Last updated on February 15th, 2022 at 09:24 am
How we collect and analyze reports
Generally speaking, observations or experiences thought to be related to bigfoot/sasquatch activity spark an intense interest on the part of witnesses. While it may take some individuals days or even years, eventually many seek information via the Internet, find the NAWAC, and submit a report. In other situations, friends or family refer some people to the NAWAC after they hear about the incident, while others send in their accounts after seeing a television program or newspaper/magazine article featuring NAWAC members. The NAWAC has investigated hundreds of bigfoot sightings.
A fairly high percentage of reports come to the NAWAC via talks given by members to schools or civic organizations. After sharing their story, witnesses are encouraged to submit a report. Regardless of how the incident comes to be submitted, a NAWAC regional director assigns one or more investigators to assess the report and conduct an appropriate follow-up. Oftentimes this involves making contact with the witness and, if thought appropriate, visiting the incident location. After writing up and classifying the report, it may or may not be published to the NAWAC public database of reports, depending on a variety of factors.
About the classifications
Classifying reports is essentially a shorthand technique for differentiating between categories of incidents. Finding a possible footprint is obviously a different situation than a secretary glimpsing a large bipedal form running across a country road at night. A hunter observing a sasquatch through his binoculars in daylight is different than someone obtaining a photograph, and so on. In lieu of compelling physical evidence of some sort, one can never be 100% certain regarding the reliability of the information obtained through incident reports and the follow-up investigations. This is not an indictment on the integrity of witnesses or NAWAC investigators; it is merely acknowledging that certain reports can be considered more reliable than others. The number of witnesses, observer expertise, associated evidence, and investigator observations, all impact the subjective assessment of reliability.
Class 1 Corroboration. Reports involving a sighting, and accompanied by another form of support.
1a: A woodape (sasquatch) specimen has been collected (alive or dead).
1b: A report investigation results in a wood ape (sasquatch/bigfoot) observation or the documentation of clear tracks or other forms of physical evidence by an investigator.
1c: An investigator determines that a visual encounter with a wood ape (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.
1d: A visual encounter with a wood ape (sasquatch/bigfoot) is a distinct possibility involving two or more reliable observers, and all other sources can be reasonably ruled out.
Class 2 Competency. Reports involving sightings by professionally trained or highly skilled observers.
Investigator determines that a visual encounter with a wood ape (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 3 Credibility. Sightings or possible wood ape evidence reported by credible witnesses.
3a: Investigator determines that a visual encounter with a wood ape (sasquatch/bigfoot) is a distinct possibility, the observer is credible, and all other sources can be reasonably ruled out.
3b: Unidentifiable vocalizations were reported and there is accompanying tangible evidence (broken branches, rocks on roofs, etc.) to possibly indicate the presence of a wood ape (sasquatch/bigfoot), the observer is very reliable, and other sources can be reasonably ruled out.
3c: No visual encounter occurred, but physical evidence (tracks, hair, scat, etc.) was found to indicate the presence of a wood ape (sasquatch/bigfoot), the observer is very reliable, and other sources can be reasonably ruled out.
You may explore all our publicly available encounter reports on a map or in a data table.
