There is no conclusive proof the yeti exists, there is no evidence to base their thoughts, behaviours, instincts or strength on. On top of that the evidence does not truly support the yeti theory even if we discount the fact that we cant explain anything about the animal in question and cant even prove it exists.
Still doesnt prove that there were punches to the faces. And just because we cant judge a Yetis physical attributes doesnt mean we can dismiss a Yeti attack of some kind.
There is no conclusive proof that the Higgs Boson is the Particle that the Physicists have been searching for for decades. There is no conclusive proof that Jesus existed. There is no conclusive proof that Yeti exist. But all have one thing in common. There is plenty of evidence, if you look for it.
This is an interesting point in terms of understanding the truth. Not specifically the truth about the existence of the yeti, but the truth on any subject. The point is the difference between belief and truth. Humans are social creatures, and there is a hierarchy within the social order. The higher the person, or organisation within the hierarchy, the greater the influence, and subsequently the greater the pressure to conform and willingness to believe. This system can be beneficial when those higher in the hierarchy are knowledgeable, experienced and wise. However it can also be flawed if within that hierarchy unsubstantiated conclusions are drawn.
In this respect, for many many years relatively modern humans believed that the earth was flat, and all celestial bodies revolved around it. Even today, although we have acquired much more knowledge we still don't truly understand everything about any particular thing.. We are discovering new things all the time. The acquisition of knowledge isn't a destination, it is a journey.
In terms of the existence of Yeti or bigfoot there is evidence. Ten thousand eye witness accounts (that have been documented), many physical foot prints, with dermal ridges, photographs, and video. There is far more evidence for the existence of big foot than there is for the existence of God. But God is established as a part of the hierarchical social order so there are probably more people who believe in God than people who believe in bigfoot. I am not concluding anything on either.
If you are reading this and you have made a conclusion that bigfoot does not exist - ask yourself why you have made that conclusion. What is it based on?
I dont think we should conclude that bigfoot does not exists, any more than we should conclude that the universal gravitational constant is actually a constant.
If you don't conclude that bigfoot does not exist then is there a possibility that such a creature was responsible for the dpi? There is some evidence that aligns with such a scenario. But not enough substantiate it.