Of course I have seen all three and have analysed the second two in detail on my website. I have also analysed the first one considerably but not published my results.

In my opinion, the first and third offer some of the best circumstantial evidence for thylacines on the mainland in the 1900s. No video or photo will ever constitute proof, but they help you know where to look

The second is a dingo or other dog with mange.

There’s no way number two is a Thylacine because I can’t make out stripes and if you pause the clip at the right time you can see a flurry of a bushy tail something Thylacines just don’t have.

I don’t think number three is a Thylacine because its tail is too “floppy” when Thylacine run they hold there tails much stiffer, and I can make out something that might be stripes but I think it’s just do to the quality of the video I think number three is a fox.

The second video is incredibly stupid. Not a Hyena by any means, but looks like either a dog or a dingo with some sort of illness. The ears are far too pointed to be a Thylacine which obviously had short and round ears.

The third video I think is definitely a Thylacine. I think it’s an amazing video. In stills of it, it obviously does not run anything like a fox nor a dog. The tail is held straight out behind it, just like the Thylacine. Regardless of the poor quality, if the stills are brightened, you can make out some very faint striping along the animal. I’d say the third is the best by far.

Second video – Some kind of dog with mange.

Third video – probably the most convincing. The tail still seems too skinny though, but it could just be the way it looks from the poor quality.

The second one, I agree, is likely a known animal with mange.

The third is by far the best footage. The gait is unusual, the morphology is right, and it even has stripes. Like PG, it is an old film that has never been conclusively debunked.