Minnesota Iceman Hoax

[wolftrax]

I don't know that Coleman photographed the fake. Sanderson said so but not why, exactly.

Sure you do, we went over this before, his photos were after the "Switcheroo". Loren posted about this:

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

"I took photographs and sent them to Ivan T. Sanderson, Bernard Heuvelmans, and Mark A. Hall. The four of us worked closely together to determine the differences between the hominoid-like body that Sanderson and Heuvelmans had seen and photographed in December 1968, and the obvious fake that Hall and I saw a few months later in 1969. The toothy model that is often shown as the “real Iceman†is one of the photos taken of the acknowledged fake being shown in 1969."

And you commented on this same article at the bottom:

# Lu Ann Lewellen responds: September 17th, 2008 at 8:13 am

Loren, could you please list the 15 differences? I’ve read there were differences, but not what they were.

Where are you getting 1964? Langdon?

Actually from you...

I did read the article. Did you follow my link?

"In August 2008, Verne Langdon[1], former co-owner of Don Post Studios, a mask and prop manufacturer for Hollywood studios, alleged that Frank Hansen had approached his company about creating a prehistoric manlike creature for exhibit on the carnival circuit. Hansen was referred to a Howard Ball, who created a realistic “hot melt iceman†sculpture as designed by Hansen. This took place around 1964. Langdon goes on to recall, “John [Chambers] contacted Werner Keppler at Universal for Frank [Hansen], and Werner agreed to make up the creature, then ventillate [sic] Yak hair into it, one, two, or three hairs at a time, depending upon the area of the body. Meticulous work, of which Werner is a master! After Werner finished with Frank Hansen's "Ice Man", Frank brought it by to show us before he had it frozen (we suggested Union Ice Company in Los Angeles, as I recall.) It would fool the toughest of skeptics, as was proven when no less than Ivan Sanderson fell head-over-heels for it!â€"

Did you hear the podcast with Langdon? I thought he needed a cup of coffee.

But I'm listening to Langdon again to check.

http://www.bigfootproject.org/bfs/BFS_007_rss.mp3

Now how about the IM index for afarensis and Patty?

[Guest LAL]

Sure you do, we went over this before, his photos were after the "Switcheroo". Loren posted about this:

http://www.cryptomun.../reject-iceman/

"I took photographs and sent them to Ivan T. Sanderson, Bernard Heuvelmans, and Mark A. Hall. The four of us worked closely together to determine the differences between the hominoid-like body that Sanderson and Heuvelmans had seen and photographed in December 1968, and the obvious fake that Hall and I saw a few months later in 1969. The toothy model that is often shown as the “real Iceman†is one of the photos taken of the acknowledged fake being shown in 1969."

And you commented on this same article at the bottom:

And Loren responded:

"The list of 15 differences was formulated by Sanderson and Heuvelmans, and never shared publicly or with Mark Hall and me. This was done so Sanderson and Heuvelmans could privately tell if the “real body†was ever shown again by Hansen, without Hansen or the secret owner knowing what these discovered differences were. The list may be hidden in the archives of Heuvelmans’ files held in the zoology museum in Switzerland."

I got all the way to Lorenzo Rossi on that one. At least we got Loren's photo identified.

Do you still have your .gif ?

If it was such an obvious fake when Coleman and Hall saw it why was it necessary to send the photo to Sanderson and Heuvelmans to find out if it was a fake or not? If they photographed more than just the head where can we see the photos? I found a more naturally colored version in 2008. It looks a little more like the Argosy cover.

It was sort of like this:

If there was a "Switcheroo" what did Sanderson and Heuvelmans examine? Hansen was switching models was he?

Actually from you...

Actually from Squatchopedia. I'm not overly impressed with Langdon. The exhibit was around for a couple of years before S&H saw it.

But I'm listening to Langdon again to check.

http://www.bigfootproject.org/bfs/BFS_007_rss.mp3

I had it on my MP3 player until I couldn't stand it anymore.

Now how about the IM index for afarensis and Patty?

