- 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: 03090006
Class 1dCouple has dusk roadside encounter north of the Red River on Highway 41.
Report Details
Occurrence date: May/1985
Location: Little River County, AR
Nearby/Vicinity: Foreman
Time / Conditions: 19:00 — Dusk
# of Witnesses: 2
Location: Little River County, AR
Nearby/Vicinity: Foreman
Time / Conditions: 19:00 — Dusk
# of Witnesses: 2
Witness Account:
My ex-husband and I were going to watch the sun set on the Red River, south of Mena, Arkansas. We traveled south to DeQueen and then through Foreman to the Red River. We got there 15 to 20 minutes before the sunset. We started home going north on Highway 41. I was driving, and just shortly after we started on the road it was starting to get dark, we had come through a curve on the road, when all of a sudden we saw a huge figure 7 to 8 feet tall standing on the right side of the road, on the shoulder as if it was going to cross the road in front of us. It out stretched its arms at us, and my ex-husband screamed and slid to my side of the car and grabbed the steering wheel to turn left so I wouldn't hit it. I was staring at the road and I then looked at him and asked what was that? We both came to the conclusion that it was a bigfoot. It had reddish-brown long hair, and it stood upright with very long arms. I can still see it clear as day.
Physical evidence:
n/a
Hand/foot prints:
n/a
Sounds:
n/a
Additional observations:
No sounds, just huge and hairy reddish color.
Investigator's Observations
Investigator(s): Daryl Colyer
This investigation was conducted as a result of an incident that allegedly occurred in Little River County, Arkansas, north of the Red River in May 1985.
This report was submitted by the primary witness with no contact data for the second witness, the ex-husband. I contacted and interviewed her about the alleged sighting.
She was very willing to discuss the incident and told me that she remembered it well. She said there was no mistaking what she saw for anything other than what it was: an upright, hair-covered and unidentifiable animal that fit the classic description of a bigfoot or sasquatch.
The witness said there was absolutely no way that the subject was a person in a suit due to its sheer size, which as she recalled, was over seven feet in height. She said it had very broad shoulders. Its color was reddish-brown, and similar to that of an orangutan, but not quite as bright in color. The witness remembered seeing long hair on the subject. She could remember no details about the face. She said it really did not have much of a neck, if at all. She told me that when she first saw it, its arms were outstretched, almost as though it was getting ready to lunge or perhaps make a leap. She said that her vehicle seemed to cause the subject to freeze as she and the male witness, now her ex-husband, approached it.
The witness said that she vividly remembered what happened as they passed within mere feet of the subject; it stood there just off the highway on the right. As the male witness began to realize that what they were seeing was like nothing they had ever seen or even imagined before, he screamed, immediately and abruptly almost climbing into the lap of the primary witness, who was driving. In the process, the primary witness remembered that he grabbed the wheel and jerked it leftward to ensure that they missed the large unknown figure.
After they passed the subject, they both began to talk to each other, asking each other what they had just seen. The witness said that at the time, they were not in the least bit interested in turning back to get another look at the subject. They both wanted to get away from it as quickly as possible.
The witness told me that she had not spoken to her ex-husband in a number of years, and the last she heard, he was in Oklahoma somewhere. She provided his name for me, but was unable to provide any other details about how I might reach him. I told her that oftentimes, a name was all that was needed, and we were usually quite successful at tracking down people with only a mere scrap of information.
Within 15 minutes after ending the interview with the primary witness, I located her ex-husband and was ultimately able to interview him in depth. He had no knowledge whatsoever that I was contacting him to discuss something that he rarely spoke of, and was genuinely and pleasantly surprised to learn that I wanted to interview him. He was extremely willing to talk about the experience; he said he remembered it well, despite the fact that it happened over 20 years ago. He said that none of the few people he had told in the past took him or his ex-wife seriously, so he found it to his liking that someone was finally willing to sit down and listen to him, and take the incident seriously.
The ex-husband?s account of the incident was more detailed than the primary witness. His account began in the same way: the two were returning from the Red River, heading north on Highway 41 north of the Red River in a blue Thunderbird. He mentioned that there was perhaps ?35 percent light left? as the sun was setting. The ex-husband spotted the subject first. His first impression, from quite a distance, was that there was a horse or some other large reddish-brown animal right off the highway, on the right. He admonished his partner to ?watch out for the horse.?
The ex-husband then remembered that the unknown animal appeared to stand erect. He then realized that it was not a horse or a cow, but something entirely different. As the vehicle closed the distance between it and the subject at a speed of 55 ? 60 miles per hour, and it became increasingly obvious that the subject was a towering figure, a sense of dread came over the witnesses. The ex-husband remembered that their vehicle passed the subject by no more than three feet. He said the feeling was that they drove just under it. He too recalled that the arms were raised. He said he basically climbed in his ex-wife?s lap as they passed so close to the subject that they both had to look up to see it; he emphasized that the subject ?towered? over the car. The ex-husband remembered yelling loudly as they passed the subject. He could remember no details about the face, but he said it probably weighed 350 ? 400 pounds easily. He further stated that the subject was not fat or obese. It did not appear to have loose skin or fatty tissue like a bear. He said it was lean but broad. He was adamant that the subject was not a bear and was not even remotely close to resembling a bear. He said he has seen a number of black bears in Arkansas while riding on motorcycles, and what he and his ex-wife saw that day was no bear. The witness could not say for sure what it was or what it was called, but he knew that it was no animal known to exist. He believes that the only thing that physically matched what they saw is a bigfoot. He confidently stated that there is nothing else to even come close to what they saw and an upright grizzly might compare in size only.
