Minnesota Iceman Hoax

[Guest RayG]

Does that sound like what Hajicek saw?

Is this the same Hajicek who, in the early 90's encountered crisp, exceptionally clear and detailed 17-inch footprints that were clearly humanlike in form, with distinct toes and a broad round heel? The nature film producer, who saw these footprints when he was on location with a film crew, followed these footprints for over a mile, but neglected to film these footprints? The same film producer who was unfamiliar with sasquatch in the 90's?

Or so says Dr. Meldrum says in Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, 2006, pages 17-18.

RayG

[Guest LAL]

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.

Nope and I think you know what I'm getting at. Do you think that Verne Langdon, after viewing photos sent to him by Paul Vella, was qualified to pass an expert opinion on the PGF and pronounce it a "crummy suit" with quite a bit of elaboration on what he meant by "crummy"?

Is this the same Hajicek who, in the early 90's encountered crisp, exceptionally clear and detailed 17-inch footprints that were clearly humanlike in form, with distinct toes and a broad round heel? The nature film producer, who saw these footprints when he was on location with a film crew, followed these footprints for over a mile, but neglected to film these footprints? The same film producer who was unfamiliar with sasquatch in the 90's?

Or so says Dr. Meldrum says in Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, 2006, pages 17-18.

RayG

That would be the same Doug Hajicek and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China - or the price of dead Yerens, for that matter?

[Guest RayG]

Just my personal observation that it seems rather strange a nature film producer such as Hajicek would be unfamiliar with sasquatch in the early 90's.

You know, one of those things that make me go hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

RayG

[Guest LAL]

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

I also mentioned I don't think it's the lamest. In fact, it may be some of the strongest, although it's questionable whether the MIM has much to do with sasquatches. One man's "obvious fake" is another man's "compelling evidence".

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.

Is there a tongue-in-cheek smilie around here somewhere? It's not like I lose sleep over it, but if I were a newbie with money for research I wouldn't be inclined to spend much of it after reading the phenomenon is nothing but misidentification, myth and hoax. Unless one is willing to delve deeper people who think otherwise might be dismissed as gullible kooks. Oh. wait. We are anyway. Never mind.

I don't suppose you guys think you do any harm. If all the evidence that's been questioned by skeptics is thrown out there won't be anything left, will there?

Now, getting back to the MIM, some of the evidence points to a model having been made and that was never a secret to begin with. I fail to understand how any statements from Howard Ball, his son, John Chambers or Verne Langdon can be taken as a revelation. Sanderson didn't names names but they may have talked to all of the above in 1969. It doesn't matter if those people thought they were making something for a hoax. Hansen didn't exactly tell them he had the original at home in a freezer. When he did try to tell Langdon something to that effect Langdon got mad and stuck him with the check. Lesson learned, eh?

Hansen may have had several cover stories. I'd like to know more about the French sources and the Russian trawler. Just how would they know anything about a model made in Hollywood?

[wolftrax]

Nope and I think you know what I'm getting at. Do you think that Verne Langdon, after viewing photos sent to him by Paul Vella, was qualified to pass an expert opinion on the PGF and pronounce it a "crummy suit" with quite a bit of elaboration on what he meant by "crummy"?

No that wasn't apparent in your post. I recall Verne talking about photos Paul sent him from Long's book about Phillip Morris's ape suit, and his assessment that was actually composed of Don Post Studios parts. I also recall Verne saying in his opinion it was a suit, I doubt he only viewed photos considering the availability of the film online and the furor that ensued when he started posting here before the interview. Considering that, and he worked on Planet of the Apes and his knowledge of hair ventillation, yeah, I think he was qualified to pass an expert opinion on the PGF and pronounce it a suit.

And that has what to do with the Iceman?

I also mentioned I don't think it's the lamest. In fact, it may be some of the strongest, although it's questionable whether the MIM has much to do with sasquatches. One man's "obvious fake" is another man's "compelling evidence".

If you find multiple lies compelling evidence then it is difficult to see what you would consider a fake.

I don't suppose you guys think you do any harm. If all the evidence that's been questioned by skeptics is thrown out there won't be anything left, will there?

You can blame anyone you want to, but if you promote the obvious hoaxes and defend them to the end the only one to blame for this subject not being taken seriously is yourself.

But that's entertainment, right?

Edited May 7, 2011 by wolftrax

[Huntster]

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

I don't think that the Iceman was real. I also think that it hasn't been proven that he was not real. Likely, IMO. But not proven.

Just my personal observation that it seems rather strange a nature film producer such as Hajicek would be unfamiliar with sasquatch in the early 90's.

You know, one of those things that make me go hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Just my personal observation that it seems rather strange that all professional wildlife managers would be unfamiliar with sasquatch by the early 90's.

You know, one of those things that make me go hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[Guest]

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.

Huntster, don't you know that "proof" is only required of proponents? Skeptics are Automatically Right^TM...

[Guest]

I don't understand why anyone these days would want to make a hoax. There's not any money in it like back in the Patterson days, not that it was... I'm just saying

[Guest LAL]

No that wasn't apparent in your post. I recall Verne talking about photos Paul sent him from Long's book about Phillip Morris's ape suit, and his assessment that was actually composed of Don Post Studios parts. I also recall Verne saying in his opinion it was a suit, I doubt he only viewed photos considering the availability of the film online and the furor that ensued when he started posting here before the interview. Considering that, and he worked on Planet of the Apes and his knowledge of hair ventillation, yeah, I think he was qualified to pass an expert opinion on the PGF and pronounce it a suit.

And that has what to do with the Iceman?

Then you agree the PGF was a crummy suit? Or is it possible Langdon could be right about one thing and wrong about something else? Or does everything have to be in black&white? He was sure the model was going to be used in a hoax before it was even made. That wouldn't color his opinion, would it?

If you find multiple lies compelling evidence then it is difficult to see what you would consider a fake.

I see a difference between a cover story or two - or three - carnival hype and lies. "Compelling evidence" in this case, would be the body Sanderson and Heuvelmans examined through the ice.

I suspect Hansen acquired the original whatever-it-was while he was on leave, stored it in the freezer and came up with a story for his wife. If the original came into the country illegally he might not have trusted her with the information. I get the impression she didn't know much about his whereabouts at all times. The "innocents" she was protecting later may have been the families of others involved in smuggling.

I don't dismiss the idea that there was a Hollywood millionaire involved somehow, either. We don't call it Hollyweird for nothing.

I haven't been able to find out more about Heuvelmans' idea the body was smuggled in in a body bag. Hopefully there's more in his book and I'll be able to translate it. In the meantime I'm going to make a few inquires tomorrow if I can find e-mails.

You can blame anyone you want to, but if you promote the obvious hoaxes and defend them to the end the only one to blame for this subject not being taken seriously is yourself.

"Obvious hoaxes" is your opinion and I've seen it refuted repeatedly. I'll take Dr. Meldrum's and Jimmy Chilcutt's opinion of Freeman's casts, e.g., over yours any day. I think casting experiments are great for showing people who are accustomed to hiking about with 20 lbs. of plaster what not to do in the field but they don't prove dermatoglyphics aren't dermatoglyphics. That's my opinion, of course.

The very title of this thread shows bias, don't you think? Does it bother you that misinformation gets spread on podcasts, blogs, websites and books? Does accuracy count?

But that's entertainment, right?

Hopefully it's entertaining. I hope others will be inspired to look more deeply into some of the evidence and not dismiss it just because some skeptic or other thinks repeatedly calling something a hoax proves it was one. These discussions may help book sales, if nothing else.

This drawing shows what was obscured by ice and what wasn't. Looks to me like there was plenty of opportunity to observe the hair. If Barbie doll hair was noticeable to Hajicek viewing the exhibit it should have been more noticeable under lights in a closer examination if the two were the same, IMHO.

[Guest RayG]

Just my personal observation that it seems rather strange that all professional wildlife managers would be unfamiliar with sasquatch by the early 90's.