John Green and Jeff Meldrum used frame 52 on Patty and Ruben Steindorf used reverse kinematics. I'm not sure where I got the afarensis index but it must have been in 2005. Maybe it's in one of my books.

Anything else?

[Guest LAL]

One source for the Australopithecus afarensis IM index (88) - see table 3.2 on pg. 100.

[kitakaze]

Evidence of ONE being fake in no way proves the other is/was.

This is simply unbelievable. You will believe a known Bigfoot hoaxer based on what?

This man sets out to stomp out some dinosaur tracks...

This cryptozoologist proclaims the man's prank to be giant penguin tracks...

You are literally no different whatsoever from the UFO enthusiasts that have no problem with this man...

...admitting that he hoaxed this...

...and calls it a "restoration" based on what he promises was real. It just blows me away that this kind of credulity still happens in Bigfootery. How much hoaxing is too much for you, Mulder?

[Guest LAL]

This is simply unbelievable. You will believe a known Bigfoot hoaxer based on what?

Are you implying Sanderson was a hoaxer or did you just get mixed up?

Brief bio:

Sanderson, Ivan Terrence. (1911-1973)

Sanderson received degrees with honors in geology, zoology and botany and headed six expeditions in all parts of the world for such groups as the British museum, Cambridge and London Universities, the Linnaean Societies of London and the Chicago Natural History Museum. He was the author of many books; one, "Animal Treasures" was a Book Of The Month selection in 1937. Others include, “The Hairy Primitives of Ancient Europe†1967," "Caribbean Treasure," "Animals Nobody Knows," "Living treasure," "Animal Tales," "How to Know American Mammals, " "The Monkey Kingdom," and "Living Mammals of the World.†The Abominable Snowmen, Legend Come to Life†written in 1961 and countless articles for various publications and Argosy Magazine where he was ‘science editor.'

[Guest Crowlogic]

I've posted my having seen the MIM elsewhere but here it is again. As a college student working at a local shopping mall the Iceman was displayed for a week. It cost 25 cents to go up a little ramp under a canopy and peer into the ice coffin. You could get right up to it. I went every day that week and it was pretty impressive. But while this was the Iceman of note what I saw in the ice coffin WAS NOT WHAT WAS PICTURED IN ARGOSY! REPEAT WHAT I SAW IN THE ICE COFFIN WAS NOT WHAT WAS PICTURED IN ARGOSY! The pose was the same but the creature, especially its face was very very different! The MIM I saw had a very pug nose and for some reason it struck me as vaguely Oriental in character. Also the hair was somewhat sparse that is to say it was hairy like a primate but it's hair would never have been sufficient to be insulating against even moderately cool temperatures let alone freezing temperatures. As I think back the thinness of the hair made me wonder how the thing could have stayed warm in Minnesota without additional clothing. I read somewhere that the second MIM was made by a Korean specialist who inserted the individual hairs into latex. Perhaps that's why the hair was somewhat sparse.

I am convinced that the story that a new model was made is true. But why trash the old model (if it indeed was a model) if it was just a harmless carnival show? As I understand it the original MIM was taken off public display for legal reasons. In any event what was seen first in Argosy looked different and I think better than what followed.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Crowlogic

[Guest LAL]

Heuvelmans speaks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCc3at8jgYY&feature=related

[Guest LAL]

I've posted my having seen the MIM elsewhere but here it is again. As a college student working at a local shopping mall the Iceman was displayed for a week. It cost 25 cents to go up a little ramp under a canopy and peer into the ice coffin. You could get right up to it. I went every day that week and it was pretty impressive. But while this was the Iceman of note what I saw in the ice coffin WAS NOT WHAT WAS PICTURED IN ARGOSY! REPEAT WHAT I SAW IN THE ICE COFFIN WAS NOT WHAT WAS PICTURED IN ARGOSY! The pose was the same but the creature, especially its face was very very different! The MIM I saw had a very pug nose and for some reason it struck me as vaguely Oriental in character. Also the hair was somewhat sparse that is to say it was hairy like a primate but it's hair would never have been sufficient to be insulating against even moderately cool temperatures let alone freezing temperatures. As I think back the thinness of the hair made me wonder how the thing could have stayed warm in Minnesota without additional clothing. I read somewhere that the second MIM was made by a Korean specialist who inserted the individual hairs into latex. Perhaps that's why the hair was somewhat sparse.

