Minnesota Iceman Hoax

[Guest LAL]

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

You're saying the photo I posted is from Argosy or like Argosy? It's Coleman's of the supposed fake.

There are differences between that and the Argosy cover, such as more teeth showing, but that could be from the lip sagging more because of decay or from Hansen's rearranging.

[wolftrax]

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:

The point is here is that non-human bipedal hominids were accepted by 1967 and in the media, this image is from 1894:

1902:

We went through this before, there were a ton of depictions of apemen available to the public that Hansen could have seen to influence him to make this. And he did make it, he admitted that. It's ridiculous to think he ever did have a real one. And how could anybody compare Hansen's stories to Napier's, Chambers', or Langdon's? You can't, because Hansen kept LYING.

It was a fake.

[Guest vilnoori]

Nice pics! Almost reminds me of Ardi. However, back then people thought that big brains developed before bipedalism. Also note that in the pics there are no chins. The person who did both the fake and the original thought that apemen (of whatever kind) have chins. Only modern Homo sapiens have chins. All previous Homo forms had a receding chin that did not stick out at all, much like those paintings depict.

Edited April 27, 2011 by vilnoori

[Guest BlurryMonster]

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:

Yeah, exactly, non-human (as in not H. Sapiens, which is what "human" means). Neandethals, H. Erectus, and A. Africanus are all non-humans, and were all recognized to be bipedal long before what you're talking about. The Iceman looks like a primitive, ape-like person, which is what most people thought the "missing links" or "monkey men" looked like. As Wolftrax shows above, people knew about bipedal apes way before the 1960s.

I forgot this in my first post, but I'd like to point it out now: Your usage or the term Cro-Magnon is fairly incorrect. That term doesn't refer to primitive humans, like most think it does, it just refers to a specific culture that existed among early Homo Sapiens (biologically modern humans). It does not refer to a species like most seem to think. Its usage is now largely defunct among biological anthropologists.

Edited April 27, 2011 by BlurryMonster

[wolftrax]

Nice pics! Almost reminds me of Ardi. However, back then people thought that big brains developed before bipedalism. Also note that in the pics there are no chins. The person who did both the fake and the original thought that apemen (of whatever kind) have chins. Only modern Homo sapiens have chins. All previous Homo forms had a receding chin that did not stick out at all, much like those paintings depict.

It appears that the head is tilted back, you can see up the nose, the brow ridge covers the forehead, it's a good death pose but that and the blurry ice and no side view I wouldn't bet too much on whether the chin is receding or not.

[Guest LAL]

Yeah, exactly, non-human (as in not H. Sapiens, which is what "human" means). Neandethals, H. Erectus, and A. Africanus are all non-humans, and were all recognized to be bipedal long before what you're talking about. The Iceman looks like a primitive, ape-like person, which is what most people thought the "missing links" or "monkey men" looked like. As Wolftrax shows above, people knew about bipedal apes way before the 1960s.

I forgot this in my first post, but I'd like to point it out now: Your usage or the term Cro-Magnon is fairly incorrect. That term doesn't refer to primitive humans, like most think it does, it just refers to a specific culture that existed among early Homo Sapiens (biologically modern humans). It does not refer to a species like most seem to think. Its usage is now largely defunct among biological anthropologists.

The general public certainly didn't know much about Australopithecines in the 60's. Robert Ardrey popularized Raymond Dart's work with the "killer ape" idea but that was about it. "Neanderthals" were considered a human subspecies and Turkana Boy was far in the future. We had "Peking Man" and "Java Man", not "Peking Non-man and "Java Non-man". Among certain scientists africanus may have been considered a biped, but Zuckerman considered them just more apes and I seriously doubt many people learned anything about them at all. Hansen was a Air Force man, not a scientist. The view in the 60's and 70's was that the common ancestor was sort of a big-brained, knuckle-walking chimp. Simons and Pilbeam were touting Ramapithecus as a human ancestor. Wouldn't someone trying to manufacture a "missing link" have gone with Washburn's model?

Where did I use the term "Cro-Magnon" except in this quote?" Another story is that "At about the same time a Hollywood special effects firm claimed that they had made the "Iceman" in 1967. Howard Ball, who made figures for Disneyland with his son, Kenneth, had modeled the fake in rubber trying to make it look like 'an artist's conception of Cro-Magnon man' with 'a broken skull with one eye popped out.' " I know they were named after the area in France where they were found and that they were modern humans, thanks.

[Guest LAL]

Frank Hansen was the hoaxer I was referring to,

Hansen was a huckster. Selling views of a What Is It? at State Fairs and carnivals for $.25 - $.35 does not make him a hoaxer. Sanderson had a pet cheetah, too, didn't he? Don't leave that out. As Heuvelmans wrote, “Vers la fin de sa vie pourtaint il se refusait à rejeter la possibilité que les hominoides reliques eussent été largués sur notre planète par des vaisseaux spatiaux."

