- 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: 01050009
Class 1dPredator caller has night time encounter in Sam Houston National Forest.
Report Details
Occurrence date: January/2004
Location: San Jacinto County, TX
Nearby/Vicinity: New Waverly
Time / Conditions: 8:00 PM — Cold, overcast, intermittent drizzle. Wooded, Sam Houston National Forest.
# of Witnesses: 1
Location: San Jacinto County, TX
Nearby/Vicinity: New Waverly
Time / Conditions: 8:00 PM — Cold, overcast, intermittent drizzle. Wooded, Sam Houston National Forest.
# of Witnesses: 1
Witness Account:
While predator calling this date, I was targeting bobcats with an electronic call. (I mention this because with this particular call, only a bobcat would be expected to respond. A fox, coyote, coon, etc. would not respond to this call.) My wife was with me.
After about 10 minutes of calling, I (we) heard a sound from behind me that I could not identify. I was using a varmint light, which has a red filter. This light is not normally readily seen by predators. I shined the light toward the sound, and saw what I thought was a bear. It was dark in color, but everything was either light or dark because of the red filter.
I have hunted in the West several times, and seen many bears. I initially thought that's what this was. But as stated earlier, a predator does not respond (normally) to this light. But this animal did. It stood up and moved away very rapidly on it's two "hind" legs. Bears do not move great distances on their hind legs, and especially not rapidly. It made this sound continuously as it moved away, gradually decreasing in volume until I couldn't hear it any longer.
I'm not sure what this was, but I'm quite certain what it was not, and it was not a bear, a hog, or any other animal native to this area. I had no idea there was a possibility this could have been a bigfoot-type animal.
Physical evidence:
No. I went back and called the area again the next day, but wasn't looking for anything associated with a bigfoot-type animal.
Sounds:
Yes. It was a deep, throaty, raspy "growl", over and over. The best way I can describe it would be to imagine dragging a file quickly and abruptly across the edge of a piece of corrugated tin. As it moved away, the sound continued, but was a little more intense. My impression, then and now, was that it was "irritated".
The weekend before this, I heard what I believe was the same sound, but I did not see any animal.
I hear sounds I cannot identify regularly in these woods, but they would be hard to describe.
Additional observations:
While on all fours, it appeared to be a bear. Upright, it appeared to be around 5-foot tall with a fairly large stride. I wasn't able to notice any other details because of the light source and because of how quickly it moved off. No odors, not that I noticed.
Investigator's Observations
Investigator(s): Daryl Colyer
This investigation was conducted as a result of an incident that allegedly occurred in San Jacinto County, Texas, in what is referred to as the "Big Woods" of the Sam Houston National Forest, in early 2004.
I initially interviewed the witness extensively on the phone about his encounter in the Sam Houston National Forest and later met him onsite along with my wife. We also confirmed with his wife that she too witnessed the same strange animal.
The witness is still perplexed about what he and his wife actually encountered in 2004. He is an experienced outdoorsman and is quite knowledgeable of known, indigenous wildlife.
The witness did not realize until my conversation with him that known primates should be able to see his "varmint light" with its red filter because of trichromatic vision. The light is normally used by those who hunt at night because it protects natural night vision and because it seemingly has no effect on non-primate predators and the like because of their dichromatic vision. So, until our conversation, the witness was quite puzzled why the subject seemed so disturbed when he illuminated it with the red light. I offered as a suggestion to the witness that the type of behavior that he described as being exhibited by the subject perhaps seemed to fit the profile of how a hypothetical nocturnal primate (such as a sasquatch) might react to a light that was even filtered with a red lens.
The witness knows what it wasn't, but he is still not able to come to terms with the possibility that what he and his wife saw was possibly a sasquatch, although all other known indigenous animals fall outside the physical and behavioral profile.
This investigation was conducted as a result of an incident that allegedly occurred in San Jacinto County, Texas, in what is referred to as the "Big Woods" of the Sam Houston National Forest, in early 2004.
I initially interviewed the witness extensively on the phone about his encounter in the Sam Houston National Forest and later met him onsite along with my wife. We also confirmed with his wife that she too witnessed the same strange animal.
The witness is still perplexed about what he and his wife actually encountered in 2004. He is an experienced outdoorsman and is quite knowledgeable of known, indigenous wildlife.
The witness did not realize until my conversation with him that known primates should be able to see his "varmint light" with its red filter because of trichromatic vision. The light is normally used by those who hunt at night because it protects natural night vision and because it seemingly has no effect on non-primate predators and the like because of their dichromatic vision. So, until our conversation, the witness was quite puzzled why the subject seemed so disturbed when he illuminated it with the red light. I offered as a suggestion to the witness that the type of behavior that he described as being exhibited by the subject perhaps seemed to fit the profile of how a hypothetical nocturnal primate (such as a sasquatch) might react to a light that was even filtered with a red lens.
The witness knows what it wasn't, but he is still not able to come to terms with the possibility that what he and his wife saw was possibly a sasquatch, although all other known indigenous animals fall outside the physical and behavioral profile.
