"Most people" is not sufficient here. "Most people" aren't tasked with determining the truth or falsehood of a phenomenon of such strong contention. Photos are simply not sufficient. They are too easily misinterpreted, and too easily faked. That's why one needs a preponderance of evidence. And no, a bunch of photos from unrelated incidents does not constitute a preponderance. Look, if there were a report of a Yeti in the Alps, and then a year later a report of a Sasquatch in British Columbia, they do not constitute a single incident with multiple bits of evidence. Each must be analyzed on its own merits. Imagine if the Alps Yeti one were proven a hoax? Would that mean the other one is automatically proven false too? No. They must be analyzed separately.