Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kitakaze

Minnesota Iceman Hoax

Recommended Posts

Guest Blackdog

You read Heuvelmans in French, then?

I said "their report" didn't I?

It doesn't matter what their report said (yes I've read it), they were wrong. That happens sometimes you know.

Since the thread's about the MIM and not 15' penguins I think you could be done with them too. This was gone over and over and over on the old BFF. We can wait for the archives.

I wouldn't hold your breath for the archives. I think we'll be waiting for them as long as we've waited for the truth about the PGF.

"Homo pongoides" was also the closest match to the Barmanu of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Hansen said in 2002 "I can tell you I don't associate it with Bigfoot." There goes Minnesota. Sorry.

Really?

"I Killed the Ape-man Creature of Whiteface" by Frank Hansen

"As quoted from Saga Magazine, July 1970; story written by Frank Hansen."

LAL, I don't really see much point in arguing this with you. Your argument is based on belief and that can't be swayed no matter what anyone says. I saw it as a kid and wanted badly to believe in it and I suppose in my youth I did, probably because it was called the Minnesota Iceman. After considered thought I just can't find any truth in it any more. It would be really cool if it were true but it isn't.

It's clear you believe in its reality which is your right so I'll leave it at that, but please don't try and make out that I don't know anything about the subject.

Edited by Blackdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vilnoori

Going by the pics, even if the Minnesota Iceman original was real, it would be no big deal because it has a chin. Only Homo sapiens have chins among our close kin, therefore if it was extra hairy and had a chin it was simply an extra hairy modern human, possibly some unfortunate individual with hypertrichosis who died and whose body was sold and treated in that manner. It wouldn't be the first person with hypertrichosis to end up as a side show.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ChrisBFRPKY

I saw the Iceman in the 1970's at Glasgow KY. I don't know if it was real or fake but it was kinda stinky. Chris B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

I said "their report" didn't I?

Then you haven't read Heuvelmans' work.

<snip>

Really?

"I Killed the Ape-man Creature of Whiteface" by Frank Hansen

"As quoted from Saga Magazine, July 1970; story written by Frank Hansen."

LAL, I don't really see much point in arguing this with you. Your argument is based on belief and that can't be swayed no matter what anyone says. I saw it as a kid and wanted badly to believe in it and I suppose in my youth I did, probably because it was called the Minnesota Iceman. After considered thought I just can't find any truth in it any more. It would be really cool if it were true but it isn't.

It's clear you believe in its reality which is your right so I'll leave it at that, but please don't try and make out that I don't know anything about the subject.

Hansen 2002 trumps Hansen 1970.

This is an interesting topic. Please don't ruin it by deciding you know what I believe and making it personal. I would really like to see a thread I'm interested in stay open.

Out of curiosity, do you believe there are no extant bipedal hominoid primates anywhere in the world? If so, why?

Edited by LAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Going by the pics, even if the Minnesota Iceman original was real, it would be no big deal because it has a chin. Only Homo sapiens have chins among our close kin, therefore if it was extra hairy and had a chin it was simply an extra hairy modern human, possibly some unfortunate individual with hypertrichosis who died and whose body was sold and treated in that manner. It wouldn't be the first person with hypertrichosis to end up as a side show.

http://en.wikipedia..../Hypertrichosis

What about the hands and feet? It didn't just die - it was shot.

Bobbie Short thought it was a hairy Ainu from Japan. She had a doctor's opinion on it, as I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

Hansen 2002 trumps Hansen 1970.

Yes all of Hansen's stories trump each other right out of the game.

Bobbie Short thought it was a hairy Ainu from Japan. She had a doctor's opinion on it, as I recall.

LOL! What doctor would think it was an Ainu from Japan?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

The thumb doesn't seem to fit with descriptions of the sasquatch thumb.

The thumb doesn't fit with any ape or human, it was made disproportionately.

Really, the guy's conflicting stories alone make this unbelievable, but in the face of Napier, Chambers, and Langdon's stories it's just laughable that anybody would hold out hope it was the real deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

What about the hands and feet? It didn't just die - it was shot.

Bobbie Short thought it was a hairy Ainu from Japan. She had a doctor's opinion on it, as I recall.

spit-take.jpg

Hairy Ainu from Japan...

ainu.jpg

MIM hoax...

PICT5689.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Nice discussion, I'd like to jump in :)

I did an article on the Minnesota Iceman some years ago for a German magazine. I had the opportunity to search the original case files by Bernard Heuvelmans in the Museum of Zoology in Lausanne, Switzerland. I've also read the book in French by Heuvelmans.

I've wondered if it was authentic or not. I came up with four "pro" arguments and three "con" arguments.

Pro:

1. The opinion of experts: Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan Sanderson were trained zoologists. They examined the body for two days. Their view was supported by the anthropologist Carleton **** who looked at the photos they had shot.

2. Hansen's behavior: Why did Hansen (or the owner) make the Iceman disappear after

the FBI became aware of it? Why did Hansen refuse at the Candian border to have the corpse

x-rayed, although he said to the customs officer that it was only a rubber doll? Why did he forbid Heuvelmans and Sanderson to write articles on the Iceman although it would have been good advertising?

3. The iceman looks very unique. It didn't resemble drawings or illustrations of Neanderthals or Yetis that were commen during that time. The upturned nose is one example. If it was a doll, what did he use as a template?

3. Spanish zoologist Jordi Magraner searched for the Pakistan's wild man called Barmanu. In the 90s, he traveled to the remote northern region of Pakistan and asked people who had allegedly seen Barmanus.

He showed them 90 pictures and illustrations of animal and human species, including bears,

chimpanzees, aboriginals and neanderthals. He included also an illustration of the Minnesota Iceman made by Alika Lindbergh. Without exception, all 30 respondents identified the Iceman as Barmanu. The same in another region: Australian anthropologist Helmut Loofs-Wissowa went to the borderlands of Laos and Vietnam in 1995 to find the Nguoi Rung. He showed the locals eleven images of extinct and living apes and humans and the Iceman drawing. They also decided on the illustration by Alika Lindbergh.

Con:

1. Various makeup artist from Hollywood have claimed to have made the corpse for Hansen. Their claims were also a main reason why the Smithsonian Institution lost interest in the Iceman.

2. Frank Hansen was a showman. Maybe his talent was sufficient to fool two trained scientists.

3. Hansen made contradicting statements about where the Iceman came from and also about its authenticity. In interviews in the 90's and 2002 he claimed that he didn't know whether the Iceman was real

or not.

Take a look at these pictures from the Heuvelmans archive. Look especially at the fifth one.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/57121504@N05/show/with/5270962206/

Edited by SwissChris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Really... <_<

You know that do you? How do you know that Mulder?

I suppose it IS possible he may have taken steps to utterly destroy the reamains (by burning and disposal of the ashes, for example), so I'll give you 1 tenth (.1) point.

How current are they?

As current as the last few years (whatever date it was he did the examination.

As far as repeatable I assume you mean that you repeat them...again and again and again.

No, I mean repeatable in that anyone who gets permission could access the SAME raw data and evidence and run the same analyses OF the data and evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

History repeats itself some times, though the two situations are NOT precisely identical.

And Dr Meldrum's observations are current, and repeatable, as he maintains the evidence that he examined to reach those observations and conclusions.

Meldrum believes the Minnesota Iceman was real??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Seriously? You find a story about a 15 foot tall penguin in Florida even worth investigating?

There are reports of anomalous animals in all sorts of places where they shouldn't have been. It's not common but it does happen.

We know that such DID exist. That is documented fact. Once they existed, there is no reason why, under the right conditions, there could not be surviving relic populations of same.

As I said, it has happened before (coelecanth, the cycad family of plants, etc).

See, unlike you, and the rest of the Skeptics, I look at things like this as matters of evidence, and attempt to objectively evaluate same. My "null" or "base" position is "What is the best explanation for this body of data?" NOT "This body of data is false until it is 'proven' true."

