The Minnesota Iceman

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

For the uninitiated, the Minnesota Iceman was sideshow exhibit featuring a hairy, Bigfoot-like creature encased in a block of ice. Now despite the owner's constantly changing origin stories for the creature (a classic sign of a liar) and the fact that it was displayed in a sideshow, a surprising amount of people cling to the idea of the iceman being real, often citing that the iceman was found to be real by two trained biologists and that the creature bore a striking resemblence to the description of a Vietnamese "wildman."

These two (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14003&mode=threaded&pid=293363) links (http://www.orgoneresearch.com/mysterious_creature_in_ice.htm) do an excellent job of pointing out the various flaws in the "Minnesota Iceman was real" argument. Especially when you factor in that one of the people who declared it to be real had a rather poor understanding of special effects, as is shown at the bottom of this page (http://www.orgoneresearch.com/florida%20giant%20penguin%20hoax.htm).

After all, the idea of prehistoric creatures being preserved in blocks of ice was nothing new in the 60's. I know the idea was used in a 1942 Superman cartoon called "The Artic Giant (http://www.archive.org/details/arctic_giant 1942)" and in some sci-fi/horror movies. The idea seems to have been spawned by the discovery of preserved mammoth carcasses (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html) in Siberia during the 1900's (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9746(1929)2%3A23%3A1%3Ci%3ATCOTMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8). However, those remains were not encased in blocks of ice; that seems to have sprung from a misunderstanding of how the preserved remains were found.

Hhmm...perhaps this is why the Iceman was billed as the "Siberskoye Creature?" According to this (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/napiertake.htm), "Siberskoye is an artificial word, roughly translated “Siberskoye man" meaning man from Siberia."

After reading this post (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:ujP5iQFpTpYJ:www.bigfootforums.com/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D14003%26mode%3Dthreaded%26 pid%3D293600+dfoot+neanderthal+malone&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8) that made a passing reference to Hollywood special effects artists creating a fake Neanderthal corpse for a sideshow, I decided to investigate if the concept of sideshow exhibits about frozen cavemen remains predated the Iceman exhibit.

First, I found the source of the information (http://www.boxofmonsters.com/langdon2.html) given in the above post. Here's a choice quote:

John Chambers was interested in the direction I was going with the Studios, and became involved in a couple of our projects, specifically creating or advising "prehistoric men" for showmen Jerry Malone (John created this “dead” Neanderthal) and Frank Hansen (we referred Frank to La Brea Tar Pit/Natural History Museum sculptor Howard Ball who cast this figure in hot melt; John joined us in consultation of the project). It has been unfounded speculation for years that Johnny also made a "bigfoot" costume for a fellow named Patterson. Don't you believe it. John's level of quality was way above that sort of thing; he was a perfectionist and very proud of his craft, and couldn't make anything like that if he had tried!

I can confirm that John Chambers worked on creating at least one sideshow attraction. Here you can see pictures of him working on the "Burbank Bigfoot." (http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/burbank-bigfoot) Next, I tried to find more information on Jerry Malone. This led to me an interview with someone who claims to have bought a "Big Foot Creature Exhibit" from Jerry Malone (http://www.sideshowworld.com/interviewRickWest.html). He notes that his exhibit used glass treated with a chemical to give the appearance of ice (Judging from the picture, it wasn't anything like Christmas "spray on snow" or the old epsom salt and warm water trick (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OI86gF1QblQ)), that he and a friend built another fake creature like it, and that John Chambers had created it. In my opinion, the Burbank Bigfoot looks a lot better than the creature that West bought. I don't know if his means that Mr. West was mistaken, lying, or if it means that Jerry Malone had originally bought an "economy model."

He also notes that he had met the man who exhibited the Iceman (Frank Hansen) at the exhibit's first appearance, that it was the best of the frozen Bigfoot exhibits (which is no surprise, seeing as how he used actual ice for his display), and that he had an opportunity to buy the exhibit from him before Hansen's death. True believers of the Iceman would probably say that he was going to get sold the supposed "fake Iceman." However, it's always important to take what carnival showmen say with a grain of salt (although this would explain Hansen's claim that the "real owner" was possibly going to let the iceman get shown again in the future (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/iceman_update2005.htm).)

I wonder if Malone, West, or someone else was the owner of the "frozen Bigfoot" exhibit mentioned here (http://www.sideshowworld.com/tgodZanilla.html).

The interview's mention of Jerry Malone having a frozen whale exhibit inspired me to look up more on the subject. This (http://www.sideshowworld.com/snlp_Jan-2007-4.html) makes it sound like several such exhibits were shown at carnivals and the like back in the day. This (http://www.michaelbare.com/tyronemalone/abouttheman.htm)says he got the original idea for the whale exhibit in 1963 (4 years before the Iceman first turned up).

Thanks to this site (http://www.fraterslibertas.com/2007/08/evolution-of-freak-shows.html), I found a link to a 1995 news article on Mr. Malone's frozen whale (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1995-04-20/news/thar-she-froze-refrigerated-whale-to-chill-out-in-the-arizona-desert-after-30-years-on-show-biz-road). Said article notes that:

In spite of placards identifying the location of Irvy's blowhole, mouth, glass eye and other points of anatomical interest, the creature is not even immediately recognizable as a whale. His skin severely peeling (freezer burn set in less than six months after Malone entombed him in the refrigerated case), the aquatic mammal looks less like a whale than it does a gigantic semideflated tire that's lost its tread.

