Minnesota Iceman Hoax

[Guest LAL]

Baloney, science is based on looking for alternative explanations for the data, it's called testing your hypothesis.

Not only that, but the "Data" here has pointed in every way to the Iceman being a hoax, but of course some people here still don't want to follow that.

The data points to a former Air Force pilot having a model made for touring on the circuit during his retirement. That is not a hoax; that is an exhibit. There is also evidence to suggest the model was made to resemble a real corpse which was also displayed at some point. That's the intriguing part but some people here don't want to follow that.

[wolftrax]

I'm merely pointing out that there are several different versions of the model-making story - too. Apparently Napier didn't see it at all.

No, there aren't, the ones you keep picking out are from people who have no idea.

Except that Hansen seemed sure of the timeline and Hajicek said it was in or ABOUT 1968 - he could easily have the year wrong.

lol uh-huh, there's always hope.

If the thing was such an "obvious fake", as Loren Coleman called what he saw, why would Terry Cullen have been impressed enough to alert anybody?

Yes, and Sanderson and Heuvelmans were looking for signs it was an Ainu, a composite or a carny gaff. Not all the ice was opaque and they were examining it with light. They weren't stupid.

I didn't say they were, just as the various people who have seen it and thought it was real weren't stupid either, but even though they were convinced what they saw was real the dates they saw it make it the fake.

The data points to a former Air Force pilot having a model made for touring on the circuit during his retirement. That is not a hoax; that is an exhibit.

When claims are made that it is real, and it's a fake, that's a hoax.

There is also evidence to suggest the model was made to resemble a real corpse which was also displayed at some point. That's the intriguing part but some people here don't want to follow that.

And what evidence is that? No I won't make you cite the source again, we both know the answer, Hansen's word. That brings us back to testing the hypothesis, is Hansen's word reliable? No. So there is no evidence to suggest the model was made to resemble a real corpse which was also displayed at some point.

Edited May 6, 2011 by wolftrax

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

There are a couple of members in heated debate posting in this thread. I'm ok with that as debate is what it's all about. I'm not ok with terms like "delusional" or "silly" that have been used. Let's not get personal or insulting guys. Thanks, Chris B.

[Huntster]

Baloney, science is based on looking for alternative explanations for the data, it's called testing your hypothesis.

Not only that, but the "Data" here has pointed in every way to the Iceman being a hoax

So this "Data", and your contention that "in every way" the Iceman was a hoax, is being tested with "alternative explanations". And the bottom line is that it may well have been a hoax, but we don't know for sure.

That "prove it" stuff works both ways.

[Guest]

Yes. I'm afraid you are.

And to prove it, let's review in simple terms:

Do you admit that it was Paul Du Chaillu who brought the FIRST FULL SPECIMEN of a gorilla to a western scientific organization in the Year of Our Lord, 1859, and that Paul Du Chaillu was not a "western scientist"?

Or do you disagree?

I think it's obvious that we disagree for all the reasons previous stated. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that your interpretation of the facts that you originally referenced is a purposeful misrepresentation to say the very least. Applying your gorilla logic to the Iceman or bigfoot scenario, would you also championing that skulls and significant portions of a skeleton would not be enough to establish the existence of a modern day cryptid and that a complete carcass would be necessary to "fully discover" the first type specimen? I find that hard to believe. Do you really think if the scientific establishment that you so clearly possess complete hatred for and and in tandem no understanding of, had access to similar bigfoot/Iceman evidence they wouldn't be tripping over themselves to be involved in the revelation of the discovery? Either way, I've got no doubt your fully capable of and would like to drag this interaction on for numerous more pages so I'll take my leave of this discussion.

Edited May 7, 2011 by masterbarber
removal of unacceptable content

[wolftrax]

No, the hoax hypothesis has survived the testing of the alternative explanations. Hansen told various stories of the origin of the Iceman. Since all the stories that indicate the Iceman was real contradict each other, they cancel each other out. The only story he told that could have any confirmation, is the one that he had it made, that has been confirmed at least 3 different times by 3 different people, all leading to Howard Ball. Add to that that the photos show the same figure in them, and people have claimed those photos were what they saw and it was real, yet we know those photos are of the fake, and you have your answer. It was a fake, everything indicates it was a fake. Go ahead, explore every alternative explanation, and you're going to have the same tests and the same challenges that have plagued this thing for decades.

[Huntster]

Baloney, science is based on looking for alternative explanations for the data, it's called testing your hypothesis.

Not only that, but the "Data" here has pointed in every way to the Iceman being a hoax.

