Jump to content
Bigfoot Gumbo

Where is the original PGF?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
3 hours ago, Bill said:

I haven't been in contact with Kit in several years, but I vaguely recall some discussion about it, and I wasn't convinced he actually had it. Plus zero release of even a single frame to pique attention? And of course no revelations of any "proof of a hoax" from it, so I think the claim was incorrect (maybe relying on some one else's assurance of what it was,).

 

 

Here is a further "explanation", by KABOOM-ze...

 

Quote

4 - The physical copy of the second reel I have located I have not viewed. I have been told by the owner what it shows. The copy that I have viewed was shown to me by a person who asserted it was the second reel, not a physical film reel, but a scan and what was shown matched the description of the owner of the physical copy. 

 

 

I'm surprised, Bill, that you would choose to make excuses for kitakaze, regarding his rather bold claim....when it is far more likely that kit's claim is just another one of his made-up fantasies.

 

I just thought that since you and he had that lengthy "heart to heart"/"Man to Man"...(my apologies to the Human Race...I use the term loosely, in kit's case)….talk, via Skype.....that you would have his contact info....and could actually contact him, to inquire about this "2nd Reel" claim.  

 

Perhaps it could lead to finding out the location of the 2nd Reel, or a copy thereof. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

How is "I think the claim was incorrect" making an excuse?

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Saying...."so I think the claim was incorrect (maybe relying on some one else's assurance of what it was.)"....  is excusing kit from being guilty of making a knowingly false claim....IOW.....lying.  

 

kit claimed: "Only myself and a small handful of people have knowledge about the true fate of the second reel and exactly what it shows."

 

At another time, kit claimed that the "Proof of a PGF hoax" was "3 things"....one of those things being the footage contained within the 2nd Reel...

 

Quote

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...

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.

 

https://bigfootforums.com/topic/7117-pattys-feetand-the-footprints/page/40/?tab=comments#comment-568938

 

 

kit has made very strong/definitive/BOLD claims regarding the 2nd Reel.....so, to propose that he was guilty of nothing worse than being deceived by somebody else....is making an excuse, for kit.....IMHO. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starchunk
14 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Attention-craving maroon.

 

 

Much like this Johnsen character, he seemed to be one with an axe to grind, so birds of a feather so to speak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
7 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

Saying...."so I think the claim was incorrect (maybe relying on some one else's assurance of what it was.)"....  is excusing kit from being guilty of making a knowingly false claim....IOW.....lying.  

 

kit claimed: "Only myself and a small handful of people have knowledge about the true fate of the second reel and exactly what it shows."

 

At another time, kit claimed that the "Proof of a PGF hoax" was "3 things"....one of those things being the footage contained within the 2nd Reel...

 

 

https://bigfootforums.com/topic/7117-pattys-feetand-the-footprints/page/40/?tab=comments#comment-568938

 

 

kit has made very strong/definitive/BOLD claims regarding the 2nd Reel.....so, to propose that he was guilty of nothing worse than being deceived by somebody else....is making an excuse, for kit.....IMHO. 

 

Pure conjecture on your part. We have no idea what Kit saw or didn’t see. We only know he failed to deliver evidence to support his assertions. What that means is evidently a stick for you to stir the pot with.....

 

Bill is polite. He said the claim was incorrect. Enough said. 

 

Is this your attempt at shaming him into reopening communications with Kit?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
7 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

kit has made very strong/definitive/BOLD claims regarding the 2nd Reel.....so, to propose that he was guilty of nothing worse than being deceived by somebody else....is making an excuse, for kit.....IMHO. 

 

If Kit was only making claims based on what he had been told by others, he could fairly claim being deceived by someone else.  However, Kit claimed first hand information/knowledge.  That's another thing entirely.

 

If someone just told him something, that could be 100% accurate, it could be Kit is being conned, or it could be Kit is being told something which is not accurate but the person telling him was himself conned to didn't get his facts right.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
15 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

If Kit was only making claims based on what he had been told by others, he could fairly claim being deceived by someone else.  However, Kit claimed first hand information/knowledge.  That's another thing entirely.

 

If someone just told him something, that could be 100% accurate, it could be Kit is being conned, or it could be Kit is being told something which is not accurate but the person telling him was himself conned to didn't get his facts right.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think us Bigfooters are in a ticklish predicament about passing judgement on someone else claiming first hand knowledge and then failing to produce the evidence. Right?

