The sighting matches some of the encounters I’ve had with the species. If there is no reason for intimidation they will generally survey the situation and go about their way. My Best,

This paragraph

“Its body was covered in hair, but it was so fine, almost like an Irish setter’s, that you could see its muscle definition underneath. I remember his forearm muscles being clearly defined and, yup, “it” was definitely a “he”.”

…is about as classic a description as you will see (right down to the astonishingly-frequent use of the dog breed as an analogue for the hair observed).

Except for the “definitely” when it comes to the junk. Bigfoot gonads are….well, I’ve said it here: “Littlestones” might be more appropriate from what I’ve read.

Now as to the face.

At the 2009 TB Conference, I noted to Dr. John Bindernagel that many sasquatch observations are of a very human-like nose. He professed surprise. I referred him to the TBRC and BFRO databases, where there are many such observations. But. There are just as many of an “ape” or “monkey” face. J. Robert Alley has speculated that the sasquatch may be subject to great variation on physical characters, just like us. (One could pull 20 humans together and present them to an alien who would immediately think he was dealing with that many different species.)

Of course, the variation could mean more than one species. But that’s only idle speculation.

You know what I think? It’s all subjective. At least much of it is; many have had the reaction this witness did. Many have said: it was an ape. To me that is a brand of authenticity: people are reacting to what they saw, not concocting what someone told them to imagine.

When I first saw a close-up of an orangutan, my grade-school mind immediately registered shock. THAT’S A PERSON!!!

When I first saw the reconstructed face of the Australopithecus afarensis toddler on the cover of National Geographic (“First Child”), I thought:

That’s an orangutan.