It's such an easy to test theory as well. Everybody has a phone camera, high quality, good pictures. Okay. Now you get one task and it's very simple. Take a picture of the first wild bird you see. That's it. No second chances, no matter how far away, if you missed your chance you missed it. Literally the next bird after reading this is your task. Let's see how useful your phone camera really is in determining the existence of elusive wildlife. How useful is this going to be to determine the existence of a yellow throated warbler? A bird we definitely know exists…

People need to stop overstating the fact that we carry cameras around. It's not really a point against the existence of a creature. Taking high quality pictures is difficult, you have first to go to the place where the creature is found, takes a lot of practice, patience and luck. If we're dealing with a rare highly intelligent creature that does not want to be found, knows how to remain hidden, buries feces, buries bodies… All we will get is glimpses and tracks, it is to be expected. But boy do we have an awful lot of those.

The quality of the evidence of footprints is so high, it's far more convincing. We have prints to the resolution of dermal ridges, half prints on slopes that can only be done by a flexible foot. Scars healing over time. Like, this isn't some dude who stuck some planks to their rubber boots. You want quality of evidence? Check out what prints are actually found, cast and researched. It's not something you can just brush aside.

The reason people all can get behind high quality pictures is because it gives everybody what they want. Believers to say I told you so. Skeptics to say that it's photoshop. And everybody lives happily ever after.