Minnesota Iceman Hoax

[Guest]

And here's a prime example of that:

Personal attack, but I'll let it slide...

Actually Hansen shot himself in the foot. He doesn't have to admit the model was a hoax the entire time, his repeated lying makes anything he say suspect and should be confirmed by other sources. The only thing that can be confirmed that he said was he had the model made, only those who confirm it maintain it was a hoax the entire time.

That's their opinion.

I never shot myself in the foot Mulder, you just are too busy defending your friend you have no idea what the subject matter being discussed it or it's context.

I don't know the man (assuming you mean the carney). I'm defending a plausible story and the observations of a researcher and a scientist against unreasoning Skepticism.

[wolftrax]

I don't know the man (assuming you mean the carney). I'm defending a plausible story and the observations of a researcher and a scientist against unreasoning Skepticism.

Unreasoning skepticism? The unreasoning skepticism is believing a guy who lied at least 3 times against 3 different people all saying the same thing, that he had the model made before he exhibited it, never saw a body or pictures to base the model off of, and that acknowledged model just happens to look exactly like what was claimed to be the real deal, by evidence of the photos.

Heck, throw in Hajicek, a bigfoot believer and producer of bigfoot shows and would stand to profit from it being real, and you have a 4th person saying the same thing.

Now that's unreasoning skepticism!

That's not a hoax; That's Entertainment!

What the Georgia boys did was a hoax.

Uh, ok, I guess P.T. Barnum was right...

Edited May 2, 2011 by masterbarber

[Guest]

I think what some of you old timers forget (and what the newbies don't know) is that many of the folks you hang the "skeptic", "scoftic" or "denialist" tag on started out on the BFF (and in most cases well before that) as proponents.

I want to be cute and say "Anakin Skywalker was a Jedi before he became a Sith...what's you point?" But in all seriousness...just because you changed your position doesn't make you new position right.

There have been many scientists who have modified their previously skeptic-leaning positions towards a favorable position on the issue once exposed to the primary evidence by such people as Dr Meldrum. Of course, since that is a "pro-proponent" change you would automatically discount that change of opinion.

But that leaves you begging the question, why should YOUR change of opinion mean a frakking thing?

But now that we, through a very careful look at the evidence presented, find that much of the evidence presented is lacking tangible quality we are the bad guys. That isn't because we don't want to find it tangible, it's just because it is what it is.

That is YOUR opinion. One not shared by such luminaries as Drs Meldrum, Kranz, Schaller, Swindler, et al.

This is a losing battle for us because the proponents can play the "we can't know anything about sasquatch",

Uh..the only one's I see pulling that are Skeptics every time we try to use primatology, statistical science, dermatoglyphics, dna science, etc. Every time the argument gets made by at least one Skeptic that it isn't possible to do good science in those disciplines against an "unproven" subject.

"science ignores sasquatch"

As an institution, it does.

and "science doesn't apply to sasquatch"

Proponents are quite happy to apply REAL science, that is, open-minded, objective science that goes where the evidence leads, rather than continuously attempts to rig the science to fit it's "Is Not" pre-determined conclusion (aka Skeptic Science)

can't be countered because of the vocal believers whose goal is to quash any type of rational discussion without any dissension.

OMG, you did NOT just "go there"?!? If anything, Skeptics here get a better hearing than many of them deserve based on the quality of their argumentation. Some of us just aren't afraid of and refuse to be browbeaten down. If Skeptics want a forum where they are the ruling majority and feel safe from challenge, there are forua that would suit much better than here.

HRPuffinstuff has noted several times that this is a BIGFOOT forum, quoting the Rules and Guidelines:

"> Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€." [bolding mine]

Skeptics are welcome to have input, but they need to respect that this isn't JREF.

I honestly have a hard time trying to figure out why the honest examination of the evidence is so objectionable to some people here and why the idea that some of the evidence presented in the past might just be intangible.

Engage in a truly honest examination then...not a Skeptical one.

I also understand that people don't want to let go of their core beliefs, but when the emperor wears no clothes, the emperor wears no clothes.

And Skeptics have not proven their "It's all false" claims. Not by a country mile.

