I'll bet the hairs found in the cave aren't of a yeti. I'd be surprised if they turned out to be from any unknown animal.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot_2.html snip:
But the vast majority of scientists still believe Bigfoot is little more than supermarket tabloid fodder. They wonder why no Bigfoot has ever been captured, dead or alive.
snip:
After Bigfoot tracker Ray Wallace died in a California nursing home last year, his children finally announced that their prank-loving dad had created the modern myth of Bigfoot when he used a pair of carved wooden feet to create a track of giant footprints in a northern California logging camp in 1958.
Dennett (writer for
Skeptical Inquirer magazine) says he's not surprised by the flood of Bigfoot sightings.
"It's the same kind of eyewitness reports we see for the Loch Ness Sea Monster, UFOs, ghosts, you name it," he said. "The monster thing is a universal product of the human mind. We hear such stories from around the world."
~~
Yes, “the monster thing” is universal. Even many NASA astronauts who have seen UFOs don’t rule out the possibility, however slight, that some UFO might be alien crafts. Neither do I. I doubt that
any are, but I’m not totally convinced. Not yet. (Neither is my daughter, an astrophysicist who was on the Cassini launch team. Maybe we're both nuts.)
As for Bigfoot, Nessie and ghosts, they’re not on my list of possible “monsters,” but I don’t diss people, including scientists, who want to investigate reports of them. How would investigating sightings and examining possible physical evidence of these things be considered pseudoscience? In my opinion, pseudoscience is dismissing out of hand all things generally thought to be too weird to be true.