Clarity is not evidence. Consistency is evidence.
American Bigfoot reports and Canadian Sasquatch sightings are reviewed under the same Unified Blur Hypothesis and blur-classification framework. The Institute treats both naming traditions as describing the same large, forest-associated being with persistent resolution resistance.
Criteria: crisp edges, clearly visible face, suspiciously readable fur texture, too-convenient lighting, visible costume zipper, comfort with photography, or an image that looks like it wants to be believed.
A clear Sasquatch image contradicts the established visual profile. Clarity is not a strength. Clarity is a warning sign.
Criteria: blurry, tall, near trees, witness says “I know what I saw,” could be a stump but the stump seemed alert, dog became interested but noncommittal.
Criteria: extremely blurry, upright, forest-adjacent, camera struggled, witness became defensive, dog reacted, no one can agree what the image shows.
Criteria: large upright figure, persistent edge instability, surroundings clearer than the subject, skeptics complain the image is blurry, image matches all known Sasquatch visual traits.
If the image is clear, it is not Bigfoot.
