Sadly, I think I agree with you.
And Rand Rover, your beaver argument is more like this:
A tree falls in the forest in an area with a historically high concentration of beavers.
Monstro, you with the face, et al: “Those damn beavers! Always chewing on trees and knocking them down!”
Everyone else: “How do yo know it was beavers? Could have been loggers, or a lightning strike, or maybe the tree just rotted and died.”
M, ywtf, etc.: “Nope, it’s beavers. Look at the teeth marks on the trees, the traces of brown fur on scene, the other trees in the beaver dam. Lightning, loggers, and rot are all good points, but there’s no record of a thunderstorm, no sign of rot, and the area isn’t known for logging. Why are you denying that it was beavers when it’s so obvious? Beavers in the forest are a pervasive problem.”
EE: “Oh? Why do you think there is a pervasive beaver problem?”
M—: “Because trees are always faling in the forest, there is a long history of beaver activity in the area, overwhelming anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, and occasional clear-cut cases, of which we believe this is an example.”
EE: “And how do you know that beavers are responsible in those cases?”
M—: “Because of the pervasive beaver problem! There is ample evidence for this issue going back centuries! What are you, stupid or something?”