He said there was absolutely no chance that the subject was a man or person in a costume, ?A hoax? Are you kidding? Impossible.? He was certain that what they saw was a real creature that was huge, upright and covered with hair. He stated matter-of-factly, ?I saw what I saw.? He told me that it is not his problem that people cannot accept it; he knows that what he and his ex-wife saw was not a known animal.
Both witnesses were interviewed at length about an event that occurred over 20 years ago, and the second witness had absolutely no idea that his ex-wife had submitted a report to the NAWAC. Both witnesses were articulate, intelligent and truthful. Both were passionate about what they saw and remained convinced throughout the years that they had seen something different, something special, even in the face of ridicule from the few whom they entrusted with the experience. Both were relieved and glad to be able to share the incident freely without being derided.
This investigation was conducted as a result of an incident that allegedly occurred in Little River County, Arkansas, north of the Red River in May 1985.
This report was submitted by the primary witness with no contact data for the second witness, the ex-husband. I contacted and interviewed her about the alleged sighting.
She was very willing to discuss the incident and told me that she remembered it well. She said there was no mistaking what she saw for anything other than what it was: an upright, hair-covered and unidentifiable animal that fit the classic description of a bigfoot or sasquatch.
The witness said there was absolutely no way that the subject was a person in a suit due to its sheer size, which as she recalled, was over seven feet in height. She said it had very broad shoulders. Its color was reddish-brown, and similar to that of an orangutan, but not quite as bright in color. The witness remembered seeing long hair on the subject. She could remember no details about the face. She said it really did not have much of a neck, if at all. She told me that when she first saw it, its arms were outstretched, almost as though it was getting ready to lunge or perhaps make a leap. She said that her vehicle seemed to cause the subject to freeze as she and the male witness, now her ex-husband, approached it.
The witness said that she vividly remembered what happened as they passed within mere feet of the subject; it stood there just off the highway on the right. As the male witness began to realize that what they were seeing was like nothing they had ever seen or even imagined before, he screamed, immediately and abruptly almost climbing into the lap of the primary witness, who was driving. In the process, the primary witness remembered that he grabbed the wheel and jerked it leftward to ensure that they missed the large unknown figure.
After they passed the subject, they both began to talk to each other, asking each other what they had just seen. The witness said that at the time, they were not in the least bit interested in turning back to get another look at the subject. They both wanted to get away from it as quickly as possible.
The witness told me that she had not spoken to her ex-husband in a number of years, and the last she heard, he was in Oklahoma somewhere. She provided his name for me, but was unable to provide any other details about how I might reach him. I told her that oftentimes, a name was all that was needed, and we were usually quite successful at tracking down people with only a mere scrap of information.
Within 15 minutes after ending the interview with the primary witness, I located her ex-husband and was ultimately able to interview him in depth. He had no knowledge whatsoever that I was contacting him to discuss something that he rarely spoke of, and was genuinely and pleasantly surprised to learn that I wanted to interview him. He was extremely willing to talk about the experience; he said he remembered it well, despite the fact that it happened over 20 years ago. He said that none of the few people he had told in the past took him or his ex-wife seriously, so he found it to his liking that someone was finally willing to sit down and listen to him, and take the incident seriously.
The ex-husband?s account of the incident was more detailed than the primary witness. His account began in the same way: the two were returning from the Red River, heading north on Highway 41 north of the Red River in a blue Thunderbird. He mentioned that there was perhaps ?35 percent light left? as the sun was setting. The ex-husband spotted the subject first. His first impression, from quite a distance, was that there was a horse or some other large reddish-brown animal right off the highway, on the right. He admonished his partner to ?watch out for the horse.?
The ex-husband then remembered that the unknown animal appeared to stand erect. He then realized that it was not a horse or a cow, but something entirely different. As the vehicle closed the distance between it and the subject at a speed of 55 ? 60 miles per hour, and it became increasingly obvious that the subject was a towering figure, a sense of dread came over the witnesses. The ex-husband remembered that their vehicle passed the subject by no more than three feet. He said the feeling was that they drove just under it. He too recalled that the arms were raised. He said he basically climbed in his ex-wife?s lap as they passed so close to the subject that they both had to look up to see it; he emphasized that the subject ?towered? over the car. The ex-husband remembered yelling loudly as they passed the subject. He could remember no details about the face, but he said it probably weighed 350 ? 400 pounds easily. He further stated that the subject was not fat or obese. It did not appear to have loose skin or fatty tissue like a bear. He said it was lean but broad. He was adamant that the subject was not a bear and was not even remotely close to resembling a bear. He said he has seen a number of black bears in Arkansas while riding on motorcycles, and what he and his ex-wife saw that day was no bear. The witness could not say for sure what it was or what it was called, but he knew that it was no animal known to exist. He believes that the only thing that physically matched what they saw is a bigfoot. He confidently stated that there is nothing else to even come close to what they saw and an upright grizzly might compare in size only.
He said there was absolutely no chance that the subject was a man or person in a costume, ?A hoax? Are you kidding? Impossible.? He was certain that what they saw was a real creature that was huge, upright and covered with hair. He stated matter-of-factly, ?I saw what I saw.? He told me that it is not his problem that people cannot accept it; he knows that what he and his ex-wife saw was not a known animal.
Both witnesses were interviewed at length about an event that occurred over 20 years ago, and the second witness had absolutely no idea that his ex-wife had submitted a report to the NAWAC. Both witnesses were articulate, intelligent and truthful. Both were passionate about what they saw and remained convinced throughout the years that they had seen something different, something special, even in the face of ridicule from the few whom they entrusted with the experience. Both were relieved and glad to be able to share the incident freely without being derided.
