Minnesota Iceman Hoax

[Guest BitterMonk]

I'm not going to play your games LAL. You said Heuvelman's and Sanderson's sketches and photos showed, and I quote, "both feet are pointing straight ahead.". You knew that statement was untrue when you wrote it. There is also no need to post any additional sketches. I found several other examples that proved your statement patently false but chose to leave them out lest the refutation of your statement seem overkill. I think everyone here can see for themselves what you did.

[Guest LAL]

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.

I can on the kind of rubber and vinyl I'm accustomed to. Bill knows more about it than I do. As I said I missed his post. I accept his expert opinion on the matter.

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

Yes. Your point?

Yes vinyl can grow mold.

http://cleaning.love...ff_Marine_Vinyl

"Moisture from the air and sweat from bodies create an ideal environment for mold and mildew to grow on vinyl surfaces. "

That's what I'm saying. Mold needs something organic to feed on. I doubt it could grow on perfectly clean vinyl that might have been further sterilized by being encased in ice.

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:

Heuvelmans never saw the original without the ice. The mouth was closed except for showing two teeth when he photographed it. He couldn't have taken the open mouth pictures through the ice when the mouth was closed and the ice intact.

I've never been convinced Coleman's picture is of a model. Heuvelmans thought there were no differences that couldn't be explained by repositioning the cadaver. The mouth could have sagged more due to decay or Hansen's maneuvers.

Coleman's photo appeared on de Sarre's site accompanying Rossi's article (site's down or I'd post it). It was thought it was Bernard's because it was with his effects. I'm thinking the open mouth photos were also sent to Heuvelmans and were thought to have been taken by him. Hopefully more information on this will be forthcoming.

Heuvelmans thought, according to Rossi, there was no "substitutive" model, but I'm sure he wouldn't have thought the one Rick West photographed was what he examined. That thing really is an obvious fake.

"But in the book of Heuvelmans about the Minnesota Iceman, Heuvelmans clearly write that he don’t believe in a substitutive model: he thought that the corpse was simple thawed and frozen another time."

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/iceman-sideshow/

I'm going to try to find what Heuvelmans "clearly write" with my limited and admittedly terrible French. I want to get my 35 euros worth.

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

I don't think it's all angle. I wish there were some straight down views of the legs and feet by West but there aren't.

[kitakaze]

I asked before, but considering the proof is there both in the confession and in the model, can we attach a poll to this thread?...

Are you satisfied by the evidence presented that the Minnesota Iceman was a hoax?

• Yes, it has been proven to be a hoax.
  
• No, I think at one time a real apeman was used.
  
• I am undecided.
  

I strongly think that given the overwhelming proof in front of us that obviously this was not only a hoax, but proven so beyond any reasonable doubt, that it is more a demonstration on how we deal with hard proof of hoaxing to what has been a longheld mystery for may.

I would think it truly bizarre of we accepted something like this a hoax...

With no suit and no confession, but we had both the confession and the model for the MIM and still the ultra-credulous clung to it.

[Guest LAL]

I'm not going to play your games LAL. You said Heuvelman's and Sanderson's sketches and photos showed, and I quote, "both feet are pointing straight ahead.". You knew that statement was untrue when you wrote it. There is also no need to post any additional sketches. I found several other examples that proved your statement patently false but chose to leave them out lest the refutation of your statement seem overkill. I think everyone here can see for themselves what you did.

I knew it wasn't clear when I wrote it and I was afraid it would be misunderstood but I had no time to reword it. Would "both feet were unturned" have been any better? I consulted both Sanderson's drawings and the drawings by other artists as well as the photos and diagrams before I posted.

Mea culpa but no game - just sloppy wording. In future I'll try to only post on my days off when I have plenty of time and can get to my scanner. Other people might like to see the diagrams. I'll post for them if you don't mind.

[wolftrax]

I can on the kind of rubber and vinyl I'm accustomed to. Bill knows more about it than I do. As I said I missed his post. I accept his expert opinion on the matter.

You've been shown products that are vinyl and flexible.

Yes. Your point?

