Unidentified Roars in Southeast Texas

These calls were recorded on the morning of Jan 5, 2018 at one of our research sites in Southeast Texas. We do not know what they are. We have tried to isolate the sound, as the roars are fain in the background. Please turn up your volume to hear them. There are four of them, and I indicate with the cursor on the spectrogram where they each are. There are no known animals in this region that make sounds like this, to our knowledge. Any help is greatly appreciated in identifying these calls. The raw audio can be supplied upon request.

Southeast Texas Bigfoot Conference

I will be hosting a well known, out of state. personality for this conference. We will be in the field for several days, and will be attending the conference on Saturday. Please feel free to come and say “hi” if you see me. I would love to visit with you, and even possibly have you accompany me to the field where I will be staying for the week. I will post more updates as events develop over the trip.

Field Expedition Notes for March 2018

Here are some initial audio recordings we captured while in our research area this past week. I will be posting more as I locate them from the field data. The first recording is of our usual unknown animal, and I am comparing it to an owl in the video.



This second recording features our unknown howl followed a little later by coyotes. It is possible the unknown is present with the coyote calls. However, whether we are recording an unknown coyote call, or an unknown caller among coyotes, is unknown.



This last recording is an example of interference the recorder picked up. Weather was good and sky was clear. This particular recording was in the early predawn hours. The crickets and other insects are constant, but notice the shift and tonal differences in the specifically defined pattern. Also notice the “warble”.  This is the same recorder from the same night as the two above. Literally, the same recording.  I would appreciate any recording specialists or engineers to suggest what this might be.

Field Expedition Notes for February 2018

print 1


We spent a few days in the bush since our last blog entry. There are many things that need to be addressed.

First, we had a significant print find. The images are below. This print was found in a course sandy substrate in an area that had received significant rain for the last week. The print was old and had been rained on. The impression depth was near 2″, and it measured roughly 17″ x 8″ at the widest. It was located on a night hike, and was witnessed by 8 people including myself. It was in a remote forested location near a creek. It has obviously been rained on some, as it shows definite signs of erosion. I would estimate its age at about 3-5 days based on the rainfall at the time in the area.  I do have a significant issue with the track, in that it has little to no demonstrated detail of the toes or outlines of them. I do know that several adult males in the 200lb range tried to impress the soil it was in, and could only achieve about 1/2″ impressions.  There did appear to be a track way, but the forest soil was such that with ground clutter they were indistinct impressions, but stride averaged 5′ between impressions for about 6 total. I cannot rule out a hoax, based primarily on that I cannot explain the lack of toe definition. However, I cannot explain the depth of the impression, either.

The prior mentioned field cams failed miserable due to user error. I failed to pack the remote control. However, we did manage to get three operational and record a full night of “no activity”.  However, the deep cycle batteries have proven to only operate for about 14 hours in the field. This is not sufficient for field operations, and so we are back to the drawing board with that project for the time being.




Field Surveillance Cams ver. 2.2

A little over a year ago I posted how we were experimenting with new cams for the field. Here is version 2.2. This is based on a wireless security came for a home or business. It operates on 2.4ghz Wi-Fi. It is HD, and has been heavily modified so that it uses only 940nm “Black IR” and sees clearly in a total dark field. Most all security cameras cannot see in total, open field dark, as they become so sensitive for light that they pick up a halo from their own IR illuminators. That issue has been solved with these design modifications. Furthermore, the 940nm black IR does not have a noticeable red glow like the more common 850nm IR used in cameras and game cams. This system is 12v, and has the operating time of approximately 20+ hours between charges. Each cam has its own power supply and remote control. They are silent, and are recording the entire time they are operating. They transmit their signal to a single hand held NVR with a built in screen. The cameras can transmit currently about 160ft. direct line of sight. They have the ability to daisy chain their connections to extend the string of cameras along a 640ft line of travel if needed. Their intended use is for night only, but can be operated in daylight, as well. With their “snake” mounts, they can be placed on any number of obstacles and blend in naturally. With intelligent use of cover and support, these cameras should be difficult to impossible to detect. They can be set to either record continuously, or record upon motion detection via software. The cameras have already been field tested, minus the snake mounts. Here is there setup as it is currently deployed.


The battery box is connected to the camera by a 15ft cord. The thick cable coming from the base of the camera is the snake mount. Pictured here is also the NVR unit on the left. It is powered by a battery in camp at this time, but can also be powered by vehicle 12v power. The other 3 cameras can be seen on the far right.


Here is an image of all four cams.




It is hoped that by placing these cams in such a way as to be facing away from the suspected likely avenue of approach, that the subject will pass by them without notice and into their field of view. Only when reversing direction would the subject actually face a camera. It is hoped that if this orientation works, a subject can approach a camp from multiple angles without actually detecting the IR lights, and not become aware of them until it has already entered the field of view. When attached to a tree or other object, it is hoped that the nature of these cams will be hidden enough not to raise alarm.

Further field test are coming soon. Results will be shared in another posting on this blog.

September-December 2017 update


It has been a while since I have posted anything on here, and I feel like it is time to let you all have an update on the latest activities.

First, we have had 4 Outings since September, averaging one a month. Three have been to the Sam Houston region, and the last to McCurtain County in southeast Oklahoma. We find it most extraordinary to be able to say that every trip has actually yielded documented evidence. Since we have no sasquatch in my possession, we cannot claim what exactly it is that we have evidence of yet. It is simply evidence of an animal that does not fit existing and known classifications currently. The vast majority of our evidence collected has been audio. We have yet to make any direct physical sightings of any means. We would like to invite everyone here to assist us in trying to identify a known animal as the source of these recordings. We have been unable to locate a credible and referenced source for these sounds. If you can make a match and be able to back it up with known and recognized recordings of a known animal, please come forward. We will post recordings captured in another post shortly.

We have been in the Sam Houston region on 9/14-17, 10/19-22, and 11/9-12 with our private research group in Texas. On 12/7-10 We were with the Southern Bigfoot Alliance core researchers in Oklahoma. It was enlightening to experience the difference between the two groups of researchers and their methods. Superficially, both have similar practices. However, we have found that the SBA has a more “aggressive” and action oriented outlook, in that they spend more time away from camp in isolated areas, especially at night. This is mainly due to the nature of their research area, which is much larger and more isolated than what we have in southeast Texas. In the Sam Houston region all forest roads are blocked except for a specific few. In the Quachita NF most were open and accessible to vehicles.  The SBA group dove much further distances and covered more ground due to this, especially at night. We were able to stake out 3 locations a night. Conversely, in Texas, we tend to travel to one location and hike in for an extended period, but also tend to stay more centered on our camp location as well for activity.

We find it compelling that we captured audio of the same unknown howl both in Texas and in Oklahoma.  The Oklahoma location was not nearly as active as Texas is (Audio wise), which makes us feel the capture of this call is even more remarkable.

Again, we invite anyone to please step forward with positive identification of the source of these calls.

You never know where Boogers might pop up…

This was brought to my attention by a Facebook post from Chuck Schlabs. I am always on the lookout for interesting references to sasquatch alternative names such as “booger” that were only regionally prevalent prior to the Internet. Here, Bob Ross is talking while painting, and mentions “Boogers” at approximately 15:45. What is fascinating is his off the cuff passing reference. This show is season six, which took place around 1989, therefore well prior to the internet. That means he had to have been familiar with this term in a cultural context. This would be an example of an “original, organic source” for the use of the word “booger” and its presence in society prior to the mass media blitz of the 1990’s and the internet. Furthermore, his using it in context to his painting’s topic lends more weight to his knowing exactly what a “Booger” was.