What does any of this have to do with his training in zoology?

[wolftrax]

Apemen had been popular in the public eye throughout the 20th century, whether it was from evolutionary literature or debate or the fictional media such as movies or magazines, to the fringe subjects like Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman. But this is a distraction.

Hansen's stories were in the negative with credibility. The only story he said that was confirmed was that he had a fake made. This was confirmed over and over again, only that he never had a "Real" one in the first place.

[Guest LAL]

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

Don't bother. I remember it well.

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

Then why is the mouth more open and more teeth showing? And what did you mean by "after the Switcheroo"?

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

I've already implied why, but "It is not polite to speak of the dead" as they said in Dances With Wolves.

http://makeupmag.com/news/newsID/784/

I'm finding 82-85

http://books.google....20index&f=false

pg 168

I'm sure we can find others in other sources.

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

And why is that if I may ask without getting us too far off topic?

[Guest LAL]

We went through this before, there were a ton of depictions of apemen available to the public that Hansen could have seen to influence him to make this. And he did make it, he admitted that. It's ridiculous to think he ever did have a real one. And how could anybody compare Hansen's stories to Napier's, Chambers', or Langdon's? You can't, because Hansen kept LYING.

It was a fake.

Where did Hansen admit he made it? Source, please.

I think I liked the pictures you posted last time around better but these are fun too. Note that the "apemen" all have ape feet, unlike the MIM.

BTW, Napier only saw photos and drawings and the reports, not the exhibit.

[wolftrax]

Then why is the mouth more open and more teeth showing?

The ice was thawed and then refrozen again.

And what did you mean by "after the Switcheroo"?

After the date Hansen claimed he had to switch the "Real" Iceman with the "Fake" Iceman.

I've already implied why, but "It is not polite to speak of the dead" as they said in Dances With Wolves.

http://makeupmag.com/news/newsID/784/

Yeah I know he passed on but why would his story carry less weight than Hansen's?

And why is that if I may ask without getting us too far off topic?

This was gone over many times before but Steindorf's skeleton would fall out of alignment with the body when Patty would take a step. The legs were way too short.

Where did Hansen admit he made it? Source, please.

Now we're playing games, you already know this.

"I knew that if this thing was real and it rolled out accidentally on the highway I could be in trouble, so I contacted some friends in the movie industry in the Los Angeles area and arranged for a sculptor to make a model of the thing without him even seeing it. I just made diagrams and drawings and told him I wanted it for a carnival sideshow.

After a few months he came up with what looked to me like a very passable replica of whatever was in the ice. I put the replica in the coffin in clear view of people in the area who knew what I was doing and headed down to the warehouse where the replica was switched with the original Iceman."

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

BTW, Napier only saw photos and drawings and the reports, not the exhibit.

LAL

Yep, Napier had the intelligence to see when Hansen had 4 different stories, the last one admitting he had a fake made, that the whole thing was a scam.

[wolftrax]

The view in the 60's and 70's was that the common ancestor was sort of a big-brained, knuckle-walking chimp.

This is a tricky dodge. It's not relevant what the public thought the last common ancestor between apes and humans was, the public had well in mind a bipedal apeman both in evolutionary terms and in entertainment, that would refer to a hominid well after the ape-human split.

[wolftrax]

Yep, Napier had the intelligence to see when Hansen had 4 different stories, the last one admitting he had a fake made, that the whole thing was a scam.

I'd also like to add Napier knowing who had made the Iceman was a big factor. This man was on digs with the Leakey's finding real bipedal apes like Homo habilis in Africa, why waste time on a carnival con?

That's a question we should all ask ourselves, isn't it?

Edited April 28, 2011 by wolftrax

[Guest LAL]

The ice was thawed and then refrozen again.

Which Hansen said he did and Heuvelmans believed except Heuvelmans thought there was no fake.

After the date Hansen claimed he had to switch the "Real" Iceman with the "Fake" Iceman.

But you say they're the same. So both were fake or both were real?

Yeah I know he passed on but why would his story carry less weight than Hansen's?

Which one of Hansen's?

I'm not saying Hansen couldn't have approached him, even in '64, with intent to have a model made. You heard the podcast. Langdon posted like that too. As I said, coffee seemed to be in order.

This was gone over many times before but Steindorf's skeleton would fall out of alignment with the body when Patty would take a step. The legs were way too short.

On JREF it was......skull popping out of the head and all that. I'm thinking of the picture (but haven't found it yet) that shows the arm and leg were the same length. The index worked out to 88 which was a fair match for Meldrum's estimated 80-90.

Now we're playing games, you already know this.

If I ask you for a source we're playing games but if you ask me it isn't?

"I knew that if this thing was real and it rolled out accidentally on the highway I could be in trouble, so I contacted some friends in the movie industry in the Los Angeles area and arranged for a sculptor to make a model of the thing without him even seeing it. I just made diagrams and drawings and told him I wanted it for a carnival sideshow.

After a few months he came up with what looked to me like a very passable replica of whatever was in the ice. I put the replica in the coffin in clear view of people in the area who knew what I was doing and headed down to the warehouse where the replica was switched with the original Iceman."

http://www.bigfooten...wman_hansen.htm

No, you said he admitted he made it: "And he did make it, he admitted that. " Nowhere in the above does he say that he made it. He said he made diagrams and drawings and asked a sculptor to make a model of the thing.

Yep, Napier had the intelligence to see when Hansen had 4 different stories, the last one admitting he had a fake made, that the whole thing was a scam.

Well, sort of - he doesn't exactly say that.

Interesting he notes Hansen was urbane. That doesn't really help the Minnesota story either. I tend to think Hansen was telling the truth - I just don't know about what.

Napier came down on the agouti hair because higher primates don't have it. :

"But Sanderson makes a very significant observation that goes unremarked in Heuvelmans's report. The hairs, Sanderson avers, are agouti. On the face of it this is not a particularly soul-shaking item of information. Agouti is a condition where the hairs are composed of alternating bands of dark and light and is probably familiar to most people as the fur pattern of a squirrel. The agouti pattern is regarded as a phylogenetically ancient character that has become lost in evolution in certain groups as a result of increasing specialization. The agouti pattern of hair coloration is also extremely common amongst the primates. It is seen in the monkeys of both the New and Old Worlds; but at the higher levels of primate evolution-amongst the apes and man-it is completely unknown. That the Iceman should possess agouti-patterned hairs is a zoological improbability of the highest order. If we can take this observation of Sanderson's as valid, and there is no reason why we should not, then the likelihood that the Iceman is an artifact - a man-made object - is high."

Bears and squirrels have agouti hair but I don't think anyone has suggested bears descended from squirrels. In our former go-round I found out that the gene sequence for aguoti hair hasn't been lost in the higher primates - it's suppressed. Anyone know what kind of hair Ardipiths and Australopiths had?

Some of Napier's arguments remind me of the objections to Patty - females don't have sagittal crests, primates don't have hairy breasts, etc.. This for instance:

"The hands were typical of neither apes or of humans but were a ridiculous compromise between the two." Aren't the Australopithecines kind of a ridiculous mix of "ape" and "human" too?

[Guest BlurryMonster]

The general public certainly didn't know much about Australopithecines in the 60's. Robert Ardrey popularized Raymond Dart's work with the "killer ape" idea but that was about it. "Neanderthals" were considered a human subspecies and Turkana Boy was far in the future. We had "Peking Man" and "Java Man", not "Peking Non-man and "Java Non-man". Among certain scientists africanus may have been considered a biped, but Zuckerman considered them just more apes and I seriously doubt many people learned anything about them at all. Hansen was a Air Force man, not a scientist. The view in the 60's and 70's was that the common ancestor was sort of a big-brained, knuckle-walking chimp. Simons and Pilbeam were touting Ramapithecus as a human ancestor. Wouldn't someone trying to manufacture a "missing link" have gone with Washburn's model?

How obtuse are you going to be about this? Peking Man and Java Man got those names because of their similarity to humans, not because anyone ever thought they were, because that certainly wasn't the case. How do you think every species in the Homo genus got their names? After all, Homo is always taken to mean "man" in that context (handy man, erect man, Heidelberg man, etc).

Neanderthals were only thought to be human for the brief period of time before anthropology really even started, and even then people were coming up with crazy excuses for the differences between them and us. By the end of the 19th century, people knew exactly what Neanderthals were, and what they looked like (for the most part). Africanus was also known to be bipedal. Its pelvis and skull make that quite obvious. You keep on trying to assert that no one thought anyhting but a human can be bipedal, and that's just wrong. It's already been pointed out to you that scientists were fully aware of other hominins, and the general public was, too (which is really a separate thing, despite your efforts to lump them together). The concept of "cavemen" and "apemen" was a big part of public culture (and had been since the discovery of Neanderthal); lots of museums had Neanderthal displays, and plenty of movies and books had depictions of primitive ape men.

By the '60s, no one thought a "missing link" would look like a chimp. If that was the case, why do you think someone made Piltdown man 60 years before that?

Where did I use the term "Cro-Magnon" except in this quote?" Another story is that "At about the same time a Hollywood special effects firm claimed that they had made the "Iceman" in 1967. Howard Ball, who made figures for Disneyland with his son, Kenneth, had modeled the fake in rubber trying to make it look like 'an artist's conception of Cro-Magnon man' with 'a broken skull with one eye popped out.' " I know they were named after the area in France where they were found and that they were modern humans, thanks.

Fair enough, you used that term in a quote (for some reason, I missed that). Sorry for mistakenly correcting you. I still stand by the correction in general, though; too many people misuse the term "Cro-magnon."