I also understand, unlike "scientists" that reality is not limited to than what limited Man can see and count and understand. As our knowledge grows, are able to understand more ABOUT reality, but that doesn't make that reality dependent on our ability to comprehend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Yes all of Hansen's stories trump each other right out of the game.

He was a showman covering up the identity of the owner who seemed to have a different agenda. They make sense in that light.

Two large mammals (Psuedoyrx nghetinhensis and Megamuntiacus vuquangesis) were "discovered" in Viet Nam after the war but Rock Apes and Nguoi Rung (which may be the same as the Yeren) remain native legends like gorillas once were. ;)

LOL! What doctor would think it was an Ainu from Japan?!

I don't quite remember but it seems to me she was a Japanese physiologist. I invited Bobbie to debate on the proper thread and that was the last I heard of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I doubt it too, considering the fossil is 36 million years old.

Coelacanth is over 65 million years old

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

The Frilled Shark is 95-150 million years old

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

Cycads date back at lest 280 million years

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

The bluntnose six-gill shark is part of a family ~200 million years

old

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

All still alive and kicking? So why NOT a prehistoric penguin? (Or a descendent of Giganto for that matter?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Nice discussion, I'd like to jump in :)

I did an article on the Minnesota Iceman some years ago for a German magazine. I had the opportunity to search the original case files by Bernard Heuvelmans in the Museum of Zoology in Lausanne, Switzerland. I've also read the book in French by Heuvelmans.

I've wondered if it was authentic or not. I came up with four "pro" arguments and three "con" arguments.

Pro:

1. The opinion of experts: Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan Sanderson were trained zoologists. They examined the body for two days. Their view was supported by the anthropologist Carleton **** who looked at the photos they had shot.

2. Hansen's behavior: Why did Hansen (or the owner) make the Iceman disappear after

the FBI became aware of it? Why did Hansen refuse at the Candian border to have the corpse

x-rayed, although he said to the customs officer that it was only a rubber doll? Why did he forbid Heuvelmans and Sanderson to write articles on the Iceman although it would have been good advertising?

3. The iceman looks very unique. It didn't resemble drawings or illustrations of Neanderthals or Yetis that were commen during that time. The upturned nose is one example. If it was a doll, what did he use as a template?

3. Spanish zoologist Jordi Magraner searched for the Pakistan's wild man called Barmanu. In the 90s, he traveled to the remote northern region of Pakistan and asked people who had allegedly seen Barmanus.

He showed them 90 pictures and illustrations of animal and human species, including bears,

chimpanzees, aboriginals and neanderthals. He included also an illustration of the Minnesota Iceman made by Alika Lindbergh. Without exception, all 30 respondents identified the Iceman as Barmanu. The same in another region: Australian anthropologist Helmut Loofs-Wissowa went to the borderlands of Laos and Vietnam in 1995 to find the Nguoi Rung. He showed the locals eleven images of extinct and living apes and humans and the Iceman drawing. They also decided on the illustration by Alika Lindbergh.

Con:

1. Various makeup artist from Hollywood have claimed to have made the corpse for Hansen. Their claims were also a main reason why the Smithsonian Institution lost interest in the Iceman.

2. Frank Hansen was a showman. Maybe his talent was sufficient to fool two trained scientists.

3. Hansen made contradicting statements about where the Iceman came from and also about its authenticity. In interviews in the 90's and 2002 he claimed that he didn't know whether the Iceman was real

or not.

Take a look at these pictures from the Heuvelmans archive. Look especially at the fifth one.

http://www.flickr.co...ith/5270962206/

Thanks, Chris. The teeth?

Heuvelmans book on it has been republished (in French).

If Hansen was trying to fool trained zoologists why would he tell them he'd had a model made? If they were examining a model why didn't he double over with laughter when they thought it was real? The Argosy article said they examined it for three days.

I like #3 in the pros above. It didn't look like Cro Magnon, either. This was 1968. "Lucy" hadn't been discovered yet. Didn't Napier find the IM Index was 88? That's the same as Lucy's - and Patty's. Interesting coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...