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.

the second clip is certainly the most impressive of the three.the gentleman does say that he had seen a lot of dingos and this was not a dingo,however,obviously he is not a native Australian or Tasmanian and therefore PROBABLY has limited experience with any abnormalities in the native wildlife.looks somewhat convincing, yet i think there are a couple of discrepancies.first of all,it looks a little large for a thylacine.remember,thylacines were or are almost weasel like and only the size of a small dog.ive never seen one in person,but from the shows ive seen with people standing next to mounted ones, i would say this is just a little too big.i dont know if a thylacine could really drag a dead wallaby,maybe it could, they’re not as big as kangaroos.also, the face looks too harsh.thylacines almost have a cute face, sonewhat weasellike as i said before.and they have black lines on the eyes.also, at about :49 or :50 you can see what appears to be a bushy tail.also keep in mind that we can not see the dead wallaby once the animal is dragging it.this could be a mangy coyote shot in North America and added on to Australia clip.i would think this is a mangy dingo.when a canine has severe mange, it hardly resemble its species at all.mangy coyotes and foxes look very bizzare.but still, this could be the real thing.i like this video.

and the third one to me, is the most convincing having never seen any programs dealing with this clip like other people talked about.it looks about the right size,the ears look akward,and the tail looks very thin.it seems to be running in fear.stray dogs dont really run like that for no reason, so that makes me inclined to believe it is a wild animal.i dont know where this was shot, if i was sure it was in Australia or Tasmania, then obviously its either dog,dingo, or thylacine and i would go with thylacine.
I cant clearly see stripes on any of the animals.the second one maybe, but that might just be shadow through the grass.If i had to bet on it i would say:first video-5% chance its the real thing.second video-50% chance.and video number the third-%75 percent although they are all limited and inconclusive.

Those are just my opinions based on watching the videos,reading other peoples comments,looking online at pictures of thylacine,and having the limited prior knowledge i have.

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.