 

There is no difference. There is only proof. And Kit failed to produce it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

I think us Bigfooters are in a ticklish predicament about passing judgement on someone else claiming first hand knowledge and then failing to produce the evidence. Right?

 

There is no difference. There is only proof. And Kit failed to produce it. 

 

Now there's some deep thinking. 

 

There is a lot more to the two situations....of people claiming to have "seen Bigfoot", but failing to produce proof of it.....and someone claiming to have "pockets full of Proof", but failing to produce the proof....(or to even produce one single piece of evidence, of substance, in support of any of his multiple claims.)

 

One big difference is...that, when it comes to alleged sightings of Bigfoot...the evidence leaves the scene, and disappears into the woods....whereas, with regards to kit's claims of having various "Proofs".....the evidence doesn't run away, and hide.  (Only kit does that. ;) )

 

His claims should be more easily supportable.  

Share this post


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

 

Now there's some deep thinking. 

 

There is a lot more to the two situations....of people claiming to have "seen Bigfoot", but failing to produce proof of it.....and someone claiming to have "pockets full of Proof", but failing to produce the proof....(or to even produce one single piece of evidence, of substance, in support of any of his multiple claims.)

 

One big difference is...that, when it comes to alleged sightings of Bigfoot...the evidence leaves the scene, and disappears into the woods....whereas, with regards to kit's claims of having various "Proofs".....the evidence doesn't run away, and hide.  (Only kit does that. ;) )

 

His claims should be more easily supportable.  

 

The only “deep thinking” being done Sweaty is your own... to prop up your own ego.

 

If you havent noticed? Kit is long gone. No one here is defending Kit or his actions. 

 

So drop the semantics.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SackScratch

Most PG Film De-Bunkers are very similar to Tom Biscardi, what's Tom Biscardi's mentality? He produces 2 Bigfoot Hoax DVD's, one on the PG Film called "Hoax of the Century" and the other on his Bigfoot in a Freezer that was "Shot by Hunters" Fiasco called "Anatomy of a Bigfoot Hoax"... 

 

In "Hoax of the Century" you really get the feel that Biscardi has a grudge against that film... Why would he?? Biscardi also markets his mentors Bigfoot Videos of his wife running around in a Bigfoot suit that looks really silly! Biscardi admits that Ivan Marx was his mentor and he embraces Marx's Bigfoot Footage as his own so if you criticize Marx's wife running around in a silly Bigfoot suit it's like you're criticizing Biscardi personally!  He'll look you in the face and say it's real! 

 

I've found the same mentality in the UFO Field of Research!  For example: The Ed Walters Gulf Breeze UFO Footage and Photos was deemed authentic by the UFO Group "MUFON" so of course the other main UFO Group "CUFOS" deemed it as a Hoax!!! There was a grudge there, previously CUFOS had spent lots of time and money investigating the Billy Meier case in Switzerland confirming it as Real so MUFON came out and labelled it as a Hoax!!! 

 

Bigfooter's have "Sasquatch Odyssey" to show the feuding between Bigfooter's from the beginning as a historical dvd visual to show what not to do in the future... Someone should make a UFO Documentary called "UFO Odyssey" showing the much bigger worldwide feuding that's been going on between UFO Groups and Researchers for many decades now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
10 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I think us Bigfooters are in a ticklish predicament about passing judgement on someone else claiming first hand knowledge and then failing to produce the evidence. Right?

 

There is no difference. There is only proof. And Kit failed to produce it. 

 

True.

 

Consider Roger claimed to have filmed Bigfoot.  He Did produce a film and even told where it took place.

 

Kit claimed to have a film, reel #2, and failed to produce it.

 

Save for the issue of where it was developed, Roger was offering everything else and holding nothing back.

 

Other  than making the claim, Kit offered squat.  This include confessions, Reel #2, proof of a hoax, and general face melting.

 

Which of the two is being completely open and which one is closed?

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
7 hours ago, norseman said:

 

The only “deep thinking” being done Sweaty is your own... to prop up your own ego.

 

If you havent noticed? Kit is long gone. No one here is defending Kit or his actions. 

 

So drop the semantics.

 

 

I just pointed-out the difference between two situations...which you claimed had "no difference".

 

Drop the battle, Norse. :)  

 

 

Earlier, you had written:

Quote

Pure conjecture on your part. We have no idea what Kit saw or didn’t see. We only know he failed to deliver evidence to support his assertions. What that means is evidently a stick for you to stir the pot with.....

 

 

I know what kit claimed to have seen.....the "2nd Reel". So....pardon me. :) 

 

To elaborate on a point I was making, in my original post....kit made a claim in a manner which was very definitive, and very BOLD. He claimed that his "discoveries of Proof" deserved no less than a Documentary...to be aired world-wide....to PROVE to the world that the PGF was a "hoax". 

 

His characterization was strong enough, for us to reasonably expect that he had a more complete, and definitive knowledge of the 2nd Reel....than what he would have had via someone else's description/claim of what the 2nd Reel contains. 

 

 

Quote

Bill is polite. He said the claim was incorrect. Enough said. 

 

Sorry, Norse.....this is a discussion board....and, there is nothing wrong with a little bit of 'talking', on a discussion board.  I was simply answering Bill's question.

 

 

Quote

Is this your attempt at shaming him into reopening communications with Kit?

 

It is what I said it is, in an earlier post...

 

"I just thought that since you and he had that lengthy "heart to heart"/"Man to Man" talk, via Skype.....that you would have his contact info....and could actually contact him, to inquire about this "2nd Reel" claim.  

Perhaps it could lead to finding out the location of the 2nd Reel, or a copy thereof."

 

 

With regards to your suggestion, that I am simply trying to "stir the pot"....you couldn't be more wrong. 

 

My efforts over the years have been to try to find a resolution to what the film shows....one result of which, would be to put an end to the "boiling pot" condition, which exists around the PGF. 

 

One of my efforts....(as was Bill Miller's effort, also)….was to get to the truth behind kit's "Patty suit" claim. That, potentially, could have led to a resolution.....if kit's claim were true. 

 

Additionally...I don't see the PGF as having an "expiration date".....and likewise, neither do I consider kit's "Patty suit" claim to have an expiration date. I'll continue to work on both. :) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
On 10/11/2019 at 9:15 PM, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

I just pointed-out the difference between two situations...which you claimed had "no difference".

 

Drop the battle, Norse. :)  

 

 

Earlier, you had written:

 

I know what kit claimed to have seen.....the "2nd Reel". So....pardon me. :) 

 

To elaborate on a point I was making, in my original post....kit made a claim in a manner which was very definitive, and very BOLD. He claimed that his "discoveries of Proof" deserved no less than a Documentary...to be aired world-wide....to PROVE to the world that the PGF was a "hoax". 

 

His characterization was strong enough, for us to reasonably expect that he had a more complete, and definitive knowledge of the 2nd Reel....than what he would have had via someone else's description/claim of what the 2nd Reel contains. 

 

 

 

Sorry, Norse.....this is a discussion board....and, there is nothing wrong with a little bit of 'talking', on a discussion board.  I was simply answering Bill's question.

 

 

 

It is what I said it is, in an earlier post...

 

"I just thought that since you and he had that lengthy "heart to heart"/"Man to Man" talk, via Skype.....that you would have his contact info....and could actually contact him, to inquire about this "2nd Reel" claim.  

Perhaps it could lead to finding out the location of the 2nd Reel, or a copy thereof."

 

 

With regards to your suggestion, that I am simply trying to "stir the pot"....you couldn't be more wrong. 

 

My efforts over the years have been to try to find a resolution to what the film shows....one result of which, would be to put an end to the "boiling pot" condition, which exists around the PGF. 

 

One of my efforts....(as was Bill Miller's effort, also)….was to get to the truth behind kit's "Patty suit" claim. That, potentially, could have led to a resolution.....if kit's claim were true. 

 

Additionally...I don't see the PGF as having an "expiration date".....and likewise, neither do I consider kit's "Patty suit" claim to have an expiration date. I'll continue to work on both. :) 

 

You and Kit have WAAAY more in common than you will ever realize Sweaty.....

 

Every Batman needs a Joker I guess.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Who’s Batman and whose the Joker?   :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

You and Kit have WAAAY more in common than you will ever realize Sweaty.....

 

Every Batman needs a Joker I guess.

 

 

Another post with 'deep thought',  throughout.  

 

Have you ever considered joining Jref, Norse?  I think you'd fit right in, there. :) 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...