If you set aside the anecdotes, you are left with evidence that has multiple potential sources. None of it is conclusive, and of the potential sources, the only ones ever proven are fabrication or error. Not once has the coin landed on the side of " this could only have come from an undocumented ape". Never. It is no wonder you focus on the anecdotes. Your approach is unscientific in that it is steeped in the unfalsifiable. You prefer to focus on that which cannot be proven or disproven. This provides you with all the wiggle room you want to make your grand, but ultimately empty, proclamations. You're not fooling anyone who examines this phenomenon with a hard skeptical and scientific eye.
I don't believe that bigfoot exists simply because of the gap between the thousands of reports and the utter lack of conclusive hard evidence. That gap just gets bigger the more the reports march in and no supporting evidence is provided. That you see this as a strong point belies your lack of understanding.