Guest LAL Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 LAL, I've been playing around with home computers since 1981, so I know what IE is, I just haven't used it on any of my household computers since, oh, pretty much EVER. I presently have a home network of four desktops and two laptops, with two additional desktops sitting under my desk. None of them ever use IE. I won't be using IE on any future purchases either. In short, I won't be viewing your spoiler unless you send the images to me in a PM. RayG I didn't really think I'd stunned everyone into silence. I'd have been happy to repost without the spoiler tag if you, or anyone, had asked. I just think spoiler tags are so neat. I wish there were a tag for <drumroll>. I wasn't being condescending; I was responding in kind. I hate IE and only use it for good reason like when I need to click to animate or open a spoiler tag on BFF. There are times I'd like to shoot Firefox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 http://www.kryptozoologie-online.de/Nachrichten/Kryptozoologie-News/heuvelmans-archiv-lausanne-neu.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted May 13, 2011 Admin Share Posted May 13, 2011 This thread is being reopened with the following parameters: 1) Attack the content, not the poster 2) If you are presenting what you purport to be evidence of your position, then expect to be challenged 3) Conduct yourselves like adults 4) Stay on topic As always, your prompt attention is appreciated. Please continue the discussion in a respectful manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I posted the wrong link above. I believe the image LAL posted is from Bernard Heuvelman and Boris Porchnev: L’Homme de Néanderthal est toujours vivant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Taking the image even further, not painting or altering any of the features, just went into areas and upped the contrast and brightness, color levels, saturation, and gave it a blur, and there are some key features here. The eye on the right, the teeth, the squarish nose and the stretched nostril on the Iceman's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Game over man. Game over. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted May 14, 2011 Author Share Posted May 14, 2011 All the information you need to figure out the source is in two of my posts. They're both rather easy to spot. I'm curious about just how observant people are. Your source is the new republish of Heuvelmans' book... http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bh-mi/ Zang. I win. Cookie please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Taking the image even further, not painting or altering any of the features, just went into areas and upped the contrast and brightness, color levels, saturation, and gave it a blur, and there are some key features here. The eye on the right, the teeth, the squarish nose and the stretched nostril on the Iceman's right. You're aware the head shot in the upper right corner identical to Loren Coleman's copyrighted image (except for the 'shopping) and that it was of the exhibit Loren Coleman and Mark Hall saw that was an "obvious fake", right? Do you really see no differences between it and Heuvelmans' photos? In the reports both eyes were blown out. I see no trace of eyelids in Heuvelmans' photos. The teeth? Good grief. You should have left them dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) Anyone else want to play Name That Source? Does everyone agree with Redwolf and Kitakaze? If not, why not? Edited May 14, 2011 by LAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 You're aware the head shot in the upper right corner identical to Loren Coleman's copyrighted image (except for the 'shopping) and that it was of the exhibit Loren Coleman and Mark Hall saw that was an "obvious fake", right? Yep. obvious because it fell under the time period where Hansen had to get rid of the "Real" Iceman. Do you really see no differences between it and Heuvelmans' photos? Nope. Want to point them out? And no, don't want to play any games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Anyone else want to play Name That Source? Nope. I'll let you guess why. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Yep. obvious because it fell under the time period where Hansen had to get rid of the "Real" Iceman. Or obvious because that's how it appeared to them? Nope. Want to point them out? I've already pointed out the eyes. The mouth in Heuvelmans' pictures is closed except where two teeth, the right upper canine and first premolar, are visible. The teeth in Loren's photo don't appear to be a match for the models' teeth. I'm not sure what the open mouth closeup shots from Heuvelmans' book are; as I said there are no captions. The photos may have been sent to him as were Loren's but I don't know whose they are. I'll see if I can find something in the text. When I just dodge and enlarge I don't really see teeth in the model but they stand out in Loren's photo. They're quite obviously separated too. This view is even worse: The nostrils don't look as round as in any of the other photos. And no, don't want to play any games. Not a problem. I can see where no one would want to appear unobservant. BTW, the posts I referred to aren't buried in Hansen's stories. Anyone else? Nope. I'll let you guess why.RayG You don't like cookies? Don't worry, I'm not giving any out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted May 14, 2011 Admin Share Posted May 14, 2011 Let's move on please, before this thread gets shut down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) I've already pointed out the eyes. The area of the eyes is visible in any of S&H's photos? The mouth in Heuvelmans' pictures is closed except where two teeth, the right upper canine and first premolar, are visible. Vinyl is flexible. The teeth in Loren's photo don't appear to be a match for the models' teeth. Let's see it. When I just dodge and enlarge I don't really see teeth in the model but they stand out in Loren's photo. They're quite obviously separated too. Brightness/contrast, make copy of layer and set to multiply, brightness/contrast on both. The nostrils don't look as round as in any of the other photos. Different angle of the iceman you haven't seen before. Not a problem. I can see where no one would want to appear unobservant. If you don't want to be up front about your source it only looks bad on your argument. Edited May 14, 2011 by wolftrax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 The area of the eyes is visible in any of S&H's photos? No. They look blown out and bloody to me. Vinyl is flexible. Langon seems to be the only source for the model being vinyl. Did you see Bill's post? I missed it earlier because I was skipping some arguments. Jerry Malone, of Little Irvy fame, owned a What Is It? exhibit displayed for him by Rick Owens. He got Hansen and Malone's names mixed up on the dinner story. I'm wondering if he might have gotten some details on the two models mixed up as well. The B&W picture I posted earlier of a model surrounded by fake frost is that exhibit (I didn't know that at the time). Rick West bought it and displayed it as a Bigfoot exhibit before he sold it back. I suppose the mouth could have been remodeled and made to stay in that position and something could be obscuring the teeth. Bill would know more about that than I do. The deep creases in the model's right cheek don't seem to go with anything. Let's see it. See below. In your heightened contrast version they look fused. In the pictures I've posted of the mouth and in Coleman's photos they're clearly separated. They look more like Australopithecine teeth than human dentures, IMO. Brightness/contrast, make copy of layer and set to multiply, brightness/contrast on both. I don't have the full version Photoshop installed in the new computers yet (I may have compatibility issues) so I'm using Elements. It doesn't have all the goodies but I'm doing the best I can. I don't want to get too manipulative with the images for fear of introducing something that isn't there. Different angle of the iceman you haven't seen before. I'm taking the angle into account. The right nostril looks rounder lightened, but see bottom picture. If you don't want to be up front about your source it only looks bad on your argument. I am up front. I thought it would be fun to figure it out. Apparently others didn't think so but thanks to those who tried. I posted a link to the source and said I ordered it on page 9, post #271. It arrived in the same mail with Porshnev/Heuvelmans. That's one of the posts with all the information needed, namely the name of the book. The other is on page 12, post #331. Note the caption. It eliminates L'homme de Néanderthal est toujours vivant because the caption is in English (the reprint of the book is entirely in French) and dates the picture to 2002. Heuvelmans died in 2001. That wasn't hard, was it? Note this caption (and the nostrils) too: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts