and went back to see what he was doing. As he came closer she could see how huge he was and covered with hair. He was bending over and standing back up like was looking for something. She knew no one would believe her so she took several pictures two of which came out. One coming towards her and one running away after she honked the horn at him. He is upright and on two legs in both pictures. We would like to know if you might be interested in her pictures and story. This happened June 9, 2004.
Hand/foot prints:
Numerous footprints were found in mud, but the the prints were indistinct.
Investigator's Observations
Investigator(s): Daryl Colyer and Alton Higgins
This investigation was conducted as a result of an incident that allegedly occurred near the South Texas Nuclear Project, in Matagorda County, Texas, in 2004.
The original report was submitted by the witness's grandmother.
Investigators from the NAWAC met with the witness, her mother, and representatives of two local law enforcement agencies at 2:00 PM on 19 June 2004. Investigators noted that the area is sparsely populated and within a few miles of a wildlife management area. Directly adjacent to the rice field is approximately 5,000 acres of heavily wooded, private land that abuts the Colorado River. A nature preserve is adjacent to the rice field on the opposite side from the wooded, private land. Of additional interest, a nuclear power plant is not far away. Permission to access the rice field had been obtained by one of the officers, who unlocked the gate for the vehicles. Three hours were spent on site.
The witness's photographs were immediately presented following introductions and exchanges of contact information. The witness said she noticed something odd in the field as she drove past the field ten days earlier. She turned around and observed what appeared to be a large bipedal subject apparently searching through the mud and/or shallow water. She stopped and took some pictures through her car window (the unknown subject is shown in the report photographs circled in red). The photographs and negatives were loaned to the investigators for further examination.
Both law enforcement officials subsequently investigated the sighting and discovered large humanlike tracks in an area of the rice field identified by the witness.
The field was later flood irrigated, but many of the tracks remained visible. One of the officers, a tracker who had also worked three years as a government trapper, relocated some of the footprints for the team. The tracks measured approximately fifteen inches by six and one half inches; the step interval (heel to heel) was about thirty-six inches.
As described by the officers, the tracks came from and returned to a 5,000 acre parcel of forested private property adjacent to the back of the field. Neither officer had previously approached the fence; there was no evidence of human disturbance. The fence at the probable point of entrance/exit was examined for hairs, but none were found. An earlier request for permission to enter this land had been refused.
What appeared to be part of a single track was observed in the earth sloping up to the fence from the field border. It looked like the front part of a track and measured about six inches in width by about eight inches in length. The print depression, which measured three inches in depth, had accumulated a few leaves. The leaves were removed to better photograph the print, revealing that the bottom of the print included a leaf which had been firmly flattened and pressed into place. Likely toe impressions were visible.
Attempts were made to recreate the witness's photographs, with her assistance, using the same kind of disposable Kodak camera used by the witness.
Scans and microscopic examinations of the film did not reveal significant additional detail. Comparisons of a witness photo with a recreation photo were hampered by the poor quality of the images imposed by the constraints of the optics at the distance involved.
Nevertheless, the human subject (left half of the recreation photo) shows clothing edges, blocks of color, and skin tones. The unknown subject appears to be uniformly grayish in color. The size of the unknown subject is difficult to assess, but it does not appear that the part which is visible is larger than the 5? 8? human.
A local crop consultant has informed investigators that there is a possibility that he was in the field on the day of the incident with chaps and rubber boots on. That being said, the track found at the fence line seemed to indicate that something with toes, a very wide foot, and a lot of weight walked up the bank. In addition, the crop consultant stated that he had no memory of any cars pulling up to the gate or honking the horn. The witness adamantly maintained that when she honked the horn, the subject hastily fled toward the fence and ultimately hopped over the fence. Thus the two statements are in direct contrast to one another. The evidence found at the site did appear to corroborate the witness's statement.
This investigation was conducted as a result of an incident that allegedly occurred near the South Texas Nuclear Project, in Matagorda County, Texas, in 2004.
The original report was submitted by the witness's grandmother.
Investigators from the NAWAC met with the witness, her mother, and representatives of two local law enforcement agencies at 2:00 PM on 19 June 2004. Investigators noted that the area is sparsely populated and within a few miles of a wildlife management area. Directly adjacent to the rice field is approximately 5,000 acres of heavily wooded, private land that abuts the Colorado River. A nature preserve is adjacent to the rice field on the opposite side from the wooded, private land. Of additional interest, a nuclear power plant is not far away. Permission to access the rice field had been obtained by one of the officers, who unlocked the gate for the vehicles. Three hours were spent on site.
The witness's photographs were immediately presented following introductions and exchanges of contact information. The witness said she noticed something odd in the field as she drove past the field ten days earlier. She turned around and observed what appeared to be a large bipedal subject apparently searching through the mud and/or shallow water. She stopped and took some pictures through her car window (the unknown subject is shown in the report photographs circled in red). The photographs and negatives were loaned to the investigators for further examination.
Both law enforcement officials subsequently investigated the sighting and discovered large humanlike tracks in an area of the rice field identified by the witness.
The field was later flood irrigated, but many of the tracks remained visible. One of the officers, a tracker who had also worked three years as a government trapper, relocated some of the footprints for the team. The tracks measured approximately fifteen inches by six and one half inches; the step interval (heel to heel) was about thirty-six inches.
As described by the officers, the tracks came from and returned to a 5,000 acre parcel of forested private property adjacent to the back of the field. Neither officer had previously approached the fence; there was no evidence of human disturbance. The fence at the probable point of entrance/exit was examined for hairs, but none were found. An earlier request for permission to enter this land had been refused.
What appeared to be part of a single track was observed in the earth sloping up to the fence from the field border. It looked like the front part of a track and measured about six inches in width by about eight inches in length. The print depression, which measured three inches in depth, had accumulated a few leaves. The leaves were removed to better photograph the print, revealing that the bottom of the print included a leaf which had been firmly flattened and pressed into place. Likely toe impressions were visible.
Attempts were made to recreate the witness's photographs, with her assistance, using the same kind of disposable Kodak camera used by the witness.
Scans and microscopic examinations of the film did not reveal significant additional detail. Comparisons of a witness photo with a recreation photo were hampered by the poor quality of the images imposed by the constraints of the optics at the distance involved.
Nevertheless, the human subject (left half of the recreation photo) shows clothing edges, blocks of color, and skin tones. The unknown subject appears to be uniformly grayish in color. The size of the unknown subject is difficult to assess, but it does not appear that the part which is visible is larger than the 5? 8? human.
A local crop consultant has informed investigators that there is a possibility that he was in the field on the day of the incident with chaps and rubber boots on. That being said, the track found at the fence line seemed to indicate that something with toes, a very wide foot, and a lot of weight walked up the bank. In addition, the crop consultant stated that he had no memory of any cars pulling up to the gate or honking the horn. The witness adamantly maintained that when she honked the horn, the subject hastily fled toward the fence and ultimately hopped over the fence. Thus the two statements are in direct contrast to one another. The evidence found at the site did appear to corroborate the witness's statement.
Photos
