wolftrax Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 Since one was made as a replacement for the other, of course they looked alike. The artists who made it had no pictures, no body to copy, yet it came out EXACTLY the same. Were they psychic? The matter of his being stopped is a matter of public record contemporary to the time, is it not? I'm talking about being detained, the order to examine the body, the x-rays, Mondale, etc.
Guest LAL Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 The artists who made it had no pictures, no body to copy, yet it came out EXACTLY the same. Were they psychic? They had Hansen's drawing and direction. I once drew a suspect in a robbery "exactly", according to the witness. No pictures, no body, I'm not psychic and I'm not a police artist. It doesn't sound to me like the replica was "exactly" like the original. "In January 1967, I made sketches of the real creature and went to Hollywood to confer with the men who make models for the motion picture industry. I talked with Bud Westmore, the director of make-up at Universal Studios. He informed me that such a model might cost up to $20.000. Westmore didn't have the time to make the creation, but he agreed to offer his technical knowledge if I needed it. He also agreed that it would be a "challenging" endeavor. I then consulted with a staff member of the Los Angeles County Museum. He suggested that I contact Howard Ball, an independent artist who was creating life-size fiberglass elephants to be displayed at the La Brea tar pits. I later engaged Ball to sculpture the carcass and mold the body. John Chambers, a make-up artist and academy award winner from 2Oth-Century Fox suggested that a small wax studio in Los Angeles could implant the hair according to my specifications. I approached Pete and Betty Corral. They agreed to do the work and implanted each hair individually with an open-end needle. I constantly directed this portion and their work was magnificent. They were great artists and a pleasure to deal with." Another view: http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/Bigfoottopten.html
wolftrax Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 It looks exactly the same. He even confirms he went to Chambers, Westmore, and Ball. Let me ask you this, if the Georgia boys claimed they had a real body and a fake made to look like the real one, and the fake one was exposed, would you believe them?
Huntster Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 Do werewolves have pug noses? The most famous one of all did....... ......until Hollywood redefined them for us as their technology/budgets improved. The point is that they walk on two legs and are furry. The "tradition", "folklore", or generally medieval/aboriginal explanation aspects (mostly regional) simply give skeptics/denialists/wanna'-have-it-now-and-perfect/similar mindframe folks opportunity to stir squat. At this point, it appears that a carcass (pug nosed or snouted) needs to be rubbed into science's face in order to begin to learn what they really are.
Guest LAL Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 It looks exactly the same. He even confirms he went to Chambers, Westmore, and Ball. Let me ask you this, if the Georgia boys claimed they had a real body and a fake made to look like the real one, and the fake one was exposed, would you believe them? I'm not interested in the Georgia boys. They used a Monster Dome costume, didn't they? There are differences between the Argosy photo and the one I just posted. Was a full set of teeth included in the price? Langdon said Werner Kepler ventilated the hair. He said ice deteriorates latex and the model was made of vinyl with hot melt and weighed a lot but later referred to crazy Frank and his "rubber bigfoot" (@57:17). Should I jump all over the inconsistency? Can you point me to the time in the podcast where he says when Hansen approached him? I'm not finding it through all the digressions.
Huntster Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 Huntster, on 01 May 2011 - 02:35 PM, said: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 should be both. Hoaxers that try to gain financially from a hoax are putting the public at risk, so that should be criminal. If somebody loses money to such fraud, they should be able to sue civilly. But what we see is law enforcement (mostly local) responding to calls about such creatures by citizens (in a public safety type of response, which is good), then it is ignored since the police have no responsibility to catch such creatures if they don't represent an ongoing threat to public safety. If there is a possible hoax involved, they appear to have no interest whatsoever. In the case of the Iceman, somebody within law enforcement appears to have been interested in the potential of Hansen violating import law. He changes his story, and the legal threat goes away, and the skeptics/denialists are thus armed with a weapon of doubt with which to declare a hoax (without knowing what the thing was at all).
wolftrax Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 I'm not interested in the Georgia boys. They used a Monster Dome costume, didn't they? You didn't answer the question, if the Georgia boys claimed they had a real body and a fake made to look like the real one, and the fake one was exposed, would you believe them? There are differences between the Argosy photo and the one I just posted. Was a full set of teeth included in the price? So the tooth exposure is the only difference? I don't know anyone involved with FX that would only put a partial set of teeth in a creature prop. Langdon said Werner Kepler ventilated the hair. He said ice deteriorates latex and the model was made of vinyl with hot melt and weighed a lot but later referred to crazy Frank and his "rubber bigfoot" (@57:17). Should I jump all over the inconsistency? In effect vinyl and latex are both used to make flexible masks, costumes, and props: http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=969&bih=708&q=vinyl+mask&btnG=Google+Search#q=vinyl+mask&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=dqy&sa=G&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&ei=Xvm-TdbjB47msQOU0KTJBQ&ved=0CDMQrQQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=8a6d8d44eb74daa6&biw=969&bih=708 Can you point me to the time in the podcast where he says when Hansen approached him? I'm not finding it through all the digressions. I would have to listen again.
Guest LAL Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) 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?: Why not indeed? "The body was kept in a closed rectangular block of ice in a glass case and was only partially visible for two important reasons: First, a considerable section of ice was recrystallized plates of opaque, while the second was a substantial emission of gas from the body, expelled through the orifices and pores of the skin." http://cerbi.ldi5.com/article.php3?id_article=133 Edited May 2, 2011 by LAL
wolftrax Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 Because it adds to the mystery and the figure is teasingly obscured.
Guest LAL Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 You didn't answer the question, if the Georgia boys claimed they had a real body and a fake made to look like the real one, and the fake one was exposed, would you believe them? Probably not if the real deal was a Monster Dome costume. A hoax that may have been inspired by the MIM has nothing to do with events in the mid-sixties. So the tooth exposure is the only difference? I don't know anyone involved with FX that would only put a partial set of teeth in a creature prop. Didn't you notice the Saga photo is reversed? If Heuvelmans was correct the more open mouth was due to Hansen rearranging the cadaver. Why close the mouth on such a nifty, gappy set of teeth the first time? In effect vinyl and latex are both used to make flexible masks, costumes, and props: http://www.google.co...biw=969&bih=708 I guess you didn't "get it". Verne specifically said what I said he said @ 31:34. It was solid vinyl and it weighed a lot. Does that sound like what Hajicek saw? "In or about 1968 I saw the 'original' Iceman at a fair. I looked at it closely and what struck me the most was that the hair on the creature appeared to be set into the skin like that on my little sister's Barbie doll. Indeed, I noticed that more than one hair was coming out of the same pore in some cases. Certainly there was all the blood and gore sort of thing, but I pretty well wrote it off as a fake from this particular observation. Nevertheless, another concern was that the body looked too firm—there was no shrinkage, wrinkling, bloating, appearance of rotting, and so forth. Even a body frozen in ice will change dramatically, depending on its exposure to air or wet ice. About ten years later, my girlfriend (wife-to-be) and I were driving out in the Minnesota countryside and we saw a large "Antiques" sign on a farm-like spread. We stopped in, and the owner, who I believe was Frank Hansen, came out to greet us. He was somewhat attracted to my girlfriend and proceeded to take her for a walk, leaving me standing there. I saw an old barn not far off with the door ajar, so I wandered over to have a look inside. There were tons of rusty iron stuff and other junk all over the place and, as I proceeded, I saw a large glass box in a corner. I walked over to it, and there inside was the Iceman, in all his latex rubber glory — covered in dust and grime, as there was no cover. I inspected him closely and noted the hair-attachment anomaly I have mentioned. I then moved one arm to sort of see what the thing was like. I went away thoroughly convinced that what I saw in the barn was the same "creature" I had seen at the fair." http://www.hancockho...060123164813416 Maybe the Smithsonian was right and Hansen had three models made. I would have to listen again. Please do. I'm getting tired of hearing about Little Irvy the Whale.
Guest Posted May 2, 2011 Posted May 2, 2011 It looks exactly the same. He even confirms he went to Chambers, Westmore, and Ball. Let me ask you this, if the Georgia boys claimed they had a real body and a fake made to look like the real one, and the fake one was exposed, would you believe them? If we had independent confirmatory evidence of the original (which we do in the case of Iceman), yes.
Guest Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 It should be both. Hoaxers that try to gain financially from a hoax are putting the public at risk, so that should be criminal. If somebody loses money to such fraud, they should be able to sue civilly. But what we see is law enforcement (mostly local) responding to calls about such creatures by citizens (in a public safety type of response, which is good), then it is ignored since the police have no responsibility to catch such creatures if they don't represent an ongoing threat to public safety. If there is a possible hoax involved, they appear to have no interest whatsoever. In the case of the Iceman, somebody within law enforcement appears to have been interested in the potential of Hansen violating import law. He changes his story, and the legal threat goes away, and the skeptics/denialists are thus armed with a weapon of doubt with which to declare a hoax (without knowing what the thing was at all). Seems to me it's a bit more than just him "changing his story"...he had to get a Senator involved to get him out of it. As to why the GA boys aren't being prosecuted, that's an interesting question...but it doesn't mean Hansen is any more or less truthful. The GA situation is the GA situation and Hansen is Hansen.
Guest Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Because it adds to the mystery and the figure is teasingly obscured. That is speculation on your part.
Huntster Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Huntster, on 02 May 2011 - 05:30 AM, said:It should be both. Hoaxers that try to gain financially from a hoax are putting the public at risk, so that should be criminal. If somebody loses money to such fraud, they should be able to sue civilly. But what we see is law enforcement (mostly local) responding to calls about such creatures by citizens (in a public safety type of response, which is good), then it is ignored since the police have no responsibility to catch such creatures if they don't represent an ongoing threat to public safety. If there is a possible hoax involved, they appear to have no interest whatsoever. In the case of the Iceman, somebody within law enforcement appears to have been interested in the potential of Hansen violating import law. He changes his story, and the legal threat goes away, and the skeptics/denialists are thus armed with a weapon of doubt with which to declare a hoax (without knowing what the thing was at all). Seems to me it's a bit more than just him "changing his story"...he had to get a Senator involved to get him out of it. A Senator. More graft. Great. As to why the GA boys aren't being prosecuted, that's an interesting question...but it doesn't mean Hansen is any more or less truthful. The GA situation is the GA situation and Hansen is Hansen. Agreed. However, Hansen changed his story more than once, and thus I would automatically consider his every word a lie. IMO, the only way to determine what was in the ice would be to thaw it. Of course, skeptics don't need that. Their skepticism ends when a convenient hint indicates a fake. It's over. It becomes fact. If more yahoos like the GA boys spent time in the Ironbar Hotel for their fraudulent antics, maybe we'd see less of it.
Guest ajciani Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 I really wish we knew where this thing was being displayed now, and if the "real" body is ever on display, or if only the fake is out. Looking at the teeth should tell whether it's real or fake. Are there any good photos of them? See link earlier in the thread. Hmm, which link? Most of the links in this thread contain info from 67, 68, and 76. Apparently, Curt Nelson (the same Curt Nelson who did DNA testing for MQ?) followed up on Hansen's iceman in 2005, and found out that Frank Hansen had died in 2003. In talking to Hansen's son, Nelson was told that the "second" body had been cleared out. I have no idea if Nelson was able to gain any information on the "first" body. I can only see three possibilities: They were all fakes, and all cleared out, or it was always just one fake. The "California owner" story was true, and the real body is back with him, his estate, or destroyed. The claim of shooting it in the woods was true, and Hansen either disposed of it, or left it to his wife and son who either still have it or disposed of it.
Recommended Posts