h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I would seriously question the 1997 BBC link as giving any definitive proof that the Yeti exists.

Given the content of the article, the word "scientists" is probably being used in its loosest context, and the word "adventurers" would probably be more apt. See how the tone of the article changes by just changing these two words?

What leads me to believe that these people were not scientists are comments like :-

"The participants were in agreement that the film was genuine and that the yeti exists.", this, despite the assertion that it might just have been some guy in a suit.

"However conference participants from America, Canada and Russia all dismissed the hoax theory" - not a very sceptical thing to do for people who are meant to be born sceptics...

"Although there have been many reported sightings of the yeti, none of them have been documented with evidence in any way. " - Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that evidence was the first pillar of science?

Oh, yes, and where are this guy's Messner's photographs? He has had 4 years after all....

mmm... yes. I'm always cautious of bad journalists who use the word "scientist" to describe charlatans who claim to be so. If they knew what they were doing, give their names and credentials, eg: "sprinks leda, evolutionary ecologist" (not my job but you get the idea.)

Yes, "charlatans" meet in Moscow to discuss the Yeti is even more apt. A really astounding piece of bad journalism from the Beeb.