I am convinced that the story that a new model was made is true. But why trash the old model (if it indeed was a model) if it was just a harmless carnival show? As I understand it the original MIM was taken off public display for legal reasons. In any event what was seen first in Argosy looked different and I think better than what followed.

Did it look like this?

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

Lorenzo Rossi weighed in:

1. Lorenzo Rossi responds: April 11th, 2006 at 1:55 am Loren.
   For example you’ve written: “Then the original body disappeared, and a model [...] replaced it [...]. But Sanderson and Heuvelmans knew of at least fifteen technical differences between the original and the replacement, thanks to photographs of the traveling exhibit taken by Mark A. Hall and Loren Coleman.â€
   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.
   And in the book there aren’t a single word about you or Mark Hall.

And:

1. Lorenzo Rossi responds: April 12th, 2006 at 2:37 am JAYMAN-
   You are right.
   The problem is that the only english works about Minnesota Iceman are very, very, puzzled.
   For example you’ve correctly wrote:
   “From what I have read, the original descriptions of Heuvelmans and Sanderson describe one corner of the mouth being slightly agape, and TWO (2) rather small teeth, a canine and premolar, being visible… in this picture 3 or 4 teeth are seenâ€.
   The fact is this:
   When Heuvelmans and Sandersson (his work about the Iceman is very different from the work of Heuvelmans) saw “Bozo†for the first time the block of ice was more thick and the mouth of “Bozo†was more closed.
   After the publication of their works the corpse disappeared for some times and when reappeared it was in the condition of the picture in this forum.
   The block of ice was more thin, many particulars was more visible and the mouth of “Bozo†was more open.
   At this point the opinions was four:
   1) Hansen opinion: the “original†corpse was replaced by a model.
   2) Smithsonian Institute (John Napier) opinion: nothing “originalâ€. Sanderson and Heuvelmans saw only a model.
   3) Heuvelmans opinion: nothing model. The corpse in the ice was the same. The ice was thawed, the corpse manually “modified†and then frozen again.
   4) Opinion of Sanderson: the opinion of this man about “Bozo†changed every 5 or 6 days and was always different.
   I’ve consulted all the original dossier of Bernard Heuvelmans, I’ve seen all the original pictures about this case and I’ve made a reconstruction in one article, but is in Italian only (my English is not enough good for a translation).

There were cheap imitations going around too. Are you certain it was Hansen's exhibit?

[kitakaze]

Are you implying Sanderson was a hoaxer or did you just get mixed up?

Brief bio:

Sanderson, Ivan Terrence. (1911-1973)

Sanderson received degrees with honors in geology, zoology and botany and headed six expeditions in all parts of the world for such groups as the British museum, Cambridge and London Universities, the Linnaean Societies of London and the Chicago Natural History Museum. He was the author of many books; one, "Animal Treasures" was a Book Of The Month selection in 1937. Others include, “The Hairy Primitives of Ancient Europe†1967," "Caribbean Treasure," "Animals Nobody Knows," "Living treasure," "Animal Tales," "How to Know American Mammals, " "The Monkey Kingdom," and "Living Mammals of the World.†The Abominable Snowmen, Legend Come to Life†written in 1961 and countless articles for various publications and Argosy Magazine where he was ‘science editor.'

Frank Hansen was the hoaxer I was referring to, but Sanderson became complicit in the hoaxing when he kept promoting the hoax after discovering Hansen's lies. I don't care how many books the man wrote, he was wildly credulous. * The * man * pronounced * fake * dinosaur * tracks * to * be * from * a * giant * penguin.

Read this article by Sanderson and tell me which are Sanderson's screw-ups and which are Patterson and Gimlin's...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy68.htm

Here's a Sanderson book not in your list there...

It's a good read if you're into Reptoids...

