Truth is not a mathematical concept, and determining the "truth" or "falsehood" of a sentence has nothing to do with Godel's incompleteness theorems.

"Godel's first incompleteness theorem is a Godel sentence"

Anyways, it is my belief that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is false by definition of Truth. That is, what is true is provable and vice versa. Once you depart from this definition, you get statements that are paradoxical, and by my definition of Truth, the Godel Incompleteness Theorem is certainly paradoxical (thus False).

The usual definition of false is not "I can't prove it's true" as that is pretty hard to decide. Suppose I have a statement S that I can't prove. Is it false, or am I just not clever enough to prove that it is true?

The normal definition of S being false is that the negation of S is true.

Part of what the incompleteness theorem says is that in any system of logic that doesn't contradict itself, there will be statements that are neither provably true nor provably false. Thus you can take these statements to be true OR false as an axiom and it won't lead to contradictions.

Godel, in the proof of GIT, chose inconsistency (by concluding that G is True, even though it is also False).

So, by your own conclusions, I choose GIT to be false, and there are no contradictions.

Nobody can prove GIT (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem). I tried to disprove it, but I can't do that either. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem itself is a Godel Sentence.

You can add GIT as an axiom in my system, then it would become True. I'm saying that you don't need to do that to have a complete system. You can either have a complete and consistent system, OR you can have GIT.

Metaphorically they may somehow be similar given someone's viewpoint, but it doesn't make it so.