Jump to content
SweatyYeti

The "Three Confessions" Claim

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

This thread is for discussion and analysis of kitakaze's "Three Confessions" claim, relating to the PGF. 

 

I did two (advanced) forum searches.....for the words 'confession' and 'confessions', with kitakaze as the author....and compiled many of his statements relating to the alleged "three confessions".

 

 

Here are the most significant statements of his, from the searches....in chronological order...starting with his oldest statements first...(so we can see how this "Bombshell" claim of his DE-VOLVES, from quite bold...and definitive.....to something a little less "Ka-Boom-ish").  

I've highlighted in bold kit's most significant statements...

 

 

December 15th, 2010....to Bill Munns:


"I have a massive edge on you right now that you do not know about. There are extremely important things I have discovered, some through effort some through luck, but what I have found is the end of the rainbow. If your tinkering and numbers and sun dials leads you to think you've solved the mystery of the PGF, all my congratulations to you. You may think I am seeking to win. When you come to where I am, you will realize what it really means and how the desire to win vs the truth is futile.
You may achieve convincing the choir you were right all along, but what kind of achievement is that? You convinced Bigfooters that the PGF is really Bigfoot. You've done that countless times over already. Try convincing the American Natural History Museum and then I'll jump up and clap. I am saying nothing short of a dead bigfoot that looks reasonably like Patty, or clear footage of good provenance of a living one, will sway science to your side.
What do I need? What is the only thing Bigfooters will accept? The answer is simple and stated to me a million times over: The suit or a confession. I aim for no less than smack solid hammer dropping truth. It does exist. Is it the suit? A confession? Something else no one thought of? Some combination of all or part of those? I'll never tell until the time is right."

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/2126-thoughts-about-longs-book-making-of-bigfoot/&page=3#comment-24946

 

 

January 15th, 2012:
 "The documentary I do will show the PGF as a hoax engineered primarily by Al DeAtley and Roger Patterson, but far more importantly, you will get your suit and your confession. Those things exist and I didn't make them up."


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/872-reasons-not-to-consider-the-pgf-a-hoax/&page=136#comment-133907

 

 

March 5th, 2012:


Q: Roguefooter: "Do you have a smoking gun? Or just an assembled collection of questionable details?"


A: "Yes, I do. It has nothing to do with hearsay or contradictions of any kind. It's not a subjective interpetation of which print I think is which, or if a boot is wet, it's just done.

What that is will be shown in a documentary. I won't show even a single glimpse of it because it is not the only thing I am bringing forward as proof. There are other massive things and above anything else, I have to deal with legal issues and the extreme behaviour of fanatical believers. There is just no way that I will show anything publicly until everything I need for myself and for my project is complete. There are a small handful of people assisting my efforts. Until the time has come where the obstacles to showing the PGF a hoax are removed, they will be the only people who have any idea what I have been doing with this project. An Internet forum is the last place on Earth I would show any of it. I would in fact have to be soaringly stupid to do such a thing for the sake of sating the curiosity of intransigent believers. I will enjoy the fruits of a long labour. The following is as much detailas I am ever going to give on the subject.


Proof of the PGF hoax is not a hypothetical. My finding it has involved equal parts luck, effort, and willingness to stick to the source and be Axel Foley about it. The proof of that hoax is not one thing, it is three. They are...
"The proof of that hoax is not one thing, it is three. They are...


1) The suit. It exists. It was not destroyed. The reason it still exists is more vanity and pride than anything else.


2) The confessions. These exist as well. The confession comes actually in three to four parts. Four if I can make cooperation happen, three if I don't. All of them the sources of the PGF.


3) Proof of the hoax on the film itself, specifically the second reel. The first and second reel both exist fully intact and the person who had it hated the subject of Bigfoot, hated bigfooters, and wanted nothing to do with them. This in the end was to my greatest advantage.
What exactly I have found and what I have done and what I am doing now remain the subject of a documentary.


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7117-pattys-feetand-the-footprints/&page=40#comment-568938

 

 

March 14th, 2012...(in this post, kit gives us the full list of his discoveries)...


"The suit was the first, then came the confession work, then came original copies of the first and second reel. I'm still dealing with legal and contractual issues with all of them."


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7624-bob-heironimus-on-pax-tvs-lie-detector/&page=17#comment-571678

 

 

March 16th, 2012:


"That's simply far too sensitive a thing to answer on the Internet, Jodie. Sorry.
I can tell you that my documentary will feature at least three confessions."


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7624-bob-heironimus-on-pax-tvs-lie-detector/&page=20#comment-572289

 


Jan. 10th, 2015:


"Sweaty, I've only recorded one confession of the PGF hoax. I've spoken with four who have admitted it."


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/8611-the-self-contradictions-of-bob-gimlin/&page=23#comment-885498

 

 

May 5th, 2015:


"Do I claim to have gotten three confessions or are you confused?"


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/5441-pgf-recreation-proposal/&page=30#comment-903983

 

 

May 24th, 2015:


"Sure. I said the confessions exist. I didn't say they are recorded. Recording all of them involved travel for the documentary I was unable to do before returning to Japan. You asked me and I answered you about this months ago..."


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/51256-was-roger-patterson-really-a-known-hoaxer/&page=4#comment-907029

 

 

June 23rd, 2015:


"I have never claimed to be in possession of either the suit or three confessions. I have only claimed to have recorded one confession, the others requiring me to have been in Yakima at a very specific time, which I was unable to do."
 "Getting those confessions recorded now is not simply a matter of picking up the phone and pressing record. This is still very much a situation of dealing with legalities and people who are personally motivated to prevent the hoax being exposed."


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/41675-the-bluff-creek-details-t-or-f/&page=9#comment-911679

 

 

June 25th, 2015:
 "I don't claim to have multiple confessions and the one I have been able to record is not of any powerful use without the others."


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/50381-patty-the-conehead/&page=18#comment-912025

 

 

July 21st, 2015:


"'Confessed' would not be as accurate as saying 'explicitly acknowledged the hoax amongst each other' in an off the record setting. An example would be Gimlin acknowledging his role in the hoax to his long time trusted friend and neighbor Bob Heironimus. "


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/51729-was-bob-titmus-of-questionable-character/&page=6#comment-915384

 

 

August 4th, 2015:


"I am currently working on trying to obtain a second alleged recorded confession and to authenticate it as being actually what it is purported to be. There are all sorts of questions one could ask about it that I will not answer as it could compromise the effort to document the claim."


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/51834-why-skeptics-can-still-enjoy-the-pgf/#comment-918040

 

 

August 14th, 2015:


"To get the suit revealed in the documentary relied on my using a recorded confession to get the owner to cooperate. It was not something I was able to do. On top of that, the owner could very easily make things very bad for me if I tried to corner them into revealing the PGF as a hoax. I thought of it like trying to grab a tiger by the... let's say tail."

 


"I do not now know who made the suit beyond Al DeAtley financing it. I am now trying to obtain a confession that does explain who made the suit and how, but it is a work in progress. There are three living people I know of that can answer who made the suit and I have no expectation of getting cooperation from any of them."

 

Also from August, 2015:

 

  Q:  "In what form do the "two unrecorded confessions" "exist"....if they are not recorded?"


A:  "Numerous personal discussions regarding the hoax by the principles."

 

Q:  "What made you so certain...(in your reply to Jodie)...that your documentary "would include at least three confessions"...when you have now said that they "were not best described as confessions, but rather as 'principals acknowledging the hoax among themselves, or some other person"?"


 A: "Because I was planning to go to Yakima to record those confessions."

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/38572-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell-2/&page=50#comment-920168
 

 

So, basically....kit's claim of "three confessions existing", de-volved from....."Hammer Dropping Proof"....to....them "being best described as principals acknowledging the hoax amongst themselves".   :wacko:

 

 

Later, I will post pairs of statements which appear to conflict with each other. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Really did fall apart, to the point even skeptics don't believe is smack solid hammer droppin' truth !

 

"The first and second reel both exist fully intact.." I find this quote interestin', as I've asked him before about all this, he claimed he never viewed the actual second reel, but a copy of it ! He's claimin' the Dahinden's have both films, and he claims to have viewed a copy of the second reel.  

Without viewing either first or second reel, how does he know they exist fully intact ?  

 

Soooooo...kitakaze claims to have located the first reel...the second reel...a copy of the second reel which he viewed...an viewed a video of a suit he claims is "the suit"...or possibly a copy of the claimed "suit" ! An has provided zip for evidence to back up his claim...DeAtley was more helpful ! ha ! ha !  ;) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

Could it be the proof wasn't foolproof? If someone that believes the PGF is a hoax truly had a smoking gun and had real proof that Roger hoaxed the PGF, why would we still be waiting years later to see it?

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
BFF Donor

I do not believe Kit believes his claims, I think he is sure that the PGF is a hoax which, in his mind, make it ok to hoax counter evidence.     I believe the information provided above is sufficient to require BFF administrators to ban Kitakaze for life.  

 

I'm going to push the report button, report his hoaxing, and see how it is handled.   It is likely either he will be banned .. or I will.   If I don't come back, uh, it's been fun, nice knowing you, and .. I hope to see you in the field.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
5 hours ago, PBeaton said:

Really did fall apart, to the point even skeptics don't believe is smack solid hammer droppin' truth !

 

 

 

Yeah, I'd say it fell apart, Pat. ;)  

 

You can see a steady decline in the boldness/strength of his "confessions" claim.  

 

The same basic pattern exists with the so-called "Bombshells" he claims he received from Bob Heironimus. It doesn't involve nearly as many statements, of his.....but the basic pattern is there, nonetheless. I can post his actual statements later...but, initially kit claimed to have received "major Bombshells" from Heironimus....and then later described revelations which were anything but "major bombshells". 

 

The 'M.O.' is the same, with these "bombshell" claims.....start out by talking BIG....and then, when the details are revealed...it all evaporates.

 

Interestingly, I noticed something very similar, in how kit names his image files...(a small sampling, from his BIG Photobucket library ;) )... 

 

htp://s1137.photobucket.com/user/DJKitakaze/media/Bigaaron2.jpg.html?sort=3&o=72

htp://s1137.photobucket.com/user/DJKitakaze/media/Bigattempt.jpg.html?sort=3&o=73

htp://s1137.photobucket.com/user/DJKitakaze/media/Bigfundy1.jpg.html?sort=3&o=82

htp://s1137.photobucket.com/user/DJKitakaze/media/Bigabominable.jpg.html?sort=3&o=78

htp://s1137.photobucket.com/user/DJKitakaze/media/Bigblur1.jpg.html?sort=3&o=87

htp://s1137.photobucket.com/user/DJKitakaze/media/Bigsweats39.jpg.html?sort=3&o=92

htp://s1137.photobucket.com/user/DJKitakaze/media/Bigbill2.jpg.html?sort=3&o=89

 

 

...and on.....and on....and on. The common theme in his file names......"Big". 

 

Kinda goes hand-in-hand....(or should I say.....naaa, I better not).....with his manner of speaking, on the forum. 

 

 

Quote

"The first and second reel both exist fully intact.." I find this quote interestin', as I've asked him before about all this, he claimed he never viewed the actual second reel, but a copy of it ! He's claimin' the Dahinden's have both films, and he claims to have viewed a copy of the second reel.  

Without viewing either first or second reel, how does he know they exist fully intact ?  

Soooooo...kitakaze claims to have located the first reel...the second reel...a copy of the second reel which he viewed...an viewed a video of a suit he claims is "the suit"...or possibly a copy of the claimed "suit" ! An has provided zip for evidence to back up his claim...DeAtley was more helpful ! ha ! ha !   

 

 

That particular claim of kit's is most definitely incorrect. It is has long been reported that Roger Patterson tore-off a strip of the 2nd Reel film, and gave it to somebody....(Rene Dahinden, I think). 

So that particular claim of kit's is a false claim. 

 

4 hours ago, MIB said:

I do not believe Kit believes his claims, I think he is sure that the PGF is a hoax which, in his mind, make it ok to hoax counter evidence.     I believe the information provided above is sufficient to require BFF administrators to ban Kitakaze for life.  

 

I'm going to push the report button, report his hoaxing, and see how it is handled.   It is likely either he will be banned .. or I will.   If I don't come back, uh, it's been fun, nice knowing you, and .. I hope to see you in the field.

 

MIB

 

 

Gee, I hope you don't get yourself banned, MIB. 

 

I'm glad to see you you're seeing kit's 'confessions' claim as a bit "fishy"....but, unfortunately...I don't think that making false statements....even intentionally false statements....is actually against the forum's Posting Rules. So, reporting those posts of his may not accomplish anything. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I stopped listening when he was adamant about Bob H. being in the film. Any credibility after that was simply gone.

 

Do I believe in the creature ? Of course not. I believe his purported claims even less. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

"   you will get your suit and your confession. Those things exist and I didn't make them up."

 

 

 

 

For a confession to exist, it must exist in some format in present time.  That is, If someone claims a confession exists then it requires to essential elements:

 

1) There is someone actually doing the confession who has in fact confessed.

2) Such a confession was recorded in some format.  That is usually a recording or something caught on video in an interview. It could also be a signed piece of papers swearing to a set of facts as a signed confessor.

 

Thus, if Kit claims these confessions exist they would be reproducible.  It is more than reasonable for someone to ask "where are they?"

If Kit does not wish to provide them they still could exist. It would be hard to imagine, given the chance to silence the PGF BFF believers, he would not gleefully provide them. 

 

At some point we are left to believe such a claim is a outright lie, a bluff, or a hoax, or something else I cannot think of the reasoning for.  Who knows what the motivation may be?  It could be a simple as a person getting caught up in the back and fourth of the BFF in the past and painting themselves into a corner.

 

I know there are people who think if they say something exists and believe it must exist then they are not being deceitful.  But that is like a person making up a bigfoot sighting just because they think bigfoot must exist so their lie would be justified.  The Bigfoot sighting in that case did not actually exist. It didn't happen.

 

To my thinking, Kit is a very informed poster.  I don't know what his reasoning is here but it just seems to me he has done a poor job addressing this or explaining it. t is hard for me to think this happens by accident.  Time to clear this up.

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

I think this is where we stick a fork in the film and be done with it.

 

Its never going to be disproven and it's never going to be proven without a type specimen.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that people are looking to be associated with the film and get their 5 seconds of fame and possibly some quick cash. Kitikaze comes along intending to do a skeptical documentary and people come out of the wood work with promises of confessions and the smoking gun.....the suit. Unfortunately Kitikaze opened his mouth putting the proverbial cart before the horse. And when the people doing the promising backed out? Kitikaze was left holding the bag.

 

Kitikaze is not my favorite person for remarks about my father and the trackway we witnessed when I was a kid. But in the spirit of fairness I cannot begrudge Kitikaze anymore than I can myself or the whole BF community. Because we have not produced proof of the creatures existence. Just as he failed to produce proof that the PGF is a hoax. Same same.

 

We are talking about something that happened 50 years ago. I really no longer see it as relevant to the topic at hand Biologically speaking. It's more about the legacy of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. I met Bob Gimlin, we talked mostly about horses, mules and hunting. I showed him pictures on my iPhone and I gave him my business card. I found him to be a man who looks you in the eyes and grasps your hand firm in handshake. I found him to be in extremely good shape for his age and full of energy. Despite having been injured training a mule months before. He is my people. I could spend years just learning from him and listening to his vast knowledge about horse packing and wilderness with out ever once bringing up the subject of Bigfoot. I found him extremely credible.

 

I never told him I was pro kill though which could have changed things. He may have rebuked me even. But make no mistake that a body would vindicate Bob Gimlin, Roger Patterson and the whole lot of us. You don't have to like it.....but you have to begrudgingly accept the logical truth of it. 

 

My mind constantly goes back to envisioning Bob Gimlin with '06 in hand watching Patty walk away up that crick bed......and what I would have done different.

 

And that's why hunting or not I fill my scabbard with a rifle every time I go riding in the mountains.....you just never know.:) But unlike Kitikaze I make no promises........

 

 

 

Edited by norseman
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

As long as the Patterson/Gimlin film is compelling....it is worth analyzing

 

That's my simpler take on this matter. :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

I respect you and yours.

 

But what is left to analyze?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

There is plenty left to analyze on the filmed subject, Norse. :) 

 

One aspect is the legs....specifically, the right leg. There is the contour of the leg...the thigh is very wide/massive at the top, and it narrows down significantly, by the knee-joint. That detail is virtually unseen in a suit 'pant leg'. Suit legs have a strong tendency to resemble a stovepipe. The contour also changes shape, as Patty walks....just as a real flesh/muscle leg changes shape. 