[wolftrax]

Engage in a truly honest examination then...not a Skeptical one.

Then do it, enough with the off topic crusade and actually examine the evidence this thread is about.

[Guest Blackdog]

I want to be cute and say "Anakin Skywalker was a Jedi before he became a Sith...what's you point?" But in all seriousness...just because you changed your position doesn't make you new position right.

There have been many scientists who have modified their previously skeptic-leaning positions towards a favorable position on the issue once exposed to the primary evidence by such people as Dr Meldrum. Of course, since that is a "pro-proponent" change you would automatically discount that change of opinion.

But that leaves you begging the question, why should YOUR change of opinion mean a frakking thing?

That is YOUR opinion. One not shared by such luminaries as Drs Meldrum, Kranz, Schaller, Swindler, et al.

Uh..the only one's I see pulling that are Skeptics every time we try to use primatology, statistical science, dermatoglyphics, dna science, etc. Every time the argument gets made by at least one Skeptic that it isn't possible to do good science in those disciplines against an "unproven" subject.

As an institution, it does.

Proponents are quite happy to apply REAL science, that is, open-minded, objective science that goes where the evidence leads, rather than continuously attempts to rig the science to fit it's "Is Not" pre-determined conclusion (aka Skeptic Science)

OMG, you did NOT just "go there"?!? If anything, Skeptics here get a better hearing than many of them deserve based on the quality of their argumentation. Some of us just aren't afraid of and refuse to be browbeaten down. If Skeptics want a forum where they are the ruling majority and feel safe from challenge, there are forua that would suit much better than here.

HRPuffinstuff has noted several times that this is a BIGFOOT forum, quoting the Rules and Guidelines:

"> Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€." [bolding mine]

Skeptics are welcome to have input, but they need to respect that this isn't JREF.

Engage in a truly honest examination then...not a Skeptical one.

And Skeptics have not proven their "It's all false" claims. Not by a country mile.

I give an honest assessment of what I see and you somehow make me out to be an idiot?

Unreal...

If it wasn't so pitiful I would respond to you point by point but I'll let it stand as it is and hope that people see your post as an example as how not to enter into an intelligent conversation.

[Guest LAL]

Uh, ok, I guess P.T. Barnum was right...

Actually, it wasn't Barnum who said that; it was David Hannum.

Sanderson wasn't the only one who sighted the "giant penquin" from an airplane (they even estimated the length):

"The next eyewitness sighting of an unknown creature—and the first with witnesses identified—occurred on 25 July. Two instructors from the Dunedin Flying School, John Milner and George Orfanides, were circling over the Gulf of Mexico at 200 feet when they saw a large creature swimming near Hog Island (now Caladesi Island). They judged it to be 15 feet long, with a “very hairy body, a heavy blunt head and back legs like an alligator but much heavier. The tail [was] long and blunt.†Rushing back to their airstrip, the witnesses picked up associates Mario Hernandez and Francis Whillock, then flew back to Hog Island. They found the beast again and made a dozen passes to observe it, later stating that it had four legs 'pressed under the body most of the time.' "

Shouldn't the highway engineers get some credit?

"Highway engineers, consulted by Sanderson, opined that “if made physically by a man, either with devices strapped to his feet or on stilts, 'the Florida tracks would require “a ton on each leg' as 'the absolute minimum weight' to produce the impressions discovered.8

Weight aside, Sanderson’s initial suspicion of a hoax floundered on the variations seen in individual footprints. Examining the tracks, he found one point where the beast had climbed an embankment, gouging claw marks three inches deep with no trace of the foot’s ball or heel. Elsewhere, he saw that “the middle toe could on occasion be held up by a root while the outer and inner toes not only reached the ground but gouged deep claw incisions into its surface,†an impression “manifestly impossible of reproduction with any rigid device.†In yet another print, the toes were seen to “spread by as much as 15° and slip under small sticks.â€[/url]

Pretty good for iron feet.

"What finally remains of Tony Signorini’s hoax confession? There is no doubt that he owned a pair of cast-lead “monster†feet in 1988. Whether he made the feet himself, or somehow got his hands on those fabricated by Sanderson’s team 40 years earlier—perhaps from friends in the police department who allegedly collaborated in his prank—remains unclear. No evidence exists that anyone has ever weighed the boots in question to discover whether they weigh 30 pounds or 35, the recorded weight of Sanderson’s models.

And beyond the lead boots ... nothing.

Unless Ivan Sanderson lied flagrantly about his Florida sighting and findings from 1948 to the end of his life, Signorini’s story must be partly false, at least. Whether he faked some tracks or not, we know that Tony never weighed 4,000 pounds—the estimated bulk advanced by highway engineers for Three-Toes—and that rigid metal boots cannot show variation in their shape or size from one track to the next. It’s physically impossible. If Signorini’s boots made any tracks at all in Florida, they could not have produced the footprints analyzed by Sanderson.

Who was the hoaxer? "

All we know today is that the mystery endures."

http://forteanzoology.blogspot.com/2010_07_05_archive.html

Sound familiar?

I'm seriously considering ordering Heuvelmans' book. I guess I'll have to learn French. At least it has pictures.

[Guest LAL]

I give an honest assessment of what I see and you somehow make me out to be an idiot?

Unreal...

If it wasn't so pitiful I would respond to you point by point but I'll let it stand as it is and hope that people see your post as an example as how not to enter into an intelligent conversation.

Thanks for another one of your fact-filled and intuitive posts, Blackdog.

Anyone for getting back to the topic?

[Guest Blackdog]

I guess I'll have to learn French.

So you didn't read Heuvelman in French? Interesting......

You are seriously considering a giant penguin?

Thanks for another one of your fact-filled and intuitive posts, Blackdog.

Anyone for getting back to the topic?

You're more than welcome Lu.

Giant penguins anyone?

[Guest LAL]

So you didn't read Heuvelman in French? Interesting......

The book wasn't exactly available. The new edition has color photos. I did read commendations by Sarre and Rossi of Heuvelmans' work. I'd like to know more about how he reached his conclusions. Right now I'm just balking at the price. I did take French in High School - maybe there's some of it left.

You are seriously considering a giant penguin?

I'm considering an unknown something that doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to a penguin. The Tony Signorini hoax confession explanation seems a little weak to me after reading the article I posted.

The topic is the Minnesota Iceman, isn't it?

[Guest LAL]

Unreasoning skepticism? The unreasoning skepticism is believing a guy who lied at least 3 times against 3 different people all saying the same thing, that he had the model made before he exhibited it, never saw a body or pictures to base the model off of, and that acknowledged model just happens to look exactly like what was claimed to be the real deal, by evidence of the photos.

Heck, throw in Hajicek, a bigfoot believer and producer of bigfoot shows and would stand to profit from it being real, and you have a 4th person saying the same thing.

Now that's unreasoning skepticism!

If I call you on twisting what people said again are you going to say I'm playing a game?

Hajicek saw a model. Does the description even begin to match Sanderson's report? I've already posted what Hajicek said.

[Guest Blackdog]

The topic is the Minnesota Iceman, isn't it?

Yes it is, but I didn't write this:

your post

Edited April 30, 2011 by Blackdog

[Guest]

You're joking, right?! Dude, that was rich! "Either/or", and I'm supposed to sucker for that? That has to be a joke. There is no way you could possibly think I'd fall for that!

No, we are not in agreement, and no, if you're "off base", Kit is not "proven right".

But I'll tell ya', you do have an interesting sense of humor!

Maybe you weren't joking.

If not, you have just given us the most remarkable demonstration of denial I think I've seen in a long time.

Both stories are about side show attractions. The difference is that one was proven to be an animal that science had been seeking and that the carnival types had gotten first, and the other was not proven to be anything, and science didn't much care.

The irony is stark, and your refusal to recognize it is telling.

Well, I suppose there's confirmation of the utter denial. You really weren't joking, were you?

Amazing.

I glad you find that to be amusing. Did you actually read either of the articles that you posted? The second is a truncated version of the first. The first article describes the discovery of the lowland Gorilla via the documentation of a collected type specimen by Thomas Savage in 1847. From the article:

"Gorilla gorilla gorilla – Western Lowland Gorilla

Troglodytes gorilla Savage, 1847. Thomas Savage described the first gorilla on the basis of a specimen (skull and skeleton) that is now in the Museum of Comparative Zoology in Harvard.

