We’re waiting for a substantive contribution to this discussion from you.

Which would be: a systematic debunking, showing how every single encounter report - or even enough of them to put the rest in some doubt - adds up to a false positive.

The case that they don’t - that there’s something here that science needs to explain - is virtually airtight. And I’ve made it, many times, on this site. So have some folks with, I’ll wager, far more chops in relevant fields than either of us have.

Some, however, just can’t be bothered, I guess.

Or need to smarten up.

As I’ve said: I’ve had it, to here, with naive, gullible, uninformed “skeptics.” Is Ben Radford spreading spores or something?

My statement about visible/invisible intimidating sas should not be interpreted to mean they orb out or go fourth-dimensional. It simply means that they stay behind vegetative cover when trying to intimidate humans - with the rare (”pretty”) exception.

Glad I cleared THAT up.

All I can say to this is what I read in encounter reports, from which I can glean the following:

1. Many reports describe EXTREMELY unkempt hair, which indeed makes that look salon-produced.

2. At least one report - of a visible sasquatch conducting an intimidation display at VERY close range (they usually aren’t visible when they do this) - actually uses the word “pretty” to describe the animal’s hair.

3. The Irish Setter is frequently referred to in reports as a reference point to help describe the hair observed on the subject. Anyone owning an Irish Setter knows you can’t afford to let THAT hair get away from you.

4. They’re primates (from all the evidence). Primates groom each other regularly.

NOT saying what that is (although it looks, emphatically, like hair to me and emphatically NOT like camera blur).

I could see that for a carcass, but that doesn’t seem wise for just a trailcam photo.