wolftrax Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Not at all. I didn't write that some won't "win" and some won't "lose". I asked if you're "in to this to learn, or to 'win'". Frankly, I'm in to this because I want to see the species survive. And, I guess since I'm as selfish as the next guy, I'd like to see a sasquatch. I'll note that I didn't get an answer. I got a diversion. A diversion at your "enemy". No, you got an answer, you just don't want to face that your criticism applied to your "Friend". Prove it. Sure. Each of these events that he supposedly had a negative reaction to he used for advertising the Iceman. Sanderson prints the article and is on TV, and Hansen makes a sign saying scientists say the Iceman is real. FBI want to investigate, he makes a sign saying it's wanted off of the FBI. Hansen revelled in any attention that the Iceman got and used it to his advantage. The Georgia boys don't have the professional observations of a researcher and a scientist to back them up, and they were quite easily exposed. The Georgia Boys allowed their Iceman to be examined and tested for DNA identification, while Hansen refused for his Iceman to be physically examined in any way and made up story after story to cover his admission of it being fake, because he knew that if people want to believe, they will accept anything you tell them no matter how many times you lie. If the Georgia Boys didn't submit to a test, you guys would still be here arguing endlessly that it was real. Or the entirely legitimate reaction of a man who didn't want to be put on the spot that he was. Which is why he exploited and advertised every allegedly negative experience he had, great way to stay off of the spot. So he risks criminal prosecution and jail time just to "protect his hoax", which at worst would no longer make him money...and you accuse ME of abusing credulity... According to who? Back to one of your favorites (argumentum ad ridicule) wolf? lol here's another for you, argumentum ad hominid glacialis amÄre.... Sssshhhhh...don't confuse anyone with logic...some people don't react too well to it... Especially if it has anything to do with lending doubt about sasquatch! We must fiercely defend every bit of evidence, no matter how obviously fake it is! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 It was both. You know that... http://www.hominolog...d.ru/iseman.htm It's positively delicious that in the case of Bob Heironimus, you dismiss the man as a liar based on your thinking he doesn't have straight stories, yet Frank Hansen can tell completely different stories such as getting the iceman from a refrigeration plant in Hong Kong, a fish market in Tokyo, and a hunting trip in Minnesota and it's all good. In the one case (Heironimus), we have a person purporting to have ACTUALLY BEEN THERE at a specific event and who is (so he claims) going out of his way to be as truthful as possible who is stumbling around contradicting himself right and left and not able to get simple facts correct that he SHOULD know about the place he claims to have been (as in where's the "hole"?) In the 2nd case, we have a man who probably obtained his specimen illicitly or otherwise in a manner that could get him into legal trouble (or, if you chose to take the version that casts him in a more favorable light, is protecting the principal owner who did so). He is setting OUT to lay false trails as to the origin of the specimen in question. Different cases, different circumstances. Sure. Each of these events that he supposedly had a negative reaction to he used for advertising the Iceman. Sanderson prints the article and is on TV, and Hansen makes a sign saying scientists say the Iceman is real. FBI want to investigate, he makes a sign saying it's wanted off of the FBI. Hansen revelled in any attention that the Iceman got and used it to his advantage. Part of his job as a carney, wolf...still proves nothing as to the facts of the Iceman. The Georgia Boys allowed their Iceman to be examined and tested for DNA identification, while Hansen refused for his Iceman to be physically examined in any way and made up story after story to cover his admission of it being fake, because he knew that if people want to believe, they will accept anything you tell them no matter how many times you lie. If the Georgia Boys didn't submit to a test, you guys would still be here arguing endlessly that it was real. The GA boys weren't trying to avoid potential criminal charges. Hansen was. Which is why he exploited and advertised every allegedly negative experience he had, great way to stay off of the spot. According to who? Let's see, he's STOPPED at the border by officials...DETAINED...told they're bringing in a ME and take X-rays...at a minimum he may be facing charges of illegal animal possession/transport and/or smuggling (it was going across national boundaries after all). If it turned out to be HUMAN, then we've got illegal transportation/tampering with