Great! Now where do I go to ensure a confrontation in my lifetime, which is growing shorter by the minute?! :-)
Even allowing f/a 4-to-1 ratio of unreported to reported encounters, the # of encounters/square miles/time = a very small number.
So, some of us have to deal in "belief" or, if that word is anathema to some, with weighing the evidence and determining if probable cause exists to believe that Bigfoot exists.
For me, it's not "convinced based on a website discussion" so much as its my belief/probable cause meter is moved this way or that by consistencies between and within individual reports, information gained that allows me to assign a greater/lesser amount of weight to types of evidence, and in many cases, individuals who have graciously provide additional information in response to pointed questions (almost always by PM) about their claimed encounter. An imperfect solution, yes, but until you shoot one or I run over one, the only one we have.
That matches my experience almost to a T. Did not even think about Bigfoot until stumbling across a Legend Meets Science re-run and the publicity about the DNA review that was going to settle the issue f/all time.
And like Terry, directly above, I am cautiously and optimistically coming down on the "exists" time, but if anything, the amount of at times outrageous claims and stories that populated this forum really put a heavy weight on the negative side of the scales.
EDITED TO ADD: Not sure why the quoted posters aren't showing up, but the appear when I use the editor. Sorry. From the top its JDL, 1980squatch, norse, and dmaker. Edited Anew: Freakin' computers....