It was collected in "Mpongwe, Gaboon estuary" or "Empongwe, near the river Gaboon". Mpongwe is not a town, but the name of a people living close to the southern bank of the Gabon river (about 0° 4′ N, 9° 39′ E)."

This discovery was indeed an actual real discovery based on a real type specimen.

Now the article does go on to state:

"Victorian showmen had fewer scruples. They knew that a gorilla meant money, whether it was genuine or not, and so they happily showed off any ape they could get their hands on as a "gorilla"."

And:

"In 1855, a strange sort of chimpanzee was kept by George W. Wombwell’s famous travelling menagerie. "Jenny" survived a few months before dying of pneumonia in Scarborough in March 1856. The dead creature was promptly sold to Charles Waterton, an eccentric naturalist-***-taxidermist. Waterton was fond of creating fanciful "nondescripts" from assemblages of animal parts, and so Jenny’s skin was altered and stuffed to form a hideous horned simian sculpture titled – for Waterton was an ardent Catholic – Martin Luther After His Fall.

But what the menagerie had been touring with was not a chimpanzee at all. Later examination revealed that Jenny was a juvenile gorilla. The remains of the first gorilla to live outside Africa now survive only as a bizarre taxidermic joke in the Waterton Collection at the Wakefield Museum in Yorkshire. It would be decades before any other gorilla survived in Britain for as long as Jenny had. And so it was that squalling babies, runny-nosed urchins and exasperated mothers unwittingly witnessed the world’s rarest captive animal, and for a few pence on English village greens were granted a sight denied to the most respected men of science."

The issue as I see it is that the only 'Iceman-like' portion of that article that you posted the link to that you find my take on to be humorous, states that this 'showmanship' didn't occur until well after not only the first documented and verifiable type specimen was discovered and possessed by western science, but well after the first verifiable live captures of lowland gorillas.

What is it that you seem to find so humorous about this? Clearly from the article that you yourself reference we don't have sideshow 'gorillas' showing up until decades after the first type specimen is documented and well after the first live capture of living specimens had occurred. What is remotely 'Iceman-like" about the discovery of the gorilla? Did you even bother to read your own referenced article? If so and I'm missing something, what is it that I'm overlooking? Again, I'm not seeing this being remotely relevant to the 'Iceman' story where we have no verifiable type specimen either before or after Hansen paraded the Iceman around the continent.

I stated: Let me ask you a few questions. Let's say you were hunting caribou some place, say Siberskoye and you happened onto a frozen carcass of a creature barely 6 feet tall with 10" wide feet and hands the size of tennis racquets. Clearly not human, but clearly bipedal, what would you do with it?

To which you were kind enough to take the time to respond to with:

Absolutely nothing. The last thing I need is to be jailed or fined out of prosperity by fooling with an antiquity, fossil, or endangered creature. I've had enough experience with the law to know when to keep my fingerprints to myself.

And then you took the time to add:

Hopefully, absolutely nothing. The problem is that if I had to shoot the thing full of holes, there might have been witnesses. Then I'd have to do the legal thing: report it, hire a lawyer, and watch my a$$.

and again:

Neither. I have plenty of money, thanks. Again, I don't like jail. Been there. It truly sucks.

However, I do have some experience with criminals. The smart ones mitigate their exposure to capture. The dumb ones get caught.

And going for the big bucks would be the best way to get busted. Selling looks at something in a block of ice while the denialist community kept the law off them with their assurances that it was "fake" seems like a great way to generate bean money.

And you were also nice enough to answer my last question: If you weren't interested in money would you think the best way to show your discovery to the world would be to haul it around the continent in a freezer charging everyone who was interested to take a gander at it?

With this:

Nope. If it was me, I wouldn't be interested in any money, but I am interested in stuffing crow down a whole lot of throats (fully feathered), so I think I'd simply mail the stinking carcass to somebody like Dr. Meldrum (after taking a whole bunch of photographs of it myself, keeping a sample of the flesh and hair, and otherwise keeping evidence of the thing and it's shipment).

