Minnesota Iceman Hoax

[kitakaze]

I still want a cookie for the book coming with Heuvelmans book.

LAL, if you knew the face had been darkened from mold, why didn't you post that right away?

[Guest LAL]

I still want a cookie for the book coming with Heuvelmans book.

If you'd ever tried my cookies you wouldn't say a thing like that.

LAL, if you knew the face had been darkened from mold, why didn't you post that right away?

I was biding my time. I thought posting the information directly from the book was the best way to go so it wouldn't be questioned but I didn't have time to do the scans until this morning. I've been up to my ears in emergency house and car repairs. But look closely. Does all that really look like mold to you? Does it grow well on vinyl?

There's a lot more in that book (did you know Hansen and Ball had a falling out?) and I have an idea about Hansen's memory but it's way past bedtime in my time zone so it will have to wait.

<ETA apostrophe>

Edited May 15, 2011 by LAL

[wolftrax]

No. They look blown out and bloody to me.

So we don't know what the eyes look like in S&H's photos.

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.

Yes I did see Bill's post and reminded you of it, people who said it was made of latex wouldn't know the difference between vinyl and latex.

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.

You're not listening, vinyl is flexible. They wouldn't need to remodel it.

The deep creases in the model's right cheek don't seem to go with anything.

Any pics of the "Real" Iceman showing it's right cheek?

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.

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.

I'm taking the angle into account. The right nostril looks rounder lightened, but see bottom picture.

Doesn't matter, Coleman's photos are of the fake and from similar angles to Heuvelman's. It's a match.

[wolftrax]

LAL, if you knew the face had been darkened from mold, why didn't you post that right away?

Yeah I thought that was pretty shifty, along with not posting other images, hesitant about revealing the source, but hey, that's par for the course with the Iceman. That's entertainment.

[Guest ajciani]

Is that really mold, or did the photographer just mistake the normal color? BTW, was that picture taken by Doug Hajicek? I believe he said that he had seen it in the barn at Hansen's antique shop, but I didn't know he took pictures. Also, I thought that was in the 70's.

Despite the coloration, there are still other differences. The facial hair is a bit different. The nose is clearly different. The body hair has a slightly different pattern. Even the teeth look different.

[wolftrax]

Do you think these two look different?

[Guest LAL]

Is that really mold, or did the photographer just mistake the normal color? BTW, was that picture taken by Doug Hajicek? I believe he said that he had seen it in the barn at Hansen's antique shop, but I didn't know he took pictures. Also, I thought that was in the 70's.

Despite the coloration, there are still other differences. The facial hair is a bit different. The nose is clearly different. The body hair has a slightly different pattern. Even the teeth look different.

The picture was taken by Rick West when he visited Hansen in 2002. The display Frank Hansen framed for shopping malls was in a storage unit and was in disrepair. This is what West photographed. Hansen had other exhibits I haven't seen mentioned in any of the online material we've been posting.

To my knowledge Haijek didn't take pictures.

I'm having a hard time with the vinyl/rubber/hot melt thing. Every vinyl doll I've owned was Barbie Doll hard long before Barbie Dolls. Langdon said Ball's model was solid vinyl (cast?) and very heavy. I had a latex rubber doll once that was bendable but she'd spring right back when I bent her. I never saw any mold on her. I suppose it could grow on natural latex rubber but it would need an organic film of some kind to grow on synthetic latex or vinyl, I'd think. Possibly such a film could be deposited by hundreds of thousands of viewers, but the model was iced and under glass so how?

West says Hansen and Ball had a falling out. Others finished the model. That could explain the three studios (or their employees) working on one model - not three models as the Smithsonian thought. I think the equipage estimate is low. While moving out of California one of the movers told me in 1968 he'd bought another rig with profits from his inventions at a cost of $60,000. That was just the van. Frank's rig had refrigeration, lighted steps, carpeting.

I'm very curious about Coleman's photo. It looks a lot more like Heuvelmans' than it does the model. The teeth appear to be the same as in the uncaptioned mouth shots. Heuvelmans couldn't have taken those even though they're in his book.

These are the model's feet. Note the difference in position of the left. In all Heuvelmans' and Sanderson's photos, drawings and diagrams both feet are pointing straight ahead.

[Guest BitterMonk]

These are the model's feet. Note the difference in position of the left. In all Heuvelmans' and Sanderson's photos, drawings and diagrams both feet are pointing straight ahead.

No, they are not. As you demonstrated yourself.

Here's the MIM again, in photo and drawing.

The model's feet are exactly as they should appear.

Edited May 15, 2011 by BitterMonk

[Guest BitterMonk]

To remove any further doubt, here's Sanderson's sketch (center) showing the feet in the same position as the model's.

[Guest LAL]

It looks to me like the model's left foot is turned to the left, toward the corner of the case.

We see things differently.

[Guest BitterMonk]

Nice try, but it doesn't change the fact that you tried to present a false statement as fact that directly contradicted your own previous statement.

Edited May 15, 2011 by BitterMonk

[Guest]

BM thanks, between you and WT, those images helped me make up my mind. Like I said before, I didn't grow up with this legend and have no emotional attachment to it, so straightforward information was very helpful.

[wolftrax]

I'm having a hard time with the vinyl/rubber/hot melt thing. Every vinyl doll I've owned was Barbie Doll hard long before Barbie Dolls. Langdon said Ball's model was solid vinyl (cast?) and very heavy. I had a latex rubber doll once that was bendable but she'd spring right back when I bent her.

You've already seen vinyl masks that are flexible, and heard from Bill Munns that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between vinyl and latex. Here, the flexible pieces on this are made of vinyl:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000I2H5BW/ref=asc_df_B000I2H5BW1483950?smid=ABO0A8QXGGS3K&tag=nextagusmp0353631-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395105&creativeASIN=B000I2H5BW

I never saw any mold on her. I suppose it could grow on natural latex rubber but it would need an organic film of some kind to grow on synthetic latex or vinyl, I'd think. Possibly such a film could be deposited by hundreds of thousands of viewers, but the model was iced and under glass so how?

You already know the Iceman was thawed out a few times, you already know the images you posted aren't in ice:

Would you like to see an undisputed photo of the model sans ice?

Yes vinyl can grow mold.

http://cleaning.lovetoknow.com/How_to_Clean_Mold_Off_Marine_Vinyl

West says Hansen and Ball had a falling out. Others finished the model. That could explain the three studios (or their employees) working on one model - not three models as the Smithsonian thought. I think the equipage estimate is low. While moving out of California one of the movers told me in 1968 he'd bought another rig with profits from his inventions at a cost of $60,000. That was just the van. Frank's rig had refrigeration, lighted steps, carpeting.

I'm very curious about Coleman's photo. It looks a lot more like Heuvelmans' than it does the model. The teeth appear to be the same as in the uncaptioned mouth shots. Heuvelmans couldn't have taken those even though they're in his book.

Wait what? Heuvelemans couldn't have taken what? Now you're saying Coleman's photo matches Heuvelman's more than the model, but before you said:

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?

These are the model's feet. Note the difference in position of the left. In all Heuvelmans' and Sanderson's photos, drawings and diagrams both feet are pointing straight ahead.

Red and Monk already covered this. The only problem here is the photos are taken at different angles, it's still the same thing.

[wolftrax]

I'm having a hard time with the vinyl/rubber/hot melt thing. Every vinyl doll I've owned was Barbie Doll hard long before Barbie Dolls. Langdon said Ball's model was solid vinyl (cast?) and very heavy. I had a latex rubber doll once that was bendable but she'd spring right back when I bent her.

You've already seen vinyl masks that are flexible, and heard from Bill Munns that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between vinyl and latex. Here, the flexible pieces on this are made of vinyl:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000I2H5BW/ref=asc_df_B000I2H5BW1483950?smid=ABO0A8QXGGS3K&tag=nextagusmp0353631-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395105&creativeASIN=B000I2H5BW

I never saw any mold on her. I suppose it could grow on natural latex rubber but it would need an organic film of some kind to grow on synthetic latex or vinyl, I'd think. Possibly such a film could be deposited by hundreds of thousands of viewers, but the model was iced and under glass so how?

You already know the Iceman was thawed out a few times, you already know the images you posted aren't in ice:

Would you like to see an undisputed photo of the model sans ice?

Yes vinyl can grow mold.

http://cleaning.lovetoknow.com/How_to_Clean_Mold_Off_Marine_Vinyl

West says Hansen and Ball had a falling out. Others finished the model. That could explain the three studios (or their employees) working on one model - not three models as the Smithsonian thought. I think the equipage estimate is low. While moving out of California one of the movers told me in 1968 he'd bought another rig with profits from his inventions at a cost of $60,000. That was just the van. Frank's rig had refrigeration, lighted steps, carpeting.

I'm very curious about Coleman's photo. It looks a lot more like Heuvelmans' than it does the model. The teeth appear to be the same as in the uncaptioned mouth shots. Heuvelmans couldn't have taken those even though they're in his book.

Wait what? Heuvelemans couldn't have taken what? Now you're saying Coleman's photo matches Heuvelman's more than the model, but before you said:

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?

These are the model's feet. Note the difference in position of the left. In all Heuvelmans' and Sanderson's photos, drawings and diagrams both feet are pointing straight ahead.

Red and Monk already covered this. The only problem here is the photos are taken at different angles, it's still the same thing.

[Guest LAL]

Nice try, but it doesn't change the fact that you tried to present a false statement as fact that directly contradicted your own previous statement.

I didn't know quite how to word my original statement so my meaning would be clear. Apparently my meaning was as clear as the ice was at that point, IOW, not clear at all. I was running late for work and didn't have time for circles and arrows. I'll scan diagrams from Heuvelmans' book later that show exactly how the feet were as viewed from different angles. By "pointing straight ahead" I meant neither foot was turned sideways, not that the toes were pointing forward on the same plane. Did you think I meant the toes?