a corpse...at a minimum a coroner's inquest...Hanson has to go so far as to get a member of CONGRESS involved to get him out of the potential trouble... Of COURSE he's not going to let them just take samples/x-rays...that would give them an absolute reason to further detain him and put him at risk of heavy fines and/or imprisonment. So he clams up, refuses them permission to take samples (which they could have done anyways under "reasonable suspicion"), except that he pulls some strings and gets a Senator to weasel him out of trouble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Part of his job as a carney, wolf...still proves nothing as to the facts of the Iceman. What facts? The only thing Hansen said that was confirmed by others was that he had a fake made. The photos of the "Real" and the fake show the same thing. The GA boys weren't trying to avoid potential criminal charges. Hansen was. Let's see, he's STOPPED at the border by officials...DETAINED...told they're bringing in a ME and take X-rays...at a minimum he may be facing charges of illegal animal possession/transport and/or smuggling (it was going across national boundaries after all). If it turned out to be HUMAN, then we've got illegal transportation/tampering with a corpse...at a minimum a coroner's inquest...Hanson has to go so far as to get a member of CONGRESS involved to get him out of the potential trouble... Of COURSE he's not going to let them just take samples/x-rays...that would give them an absolute reason to further detain him and put him at risk of heavy fines and/or imprisonment. So he clams up, refuses them permission to take samples (which they could have done anyways under "reasonable suspicion"), except that he pulls some strings and gets a Senator to weasel him out of trouble... According to who? Hansen? Do you have anything to show, anybody else who has issued a statement, that can support it went down that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Part of his job as a carney, wolf...still proves nothing as to the facts of the Iceman. Right, part of his job as a carney, make a fake Iceman and display it for money and spin various yarns to convince people it is real so they will come and pay to see it. Those are the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Great that you are finally listening to Langdon. That is, after all, what is considered objective. I've listened to Langdon many times; I mentioned I used to have the podcast on my MP3 player. Recently I accidentally navigated away from the page with the imbed twice after the crummy, crummy suit portion. Now that I have it downloaded and have the time I can get to the next portion. So far I haven't found any substantiation for that 1964 date in other sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 In the one case (Heironimus), we have a person purporting to have ACTUALLY BEEN THERE at a specific event and who is (so he claims) going out of his way to be as truthful as possible who is stumbling around contradicting himself right and left and not able to get simple facts correct that he SHOULD know about the place he claims to have been (as in where's the "hole"?) In the 2nd case, we have a man who probably obtained his specimen illicitly or otherwise in a manner that could get him into legal trouble (or, if you chose to take the version that casts him in a more favorable light, is protecting the principal owner who did so). He is setting OUT to lay false trails as to the origin of the specimen in question. Different cases, different circumstances. Well said . I see a big difference between someone trying to making a living on the carny/State Fair circuit and trying to cash in on the interest in the PGF (which was touring about the same time) and someone just trying to cash in on someone else's success. In a moment of madness last night I ordered the new edition of Heuvelmans' book. It may take a while to get here (a DVD I ordered took months to get to me from England because Homeland Security won't let them send packages by passenger plane) but I'll post pictures from it if the thread is still open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 ...because he knew that if people want to believe, they will accept anything you tell them no matter how many times you lie. IMHO it all boils down to this. Hansen made a livelihood out of separating marks from their money. At the end of the day he depended on his gaff to put food on his family's table. The fact that he's still managing to do it from beyond the grave should come as little surprise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 The GA boys weren't trying to avoid potential criminal charges. Hansen was. I've often wondered why this is? Whether it's a sasquatch in a freezer, a neanderthal in a block of ice, or sasquatch footprint casts, as soon as somebody tries to make money off of it (if they know it isn't the real thing), that constitutes fraud, does it not? Why were the GA boys not legally prosecuted? Why is the FBI interested in Hansen, and not interested in the GA boys? Is the FBI and other law enforcement agencies almost like our wildlife management agencies; MIA with regard to sasquatchery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Nothing new under the sun, carny wise.... http://chnm.gmu.edu/lostmuseum/lm/125/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Nothing new under the sun, carny wise.... http://chnm.gmu.edu/lostmuseum/lm/125/ Vis ed: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Well said . I see a big difference between someone trying to making a living on the carny/State Fair circuit and trying to cash in on the interest in the PGF (which was touring about the same time) and someone just trying to cash in on someone else's success. The summer before the Argosy story by Sanderson, I saw the Iceman in a sideshow exhibit on the Midway at the State Fair of Texas. My initial impression: interesting, chimp-like, and unfortunately obscured by cloudy ice. The obscuring medium of ice raised the caution flag immediately --- why not a tank or tub of clear alcohol or other preserving agent, such as this?: (Don't freak out, this two headed baby is a gaff). The Iceman was presented on site without any mention of PGF or sasquatch or Bigfoot. When Sanderson's article came out, there was no linkage to Bigfoot. In fact, I think it was Hansen's changing stories that eventually gave rise to a Bigfoot connection. (The one where he killed it while deer hunting). As an aside, when I saw Sanderson's photos and Argosy's artistic recreation, something about the face seemed familiar. Eventually, I realised the image reminded me of Lon Cheney Jr. in mid-transformation in The Wolf Man. Maybe a coincidence, maybe more than a coincident. Since virtually everything about this cries fake, especially the back stories relating how people behind the scene not wanting to be linked to murder, or illegal international trafficking, or proving Darwinism, or whatever, and their odd solution of choice ----- "hey, let's put on a show and let thousands of folks see our secret;" do the Resisters posting here do so because of the involvement of Sanderson and Heuvelmans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) Since virtually everything about this cries fake, especially the back stories relating how people behind the scene not wanting to be linked to murder, or illegal international trafficking, or proving Darwinism, or whatever, and their odd solution of choice ----- "hey, let's put on a show and let thousands of folks see our secret;" do the Resisters posting here do so because of the involvement of Sanderson and Heuvelmans? I was referring to Hansen's story of shooting it in Minnesota, inspired possibly by the tabloid story and/or his visit to Roger Patterson, whenever that was. I bought the Argosy issue in 1969 but don't really remember what I thought of it at the time. I didn't really think about it at all until I read on the UnMuseum site many years later that it was a hoax. End of interest. I think it was the article about Vietnamese villagers identifying the picture of the Iceman as being closest to what they had seen years before that got me interested again. Not so fast here......... Huntster, you might be interested in this article by François de Sarre here, speaking of satyrs. Edited May 2, 2011 by LAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Huntster, you might be interested in this article by François de Sarre here, speaking of satyrs. Yeah, it's the theory that satyrs are fanciful renditions of "wildmen". The same could be said of werewolves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Yeah, it's the theory that satyrs are fanciful renditions of "wildmen". The same could be said of werewolves. Do werewolves have pug noses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 What facts? The only thing Hansen said that was confirmed by others was that he had a fake made. The photos of the "Real" and the fake show the same thing. Since one was made as a replacement for the other, of course they looked alike. According to who? Hansen? Do you have anything to show, anybody else who has issued a statement, that can support it went down that way? The matter of his being stopped is a matter of public record contemporary to the time, is it not? I've often wondered why this is? Whether it's a sasquatch in a freezer, a neanderthal in a block of ice, or sasquatch footprint casts, as soon as somebody tries to make money off of it (if they know it isn't the real thing), that constitutes fraud, does it not? Why were the GA boys not legally prosecuted? Why is the FBI interested in Hansen, and not interested in the GA boys? Is the FBI and other law enforcement agencies almost like our wildlife management agencies; MIA with regard to sasquatchery? Would the fraud be criminal, civil, or both? It is indeed strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts