I can't speak for anyone else.
I've had the sighting ... x2, decades apart. So ... I can only hypothesize. Considering the body of evidence, I think yes, I could be convinced by that alone. The problem is, as I see it, dismissing ALL evidence requires such an incredible Rube Goldberg mix of excuses .. or sheer ignorance .. that as a logical person with a science background, the existence of an unknown hominid is by far the simplest answer. In short, Occam's Razor, applied to the evidence, says they're clearly and unequivocally real as the simplest and most logical explanation.
The only doubt I have about that conclusion is whether I'd have taken time to truly adequately examine the evidence without those two sightings to keep my curiosity engaged. If I did not, I might come to the same ignorant conclusion as the scoftic cadre.
MIB