"Moisture from the air and sweat from bodies create an ideal environment for mold and mildew to grow on vinyl surfaces. "

That's what I'm saying. Mold needs something organic to feed on. I doubt it could grow on perfectly clean vinyl that might have been further sterilized by being encased in ice.

And yet you missed the sentence before:

"Wherever there is water, there is usually mold as well. "

You do realize ice is frozen water right?

Heuvelmans never saw the original without the ice. The mouth was closed except for showing two teeth when he photographed it. He couldn't have taken the open mouth pictures through the ice when the mouth was closed and the ice intact.

Check them out, it's his image.

I've never been convinced Coleman's picture is of a model. Heuvelmans thought there were no differences that couldn't be explained by repositioning the cadaver. The mouth could have sagged more due to decay or Hansen's maneuvers.

Coleman's photo appeared on de Sarre's site accompanying Rossi's article (site's down or I'd post it). It was thought it was Bernard's because it was with his effects. I'm thinking the open mouth photos were also sent to Heuvelmans and were thought to have been taken by him. Hopefully more information on this will be forthcoming.

Heuvelmans thought, according to Rossi, there was no "substitutive" model, but I'm sure he wouldn't have thought the one Rick West photographed was what he examined. That thing really is an obvious fake.

"But in the book of Heuvelmans about the Minnesota Iceman, Heuvelmans clearly write that he don’t believe in a substitutive model: he thought that the corpse was simple thawed and frozen another time."

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/iceman-sideshow/

I'm going to try to find what Heuvelmans "clearly write" with my limited and admittedly terrible French. I want to get my 35 euros worth.

Yet before you said Coleman saw an obvious fake.

I don't think it's all angle. I wish there were some straight down views of the legs and feet by West but there aren't.

Yeah, Lal, it is all angle, you know that Coleman took photos of the fake, and yet it looks exactly like what was claimed to be real.

[wolftrax]

Seeing as how this usually goes, someone will start arguing silly arguments until there is a new page so readers miss the good stuff, here is the "Real" and "Fake" iceman compared again:

[Guest BitterMonk]

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?

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.

--------------------------------

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?

I've never been convinced Coleman's picture is of a model. Heuvelmans thought there were no differences that couldn't be explained by repositioning the cadaver.

[Guest LAL]

You've been shown products that are vinyl and flexible.

It's unfortunate Rick West didn't say what the model he photographed was made of.

And yet you missed the sentence before:

"Wherever there is water, there is usually mold as well. "

You do realize ice is frozen water right?

Yeah, and there was rusty water in the bottom of the exhibit. I know there's a Nylon-eating bacterium; maybe there's a plastic eating mold as well.

Water often has edibles in it - algae, microbes, dead skin cells - perhaps all were deposited on the model's face in sufficient quantities to feed mold for 35 years. I still have doubts that all the darkening was caused by mold. There are similar colors elsewhere on the model.

Check them out, it's his image.

Have done so for hours at a time in 2005 with the pinker, more youthful-looking one.

Yet before you said Coleman saw an obvious fake.

No, I said Coleman said he saw an obvious fake.

Yeah, Lal, it is all angle, you know that Coleman took photos of the fake, and yet it looks exactly like what was claimed to be real.

I know Coleman took photos of what he said on Cryptomondo was an "obvious fake" (he supported the authenticity of the MIM for years before he decided to repudiated it) but I've never agreed with you it looks exactly like what Heuvelmans photographed. The mouth is open, the ice patterns are different, but Heuvelmans could have been right that all was explained by the cadaver being rearranged. I don't think Coleman's photo looks much like the model Rick West photographed in 2002, either. I seriously doubt Hansen could have afforded two models.

If the exhibit Coleman and Hall saw was such an "obvious fake" why all the consultation over the photographs? If it was a model it certainly looks better than the one Rick West saw. Hansen himself said he rearranged the original to look like the model before he displayed it in 1968. They were supposed to look "exactly" the same. But they didn't.

Bitter Monk, I don't see any contradictions in what I said. I said essentially the same thing in the debate on the old BFF. I wrote to de Sarre about Coleman's photo which had been attributed to Heuvelmans, 1993. on de Sarre's site. According to Loren he took it and sent it to Heuvelmans. The more naturally colored one is the same photo except for color and frame, found on the Net.

To any newcomers whose heads may be spinning by now, this one is Loren Coleman's photo:

These are the mouth shots from Porshnev/Heuvelmans' book (is that an artificial eye I spy?):

This one was on the cover of Argosy:

[wolftrax]

And here shows that what West, Coleman, and Heuvelmans photographed is the same thing.

Hey check out the eyeball on Iceman's right:

Let me ask you this, Lal, are there any more photos of the Iceman in West's book?

[Guest LAL]

No. I wish there were. There must be more photos of the exhibit out there somewhere. I can post a couple of West's own version of an "iceman" he had made after his first meeting with Hansen.

It's an interesting book. Cheap, too. Recommended.

[Guest ajciani]

Do you think these two look different?

What you have labeled "real" and "fake" actually look pretty darn similar, and rather different from the known, thawed mannequin.

I think you might need to reinspect the label of "fake". Heuvelmans told Coleman that what he photographed in 1969 was not the original, based on some changes in the ice and positioning of the mouth, but Coleman wondered if Heuvelmans might have been too quick in that assessment, and Roche later told Coleman that what he had seen in 1969 might have actually been the original, based on the feet and toes.

There were apparently some known differences between the versions of the iceman, especially it seems, the feet and the face.

The feet on the known mannequin are different from the feet in the Heuvelmans photos. The Heuvelmans left foot is pointed down and forward, with the left knee bent, and lower leg angled toward the outside; kind of like a kicker about to kick a football. The known mannequin has the lower left leg coming parallel with the right leg, and the left foot pointed down and rotated toward the outside. The hairiness of the feet and toes is different too. The known mannequin has sparse hair, while the photos look to be quite a bit more hairy.

There also appear to be differences in the hand. First, the two different sketches show the fingers of the left arm in two different positions. I think the one may just be a lower quality sketch, but between the known mannequin and the photos, the left hand has changed positions. From the orientation in the photos, it appears the left thumb is very near the right eye. If the mannequin were photographed from the same orientation as the Heuvelmans and Coleman photos, I think the left hand would be clear of the face. There also look to be differences in the positioning of the thumb relative to the other fingers.

The known mannequin and the Heuvelmans and Coleman photos are close, very close, but there are also a lot of little (and not so little) differences. If Hansen had the mannequin made to resemble the body, and then altered the body a little to better match the mannequin, only a close-up inspection would have been able to tell. Not only that, but he could have altered the mannequin between 1967 and 2002, changing the face or left leg, for examples. Without having any close-up, macro photos of the original and similar photos of the mannequin, all we are left with is a literally cloudy mystery.

As to mold; yes, it can grow on vinyl, especially soft or old vinyl. There are even some molds which can grow under ice (they rot golf courses). The problem I see with the mold is that it is only on the face. That mannequin should have had mold growing all over, not just on the face. The water would have spread it. I also think the face would have been something Hansen would have cleaned up.

[wolftrax]

What you have labeled "real" and "fake" actually look pretty darn similar, and rather different from the known, thawed mannequin.

Thanks, that's all that I needed. All the rest are attributed to two completely different camera angles. Coleman photographed the known fake, at similar angles, and it is the same.

[Guest LAL]

Thanks, ajicani. You described the position of the feet much, much better than I did. These are the diagrams from L’Homme de Néanderthal est toujours vivant. One of the pages caught in the scanner and tore. I'm kind of sick about it but I included the tear rather than 'shop it out. None of these have been edited except for cropping. Sorry some parts of the captions are out of focus. I didn't want to risk another tear by scanning them again.

[Guest BitterMonk]

Oh my Lord. That's worse than you using Murphy's footprint test to try and refute the BCM hoax theory. Instead of supporting your case those diagrams just dog pile on the evidence that what H&S examined was in fact the model.

[Guest LAL]

A quote from Rick West: