Minnesota Iceman Hoax

[Guest]

I said:

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.

And you replied:

You quote: "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.

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

How is what I stated incorrect? It seems you're actually incorrect via your own source. How are you seeing that a Doctor that graduated from an Ivy league medical school isn't part of the scientific establishment? He may have indeed been an amateur naturalist but your conclusion here that Savage (and Wyman for that matter) wasn't a part of the scientific establishment is rather unique to say the very least.

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.

Again, you're own source is citing that they had a type specimens as the basis for the paper that introduced the Gorilla to any peers who wished to either challenge or verify their observations that the Gorilla was a definitive new species of great ape that up until that point was not recognized by science based on the physical evidence they'd collected and retained. Wombwell's specimen came almost a full decade later and your cited source for 'sideshow' Gorillas came decades later as I originally stated. Again, did you not read what you cited? I'm not seeing you having a valid criticism here, in fact the very sources that you cite seem to refute what you claim.

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

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.

You've cited a rather unique interpretation of the facts, not the actual facts IMO. Your references cite those facts and seem to be in disagreement with your own intrepretations. You're definitely drawing a picture, but I'm not seeing where your observations in regards to your own references are valid. Your own references clearly state the Gorilla was established as a reality by Savage and Wyman in 1847 via a paper they presented based on the physical type specimens they collected. We've never had a verified type specimen for the Iceman and I'm really not seeing a similarity at all with the Iceman for the aforementioned reasons.

What I originally stated:

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.

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

No we're not in agreement, I simply asked for clarification in any points you may have been attempting to convey in what you stated were similarities in the discovery of the gorilla and the Iceman scenario. What I would wager is suspected denialism on my part is in reality the fact that you seemed to miss my point that according to your own references, the gorilla was established as a reality from it's introduction to the world based on the collection of actual type specimens long before what you seem to think is a fair comparison to the Iceman transpired. Something that would have established the reality of the Iceman had Hansen allowed Sanderson and Huevelmans to do more than just gaze at it while it was fully encased in ice if the Iceman. The fact that he didn't allow for more than that lends a ton of credibility to the likely fact that it was a big rubber bouncer.

You're right that no one is going to prove definitively that the Iceman was a fake to those that seem to what to believe it was real. However, the 'null set' hypothesis is that it was fake and not real. In this case, in the unlikely event that the Iceman was real it was Frank Hansen the man who possessed the Iceman, and not the scientific establishment who prevented its discovery.

[Huntster]

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.

Huntster, on 29 April 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

You quote: "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.

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

How is what I stated incorrect?

Because "the first documented and verifiable type specimen" was not fully "discovered" nor "possessed by western science" until Paul Du Chaillu came back with a full specimen in 1859, fully four years after Jenny was possessed alive and displayed in a travelling carnival in England by George Wombwell. Dr. Savage possessed skulls and some bones (not even a full skeleton), and these were not obtained first hand (but third hand from natives), and he had not seen a gorilla.

It seems you're actually incorrect via your own source.

Actually, it seems that you're grasping at straws because you can't even accept being incorrect on (1) something you never knew about before I informed you, and (2) which demonstrates something that you are unwilling to accept. It is a wonderful example of denial, and it appears to fit well.

How are you seeing that a Doctor that graduated from an Ivy league medical school isn't part of the scientific establishment?

He is, and (apparently) so am I.

Big deal. I'm not a primitologist. Savage was an amateur naturalist, and apparently, more astute than the "professional" naturalists of the day.

He may have indeed been an amateur naturalist but your conclusion here that Savage (and Wyman for that matter) wasn't a part of the scientific establishment is rather unique to say the very least.

Enough of the back pedalling. Get on with your denial, please.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 29 April 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

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.

Again, you're own source is citing that they had a type specimens as the basis for the paper that introduced the Gorilla to any peers who wished to either challenge or verify their observations that the Gorilla was a definitive new species of great ape that up until that point was not recognized by science based on the physical evidence they'd collected and retained.

That is mostly correct. The skulls and what bones were there were enough to begin the process of recognition of the species.

Wombwell's specimen came almost a full decade later

And it was alive, in England, and four years before the first full specimen (hide, full skeleton) arrived at the Royal Geographic Society, courtesy of Paul Du Chaillu (not a scientist).

Again, did you not read what you cited?

Yes, I did. And much, much more. You might want to perform some research of your own before you further embarrass yourself.

I'm not seeing you having a valid criticism here

There is much that you apparently don't see.

Huntster, on 29 April 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

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

Again, you are fully and completely incorrect.

As all can now see, I have a gift of prophesy, as well.

I've cited the facts, and outlined the dates.

You have repeated some of the facts and re-outlined some of the dates that I have provided you, and you have ignored the ones proving my contention, which is this: a chicken**** travelling show was displaying a live gorilla for a few schillings to runny nosed kids while the self-important clergy of science were pompously doing exactly what you think you're doing right here, and the same thing may have occurred with the Minnesota Iceman (and perhaps other events as well). It's downright hilarious!

You've cited a rather unique interpretation of the facts, not the actual facts IMO.

I was wondering when it was coming. Now you'll start the inevitable denial of the second degree: "show me the gorilla skin", "show me the lab report proving that was a gorilla hide", "show me this", "show me that".

Thanks. You again prove that denial has no limits.

[wolftrax]

Aw baloney, the Smithsonian and Napier both wanted to physically check out the Iceman and Hansen wouldn't allow it. This wasn't the "Science won't give Bigfoot a chance" usual thing people here like to tout around, they wanted to examine it and all this other stuff came out, that it was a fake. There you have it.

[Guest LAL]

Yeah, the podcast I posted confirmed that indeed Hansen went to Chambers and Langdon to have the fake made, Hansen confirmed this as well, and they referred him other people to have it done.

Hansen said the Museum referred him to Chambers and that the couple, not Kepler, did the hair. Not confirmation - contradiction.

Langdon said they thought the model was going to be used in a hoax and didn't want to be involved so he already "knew" it was a hoax before the model was even made. When Hansen told him about the original Langdon's "s*** detector" went off, he got mad and left sticking Hansen (he said "Malone" and then corrected it) with the check. I wish I had one of those detectors.

Again, it's not in dispute he had a model made. There may have been more than one or more than one studio working on the one.

Do you think Langdon was right about the PGF?

Then you know the Squatchopedia entry you referred to was wrong.

No, I don't know that but I think it's wrong. If it didn't come from the podcast it may have come from a post of Langdon's. Langdon may have been unclear about the year. Hansen retired from the Air Force in 1965 so 1964 is too early.

You just posted it.

Yes. Note the sequence. Hajicek could have seen the exhibit early in 1968 before Hansen decided by March it was safe to display the original. Sanderson and Heuvelmans apparently saw the original, not the model with the Barbie Doll hair. Not all the ice was opaque.

[Guest LAL]

Aw baloney, the Smithsonian and Napier both wanted to physically check out the Iceman and Hansen wouldn't allow it. This wasn't the "Science won't give Bigfoot a chance" usual thing people here like to tout around, they wanted to examine it and all this other stuff came out, that it was a fake. There you have it.

Here you have another view:

"Certain discoveries are bound to upset both proved and preconceived facts of knowledge; all that we believe we know.

Bernard Heuvelmans has said that this question might resolve into being the most important discovery of our times.

One must remember the timidity of many scientific experts. From a French viewpoint the question of mysterious, non-recognized creatures receives a cold reception in British scientific circles. But I do not think this is entirely true. Great caution does exist before a final commitment, but that is not exclusive to the official British attitude. This book will show how timidly, and often with hostility, other countries' "establishments" reacted for far longer than a mere one hundred years.

In my introduction I said how my work resolves into a wrestling match. Here are two bouts that must be added to this chapter, which came to light when the whole material was already in process of preparing for publication.

Professor Bernard Heuvelmans' conversations with Frank Hansen were now amplified. He met him again at Hansen's home in Rollingstone, Winona County, Minnesota, where Hansen repeated statements he had made, but now said he had no idea of the Iceman's nature. He said it was even possible that the specimen was only a clever oriental fabrication, like so-called mermaids sold in the main ports of the Indian Ocean as curiosities. They are generally the product of a very complicated assembly of a monkey's body or a lemur's, a fish tail, and the claws of a predatory bird. This last physical trait has never been attributed to the mermaid's legendary image. Probably the idea is to create something sensational. It could well be that whoever first saw the disputed ice specimen was looking for artificial "Monster" exhibits to commercialize in the U.S.A.

Perhaps the fact of Hansen now casting doubts on the macabre contents of his showcase having ever been genuine is an opting out of responsibility because he may think a showdown is inevitable. Such an assumption seems reasonable, especially as a slight scent of decay was beginning to escape from one corner of the coffin, even though it was closed. And one of the toes showed a change of color which Hansen himself admitted having noticed. He stated that he could continue showing the specimen for another year, but feared such a delay would cause decay beyond the point when a scientific study in depth could be applied.

Professor Heuvelmans pursued the case with several hypotheses. Firstly, he said the object could have been entirely artificial. But this he rejected as impossible. Next, it could be a composite assembly of spare parts taken from divers species. That too he rejected. Thirdly, it could be an individual belonging to some known race of Homo sapiens. There was doubt there too. Fourthly, it might be an abnormal human freak. The fifth suggestion was that the Iceman was of a race, or sub-race, of Man still unknown. The sixth hypothesis indicated an entirely different species of Man. Heuvelmans suggested that the theory of a specimen of an unknown race of Man was just possible. All races have thrown up freakishly hairy samples from time to time.

At this point the Professor quoted the American anthropologist, Carleton ****. Apparently this scientist's book, Origin of Races (published in 1912), describes the Ainus "as hirsute as a hairy Scot or Jew". I cannot quite see why those two particular races were picked out as displaying extreme hairiness. Professor Heuvelmans, speaking in all seriousness, stated that the Iceman was much, much more hirsute! Still, there have been exceptionally hairy human beings known to medical history down the centuries. Such records appear in Les Velus ("The Hirsute Ones") a book written in 1912 by Doctors Le Double and Houssay.

With due respect to Professor Heuvelmans, the Iceman hypothesis of a fabricated specimen, which he rejected, is the one I have always been inclined to favour since the beginning of this strange story of a creature dredged up from ice.

The following final piece of information to reach me almost confirms my view.

Like many investigators, I play my hunches. One of these, some months ago, was that some Vancouver records would contain a clue to the mystery; so I wrote to find out. After some weeks, only a few days after receiving the amplified Heuvelmans data, I received a report from Mr. J. N. Lewis, of the Press Library, Vancouver. He had just discovered the clue, and it had appeared in the Vancouver Sun Newspaper on May l0, 1969. The implication was that the Iceman was a fake. That same month, the Smithsonian Institution of U.S.A. indicated that the specimen being exhibited up and down the United States was an artificial shape composed of latex rubber and hair.

George Berklacy of the Smithsonian stated that he had been in touch with a Californian wax museum owner who told him that one of his employees had worked on the Iceman in the spring of 1967 inserting hair into the latex rubber body. This tallies with the time Frank Hansen began showing his "prehistoric" specimen at fair grounds. The museum owner would not disclose the name of the man who had performed the exhausting task of covering the shape with millions of hairs. The indication of decay escaping from the Iceman's glass case does not constitute a contradiction. A non-human substance like rubber can be equally objectionable when deteriorating.

Dr. John Napier, was at the time, chief of the primatology department at the Smithsonian, and eminent in his field, but was curious. Frank Hansen refused to let him examine the exhibit closely, just as he had refused others.

Dr. Napier said that the chances now seem high that the Iceman was merely a fabricated model. But he is still interested and wishes he could have examined it. He added that it was difficult to believe that Heuvelmans could have been fooled so easily.

Though now it is practically certain that the Iceman is a piece of trickery, if one is bound to agree with John Napier.

And that is why this story of a probable hoax. Because, supposing there was one fragment of truth in this involved and often absurd story, some of its features do equate with this book's theme of the Snowman-plus-Neanderthal situation. And because if the Iceman is a complete hoax, as I am almost certain it is, fabrications of this nature must be exposed to prevent their perpetuation.

Finally, a closing statement.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C. have been good enough to advise me that they have no information to send me regarding the "Iceman." Quote: "Nor has this Bureau taken any part in investigation in connection with this case." Unquote. The letter is written at the highest level, and the signature represents a living and legendary name.

© Odette Tchernine

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/hansen2.htm

Langdon said solid vinyl and hot melt.

Dang, can't even get the material straight!

[wolftrax]

Hansen said the Museum referred him to Chambers and that the couple, not Kepler, did the hair. Not confirmation - contradiction.

No, and here's why. We know that Hansen went to Chambers. We know that Hansen was referred to Howard Ball. Hansen acknowledges this. Chambers was working with Don Post Studios closely, and Langdon, Langdon aided Chambers on Planet of the Apes. Kepler also worked with them both on POTA. Anyways, it's is not a question of Hansen having it made and who he went to. They could have referred Hansen to Kepler, and Hansen could have found someone to do it for cheaper at the wax museum. It doesn't matter, because it doesn't change that Hansen had it made, and admitted it.

Yes. Note the sequence. Hajicek could have seen the exhibit early in 1968 before Hansen decided by March it was safe to display the original. Sanderson and Heuvelmans apparently saw the original, not the model with the Barbie Doll hair. Not all the ice was opaque.

lol yes look at the sequence. Hansen said he went and put the model away for the winter in 67/68. It was when he went back out after the winter, March, that he exhibited the "Real" iceman. Enter Hajicek and what he saw, according to that timeline, is what Hansen claimed to be the "Real" iceman.

[wolftrax]

Langdon said solid vinyl and hot melt.

Dang, can't even get the material straight!

Lal, would you know the difference between a vinyl mask and a latex one?

[Guest]

Like most very public BF stuff, the water is so muddied that quite likely the world never will know the truth. And like all very public BF stuff, the ony way the public will see the truth (either hoax or real) is with the public being shown the real dead body or the real hoaxed dummy...

One thing that really bugs me is that when I was a kid in the late 60s, my family went at the Minnesota State Fair and my dad wouldn't pay for me to see the Iceman. Dad was extremely pragmatic, the skeptics here would have loved him. He said (and I paraphrase here, it was a long time ago) "I'm not going to waste any #&@! money to look at *&%$! dummy". Dad wouldn't have believed BF were a real animal if someone had dumped a dead one in the front yard...

[wolftrax]

Here you have another view:

I'm not sure how you are reading this as a different view when it says this:

Like many investigators, I play my hunches. One of these, some months ago, was that some Vancouver records would contain a clue to the mystery; so I wrote to find out. After some weeks, only a few days after receiving the amplified Heuvelmans data, I received a report from Mr. J. N. Lewis, of the Press Library, Vancouver. He had just discovered the clue, and it had appeared in the Vancouver Sun Newspaper on May l0, 1969. The implication was that the Iceman was a fake. That same month, the Smithsonian Institution of U.S.A. indicated that the specimen being exhibited up and down the United States was an artificial shape composed of latex rubber and hair.

George Berklacy of the Smithsonian stated that he had been in touch with a Californian wax museum owner who told him that one of his employees had worked on the Iceman in the spring of 1967 inserting hair into the latex rubber body. This tallies with the time Frank Hansen began showing his "prehistoric" specimen at fair grounds. The museum owner would not disclose the name of the man who had performed the exhausting task of covering the shape with millions of hairs. The indication of decay escaping from the Iceman's glass case does not constitute a contradiction. A non-human substance like rubber can be equally objectionable when deteriorating.

Dr. John Napier, was at the time, chief of the primatology department at the Smithsonian, and eminent in his field, but was curious. Frank Hansen refused to let him examine the exhibit closely, just as he had refused others.

Dr. Napier said that the chances now seem high that the Iceman was merely a fabricated model. But he is still interested and wishes he could have examined it. He added that it was difficult to believe that Heuvelmans could have been fooled so easily.

Pretty much what i said. Napier and the Smithsonian wanted to examine it, Hansen refused, info comes out it's a fake.

[Huntster]

Aw baloney, the Smithsonian and Napier both wanted to physically check out the Iceman and Hansen wouldn't allow it.

And there is no reason to believe that Wombwell would have allowed the scientific butchers of the day to dissect his "chimp", either. He probably paid well for his gorilla.

Go get your own...........

(Getting the message yet?..................No, I didn't think so..............)

This wasn't the "Science won't give Bigfoot a chance" usual thing people here like to tout around

Correct. It was the "science didn't have a friggen clue" thing that I like to tout here.

they wanted to examine it and all this other stuff came out, that it was a fake. There you have it.

Maybe. Maybe not. And you'll never know for sure.

And there you truly have it.

[Guest LAL]

No, and here's why. We know that Hansen went to Chambers. We know that Hansen was referred to Howard Ball. Hansen acknowledges this. Chambers was working with Don Post Studios closely, and Langdon, Langdon aided Chambers on Planet of the Apes. Kepler also worked with them both on POTA. Anyways, it's is not a question of Hansen having it made and who he went to. They could have referred Hansen to Kepler, and Hansen could have found someone to do it for cheaper at the wax museum. It doesn't matter, because it doesn't change that Hansen had it made, and admitted it.

Langdon seemed sure Keppler ventilated it . That he did it is even stated in a short bio here.

"Werner Keppler is a makeup artist who worked on the 1973 movie Battle for the Planet of the Apes. His association with makeup supervisor John Chambers went back much further; when Keppler had worked at Universal Studios in the 1960s, Chambers had passed showman Frank Hansen's 'Ice Man' project on to Howard Ball (for casting) and Werner Keppler (for painstaking application of Yak-hair). The resulting sculpture was then frozen in a huge block of ice and displayed around the country.^[1]"

First reference:

1. ↑ 'Bigfoot Forums' - Verne Langdon post (2008)

Wasn't it supposed to be bear hair?

There are almost as many stories about that model as there are stories about the provenance of the original.

lol yes look at the sequence. Hansen said he went and put the model away for the winter in 67/68. It was when he went back out after the winter, March, that he exhibited the "Real" iceman. Enter Hajicek and what he saw, according to that timeline, is what Hansen claimed to be the "Real" iceman.

How long is winter? Hansen was exhibiting in January of '69, wasn't he? Was he showing it in January the year before or in February before he decided, in March, it was safe to show the original? Hajicek didn't give a date. He said "In or about 1968 I saw the 'original' Iceman at a fair.". Could have been 1967.

[Guest LAL]

One thing that really bugs me is that when I was a kid in the late 60s, my family went at the Minnesota State Fair and my dad wouldn't pay for me to see the Iceman. Dad was extremely pragmatic, the skeptics here would have loved him. He said (and I paraphrase here, it was a long time ago) "I'm not going to waste any #&@! money to look at *&%$! dummy". Dad wouldn't have believed BF were a real animal if someone had dumped a dead one in the front yard...

Bummer. Dr. Grover Krantz just missed seeing it too.

[Guest LAL]

Lal, would you know the difference between a vinyl mask and a latex one?

Or a hot melt over either or be able to spot the damage done by ice on latex?

Do you agree with Langdon's opinion of the PGF as a "crummy suit"?

[wolftrax]

Or a hot melt over either or be able to spot the damage done by ice on latex?

Do you agree with Langdon's opinion of the PGF as a "crummy suit"?

I take that to mean you wouldn't know the difference between a vinyl mask and a latex one.