You know, one of those things that make me go hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Another thing that makes me go hmmmmmmmmmmmm is when people toss out statements that are unsupported by any facts. So, how did your arrive at your conclusion Huntster, and when did you or anyone else talk to ALL professional wildlife managers in the early 90's about bigfoot?

RayG

[Guest Cervelo]

Haven't most frozen animal finds been flat as a pancake?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 07 May 2011 - 09:27 PM, said:

Just my personal observation that it seems rather strange that all professional wildlife managers would be unfamiliar with sasquatch by the early 90's.

You know, one of those things that make me go hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Another thing that makes me go hmmmmmmmmmmmm is when people toss out statements that are unsupported by any facts. So, how did your arrive at your conclusion Huntster, and when did you or anyone else talk to ALL professional wildlife managers in the early 90's about bigfoot?

Yet another thing that makes me go hmmmmmmmmmmmm is a guy who claims to have keen analytical powers, yet can't seem to perform even the most basic research without prompting.

For example, Ray, just the other day I went to the websites for the fish and game departments for each of the following states: California, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. They all have websites, Ray. Neat tools for disseminating information. Even about sasquatch/bigfoot. And guess what? Each have a search engine.

Go ahead, Ray. Try each of them. Use "sasquatch" or "bigfoot" as key words. Or you can believe me when I tell you that you'll get the grand total hits of......................: 0.

The Alaska Dept of Fish and Game used to have a wildlife bulletin series, and in it was a story about bigfoot. It was a very responsible blurb about bigfoot legends, that there have been various reports in Alaska, but there was no proof that the creature existed. Even that blurb is gone. There is absolutely nothing.

So, Ray, the professional wildlife management agencies are perfectly silent on the issue. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

But, of course, you knew that, right?

[Guest]

Huntster, don't you know that "proof" is only required of proponents? Skeptics are Automatically Right^TM...

I get the impression from reading advocate postings that certainty resides in the mind of the believer, not the doubter.

"Proof" is an issue that seems to befuddle advocates. Considering the Iceman, the only "proof" that would resolve the issue is the one that necessarily burdens the advocate, producing the body. The skeptic does not carry such a heavy burden for a simple reason: there is no way, in principle, to prove the Iceman was a hoax.

Suppose Hansen admits the whole thing was a hoax from the get go. Would, say, Huntster then believe a hoax had been "proven"? I can't definitively speak for him, but judging from his other posts I have an idea that Hansen's confession would not be enough to convince him. What if Hansen also presents a Iceman gaff and says this was the original Iceman examined by Sanderson and Heuvelmans? Well, some open minded advocates would be convinced of the hoax, but others would say (and argue till the cows come home) that Hansen was now engaging in a hoax to deceive us. They would then latch onto any minor or imaginary discrepancy between Sanderson's description of the Iceman and Hansen's gaff as evidence that Hansen was now lying about the original Iceman.

In principle, nothing could be presented to the advocate that would prove the Iceman was not a real frozen animal.

The only avenue of investigation open to skeptics is to produce secondary evidence, arguments and scenarios that taken together make it more reasonable to understand the Iceman story as a carnival sideshow exhibition of a gaff rather than as a convoluted tale of a frozen relic human from Indo-China or a man-ape from the Minnesota woodlands put on ice.

This is the skeptic's burden ---- making it reasonable to understand. This is not "proof". While the advocate also shares this burden, of making it reasonable to understand, the advocate may close the debate with the presenting of "proof". In this case, "proof" is the body of the so-called Iceman.

Edited May 8, 2011 by jerrywayne

[wolftrax]

Then you agree the PGF was a crummy suit? Or is it possible Langdon could be right about one thing and wrong about something else? Or does everything have to be in black&white? He was sure the model was going to be used in a hoax before it was even made. That wouldn't color his opinion, would it?

Doesn't matter if I agree or not with Langdon on the Patterson film, his work experience qualifies him to offer an expert opinion. Sure he could be wrong about the PGF, but it doesn't matter what his opinion was, he was not wrong about him and Chambers being approached by Hansen. Hansen admits he contacted Chambers, advised to go to Howard Ball, Chambers confirms it, Langdon confirms it, Napier confirms it.

