Wow. I must be jaded (or clear-headed from being away a bit). But this just cracked me up in its silliness, right from the stylized wordmark itself to the entire setup.

Besides, Old Yellow Top, as one squatch was renown, wasn't in the Rocky Mountains, but in the Cobalt-Temagami, Ontario region. Colloquials like "Yellow Top" don't just get up and hop into another geographical setting through folklore. That's what teh intarweb is for (or "intarwebs" in the U.S., since you guys are lucky-ducky).

I'd be mindful of ranking on the US during this climate. It's not too bright considering it's making us all crazy. In the wrong frenzied state of mind that we're in, we might just take over Canada because it's right there................. and we can.

Kinda hard to rank when over three-quarters of our exports go there. When America falls ill, we go into coma. Canada exists because America does (e.g., the Revolution created two nations, not one). And trying to take over Canada would be economically penny wise and pound foolish for everyone involved, especially so these days. But that's another topic for the poli-sci crowd.

Further, I have lifelong ties and family there (which makes sense: I used to live there), and the meltdown south of 49 has directly impacted virtually everyone I know -- most within a two-week period in December when they were all unceremoniously laid off. It's impacting people I know here, as well.

Just a bit on US/Canada relations . . .

So much rhetoric down here about "reducing our dependence on foreign oil" but our #1 importer of both crude and petroleum is our buffalo-plaid neighbors to the north. I kinda think it's a good thing to be an important market for Canadian oil.



Back to the video. Nice fake.

Have I missed ytsightings or is he ignoring this thread? If it was my video...real or fake...I would be here talking about it.

BUMP...ytsightings are you there?

BUMP...I really would like to hear from ytsightings! Or I guess someone else to tell me that I shouldn't hold my breath.

Just saw this on youtube Yellow top hoax

The hoax video is more interesting than most BF videos we see these days. I mean really, who runs around the woods covered on fur and naked?

A guy with a fur fedish looking to get shot?

FWIW, Russian hominologists long ago noted the curious two-toned (and sometimes even three-toned) coloring of their Almas/Almasty in the Caucasus Mountain region. They also have had reports of a number of 'Yellow-Top'-like creature sightings. I don't recall which particular article or researcher reported and wrote on this phenom (Bourtsev, Trachtengerts, Bayanov, etc.?), but they were aware of the mid-northern Ontario Tri-Town area's famous 'Yellow Top' episodes and commented on it as being unusual but not necessarily rare, since it matched up with reports in their areas. What is noteworthy about the Tri-Town (Cobalt, Haileybury, New Liskeard) stories is the lengthy period of time over which the so-called 'Yellow Top' creature has been spotted -- over a 75 year period! This suggests that either Squatchy lives in the wilds a very long time or that the two- or three-toned coloration genetic characteristic is passed on to offspring without difficulty. The Russians contend that the yellow hair on their upper bodies makes them easier to spot. They also noted that the yellow color was always reported somewhere on the head area or uppermost part of their bodies and never below the upper torso region. Interesting...
Dudlow

All I want to know is just how close did these guys to see that the creature's penis and to see that it was cut....wait a minute..on second thought I dont want to know and I really dont want to know why they were looking at its penis?

It's interesting the timing of the 3 videos on his web site, ending with the "hoax" reveal and self-loathing, for the benefit of his reputation, if he ever had one. The hoax reveal video seems to have come on his site, after being bashed in here, with agreements of the fakeout. Yes,,,,,,,,,you're all just that good, hehe.

Another one bites the dust, without ever making a dime.

Well.....He was exposed enough


Bob

How do we know that the guy who confessed on Youtube actually made the video? After all, we've got three people who confessed to being "Patty" in the Patterson film.

NWSquatcher and Ronnie Bass found that he made the footage for an upcoming film. He was trying to pass it off the the BF crowd as real footage until they proved it was not. Then he confessed. I think that's how it went down but it was a while ago so I might be mistaken.

So what about this Jim Holden guy. Is he just a stooge in this or were both men either in on it or hoaxed by some circumcised yahoo running around with a suit on and his genitalia hanging out the zipper?

Ok. On the website (www.yellowtopsightings.com) the guy admits that it was a hoax in a video/audio statement. The claim is that both himself and his witness were the unwitting victims of this hoax and that they figured it out by the........um, wedding tackle. They realized that it was, apparently, circumcised. Of course, a BF in the wild wouldn't sport a tailored appendage like that, so they came to the conclusion it must be a man. Ok. Well, I captured a still image from the most recent "sighting" vid and played around with adjustments to it. This photo is what I ended up with. IDK, but it looks like a young man in winter apparel (note: parka with hoodie underneath, some kind of knit cap and hiking boots (maybe)). Just what it looks like to me, that's all. What does everyone else think?
Click to view attachment

ps. If it is what it looks like to me; what about the twig and berries being circumcised? How would you be able to tell that?!!

Busted

LOL!! I shouldn't be laughing, but that WAS funny.



Whatever happened to ol' Todd, and his "Scientific Investigation"?? I miss that guy. It was like a (celebrity) comedy roast everytime there was a post about him. When are we going to see the "proof" he guaranteed us!!?? Hmmm??

Just ignore me people, I'm in a mood this morning, LOL!

LOL,









Sorry for wasting valuable space, but I just had to.

I suspect that the entire situation is faked, including the newspaper clipping. The guy's an artist, and the clipping could easily have been generated in his computer, and anyone seeing that clip would think it was real. That's easy stuff to fake! The whole thing is a project for the artist, he's having fun, poking bigfoot believers in the ribs and laughing at both the people who buy into any of it, and those that get excited trying to proclaim it as a fake. He wins either way. He made a nice looking suit for the most part, the big booty, the padded shoulders. The big feet were a bit of a problem though, as well as not getting the suit tight enough on the ankles. Not a bad effort, way better than the BBC try, and considering that the guy is probably on a limited budget, it is a shot across the bow for the PGF I suspect.

So, with the initial note in mind, and the recent video that includes another alleged eyewitness (who had a much worse looking cell phone video) stating that the bigfoot had massive genitals that were circumcised, is there any doubt left as to the authenticity of this thing? In all fairness, they did post their disclaimer, saying that it was for entertainment purposes.

Come on, look closer. You don't actually believe anything that you saw or heard or read, do you? There's no parka or hoodie, it's a fur suit made to resemble Patty as closely as possible, complete with the big booty. Check out the feet too, they have oversized feet on too, and it makes it a bit hard for the guy to walk in the brush. It's a flat out hoax, from the suit, to the story, to the apology, the whole thing. The dude's an artist having a bit of fun with the whole bigfoot mystery, tapping into everyone's soft spots.



It's also quite possible that if there even was a film being considered, it may have been one similar to Borat, where it is a documentary styled joke played on people. Anything is possible, except of course that any of the stuff presented on that website was authentic. :-)

I don't think there's any doubt it's a fake. My post was made some time ago now and, I'm sorry, I don't see a complete fur suit.

Questions:

1. You can't sneak up on BF in crunchy leaves as heard in the video. How did the photographer get this close?

2. Why is someone foolish enough to run around in a suit witnessed by several people? Someone is going to blast the faker.

3. What else can you see if you can pick out custom genitals? Couldn't the witness tell if it was a suit or real fur?

4. Why is the rump of the "BF" sticking out? A fold in a suit or big like Patty's?

5. Do the legs look skinny to you?

6. Is there a good chance that BF's gentials are way different from a humans? Can we discredit the film based on gentials alone?

7. When BF is spotted, would it duck into some trees close to the human and growl or just run out of the area?

Good catch. If they are that wrong on something as simple as time of day, then why would / should anything else be believed?

Answer: The bigfoot is his buddy in a fur suit. It's a staged hoax.