On the evening of September 18th, 1952, Ivan left for Braxton County, West Virginia, on one of these assignments, perhaps the strangest of his career. He had gone to look into a report that a group of people had seen a “monster†by an alleged crashed spaceship in the woods out on a hill there. After a lengthy investigation Ivan concluded, on the basis of other sightings made on the same night, that several mysterious things came down out of the sky on the night of the Flatwoods incident, the objects in question having been seen flying over several populated areas and all going in the same direction before each “crashed†(all of them coming down within five to ten miles of each other) in West Virginia. Upon the arrival of reporters, the objects and the spaceman monster vanished, leaving a metallic stench and some crushed grass behind, along with a few bits of large reptile shells! This whole thing fascinated Ivan—he examines the incident and its subsequent, detailed investigation in a chapter of his book, Uninvited Visitors.

http://www.richardgrigonis.com/Ch08%20UFOs%20Caves%20Zoos%20Fires%20Floods.html

This one is fun, too, if regular UFO's don't hit the fortean addiction fix...

More Ivan Sanderson UFO quackery here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmrLcJ8FUWg

Steve Zissou I think was heavily inspired by Ivan Sanderson...

[Guest Crowlogic]

Did it look like this?

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

Lorenzo Rossi weighed in:

1. Lorenzo Rossi responds: April 11th, 2006 at 1:55 am Loren.
   For example you’ve written: “Then the original body disappeared, and a model [...] replaced it [...]. But Sanderson and Heuvelmans knew of at least fifteen technical differences between the original and the replacement, thanks to photographs of the traveling exhibit taken by Mark A. Hall and Loren Coleman.â€
   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.
   And in the book there aren’t a single word about you or Mark Hall.

And:

1. Lorenzo Rossi responds: April 12th, 2006 at 2:37 am JAYMAN-
   You are right.
   The problem is that the only english works about Minnesota Iceman are very, very, puzzled.
   For example you’ve correctly wrote:
   “From what I have read, the original descriptions of Heuvelmans and Sanderson describe one corner of the mouth being slightly agape, and TWO (2) rather small teeth, a canine and premolar, being visible… in this picture 3 or 4 teeth are seenâ€.
   The fact is this:
   When Heuvelmans and Sandersson (his work about the Iceman is very different from the work of Heuvelmans) saw “Bozo†for the first time the block of ice was more thick and the mouth of “Bozo†was more closed.
   After the publication of their works the corpse disappeared for some times and when reappeared it was in the condition of the picture in this forum.
   The block of ice was more thin, many particulars was more visible and the mouth of “Bozo†was more open.
   At this point the opinions was four:
   1) Hansen opinion: the “original†corpse was replaced by a model.
   2) Smithsonian Institute (John Napier) opinion: nothing “originalâ€. Sanderson and Heuvelmans saw only a model.
   3) Heuvelmans opinion: nothing model. The corpse in the ice was the same. The ice was thawed, the corpse manually “modified†and then frozen again.
   4) Opinion of Sanderson: the opinion of this man about “Bozo†changed every 5 or 6 days and was always different.
   I’ve consulted all the original dossier of Bernard Heuvelmans, I’ve seen all the original pictures about this case and I’ve made a reconstruction in one article, but is in Italian only (my English is not enough good for a translation).

There were cheap imitations going around too. Are you certain it was Hansen's exhibit?

Lal............... NO it did not look like the photo. The photo is Argosy.

[kitakaze]

Heuvelmans speaks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCc3at8jgYY&feature=related

Speaks utter quackery. At 00:36 we get to actually see a photo from Heuvelmans' examination. It's the very same fake seen here with Hansen...

Found in an ice flow in the Siberian Sea of Okhotsk? Then bought by carnival huckster? And Heuvelmans proclaims it a neanderthal!

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Article by Dr. Napier. I haven't found it yet. I shudder to think it was on Bigfoot: Fact or Fantasy? The site is gone.

Dart's claims that it was a biped were roundly rejected. Paleoanthropologists were following Sir Arthur Keith. This even affected the Leakey's finds. At what point did it become acceptable to call africanus a biped?

And none as complete as Lucy. She was the first non-human hominids to be considered an habitual biped - except by those who didn't think so.

