The true art of science is a well designed experiment. Some of my favorite examples are the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment and the Rutherford gold foil experiment. These were simple yet profound experiments that were compelling because they tested a hypothesis so well and so thoroughly.
Having an idea and being inspired by that idea are great. However, what separates the idea-people from the great scientists is the ability to test that idea in a compelling manner. So not only should it test your hypothesis, but it should test it in such a way that it makes the conclusion obvious as day.
To the specific hypothesis at hand, your hypothesis should not be "yeti sightings are fake", as others have mentioned. What you want are experimental observations and tests that are so compelling for an alternative that the yeti explanation simply falls by the wayside.
I also use the word "compelling" a lot because it is an extremely important characteristic of good science. In scientific arguments between hypothesis, it is the strength of the experiments that compels acceptance.