It was not witnessed by several people. The witnesses are all fake. The whole scenario is faked. The whole incident, the witnesses, everything, is faked. As far as we can tell, these guys did two camera shots with their suit. One for the phony camera phone shot, and one for the one up in the woods. It could have been in a park, someone's big yard, anywhere. They did not need to run around a whole lot of times in hunting season in order to get their shots. It was all set up and easily and safely done with no danger of being shot. The witnesses were not real.



Answer: There are no genitals. None on the fake suit, none that the fake witnesses saw. No genitals at all. It was a hoax. Dude, the "witnesses" were not real witnesses, they were all actors playing their parts. Listen again, they are fake!



Answer: The big butt was designed to mimic the butt of Patty. Patty is considered real by bigfoot followers, and so if someone is going to design a hoax, then they need to include Patty's definitive butt in the suit. Very simple. Why is Patty's rump so big?



They look just like a guy's in a fur suit, with oversized feet. You can see the feet, you can see the suit has not enough taper, like pant legs do.



Dude, there ARE no genitals. Because some actor says that he saw a big penis any reason to believe that he actually saw it? This whole project is such a clear joke, and if the artist who made this hoax was reading these posts, he'd be dying laughing. No genitals were there. The main guy says he saw them, the other fake guy (and believe me, he was a fake too) says he saw them, and so people really believe it? Oh hey, there are two people claiming two separate sightings, it must be true? Heck, BOTH incidents were totally set up, totally fake. That was obvious from the very beginning, and they are having a laugh at the expense of those that believed it, or any of it.



Who knows? You can't compare a video of a guy in a suit to the actions and behavior of an as of yet unproven creature. You can imagine what a real one might do in any given situation, but it is only imagining until one is proven to exist. So far, there is no proof, only belief. People believe what they want to believe, and the artist that made this current project is well aware of that and has played people like a guitar. That people would believe such an obvious fake, and believe things that they did not even see, like that this fake even had genitals at all, when it didn't (the hoaxers only claimed it had genitals, and that suggestion is taken as truth), then it doesn't add a lot of credibility to any other sightings or films.

People need to be a bit more willing to consider hoaxes and fakes. The desire to believe in bigfoot clouds judgment and makes people suspend disbelief, seeing what they believe is a real bigfoot in shadows, bushes, and outright fakery. Bigfoot does not get any more real when people believe in fakes.

The answer was clear right from the beginning. Do a bit of research on the filmmaker. This is an artistic project, the whole thing, start to finish. Everything! Nothing is real about it at all, not the news clippings, nothing. He didn't answer the question directly because he wants to deceive, not outright lie. It was clear to me from day one that this was all in fun for the guys pulling it off. The interesting thing about the bigfoot community is that they are loathe to call a fake a fake. It's as if it breaks some unwritten rule of the community. As if it is admitted that people do make hoaxes, and do make fairly decent hoaxes, that it undermines the very existence of bigfoot in the first place, and there is no room for even a little bit of doubt about the existence of bigfoot. And so, fakes are allowed to go unchallenged mostly. Even the most obvious blobsquatches have people coming up with crazy excuses for why they are real, or maybe just questionable, leaving room for them to be real. At the Bigfoot Roundup in Yakima, there was a horrible hoaxed poster hung on the barn wall, full size. It was so clearly and obviously a fake, and yet NOBODY (aside from myself) would say so. I asked several of the top people there what they thought about it, and they hedged the question versus admit it was a fake. That was very telling, very insightful as to the degree of objectivity and scrutiny that comes to play in investigations. When someone can create a fake, even an obvious fake, and it goes along as an "unresolved" encounter, it just blows me away. When a bad Photoshop job, or an obvious fur suit job slips by as "unresolved" or possibly authentic, then all credibility is lost. Call a fake a fake. Let the hoaxers have their fun, but don't be so fast to believe what is an obvious fake, and call it what it is. A nice effort.

Thanks for your well stated opinion Tontar and to error on the side of caution is always wise. You have a valid opinion, and the person behind the video states he believes he was hoaxed by someone in the suit. He seems unsure. The second witness claims the suit looked phoney due to an apendage.

Given the energy and legitimacy with which I have proclaimed Colorado's "Yellow Top" Bigfoot to be genuine (with the footage I shot last year as a cornerstone), it pains me to report that the creature in fact must be a hoax.

Now to say this was all a set up is less possible but could happen. To debunk a story, we need facts, and I don't see any but conjectures. I would like to know the history or biography of the film makers. Do they have a history of phoney films or are they really out in the field much of the time? Where are the other witnesses of the Yellow Top BF?


Many of us in the bigfoot community are fairly wary when it comes to vidoes and photographs and are inclined more on the cautious side. Many of us spotted the freezer BF right off as a hoax just due to the facial features. Yes, I want the yellow top BF to be real, but I need more information about the film maker and other answers. For now it just another film.

Just read the thread from the beginning will you guys? It's been dismissed already. I still don't think that there is even a complete fur suit.

With all due respect, I appreciate your desire for real bigfoot to be discovered. I'd love for the same to happen. I'd love for bigfoot to be real, and for it to be found, alive, and documented officially and scientifically. But until that time, I am not so eager to believe it is a real entity or creature or form of human or ape that I will suspend my own skepticism (I don't want to be labeled as a "skeptic"), nor my own sneaky way of thinking, or creative way of thinking, that I don't pick up on clues that point to a blatant hoax. There are far too many people that pull off hoaxes. They even attend the bigfoot conferences and try to pull off hoaxes to everyone there, in person, while showing their faces to everyone!

There are endless reasons why people do it, but to me one thing was certain about this Yellowtop bigfoot and that is that it was a setup from the get go. The minute I saw the video I knew that at some point in the future the other shoe was going to fall. Check out the guy's bio, his projects, his sense of humor, and so on. The guy is having a ball with this hoax. I would put real money down, betting that he is even now still having a good belly laugh at the conversations that still rage on about his event. That he found a good way to pull off a decent looking hoax, get it looked at by hundreds of people, believed by hundreds of people (and laughing at that), and then exposing it as a hoax in a classic tongue in cheek fashion, saying that it had a massive, circumcised penis, and then come to find that when he flipped on the hoax light there were still people that did not get it. Still thought that some of it was true. Tried to find parts ot believe in while ignoring the goofier parts of the story.

The thing is, sure, it's my opinion only, but if you get this guy on the phone and have a chat with him, you may find out that everything I am saying is the truth. That he was just having a bit of fun pulling people's legs. The whole thing was a staged event, a falsified event, that there was not this guy in the paper with some son with a camera phone. That photo in the paper is also fake, NOT the guy on the phone. Clip art. A dummied up newspaper report. Contact the newspaper and see if there really is such a newspaper in the first place, and secondly, if there is, if they ever ran a story about Yellowtop bigfoot. My bet is that there never was such a story. Mocking something up like that is SO easy to do. The whole project could be done in a short amount of time. The hardest part would be cobbling together the costume, complete with the big, rubber gorilla hands.

I don't see why making the whole thing up is less probable (you said possible, but I think meant probable). Why is that? To do a simple hoax, with one witness is just that, one witness. Start adding more witnesses and you have corroboration, adding to the sense of authenticity. Heck, they could have added several more news clippings to suggest that it had been seen at a high school, in the girl's gym, anything they wanted to make up. But also, the more news articles one fakes, the more chance of someone debunking them. Note the clippings are classic TV style, torn edges, paper texture, and so on, zoomed up on just like we are used to seeing on 60 Minutes. It's familiar, so we buy into it. But the articles themselves are faked.

Yes, it is conjecture, but come on! It is so clearly a fake to me. Give the guy a call, chat him up, see if he can keep from laughing on the phone.

Over the last few years I have spoken with 4 BF eye witnesses and each person did not fall into the kook category but the normal bin. When I see a video, I want it to be real but I look for hoax signs. Sometimes I will pursue a video until I can see enough facts to get it off my mind and trash the video as a fake. I don't know enough about this video yet.

Your mindset seems to doubt BF all together which is valid. Noone likes to be duped and made a fool of. If BF does not exist then I will be the biggest fool of all but at least I looked at all the facts available.




Note the clippings are classic TV style, torn edges, paper texture, and so on, zoomed up on just like we are used to seeing on 60 Minutes. It's familiar, so we buy into it. But the articles themselves are faked. Contact the newspaper and see if there really is such a newspaper in the first place, and secondly, if there is, if they ever ran a story about Yellowtop bigfoot.

Now you are talking research and fact gathering and putting opinions to the test. Where are these clippings? Can someone do this so we can get into facts.


My bet is that there never was such a story. Mocking something up like that is SO easy to do. The whole project could be done in a short amount of time. The hardest part would be cobbling together the costume, complete with the big, rubber gorilla hands.

I can't really see hands or feet.


Give the guy a call, chat him up, see if he can keep from laughing on the phone.

What's his name and phone number? I emailed him and no reply yet.[/quote]


Questions:

1. Who are the other witnesses?
2. Are there reports of Yellow Top in a distinct area?
3. How far back do the reports go?


Here is a tree break found on the coast range of Oregon.

This thread is the third or fourth generation spinoff of a thread that got it's door slammed shut.

Didn't the person who shot this clip say it was fake in order to promote his upcoming film?

Is it real again because a certain amount of time has passed?

Why are all of the old hoaxes being bumped?

He said it might be fake since another witness said it had genitals that were human like.

Actually, I don't think the guy admitted it was a hoax; he just said that he wouldn't vouch for it's authenticity. He also implied that he was probably the victim of a hoax through these films. (Yes, because someone stated that he saw CIRCUMCISED penis.). My initial post was meant to point out that this guy may have been lying about not knowing it was a hoax. (He claimed to see a circumsized penis in the video also). I don't believe that ther was any kind of costume. Just a buddy running through the woods in his normal clothes with everything tucked in and some shaky recording.

I'm sure I've exhausted my welcome on this topic, so I won't belabor it too much more. It would be so simple to come up with the storyline and the news clippings and the whole yellowtop event. You can see one of the feet as the thing slips into the trees on the second segment of the original clip. You see the foot lift off the ground, and there is a barefoot sole to the foot, but it is also a BIG foot, oversized like from a costume shop. Same with the hand, you can see a big rubber ape glove on the left hand at just about the same time. I will go back and do some screen captures at some point after the weekend, but pulling it up full screen and going frame by frame makes it easy to see. You can see the reddish haired suit too, and the big, non-tapered pant legs on it, just like an off the shelf costume. There is one particular part where it looks compelling, a lot like Patty (who also has some dubious elements), which I suspect they were going for, with the big butt and a stooped head, but there's a big floppy fold on the belly part from stooping over.

The guys had some fun making the video, expanded on it a bit with newspaper clippings, and then called it quits with the final scene featuring the whole penis story. That was their swan song.

Now about that tree break in Oregon. Any marks from what caused it? It looks like the limbs are all dead. Could you tell if it was dead before the break or if it died after he break. The limbs are pretty brown, indicating that it had been killed a fair bit earlier. Any word on those things?

I will have to look closer at the video to see what you are talking about. The bulge at waist high was a question that I had. I hate it when vidoes are proved to be fakes...............

I didn't see any marks on the tree break. The needles were brown since the break had happened probably a month earlier. It was a healthy fir tree and broken up high. There were several breaks like this along the road between Agness and Grants Pass, Oregon. The trees were so stout I can't see how wind, or snow could do this. At the same time, I broke off another smaller tree to see how hard it was and it was really hard to break it..............really hard. I had to bend it over then shove it parallel to the ground back into the trunk to get it to snap. Only a caveman could easily do this! Here is a picture of that tree.

I actually think the narrator sounds like Todd Standing

I'D like to know where everyone is getting these cameras and camcorders with pop bottle lenses. CAN ANYONE, take a clear photo? Of anything?

Click to view attachment