Class 3a

Woman reports early morning visual encounter on rural property near Navarro Mills Lake.

Occurred November 19, 2008
(Submitted November 23, 2008)

Witness Observation

Walking out the backdoor I noticed our outside guard dog hunched against the steps, I figured he was cold and did not think much about it at that time, and headed to the car. While putting my daughter in the car I saw what I thought was a large bulky man walking across the pasture just at the limit of the light. I was afraid he was waiting to rob us. I got in the car to leave and call the police. When I started the car and turned on the headlights it was just leaving their range, it turned (most of its upper body) and looked in the direction of the light and I saw eyes glowing yellow in the headlights. That is when I knew it was not human! It crossed under the framework of the horse barn we are building. The barn is 7' at the low side and 8' at the high side. This creature was about the same height as the barn. It continued walking and I drove away in the opposite direction wanting to get me and my daughter as far away from it as possible.

Time and Conditions

6:10 am - It was around 6:10 in the morning. The sun had not yet begun to brighten the sky. It was 37 degrees and slightly windy. The sky was clear and the air and ground was dry as we had not had rain for a while.

Investigator's Comments

Daryl Colyer, Mike Mayes and Jeremy Wells

This investigation was conducted as a result of an incident that allegedly occurred in Navarro County, Texas, on rural property near Navarro Mills Lake in November 2008.

Mike Mayes, Jeremy Wells and I (Daryl Colyer) spent a considerable amount of time with the witness and her boyfriend on his property. The property is a rural piece of land that consists of approximately 60 acres and is situated approximately one-half mile south of the lake, which is surrounded by approximately 4,000 acres of dense riparian hardwoods located primarily at the southwest end of the lake. Among the hardwoods around the lake and on the boyfriend?s property (on the back half) are cedar elm and green ash, as well as several varieties of oak, to include bur oak and shumard oak; native pecan is quite common to the area. Below the hardwoods is an understory composed predominantly of hawthorn, cat briar and rattan.

Navarro Mills Lake is fed by a number of draws and creeks of the Trinity River Basin, chief among them Richland Creek. The riparian margins of the lake and the corridors of the feeder waterways are rich with wildlife and dense hardwoods. Reports of ?long-tailed cats? (presumably Puma concolor) are not uncommon. Perhaps slightly less common are reports in the area of the so-called ?Chambers Creek Monster,? supposedly an animal descriptively similar to a bigfoot.

When the boyfriend purchased the land several years ago, it was undeveloped and wooded (like much of the land in the area). He subsequently cleared the front half of the property for pasture, and left the back half of the property in its natural state: dense hardwood forest. The hardwood forest and pasture mix seems to be very common in the area surrounding Navarro Mills Lake, which is managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The surrounding area is very rural and replete with a number of isolated small farms and ranches. The nearest neighbors, also small farms, are close to one mile away.

Immediately after our arrival, with the boyfriend watching and providing a narrative historical background of the land, we had the witness conduct a reenactment of the incident for us, using the six-foot three-inch Mike Mayes as the subject.

The witness recalled that her dogs, two small dachshunds who stay indoors, and a collie that stays outside, were quiet that morning as she exited the house. Normally when someone or something unfamiliar is on the property, the dogs are extremely vocal, as they were during our visit. The small dogs were out front, scratching to get back in, but not barking as they normally do, and they began scratching almost immediately once they had been put outside to do their business.

When the witness and her small daughter stepped outside at the back of the house to go to her car, she noticed the collie was lying against the steps of the house. It was the witness?s perception that the collie was cold, inactive and subdued. The witness told us that it was just a few minutes past 6:00 A.M., and it was dark and cold; she remembered the temperature being in the 30s. The area surrounding the house is illuminated by tall security lights, which afford visibility out to about 50 ? 60 feet.

The witness recalled that as she began to help her daughter into the car (behind the driver?s seat), she peripherally saw a very large human-like figure beyond the fence at the back of the house area, moving from south to north, or from the witness?s left to her right. The fence separates the house area from the pasture, where there are several cows, horses and donkeys. The witness immediately thought she was seeing a ?big dark man in a dark coat,? and she believed that her daughter, her, and their property, were in danger of being robbed or harmed. The subject was moving smoothly just beyond a small metal corral or pen, on the opposite side of the pasture fence; its distance was probably 50 feet away, but it was dark, the subject was just at the edge of the security light?s illumination, and the witness could make out no detail, other than the subject appeared to be a huge and darkly-clothed human who was quietly and quickly walking around the house area. The subject appeared to have come from an area immediately south of the metal corral where a large container of thick molasses-based feed was placed. (The boyfriend later showed us the nutritional value of the feed; it is extremely rich in protein and nutrients).

The witness became frightened and hurriedly began to gather her daughter into the car; the daughter was apparently oblivious. The witness told us that her fear was based on her belief that she was initially seeing a large man. There are No Trespassing signs posted prominently on the property (as is common in rural Texas), and the witness?s belief was that no one should have been on the property unless they were inclined to perpetrate criminal behavior.

The witness hurriedly got into the car and started the engine. Her intent was to quickly escape and call the county Sheriff?s office to report the intruder.

When she turned on the headlights to the car, the witness became even more startled, but now it was because she saw the subject turn to look at her, turning its whole body, and in the process its eyes reflected her headlights, like a deer. As the witness began to move out from under the car port, she watched the subject, now fully realizing that what she was watching was not human. The witness told us that she then identified what she was seeing as a ?bigfoot.? She said it was ?just one those things that you just know when you see it.?

She watched the subject as it walked under a wooden frame of an unfinished barn. She noted that the subject was uniformly dark, or black, from top to bottom. The witness recalled at that time realizing that the subject was at least seven feet tall; there appeared to be only a few inches of clearance as the subject walked under the wooden barn frame. The witness stated that the subject?s movement seemed unusually smooth. The witness estimated that she probably was able to see the subject for perhaps 20 seconds in all, including when she first saw it peripherally until she lost sight of it as it moved out of the illuminated area, at which time she sped away. The witness exited to the left, instead of her typical exit to the right, which would have put her closer to the entity as it moved toward the watering hole. The witness was extremely distraught and simply wanted to get away as quickly as possible.

Once on the road, after calming herself as much as she could, she then worked on getting the courage up to call her boyfriend and tell him about it. When she finally did, to her surprise, he did not dismiss her. Later, in his own words, he told us that he had ?heard things from time to time? on the property that he had thought odd at the time, but always dismissed.

The witness said that while she had an open mind about many things, she had never put much thought into the subject before, and did not really have an opinion about it. The witness had no explanation for it; she was just certain of what she saw. She could not recall detail regarding face, other than the eye shine, and did not remember anything about arms.

A few days after the incident, the witness encountered Corps of Engineers employees in Corsicana, Texas. She told them she was not crazy and then told them she had seen a bigfoot on her boyfriend's property near the lake. Reportedly, they told her of another reported sighting from the Navarro Mills Lake area from February 2006, which allegedly occurred on the opposite side of the lake (NAWAC Report# 01060005, Navarro County, Texas).

The witness was then directed to report the incident to the NAWAC by her aunt, who lives in another state out west. After my initial phone conversation with the witness, she contacted me again with a photo of what she believed could possibly have been some kind of human-like footprint. Upon actual examination of the impression, Mayes, Wells and I found it to be of indeterminate origin, and could not link it to the reported visual encounter.

During our investigation, Mayes, Wells and I saw numerous indicators of indigenous wildlife, but curiously saw little sign of feral hogs (Sus scrofa), other than one track near one of the ponds on the property. We saw no evidence of the typical hog rooting and abundant hog feces that is so prevalent elsewhere in Texas, and our survey of his property was quite extensive. The boyfriend also told us that he has not visually identified any hogs or hog sign on the property. We visually identified or found trace evidence of a variety of wildlife.

After looking around extensively along the alleged pathway of the subject, and finding nothing of interest, we surveyed the extensive hardwood area on the back of the property. The boyfriend led us to another pond in the wooded area. There we searched for supportive evidence and found none. We also spent considerable time along a creek and trails through the dense hardwoods.

We did place a Reconyx RC55 camera trap in an area of many wildlife scats in the back wooded area. Our intent is to return very soon to retrieve and evaluate any obtained photo images from the Reconyx RC55.

There is no doubt among us that the witness believes that she saw exactly what she described. While no supportive sign could be found, our assessment of the witness, and her boyfriend, is that they are honest, sincere people who have no desire for attention; they seem to merely seek an explanation regarding what they believe the witness visually identified on the morning of 19 November 2008. We could detect no signs of deception whatsoever. On the contrary; we believe she was truthful.

Absolutely no tracks could be found to indicate that any biped walked the path that is indicated by the witness; however, the ground was extremely packed and hardened, with a light grass covering. Even in the area of the pond, where the witness reportedly lost visual contact with the subject, there were many horse, donkey and cow tracks; any other tracks would have been destroyed by the domestic animals with certainty.

The witness had no recollection of the location of the several cows, horses and donkeys at the time of the visual encounter, but she was absolutely adamant that what she saw was not a bull, horse or donkey, and that it was clearly bipedal, tall and only by mere inches was able to walk under the frame structure, which we measured to be eight feet on its south side, and seven feet on its north side.

