- 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: 01080013
Class 3cSeveral men cutting wood come upon tracks and possible shelter.
Report Details
Occurrence date: February/2007
Location: Walker County, TX
Nearby/Vicinity: Huntsville
Time / Conditions: 13:00 — Cloudy, cold, muddy and wet. Plenty of light.
# of Witnesses: 6
Location: Walker County, TX
Nearby/Vicinity: Huntsville
Time / Conditions: 13:00 — Cloudy, cold, muddy and wet. Plenty of light.
# of Witnesses: 6
Witness Account:
On the above stated date and time, I was working in an area to cut firewood. After deciding the layout of our work, I decided to walk north for further inspection and came across something that seemed very out of the ordinary, a large track that appeared to be barefoot. It was followed by several more and then a half track consisting of just a heel. I had no way to measure distance between steps (best guess 5 feet). I followed the tracks in reverse into the woods and found a tree broken in half about 2 inches from its base along with several other small trees bent towards each other. At first I didn?t realize what I was looking at. But it made a type of small hut with a distinct entry way. It was very cold that day, we all had heavy coats, the ground was wet and muddy.
Physical evidence:
Photos and video were taken with cell phone. I have them in my possession on CD. Footprints; approx. 5 feet between steps, prints were several inches longer than my size 10 work boot. There were six witnesses.
Hand/foot prints:
Footprints; approx. 5 feet between steps, prints were several inches longer than my size 10 work boot. There were six witnesses.
Sounds:
None noted.
Additional observations:
Just the hut described.
Investigator's Observations
Investigator(s): Walter Blake
This investigation was conducted as a result of an incident that allegedly occurred in Walker County, Texas in February 2007.
I met with the witness and his wife at the scene of this report on the afternoon of 29 February 2008, a little over one year from the date of the discovery of what appeared to be large 14-inch bare foot prints and a possible shelter constructed of brush and limbs.
The witness wishes to remain anonymous and therefore the location will be displayed in a broad context on the accompanying map. Suffice it to say that the site is in an area that has had a fair share of reported encounters. Some of these encounters have been reported by law enforcement officers as well as NAWAC investigators and other credible individuals. A number of large bare footprints and track ways have also been reported in this same area, many of them in the dead of winter, as was this report.
This witness was working in the area cutting firewood with several other men (coworkers) when he stumbled upon what appeared to be 14-inch footprints in a muddy bottom. The area is somewhat remote and is about two miles from the nearest public roadway. Upon discovery the witness called over a coworker and asked the individual to help him make a determination about what appeared to be a 14-inch long footprint.
The coworker quickly responded by telling the witness that they were looking at a right foot with the big toe on the left side. The witness had already established this in his own mind, and the coworker?s assessment solidified his own analysis. Approximately 60 inches away from the first track, the witness and his coworker identified another print, also with a big toe, but this time on the right side, indicating that it was a left foot.
The coworker then spotted what appeared to be a half-print, with a clear heel indentation.
The witness reported that water was partially standing in the tracks. The witness only had the camera on his cell phone and shot low quality images of the tracks and trackway area. The thought of some large person walking around in such a remote area, in the cold February weather, just did not make any sense to the witness, and a feeling of something unusual began to creep into his mind. He realized that the tracks were not human sign, but the sign of something else.
As the others continued to work, the witness began following the tracks that soon disappeared amongst the dead falls and treetops in a recently timbered area. After some time he decided to backtrack and, after passing through the previously mentioned area, he followed them into the big timber of a drainage area where the underbrush was sparse. About 75 yards into the timber the witness found what appeared to be a shelter of some kind made up of a large sapling that had been snapped over about 12 inches off the ground with brush and branches placed on top to form a common tent shape. The forest litter inside the shelter showed obvious signs of compression. There was no sign of any human activity near this apparent shelter.
One year after the discovery, the stack of brush and the support sapling are still there. Although the area of the break on the sapling is clean it does not appear to have been cut.
There were no signs of heavy mechanical equipment or vehicular traffic of any kind in this area. The area is heavily restricted and off-limits to motorized vehicles. The force required to break the three to four-inch sapling has not been quantified but suffice it to say that two or three men would have been required. While not an impossibility, such a scenario does not seem likely.
After spending the afternoon with the witness and his wife hiking in and out of the area, I had ample time to assess him as an observer. During and after the interview, my impression of this witness was that he was honest and quite knowledgeable of wildlife sign. Further it was my assessment that he truthfully and accurately reported the events to the best of his recollection and ability. Given plenty of opportunity to embellish or deviate from the original report, the witness did not waiver.
There was ample sign in the area to indicate that it is abundant with wildlife; there is more than an ample supply of water and food. The topography seems to favor any elusive species of wildlife that would choose to construct a den or shelter there. The location of the alleged shelter seemed to allowed for a concealed vantage point from which to observe nearby activity.
This investigation was conducted as a result of an incident that allegedly occurred in Walker County, Texas in February 2007.
I met with the witness and his wife at the scene of this report on the afternoon of 29 February 2008, a little over one year from the date of the discovery of what appeared to be large 14-inch bare foot prints and a possible shelter constructed of brush and limbs.
The witness wishes to remain anonymous and therefore the location will be displayed in a broad context on the accompanying map. Suffice it to say that the site is in an area that has had a fair share of reported encounters. Some of these encounters have been reported by law enforcement officers as well as NAWAC investigators and other credible individuals. A number of large bare footprints and track ways have also been reported in this same area, many of them in the dead of winter, as was this report.
This witness was working in the area cutting firewood with several other men (coworkers) when he stumbled upon what appeared to be 14-inch footprints in a muddy bottom. The area is somewhat remote and is about two miles from the nearest public roadway. Upon discovery the witness called over a coworker and asked the individual to help him make a determination about what appeared to be a 14-inch long footprint.
The coworker quickly responded by telling the witness that they were looking at a right foot with the big toe on the left side. The witness had already established this in his own mind, and the coworker?s assessment solidified his own analysis. Approximately 60 inches away from the first track, the witness and his coworker identified another print, also with a big toe, but this time on the right side, indicating that it was a left foot.
The coworker then spotted what appeared to be a half-print, with a clear heel indentation.
The witness reported that water was partially standing in the tracks. The witness only had the camera on his cell phone and shot low quality images of the tracks and trackway area. The thought of some large person walking around in such a remote area, in the cold February weather, just did not make any sense to the witness, and a feeling of something unusual began to creep into his mind. He realized that the tracks were not human sign, but the sign of something else.
As the others continued to work, the witness began following the tracks that soon disappeared amongst the dead falls and treetops in a recently timbered area. After some time he decided to backtrack and, after passing through the previously mentioned area, he followed them into the big timber of a drainage area where the underbrush was sparse. About 75 yards into the timber the witness found what appeared to be a shelter of some kind made up of a large sapling that had been snapped over about 12 inches off the ground with brush and branches placed on top to form a common tent shape. The forest litter inside the shelter showed obvious signs of compression. There was no sign of any human activity near this apparent shelter.
One year after the discovery, the stack of brush and the support sapling are still there. Although the area of the break on the sapling is clean it does not appear to have been cut.
There were no signs of heavy mechanical equipment or vehicular traffic of any kind in this area. The area is heavily restricted and off-limits to motorized vehicles. The force required to break the three to four-inch sapling has not been quantified but suffice it to say that two or three men would have been required. While not an impossibility, such a scenario does not seem likely.
After spending the afternoon with the witness and his wife hiking in and out of the area, I had ample time to assess him as an observer. During and after the interview, my impression of this witness was that he was honest and quite knowledgeable of wildlife sign. Further it was my assessment that he truthfully and accurately reported the events to the best of his recollection and ability. Given plenty of opportunity to embellish or deviate from the original report, the witness did not waiver.
There was ample sign in the area to indicate that it is abundant with wildlife; there is more than an ample supply of water and food. The topography seems to favor any elusive species of wildlife that would choose to construct a den or shelter there. The location of the alleged shelter seemed to allowed for a concealed vantage point from which to observe nearby activity.
Photos