You're wrong about that, Neanderthals and H. Erectus were both discovered in the 19th century, and no one ever doubted that they were bipeds. Before Lucy was found, and yes, even in the '60s, bipedalism had been accepted as part of a number of species, including Africanus, which you keep debating.

[wolftrax]

And Loren responded:

"The list of 15 differences was formulated by Sanderson and Heuvelmans, and never shared publicly or with Mark Hall and me. This was done so Sanderson and Heuvelmans could privately tell if the “real body†was ever shown again by Hansen, without Hansen or the secret owner knowing what these discovered differences were. The list may be hidden in the archives of Heuvelmans’ files held in the zoology museum in Switzerland."

I got all the way to Lorenzo Rossi on that one. At least we got Loren's photo identified.

Do you still have your .gif ?

Backed up somewhere and I would have to dig it out when I have time.

If it was such an obvious fake when Coleman and Hall saw it why was it necessary to send the photo to Sanderson and Heuvelmans to find out if it was a fake or not? If they photographed more than just the head where can we see the photos? I found a more naturally colored version in 2008. It looks a little more like the Argosy cover.

It was sort of like this:

If there was a "Switcheroo" what did Sanderson and Heuvelmans examine? Hansen was switching models was he?

Because there wasn't a "Switcheroo", it was the same thing, it had always been a fake.

I'm not overly impressed with Langdon.

Because he brings to the table that it was a hoax?

Dart's claims that it was a biped were roundly rejected. Paleoanthropologists were following Sir Arthur Keith. This even affected the Leakey's finds. At what point did it become acceptable to call africanus a biped?

And none as complete as Lucy. She was the first non-human hominids to be considered an habitual biped - except by those who didn't think so.

"In the first half of the 20th Century few believed that there was reliable fossil evidence

for an early stage in human evolution when brains were ape-like, but bodies were humanlike.

Dart (1925) described the first known australopithecine as being erect, but he had no

limb bones to make his case convincing. Broom (1936) published his sketch of a Sterkfontein

distal femur that certainly looked like it belonged to a biped, but skeptics prevailed (e.g.,

Kern and Straus, 1949). The influential author of Early Forerunners of Man, Le Gros Clark

(1934), held what appeared to be the reasonable view that these ape-brained South African

fossils were not bipedal hominids. That was until Broom and Robinson discovered Sts 14

at Sterkfontein in 1947 (Broom and Robinson, 1947).

The discovery of Sts 14 caused a profound change of view. Le Gros Clark visited

South Africa in 1947 just as the pelvic bones were being extracted (Clark, 1967). They

were to his trained eyes quite human and this view quickly became perceived wisdom—the

ape-brained australopithecines were human and bipedal (Clark, 1947; 1948).

As this volume attests, interpretations of fossils do not go unchallenged. Le Gros

Clark’s (1947; 1948) view was supported by a majority of scholars (e.g., Keith, 1948;

Robinson, 1972a; Washburn and Patterson, 1951) but certainly not all (e.g., Oxnard, 1973;

Oxnard, 1975b; Zuckerman, 1950a, b; 1966; 1970; Zuckerman et al., 1973). The discovery of the OH 8 foot in 1960 lead many to the view that it was essentially human and not

at all ape-like (e.g., Aiello and Dean, 1990; Aiello et al., 1998; Clark, 1967; Day, 1973;

Day, 1978; Day et al., 1976; Day and Napier, 1964; Day and Wood, 1968; Harcourt-

Smith et al., 2002; McHenry, 1972; Preuschoft, 1971; Robinson, 1972b; Susman and Stern,

1982; Tuttle, 1988) but some experts doubted that interpretation (Kidd et al., 1996; Lamy,

1986; Le Floch-Prigent and Deloison, 1985; Lewis, 1989; Oxnard, 1975a; Oxnard, 1979;

Oxnard and Lisowski, 1978; Oxnard and Lisowski, 1980; Sarmiento and Marcus, 2000) and

arguments persist to this day on the meaning of early hominid foot morphology (Kidd et al.,

1996; Lamy, 1986; Le Floch-Prigent and Deloison, 1985; Lewis, 1989; Oxnard, 1975a;