So this "Data", and your contention that "in every way" the Iceman was a hoax, is being tested with "alternative explanations". And the bottom line is that it may well have been a hoax, but we don't know for sure.

That "prove it" stuff works both ways.

No,...

Yeah, I knew it all along. You like it your way.

the hoax hypothesis has survived the testing of the alternative explanations.

It most certainly has not. While I will lean towards hoax, it is clearly not a proven hoax. There are plenty of alternative explanations that are plausible.

Hansen told various stories of the origin of the Iceman.

So? All that means is that you can't trust his testimony.

Any of it.

Since all the stories that indicate the Iceman was real contradict each other, they cancel each other out.

That is really funny, coming from somebody claiming some sort of high scientific ground!

[Guest]

No scientist would ever establish such a "null set hypothesis". This is the core mistake that Skeptics make. True scientists are objective, and have no "null set hypothesis" in terms of evaluating data. There is the data, and the conclusions that the data lead to. They don't seek to find "alternative" explanations for the data, or reasons to discard the data (other than those that show the data is somehow invalid). They go where the evidence goes, no matter how uncomfortable or incredulous they may be at where they wind up.

Really?

From this interview:

http://skepchick.org/category/literature/page/9/

You spend a lot of time in the book discussing the various footprints and casts of footprints that have been found and preserved. Have all of the footprints that have been found in the US been similar enough that it seems possible that they’ve come from the same species? Also, it seems like all of the footprints that have been found are quite large. I’d think that a variety of sizes of footprints would indicate a population that included adult males and females as well as juveniles. How do you perceive the entire collection of footprints and casts in regards to its relation to a possible population of animals, and what conclusions do you think can reasonably be drawn from evaluating this collection?

Meldrum: The null hypothesis is a single species. I haven't encountered credible evidence to refute that yet.

http://www.sasquat.com/2010/05/interview-mit-bigfoot-professor-jeff.html

You think that Sasquatch is an ape related to the Pleistocene primate Gigantopithecus. Why?

Aspects of the reported anatomy and behavior are most similar to the great apes, or very early hominids. The lack of an obvious material culture suggests these are not some form of primitive human, or even near-human. Gigantopithecus was the right size, in the right place, at the right time, to pose as the candidate ancestral form. It is the best null hypothesis for the time being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

[Guest]

Really?

From this interview:

http://skepchick.org/category/literature/page/9/

*snip for space*

Go back and read what I was responding to. I never claimed that science didn't use null set hypotheses, I was objecting to a particular NSH that claimed that there was no BF unless and until BF was proven as a foundational claim.

The null hypostheses you mention are not foundational claims, but developed claims that are made after initial premises and such are established. Dr Meldrum's example is entirely appropriate in that context, as he is hypothesizing from an already established factual basis.

[wolftrax]

So? All that means is that you can't trust his testimony.

Any of it.

Except that which has been confirmed by other people who did not know each other, that it was a fake. Photos show the "Real" Iceman and the fake are one and the same. There you go, speculate otherwise, but the Iceman being fake is the only thing that stands.

I'd also like to add, that for some reason, people will stand strong with the lamest of "bigfoot" evidence while totally neglecting some of it's best in terms of quality. Examples: Iceman, BCM tracks, Freeman casts, these pieces of evidence are the most obviously fake of all, yet threads go on for pages and pages defending them. Yet take something like the Heryford casts, not a thread about it. It's almost like peopel wantto defend every single crappy piece of evidence for fear of losing ground, instead of just cutting out the crappy stuff and sticking with the good stuff.

Edited May 7, 2011 by wolftrax

[Guest LAL]

This post seems to be the source for 1964:

""Greetings! My name is Verne Langdon (http://www.vernelangdon.com), and from 1963 to 1969 I owned half of Don Post Studios, creators of "Over The Head rubber masks", and pioneer prop builders for Hollywood film and television productions. Some time during 1964 or even later (the year is vague for all the memories, but Werner Keppler was on staff in the lab at Universal Studios and Howard Ball was still alive, should you wish to pinpoint the time), Frank Hansen read about our studios in James Warren's and Forrest J Ackerman's Famous Monsters Of Filmland Magazine, and came to see us about the possibility of creating a "concept" - he showed us a rough sketch - a prehistoric creature he planned to freeze in a block of ice, and exhibit it throughout the United States."

Langdon, like Hajicek, wasn't sure of the year. Even if Hajicek saw the exhibit in 1968 it's possible Hansen's paranoia got the better of him sometime during the season and he switched it again but failed to mention that in the article. The only one who seemed sure of any year was Hansen.

"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."

