- 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: 04080030
Class 3aBoy reports roadside encounter while traveling on I-49 near Natchitoches.
Report Details
Occurrence date: June/2006
Location: Natchitoches Parish County, LA
Nearby/Vicinity: Natchitoches
Time / Conditions: 6:30pm-6:40pm. Weather was a bit overcast, it had been raining earlier.
# of Witnesses: 1
Location: Natchitoches Parish County, LA
Nearby/Vicinity: Natchitoches
Time / Conditions: 6:30pm-6:40pm. Weather was a bit overcast, it had been raining earlier.
# of Witnesses: 1
Witness Account:
To whom it may concern. I might be crazy but I would like to report that my son and I were traveling North on I-49 approximately 10 to 15 miles south of Natchitoches, La. and my son swears that he saw a big hairy monkey like creature that resembled a man with a lot of hair matted all over his body. It was sitting on a rock just beside a small creek just at the edge of the woods. I was talking to a friend [on the cell phone] when he saw the creature and my son was afraid to interrupt my call. I did not see it but my son says he was positive of what he saw. I questioned him about the possibilities of it being a bear or some other animal and he says he is sure of what he saw. Take it for what it is worth but I cannot convince him otherwise.
Hand/foot prints:
None.
Sounds:
No.
Additional observations:
My son described it as a big hairy monkey-like creature.
Investigator's Observations
Investigator(s): Rebecca Elkins
This investigation was conducted as a result of a reported incident that allegedly occurred in Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, June, 2006.
I met with the witness, his dad, his little brother, and his grandfather at the site. The witness and his family were very pressed for time on the day of our meeting, as they had a family event to attend. The willingness of the dad and the grandfather to take the time and go out of their way back to the area to meet with me, a total stranger, was significant, in my opinion.
There were some odd impressions in the sandy soil, spaced intermittently in the wet sand. There were no other markings on the sand and they were roughly 45 inches apart. They led from out of the shallow water, down the sand and straight up an embankment.
The witness and his father told me of how the event transpired. Apparently, the dad was driving while talking on the cell phone; the 10-year-old witness was a passenger. While idly looking out of the window, the witness reportedly saw a ?creature? reclined on the sandy soil of a little creek running under I-49 and a train trestle. The witness claimed that the subject was gazing down into the shallow stream and was seemingly unconcerned with the traffic above the stream. The witness stated that he exclaimed to his dad, "Dad, I saw it!"
The father reportedly asked, "Saw what, son?"
The 10-year old then excitedly told his dad that he had seen a ?bigfoot.? The father tried to assure the witness that he probably had seen a bear, but the witness was insistent for the rest of the 45 minute ride that it was not a bear. He told his dad that after he got home, he was going to ?call Paw-Paw because he would believe? him. The father continued to convince the boy that it just could not have been a bigfoot. The young witness, however, would not let his dad talk him out of it.
The family told me that the witness had spent quite a lot of time in Africa with his missionary grandparents and had become very familiar with a variety of animals, including monkeys. He insisted that what he saw was, in fact, a ?big hairy monkey.? He also said that the subject looked like its head was just sitting on its shoulders, with no visible neck.
The father went on to say that he probably would not have paid much attention to the boy?s story except that he is ?not given to story-telling and is a very serious kid.? Also, the father apparently has a good friend who claims to have seen a bigfoot by his dad?s pond in Mississippi. He said the friend is highly educated, doesn?t hunt, but spends a lot of time outdoors. To the father, this has lent credence to the possibility that bigfoot exists and to his son?s experience of that afternoon.
Since anecdotal reports are based on the statements of witnesses, and generally yield little, if any corroborating physical evidence, it can often be difficult to discern with absolute certainty whether or not witnesses accurately report what they supposedly experience. Crucial judgments have to be made regarding witness intent, veracity and character, statement tenability, and overall situational aspects, among other things. It should be noted, however, that since the NAWAC?s objective is to accurately assess this phenomenon, it certainly does more harm than good for the NAWAC to rely on faulty or fabricated data. Therefore it is absolutely in our best interest to comprehensively interview all potential witnesses and investigate reports to the fullest extent possible. I am confident that was done in this case. Further, I could detect no signs of fabrication, misidentification or delusion.
This investigation was conducted as a result of a reported incident that allegedly occurred in Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, June, 2006.
I met with the witness, his dad, his little brother, and his grandfather at the site. The witness and his family were very pressed for time on the day of our meeting, as they had a family event to attend. The willingness of the dad and the grandfather to take the time and go out of their way back to the area to meet with me, a total stranger, was significant, in my opinion.
There were some odd impressions in the sandy soil, spaced intermittently in the wet sand. There were no other markings on the sand and they were roughly 45 inches apart. They led from out of the shallow water, down the sand and straight up an embankment.
The witness and his father told me of how the event transpired. Apparently, the dad was driving while talking on the cell phone; the 10-year-old witness was a passenger. While idly looking out of the window, the witness reportedly saw a ?creature? reclined on the sandy soil of a little creek running under I-49 and a train trestle. The witness claimed that the subject was gazing down into the shallow stream and was seemingly unconcerned with the traffic above the stream. The witness stated that he exclaimed to his dad, "Dad, I saw it!"
The father reportedly asked, "Saw what, son?"
The 10-year old then excitedly told his dad that he had seen a ?bigfoot.? The father tried to assure the witness that he probably had seen a bear, but the witness was insistent for the rest of the 45 minute ride that it was not a bear. He told his dad that after he got home, he was going to ?call Paw-Paw because he would believe? him. The father continued to convince the boy that it just could not have been a bigfoot. The young witness, however, would not let his dad talk him out of it.
The family told me that the witness had spent quite a lot of time in Africa with his missionary grandparents and had become very familiar with a variety of animals, including monkeys. He insisted that what he saw was, in fact, a ?big hairy monkey.? He also said that the subject looked like its head was just sitting on its shoulders, with no visible neck.
The father went on to say that he probably would not have paid much attention to the boy?s story except that he is ?not given to story-telling and is a very serious kid.? Also, the father apparently has a good friend who claims to have seen a bigfoot by his dad?s pond in Mississippi. He said the friend is highly educated, doesn?t hunt, but spends a lot of time outdoors. To the father, this has lent credence to the possibility that bigfoot exists and to his son?s experience of that afternoon.
Since anecdotal reports are based on the statements of witnesses, and generally yield little, if any corroborating physical evidence, it can often be difficult to discern with absolute certainty whether or not witnesses accurately report what they supposedly experience. Crucial judgments have to be made regarding witness intent, veracity and character, statement tenability, and overall situational aspects, among other things. It should be noted, however, that since the NAWAC?s objective is to accurately assess this phenomenon, it certainly does more harm than good for the NAWAC to rely on faulty or fabricated data. Therefore it is absolutely in our best interest to comprehensively interview all potential witnesses and investigate reports to the fullest extent possible. I am confident that was done in this case. Further, I could detect no signs of fabrication, misidentification or delusion.