I see a difference between a cover story or two - or three - carnival hype and lies. "Compelling evidence" in this case, would be the body Sanderson and Heuvelmans examined through the ice.

Other saw the fake and thought it was real as well.

I suspect Hansen acquired the original whatever-it-was while he was on leave, stored it in the freezer and came up with a story for his wife. If the original came into the country illegally he might not have trusted her with the information. I get the impression she didn't know much about his whereabouts at all times. The "innocents" she was protecting later may have been the families of others involved in smuggling.

I don't dismiss the idea that there was a Hollywood millionaire involved somehow, either. We don't call it Hollyweird for nothing.

I haven't been able to find out more about Heuvelmans' idea the body was smuggled in in a body bag. Hopefully there's more in his book and I'll be able to translate it. In the meantime I'm going to make a few inquires tomorrow if I can find e-mails.

Naturally the most likely scenario in one of these situations is that it was fake. He admits it, it's confirmed, and his claims of it being real all contradict each other. He's not making a cover story, to keep him out of legal trouble. He's saying it is real. He didn't have legal trouble, he made that part up too. It was all controversy he created to get the rubes to come in and see it.

"Obvious hoaxes" is your opinion and I've seen it refuted repeatedly. I'll take Dr. Meldrum's and Jimmy Chilcutt's opinion of Freeman's casts, e.g., over yours any day. I think casting experiments are great for showing people who are accustomed to hiking about with 20 lbs. of plaster what not to do in the field but they don't prove dermatoglyphics aren't dermatoglyphics. That's my opinion, of course.

Oh then you agree with Meldrum that the Onion Mtn. cast exhibits casting artifacts.

The very title of this thread shows bias, don't you think? Does it bother you that misinformation gets spread on podcasts, blogs, websites and books? Does accuracy count?

Hopefully it's entertaining. I hope others will be inspired to look more deeply into some of the evidence and not dismiss it just because some skeptic or other thinks repeatedly calling something a hoax proves it was one. These discussions may help book sales, if nothing else.

Posted Image

This drawing shows what was obscured by ice and what wasn't. Looks to me like there was plenty of opportunity to observe the hair. If Barbie doll hair was noticeable to Hajicek viewing the exhibit it should have been more noticeable under lights in a closer examination if the two were the same, IMHO.

Your kidding, right? Lal, can you offer anything to confirm what Hansen claimed for the reality of the Iceman? You just got done talking about Langdon and his opinion on the PFG could be wrong, guess what? That applies to Heuvelmans and Sanderson as well. What makes Langdon's statements about the Iceman being a fake carry more weight than Sandersons and Heuvelmans? The fact that Hansen admitted it, Chambers confirmed it, Napier confirmed it. You even said yourself it wasn't an issue. That part remains solid, It is the part of it being real that falls apart, because the stories are so drastically different. If it was real why not just stick with one story? He never did.

Edited May 8, 2011 by wolftrax

[Guest RayG]

Yet another thing that makes me go hmmmmmmmmmmmm is a guy who claims to have keen analytical powers, yet can't seem to perform even the most basic research without prompting.

For example, Ray, just the other day I went to the websites for the fish and game departments for each of the following states: California, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. They all have websites, Ray. Neat tools for disseminating information. Even about sasquatch/bigfoot. And guess what? Each have a search engine.

Go ahead, Ray. Try each of them. Use "sasquatch" or "bigfoot" as key words. Or you can believe me when I tell you that you'll get the grand total hits of......................: 0.

There are any number of words you could search for that won't turn up -- 'carburetor', for example, but that doesn't mean professional wildlife managers haven't heard of them. You might want to try 'sasquatch' in the Alaskan DFG search engine again, I got a hit in .03 seconds.

Here's the page.

So, Ray, the professional wildlife management agencies are perfectly silent on the issue. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Huntster, it's not whether they're silent on the issue, it's whether or not they recognize/are familiar with the term 'sasquatch'.

You honestly think Hajicek had never heard of bigfoot/sasquatch in the early 90's?

RayG