Also, regarding the right leg...is the ripple which runs up and down the leg, right after Patty's right foot lands hard on the ground. That ripple looks more like the action of 'flesh/muscle', than it does the action of a padded 'pant leg'. 

 

Both of those aspects of Patty's right leg can still be given an in-depth analysis...both by us amateurs, and by an accredited anthropologist. 

 

And there are still other aspects of Patty's body, which could be analyzed further. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Norseman in a way I wish you had discussed killing BF with Bob.   I don't think Bob would have rebuked you at all.    He might have tried to change your mind.       From what I have heard from him several times,   I think he would have just told you that while he did not really know what Patty was from a biologist standpoint,       from what I have heard him say, he might talk about what was going through his mind at the time.    .      Because of your mutual interests, and the fact you have met and  talked,    the next time you have a chance, talk to him about it.    My point is, he made the decision you might be faced with in the future, and chose not to pull the trigger.    Ask him about that decision.     He is comfortable with the decision he made at that time.     I would hate to have you have live with the regret of making a different choice.     It could be that just seeing one yourself will be enough for you, and to hell with proving anything for a bunch of idiot scientists who are too closed minded to look for themselves.       

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

"   you will get your suit and your confession. Those things exist and I didn't make them up."

 

For a confession to exist, it must exist in some format in present time.  That is, If someone claims a confession exists then it requires to essential elements:

 

1) There is someone actually doing the confession who has in fact confessed.

2) Such a confession was recorded in some format.  That is usually a recording or something caught on video in an interview. It could also be a signed piece of papers swearing to a set of facts as a signed confessor.

 

I think we can be pretty sure that a confession does not exist without a recording or verifiable document. Since the media don't seem to exist, it would seem that the confessions don't either.  So I would describe the bolded quote above as false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
7 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Norseman in a way I wish you had discussed killing BF with Bob.   I don't think Bob would have rebuked you at all.    He might have tried to change your mind.       From what I have heard from him several times,   I think he would have just told you that while he did not really know what Patty was from a biologist standpoint,       from what I have heard him say, he might talk about what was going through his mind at the time.    .      Because of your mutual interests, and the fact you have met and  talked,    the next time you have a chance, talk to him about it.    My point is, he made the decision you might be faced with in the future, and chose not to pull the trigger.    Ask him about that decision.     He is comfortable with the decision he made at that time.     I would hate to have you have live with the regret of making a different choice.     It could be that just seeing one yourself will be enough for you, and to hell with proving anything for a bunch of idiot scientists who are too closed minded to look for themselves.       

 

But that's part of my motivation....to prove my track way to myself and to rub idiot sciencists noses in the truth!

 

Not that I begrudge science as a whole.

7 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

^

 

There is plenty left to analyze on the filmed subject, Norse. :) 

 

One aspect is the legs....specifically, the right leg. There is the contour of the leg...the thigh is very wide/massive at the top, and it narrows down significantly, by the knee-joint. That detail is virtually unseen in a suit 'pant leg'. Suit legs have a strong tendency to resemble a stovepipe. The contour also changes shape, as Patty walks....just as a real flesh/muscle leg changes shape. 

Also, regarding the right leg...is the ripple which runs up and down the leg, right after Patty's right foot lands hard on the ground. That ripple looks more like the action of 'flesh/muscle', than it does the action of a padded 'pant leg'. 

 

Both of those aspects of Patty's right leg can still be given an in-depth analysis...both by us amateurs, and by an accredited anthropologist. 

 

And there are still other aspects of Patty's body, which could be analyzed further. 

 

Honest question. Do you think this further analysis will result in science changing its tune? Not acceptance of proof as a real species mind you, but just a honest hard look at the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
19 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Honest question. Do you think this further analysis will result in science changing its tune? Not acceptance of proof as a real species mind you, but just a honest hard look at the subject.

 

 

It probably won't, Norse....but that is not what matters the most. 

 

As I have said to you in the past.....what matters is not just what the 'Official Scientists' think.....(and catalogue)....it also matters what the general public thinks.  They have their own brains...with their own thoughts...and their thoughts matter to them.   :) 

 

Further analysis of the PGF film subject can, and will, provide more supporting evidence that the film is legit. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...