Keeping your full quotes in order so as not to take anything out of context;

1- You wouldn't collect a type specimen that would no doubt be the most significant find in modern history that wouldn't require you having to kill it even if presented the opportunity.

2- You wouldn't shoot the same type specimen even if it was attacking you for fear of 'legal issues'.

3- You're not motivated by money like Hansen was. I'll buy that.

4- You'd send the type specimen that you admit above you wouldn't be willing to collect..... to Dr. M after carefully photoing and documenting said 'uncollected' specimen not for the significant advancement of science mind you, but so you could force feed us staunch 'denialists' an avian supper, plumage and all.

Are you maybe beginning to see why I'm thinking most proponents that believe the sasquatch is real probably feel that the world of bigfootery would be much better off if the Iceman proponents simply let the Iceman die a quickly forgettable death? It's simply impossible to defend weak evidence as in the case of the Iceman IMO.

Either way I do appreciate your honesty and the fact that you took the time to ponder and answer my questions. I don't think most would be as honest as you've been in this thread and for your honesty on your 'basis for belief' in the BCM thread. I do disagree with you for the reasons mentioned above. As previously stated, I think disagreement is to be expected when discussing issues with other individuals who have differing thought processes and rationalizations. I don't necessarily think disagreement is a bad thing. Hopefully you agree.

[wolftrax]

If I call you on twisting what people said again are you going to say I'm playing a game?

Hajicek saw a model. Does the description even begin to match Sanderson's report? I've already posted what Hajicek said.

I'm not twisting what Hajicek said, Lal, and yes you are playing a game. You can see the photos and that they are indeed the same thing. Hajicek saw it without ice, Sanderson saw it covered in ice. And yet, we are to believe that the person who made the Iceman never saw the actual Iceman, yet miraculously created the exact same thing.

In fact, let's play your little game and take this a step further, Go ahead and repost what Hajicek said, what Sanderson said, and what Langdon said about hair ventilation. Langdon said in the thicker areas of the hair you insert several hairs at the same time, like a barbie doll. On the thinner areas that receive the most attention, like the face and hands, you insert one hair at a time. Hajicek sees the Iceman out of the ice, sees the hairs on the body inserted several ata time like a barbie doll. Sanderson is struggling to see through the ice, and looks at that gruesome face, with the blood and the eye coming from it's socket, and sees individual hairs inserted.

Whoah! Now that's a fun game!

So Hansen was telling the truth about that? A quart of gin? And it didn't kill him? Good article, though. Thanks for posting.

You mean, gasp, Hansen was lying?! At last we agree! The thread can close now, the Iceman's staunchest supporter has seen the light!

Edited May 2, 2011 by masterbarber

[Huntster]

I glad you find that to be amusing. Did you actually read either of the articles that you posted?

Yes, I did. I know the facts well. I often compare today's sasquatch situation with the mid-nineteenth century situation with gorillas.

The issue as I see it is that the only 'Iceman-like' portion of that article that you posted the link to that you find my take on to be humorous, states that this 'showmanship' didn't occur until well after not only the first documented and verifiable type specimen was discovered and possessed by western science, but well after the first verifiable live captures of lowland gorillas.

That is incorrect. Dr. Savage was an amateur naturalist:

After graduating from Yale Medical School in 1833, Savage decided his vocation was to be a missionary and asked to be sent to Cape Palmas in West Africa, where a settlement of freed North American slaves was being established, and where Savage’s medical skills would come in handy. It was as an amateur naturalist in Africa, though, that Savage gained fame. He was an inveterate collector, and by 1834 had already written a paper on chimpanzees with Jeffries Wyman, a rising young star at Harvard Medical School.

He obtained two male gorilla skulls, two female skulls, a male and female pelvis, and assorted ribs, vertebrae and limbs. He obtained these bones through "a certain Captain Wagstaff" from natives. Neither Dr. Savage or Captain Wagstaff saw or killed a gorilla, a full skeleton was not obtained, nor was a hide obtained.

He sent those bones to a "partner" at Harvard Medical School. Wyman and Savage’s paper was published in the Boston Journal of Natural History in December 1847. Their description was based upon native accounts and the few bones they had obtained from natives.

It wasn't until Paul Du Chaillu's return in 1859 that a complete specimen was obtained by "western science".

More, well into the 20th century, "western science" was completely unsuccessful in obtaining live gorillas and keeping them alive for very long at all. Yet in 1855, a full four years before Du Chaillu brought back the first complete specimen (and still suffered great ridicule from the skeptics of the day), George W. Wombwell’s travelling menagerie was in possession of a live gorilla in England and was being paid nickels and dimes from everybody but "western scientists" to see it.

What is it that you seem to find so humorous about this?

1) George Wombwell was able to obtain a live gorilla four years before Du Chaillu brought the first complete carcass back to the Big Shots of science

2) It takes a whole bunch of typing on my part to "draw you a picture", which you will probably still deny

Clearly from the article that you yourself reference we don't have sideshow 'gorillas' showing up until decades after the first type specimen is documented and well after the first live capture of living specimens had occurred.

Again, you are fully and completely incorrect. I've cited the facts, and outlined the dates. The first live gorilla in England was obtained and shown there in a carnival side show four years before the first complete carcass was delivered (out of the kindness of his heart) to the Royal Geographic Society by Paul DuChaillu.

[Huntster]

What is remotely 'Iceman-like" about the discovery of the gorilla?

The similarity is that the Iceman may have been something remarkable, and science lost out again waiting for somebody to deliver the goods to them postage paid. The difference is that the truth about Jenny has been established because her hide still exists, and the Iceman has essentially disappeared. We may never know what it really was.

Did you even bother to read your own referenced article?

More. I've read it from several different sources over the past several years.

If so and I'm missing something

We agree on that fact. The question is why you're missing it. I suspect it's a case of utter denial.

1- You wouldn't collect a type specimen that would no doubt be the most significant find in modern history that wouldn't require you having to kill it even if presented the opportunity.

That is correct. I don't believe I would touch it. However, if I did decide to do so, I would likely send it to a qualified scientist interested in sasquatchery and try to maintain my anonymity, which would hinder the information needed by that same scientist to properly establish facts for skeptics/denialists. It may be better to just let dead sasquatches lay.

2- You wouldn't shoot the same type specimen even if it was attacking you for fear of 'legal issues'.

That is incorrect. If it attacked me, I would quite cheerfully shoot it full of holes, even if it was "in a forest outside of whatever replaced the Metrodome after watching a Twins game (where the ghost of Kirby was sighted by all in attendance patrolling center, in the right ballpark, dressed in the correct home uniform...)". However, if I shot it and there were no witnesses, I might very well leave it where it dropped.

3- You're not motivated by money like Hansen was. I'll buy that.

4- You'd send the type specimen that you admit above you wouldn't be willing to collect..... to Dr. M after carefully photoing and documenting said 'uncollected' specimen not for the significant advancement of science mind you, but so you could force feed us staunch 'denialists' an avian supper, plumage and all.

Yes, that is correct, including the waffling on whether or not I'd collect specimens. I don't like to write in absolutes like many here do, and I am quite free to change my mind at any time of my choosing.

Are you maybe beginning to see why I'm thinking most proponents that believe the sasquatch is real probably feel that the world of bigfootery would be much better off if the Iceman proponents simply let the Iceman die a quickly forgettable death?

Not especially. I don't claim that the Iceman was a real creature or a fake. I do not know what it was. I simply note that if it was a real biological creature, science let it slip through their grasp with their pompous denials and arrogant attitudes, and it wouldn't be the first time that had happened.

It's simply impossible to defend weak evidence as in the case of the Iceman IMO.

It is just as impossible to declare the Iceman a fake in the absence of proof.

I don't necessarily think disagreement is a bad thing. Hopefully you agree.

I agree fully. There is no problem whatsoever with people like you and I disagreeing on the merits of sasquatch evidence or the lack thereof.

What is a problem is science as an industry sitting on their ***** behind ivy covered walls waiting for side show operators, logging trucks, or poachers to deliver to them the very thing that they're repeatedly denying even exists without any meaningful investment of their own to discover the truth.