Cryptomundo is reporting a bigfoot (or dogman-type creature) sighting the occurred in western Pennsylvania on July 10.
The report should say “Jumonville” not Jammonville. This area east of Uniontown is rugged and heavily wooded.
I won’t bother commenting on Cryptomundo anymore because my words get edited or might not even appear. But, I noticed, as usual, the Cryptomundo commentators are impressed with the witness and her report. They find her believable. Yet, they easily slip into paranormal mode – Bigfoot can have pointy ears, the odd traits mentioned make it more believable, etc.
I see several problems with the report. At 6PM, the alleged time of sighting when the woman was driving, it was not dark. She reports she was going 35 MPH. That’s not very fast – something approaching the car would either look human (bipedal) or not (quadruped). How did it run away? On two feet? Did it run like a human? The report doesn’t say.
I don’t understand how it managed to “leap across the trunk”. How did it get behind the car? Apparently, she did not hit it but successfully avoided it. There are scratches shown on the car. (So what – lot’s of people scratch their cars up.) There are several details left out. Then investigators from the PA Bigfoot research group followed up on the report. They took pictures.
The pictures are what got me a bit flabbergasted. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA. It’s not the wilds as was suggested. Why was no one else around at 6PM on a Friday night?! The thing apparently ran from a school yard area through the parking lot of a convenient store. I have a harder time believing that there weren’t people around the store getting a pack of smokes, buying beer, picking up a pizza, hanging out. This makes no sense whatsoever.
The PA Bigfoot group has a closed forum and I am not currently intent on registering to listen in on speculation. This closed community aspect makes this type of forum nice for participants but excludes it from being scientific. The same can be said for Cryptomundo – a closed community ends up with warped thinking. No new input is incorporated. Mistakes are propagated, not corrected. They make little progress.
As a PA resident, I can tell you that bears are apparently all over the place right now. Did the witness see a bear? I can’t say. I think it’s more likely she almost hit a person. Having this close and unexpected an encounter with any living thing (except maybe a bug) is upsetting. If it was me, I would think that I would have chased after it, yelling to get people’s attention or at least go back and check to see if anyone else saw it. I’m sympathetic to this witness because she may think she saw something quite scary. I could and would not tell her she was crazy or wrong. This event was a matter of interpretation. So, nothing personal towards her, but the researchers’ intent is to consider this sighting as a real occurrence – outside of personal interpretation.
I’m not sure that’s possible. There is no corroborating evidence. It ends up only as a personal experience. I’m confounded about such reports. Because they make no sense and can’t be followed up, they actually have little value. Eyewitness evidence is weak and totally prone to error due to environmental conditions, physical constraints of the witness, emotional interference and the like. So, anecdotes can guide you where to look but can’t be used to support a claim such as this. If researchers really think there are big, unknown, physically implausible animals running into town on a Friday night, the Bigfoot organization needs to follow up better on this. I wish them well and I hope they find something better than a story.