Except that which has been confirmed by other people who did not know each other, that it was a fake. Photos show the "Real" Iceman and the fake are one and the same. There you go, speculate otherwise, but the Iceman being fake is the only thing that stands.

I'd also like to add, that for some reason, people will stand strong with the lamest of "bigfoot" evidence while totally neglecting some of it's best in terms of quality. Examples: Iceman, BCM tracks, Freeman casts, these pieces of evidence are the most obviously fake of all, yet threads go on for pages and pages defending them. Yet take something like the Heryford casts, not a thread about it. It's almost like peopel wantto defend every single crappy piece of evidence for fear of losing ground, instead of just cutting out the crappy stuff and sticking with the good stuff.

Maybe it's because not everyone agrees with your assessment. Heryford got the treatment on JREF.

I worry more about some latter day Tom Slick reading these threads, deciding it's all hoax and snarkiness and investing in a search for the Loch Ness Monster instead.

[wolftrax]

So basically your defense of the lamest evidence for sasquatch is to attract investors?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 06 May 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:

So? All that means is that you can't trust his testimony.

Any of it.

Except that which has been confirmed by other people who did not know each other, that it was a fake.

Maybe, and it isn't then trusting his word, it's theirs that is the testimony in focus.

Photos show the "Real" Iceman and the fake are one and the same.

Says who?

There you go, speculate otherwise, but the Iceman being fake is the only thing that stands.

My speculation is as good as yours (better, IMO, but that's just opinion), and that's all we have here: speculation. No proof of anything.

I'd also like to add, that for some reason, people will stand strong with the lamest of "bigfoot" evidence while totally neglecting some of it's best in terms of quality. Examples: Iceman, BCM tracks, Freeman casts, these pieces of evidence are the most obviously fake of all, yet threads go on for pages and pages defending them. Yet take something like the Heryford casts, not a thread about it. It's almost like peopel wantto defend every single crappy piece of evidence for fear of losing ground, instead of just cutting out the crappy stuff and sticking with the good stuff.

Not at all. The phenomenon you're discussing is likely due to the simple two-faced approach toward proof and the misuse of absolute words. For example, your words, " these pieces of evidence are the most obviously fake of all". I'd have no problem with such a statement if it were worded like this: " these pieces of evidence appear to me to be the most obviously fake of all".

Demanding *adjective* evidence or proof in some cases, then dismissing some evidence as "obvious" hoaxes without proof of such is simply a two-faced position. I reject it, and will continue to do so, whether you like it or not.

With regard to the Heryford casts, I have a copy of one hanging on the wall in my office on a military installation (along with a framed story about it's origin), and you will find any and all mention of it by me on this (or other) internet forum to be one of belief.

[Guest LAL]

So basically your defense of the lamest evidence for sasquatch is to attract investors?

I have no idea how you got that out of what I wrote. I don't think your list is the lamest evidence and I'm fairly sure Dr. Meldrum isn't going to retract his book any time in the foreseeable future. I do hope someone ready to fund a serious project will check further than a message board and not be mislead by "skeptical chic".

You still haven't answered my question. For the third time, do you agree with Verne Langdon the PGF was a crummy suit? If you won't answer the question will you at least ell me why you won't answer it?

[wolftrax]

That has what to do with the Iceman? Are we changing the subject of the thread? Anyone could read my opinion of the PGF in those threads.

Maybe, and it isn't then trusting his word, it's theirs that is the testimony in focus.

Says who?

My speculation is as good as yours (better, IMO, but that's just opinion), and that's all we have here: speculation. No proof of anything.

Not at all. The phenomenon you're discussing is likely due to the simple two-faced approach toward proof and the misuse of absolute words. For example, your words, " these pieces of evidence are the most obviously fake of all". I'd have no problem with such a statement if it were worded like this: " these pieces of evidence appear to me to be the most obviously fake of all".

Demanding *adjective* evidence or proof in some cases, then dismissing some evidence as "obvious" hoaxes without proof of such is simply a two-faced position. I reject it, and will continue to do so, whether you like it or not.

With regard to the Heryford casts, I have a copy of one hanging on the wall in my office on a military installation (along with a framed story about it's origin), and you will find any and all mention of it by me on this (or other) internet forum to be one of belief.

Ok, so post why you think the Iceman is real.

I have no idea how you got that out of what I wrote.

I talked about people standing by the lamest of evidence, you responded:

Maybe it's because not everyone agrees with your assessment. Heryford got the treatment on JREF.

I worry more about some latter day Tom Slick reading these threads, deciding it's all hoax and snarkiness and investing in a search for the Loch Ness Monster instead.

So you worry more about someone rich reading these threads and investing in some other monster when they could be investing in searching for sasquatch.