Oxnard, 1979; Oxnard and Lisowski, 1978; Oxnard and Lisowski, 1980; Sarmiento and

Marcus, 2000). The original describers of Australopithecus afarensis emphasized its total

commitment to terrestrial bipedality and loss of ape-like climbing abilities (Gebo, 1992;

Johanson et al., 1982; Latimer, 1988; Latimer, 1991; Latimer and Lovejoy, 1989; Latimer

and Lovejoy, 1990a; Latimer and Lovejoy, 1990b; Latimer et al., 1982; Latimer et al.,

1987; Leakey, 1981; Lovejoy et al., 1982; McHenry, 1991; McHenry 1982; McHenry, 1984;

McHenry, 1994; Tuttle et al., 1991b; e.g., White, 1980) but as many authors in this volume

point out (e.g., Deloison, Berillon, Schmid) there is a strong alternative view proposed

long ago by several scholars (e.g., Bacon, 1994; Christie, 1977; Clarke and Tobias, 1995;

Deloison, 1984; Deloison, 1985; Deloison, 1991; Deloison, 1997; Lamy, 1983; Lamy, 1986;

Le Floch-Prigent and Deloison, 1985; Lewis, 1989; Sarmiento and Marcus, 2000; Senut,

1980; Senut and Tardieu, 1985; Stern and Susman, 1983; Stern and Susman, 1991; Susman

and Stern, 1991; Susman et al., 1984; Tuttle, 1981)."

http://www.anthro.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mchenry/BipedtoStider.pdf

John Green and Jeff Meldrum used frame 52 on Patty and Ruben Steindorf used reverse kinematics. I'm not sure where I got the afarensis index but it must have been in 2005. Maybe it's in one of my books.

Anything else?

I'm finding 82-85

http://books.google.com/books?id=p-L-1BXTNLEC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=afarensis+intermembral+index&source=bl&ots=P_buyhqwI1&sig=E12Q8YJlGOGEYu12PiWSFjxb-ps&hl=en&ei=C7-3TfveJYyasAP77KmqAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=afarensis%20intermembral%20index&f=false

pg 168

Rueben Steindorf's measurements obviously didn't work for Patty.

[Guest LAL]

Found in an ice flow in the Siberian Sea of Okhotsk? Then bought by carnival huckster? And Heuvelmans proclaims it a neanderthal!

Sanderson split with him on that but he was basing it on the feet looking like a match for Neandertal prints, among other things. They didn't have a lot of choices in 1967.

The story was that the famous person acquired it for a case of whiskey and asked Hansen to exhibit it to test the reactions.

[Guest LAL]

You're wrong about that, Neanderthals and H. Erectus were both discovered in the 19th century, and no one ever doubted that they were bipeds. Before Lucy was found, and yes, even in the '60s, bipedalism had been accepted as part of a number of species, including Africanus, which you keep debating.

I said non-human hominid, or at least I did before I added the "s" but neglected to add "of the". Even Lucy's extent of bipedalism has been hotly debated since the discovery. Remember that locking wrist bone? Richman and Strait said it indicated knuckle-walking, others that it was an arboreal adaptation. STS 14 showed unequivocally that africanus was an obligate biped. and Dart was vindicated but I don't think that was common knowledge at the time. Lucy was BIG NEWS.

Frank Hansen wasn't a paleoanthropologist, was he? Clark didn't publish in the popular press. Somehow I doubt Frank Hansen read his papers.

Note this:

"Le Gros Clark’s (1947; 1948) view was supported by a majority of scholars (e.g., Keith, 1948; Robinson, 1972a; Washburn and Patterson, 1951) but certainly not all (e.g., Oxnard, 1973;

Oxnard, 1975b; Zuckerman, 1950a, b; 1966; 1970; Zuckerman et al., 1973).

Thanks for the list, wolftrax. I wish I'd had it when I was debating on AOL boards and kept getting Solly Zuckerman's opinion thrown at me.

In 1967 the popular image of "cave men" was of big, hulking brutes that didn't look a bit like the slender Iceman. Roger Patterson's view: