Don’t be so sure, bear pretty sneaky.
The linked CNN story contains this clunker: “A team of scientists ran DNA tests on bits and pieces of “Yeti” samples kept in treasured collections around the world and found that the pieces came from more mundane — but equally rare — creatures.”
The endangered species the hair/tissue samples actually belonged to are indeed “rare”, but “rare” is not equivalent to “nonexistent”, which describes the Yeti.
And it could be your aunt Agnes on a bad hair day.
No one has disproved this conjecture, so it’s as valid as any other.
(Underlining mine)
Wait, are you claiming that the boggy creek monster is real? Can you provide a link to some of these incidents?
Bears will not replace us!
(Yetis might, but not bears).
Yeah, I agree that this article is a big nothing burger. Especially since the second article, from a few years ago, has been out in the public sphere for awhile. It’s unlikely that that even is one, exclusive explanation for the Yeti myth and the various Yeti “sightings”. Yetis are about as real as Shiksappeal.
What I want to know is, do Yetis bounce?
Yeti no, Bumbles yes.
Not at all. I don’t believe. I am a confirmed skeptic. But, folks in these parts do believe. I cannot cite it. I am sure there are plenty of news stories about it. I am scared of it because as a young child I saw that crappy movie. I am also afraid of aliens and zombies. Doesn’t mean I think they are real. I know these are irrational fears. But what can you do? Immersion therapy is not possible
I beleive that the Yeti legend is based upon bears, yes, and so do reputable scientists. I even had a link.
*
You *dont beleive there are bears?
:dubious:
BTW, most Bigfoot lore is obviously hoaxes. But I am sure that occassionaly a bear sighting has been called a Bigfoot sighting.
In place of immersion therapy, I recommend you watch the MST3K episode that features Boggy Creek II: and the Legend Continues. That’ll cure you.
Becuase sceintist have confirmed there are bears in the Himalayas, of that there is no doubt at all. Himalayan brown bear (*Ursus arctos isabellinus).
- It is a fact.
Himalayan brown bear - Wikipedia
also Himalayan black bear (Ursus thibetanus laniger)
Gobi bear,* Ursus arctos gobiensis*
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/48198944#page/204/mode/1up
There are also two species or subspeices known only from one specimen, such as the Tibetan blue bear (Ursus arctos pruinosus.) Thinking that there could be another unknown subpecies of bear is hardly Cryptozoology.
Oxford University genetics professor Bryan Sykes: *“But we can speculate on what the possible explanation might be. It could mean there is a sub species of brown bear in the High Himalayas descended from the bear that was the ancestor of the polar bear…”
*
So there is a* Oxford professor* saying that there could be a unknown subspecies.
I think you mean ‘Aunt Bunny’, Gus’s wife.
That’s right. They’re very good at disguising themselves. Remember F Troop?
“Make right turn at big rock that look like bear, then make left turn at big bear that look like rock”
Thanks Chronos.
Bigfoot “lore” long predates the hoaxes, and is quite likely to have been inspired by bears and/or vivid imaginations and/or the tricks that he light and mind can play on us.
And the Oxford prof mentions a subspecies, as you say. Big whoop. New subspecies, even of well-know, large mammals, are found or designated all the time.
Bottom line: is there conclusive proof? Not yeti. 
Bigfoot hoaxes started in 1884, see the “Jacko hoax”. First newspaper mention of Bigfoot was in 1895, and was referring to a huge Grizzly. But yes, there were some rather dubious Native legends that could predate them, but it is hard to correlate those with the more modern descriptions of Bigfoot.
Fine, don’t be impressed. 
OK, so we already knew that there were bears there, and some scientists are saying yet again that there are bears there. So? What does this have to do with yetis?
This is even worse than “Science was wrong about ____, and therefore science is wrong about ____ too”. This is “Science was right about ____, and therefore science is wrong about ____ too”.
So science was right about the Yeti remains being bears. I suppose one can hold out hope for there being some hominid or ape there also, but Occam’s razor shaves pretty close.
I think it is nice to have a mystery solved.
Sasquatch legend goes back to before us palefaces were even here.
Did you notice how poorly Sykes comes off in the second of your links in the OP? Essentially, the more recent study refutes his speculation about a previously unknown bear species giving rise to Yeti sightings, or that his samples matched a paleolithic polar bear.
And Sykes’ claims have been a source of amusement elsewhere:*
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/no_reason_to_believe_that_sykess_yeti-bear_cryptid_exists
I am no more impressed by Sykes being an Oxford professor than I am by William Thompson being a CDC scientist when conjuring up a vaccine conspiracy, or by Kary Mullis being a Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist when going on about alien abduction involving a glowing raccoon.
*the Skeptical Inquirer is a good source of articles about Yeti/Bigfoot mythology.