This paper corrects a number of false assumptions made by Dincauze, among them the following: (1) her work area was in the southern half of the unit, not the undisturbed northeast quadrant below which imprints were found; (2) possible rodent activity was reported on profile drawings (19) and in excavators' notes and floor plots (121 instances); (3) no endorsement from Dincauze was expected or desired; (4) the Paleoindian claims are valid by Griffin's criteria; (5) MacNeish has followed high standards of reporting for decades and will continue to do so.