We considered the possibility of a human as the subject, which was the witness?s first impression before she illuminated it and got a better look at it. After seeing Mike Mayes walk the same path as the subject, the witness confidently assured us that the subject was much larger than Mayes in bulk, height and sheer size. Also, she noticed that the locomotion of the subject clearly was smoother than that of Mayes, and that it was very clear that the subject covered much more ground than Mayes in substantially less time. Although the witness could not discern hair on the subject, she was certain that the subject was uniformly dark from top to bottom. In her mind, Mayes and the subject were starkly different. She was absolutely confident that she had seen a bigfoot.

Upon the completion of our on-site investigation at the witness?s property, we proceeded approximately one mile south to the nearest neighbors? homestead, a small organic farm. The same creek that runs through the original witness?s property winds through neighbors? land as well. The witness and her boyfriend told us that the neighbors apparently had some unusual activity on their property the night before the alleged sighting of the original witness.

The owners of the farm, a middle aged couple, raise free-range chickens, donkeys, horses, guineas and goats. They also raise a variety of crops including sweet corn and numerous types of southern peas on the property. Keeping a watchful eye on the property is a trio of very large, protective dogs, including two Great Pyrenees. The Great Pyrenees are reputed to be very effective at guarding farms and farm animals from predators. It is not uncommon in Texas to see the Great Pyrenees breed on various ranches and farms patrolling like security guards.

The organic farm couple had noted in the weeks prior that their ?garden,? actually acres of crops, had been raided. Corn and peas were harvested on at least three occasions. It should be noted that the couple believed that human trespassers may have been responsible for the first incident. Several of the free-range hens have also come up missing in the last several months.

On the night of 18 November 2008, the wife was awakened by her animals twice (the husband was not home that night). The first incident was shortly before midnight. The second time was around 3:30 am. Each time, according to the witness, the dogs, horses, and goats were ?just going crazy?.just nuts.? She got up and went outside to investigate both times but saw nothing. The second time, however, the youngest of the three large dogs, a ten-month-old Great Pyrenees, obviously highly agitated, darted across the property, across a creek, and into a wooded area after ?something.? The woman told us that she and her husband could not locate the young male Great Pyrenees for two full days. The dog was finally located lying near the edge of the wooded area after three days, to large degree incapacitated. The dog showed no obvious signs of a struggle but could hardly walk, and in the opinion of the couple appeared to have sustained ?a beating.? The dog, according to the witness, had been ?full of vinegar? before the incident but had become very meek since. The dog was still walking with a limp on the day of our investigation and did indeed seem timid. No external scratches, cuts, abrasions or bite marks could be discerned, which seemed to remove the possibility of an encounter with a cat or coyotes. The owners provided medical care for the young male Great Pyrenees and therefore did not take him to a veterinarian.

One final oddity was reported by this couple. The husband said that he ran into a friend in town on 19 November 2008. The friend said he had driven by the property about 10:30 P.M. the night before (18 November). The friend claimed that as he drove by the property, he thought he saw the husband, the owner of the property, walking into the barn as he passed. The friend seemed a little bothered that whoever he had seen, did not acknowledge him, in spite of that fact that he honked the horn to get his attention. The friend playfully scolded the property owner for not waving to him. The property owner informed the friend that he did not know who he had seen entering the barn as he was not home that night and his wife was already in bed by that time.

The property owners felt these incidents were a bit odd but thought little else about them until their neighbor related her experience to them a few days later. It was only then that they felt their experiences and that of their neighbor could possibly be related.

As with the original witness and her boyfriend, the organic farm couple seemed very honest, forthright and ?salt-of-the-earth.? They related the events of 18 November 2008 in a very matter-of-fact manner. They are unsure exactly what happened that night but indicated that they do believe their neighbor?s account.

Jeremy Wells and Mike Mayes contributed to this investigation report.


TBRC Investigator Mike Mayes retraces the path of the subject as reported by the witness.


The witness noted that the subject traversed the same path as Mayes in substantially less time.


As Mayes walked under the incomplete barn frame, the witness pointed out that the subject was much taller, bigger and bulkier than the six-foot three-inch Mayes.


The security light that provided the initial illumination for the witness until she activated her vehicle headlights.


The back acreage is dense hardwood forest.


The neighbors' injured dog was subdued and timid even during the investigation.

Additional reports in this county

Occurred 2/13/2006 in Navarro County, TX

Submitted on February 25, 2006 Icon-photo-off Icon-video-off

Husband and wife report close road encounter near Navarro Mills Lake. Read more...



Class 1a
A sasquatch/bigfoot specimen has been collected (alive or dead).
Class 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.