Skin peeling from freezerburn after six months? No matter what version of the "Hansen had a real frozen creature" story you pick, there's no way he could have kept it as long as he said he did without it freezerburning into an unrecognizable mess like Irvy the whale did.

As for the Vietnamese wildman issue, here's something that I had originally intended for a post over in the "Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film" thread:

Heuvelmans went so far as to name the species and publish in a Belgian journal. He believed it was an Asian species smuggled out of Viet Nam in a body bag. Vietnamese villagers pointed to pictures of it as being the closest to the Ngoui Rung they'd seen many years before.

That actually doesn't mean a whole lot. I bet if I flashed pictures of Baragon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baragon) over in Africa, I'd get told that they were the closest match for the Emela Ntouka (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/en-reader-art). You can see a picture of the old Baragon suit here (http://www.millionmonkeytheater.com/moviepics/baragon1.JPG).

Similarly, there's the case of the concept art for the Frankenstein monster (http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6889/kingkongvsfrankenstein2lb9.png) that Willis O' Brien did for his never-made "King Kong vs. Frankenstein" project (elements of the project turned up in 1962's "King Kong vs. Godzilla" and 1965's "Frankenstein Conquers the World"). Just add some hair and scale down the height a bit and you have a dead-ringer for many Bigfoot descriptions. Some might argue that he could've been inspired by Bigfoot reports, but I doubt it since it doesn't have a pointed head in this piece artwork (http://bp3.blogger.com/_Y5TwdoOLPTI/Riy1hIahIoI/AAAAAAAABZA/enf7zXtgTQo/s400/news042307e.jpg). Ray Harryhausen would probably know for sure, though.

In short, coincidences can (and will) happen.

[Lensman]

There was also "The Cardiff Giant" (not Cardiff, the capital of Wales, but some hick US town), I can't recall any details, but he was a definite fraud & this was admitted to sometime later.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

There was also "The Cardiff Giant" (not Cardiff, the capital of Wales, but some hick US town), I can't recall any details, but he was a definite fraud & this was admitted to sometime later.

Yep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Giant). The "giant" was just a large stone statue that was artificially aged with acid and had fake pore marks beat into its surface using a board with knitting needles stick through it. So much for the idea that a hoaxer can't put a lot of time and effort into a hoax!

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

When I provided links to material that debunked the various arguments for the Iceman being real, I accidentally linked to a different discussion on the Minnesota Iceman than the one I had intended. Here (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11619&hl=) is the correct link.

[tube]

Atomic, very good recap of the "Iceman" saga, especially for someone without a sideshow background. If you want to follow up on the history of sideshow illusion I would highly reccomend A.W. Stencell's book Seeing is Believing:

http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Believing-Americas-Side-Shows/dp/1550225294

Stencell does a very good job of showing the history of sideshow gaffs, which go back at least to the early 1800's.

The great promoter of the "Iceman", Ivan Sanderson, also promoted 15 foot penguins and chickens in dinosaur suits...

Rick Noll never contributed many blog entries to Cryptomundo, but I like this one:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-hunter/talking-about-bigfoot-pictures/

A typically crypto-convoluted story of someone trying to pass off a gaff as something real. Why is my photo so much clearer than the ones from the Cryptomundo blog? Is there some unwritten law that all crypto photos must be blurry and bad?

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/matthetube/IMG_0692.jpg

[Correa Neto]

Too much flash!

Make the pic darker and set focus on the Christmas small tree ahead the creature. This will leave some details to be found by enthisiasts after some brightness tweaking. Oh, make the story about the encounter simple. That's the recipe for success.

Then it will be time for interviews, write books, charge for participations at footer symposia, guided bigfoot trips, etc. Money-making, you know.

[Babylon Sister]

I saw the Iceman "exhibit" at the Oregon State Fair in either 1972 or 1973. If I remember correctly, all you could see was a dark form in what appeared to be a block of ice. (You couldn't get too close to the exhibit of course.) I remember that the area around the face was slightly more clear and that you could sort of make out the facial features if you looked hard enough. You were kind of rushed through the exhibit (big surprise), so I went back 3 or 4 times so I could get a good look.

I think that was the beginning of the end of my belief in The Big Guy. (but not my love of side show attractions!)

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Atomic, very good recap of the "Iceman" saga, especially for someone without a sideshow background. If you want to follow up on the history of sideshow illusion I would highly reccomend A.W. Stencell's book Seeing is Believing

Thanks (for the compliment and for the recommendation)! It's true that I lack a sideshow background (unless you count my stint in a neighborhood sideshow I did with some friends as a kid), but I've always been fascinated with sideshows. In fact, the name "Atomic Mystery Monster" comes from a type of sideshow attraction, similar to the "Atomic Fish" seen here (http://grindshow.com/GrindShow/Main_Exhibit_Hall.html). I think my fascination orginally stemmed from the poster/banner art I saw at various fairs and carnivals, but later blossomed due to my interest in monsters and special effects. Looking back, I find it amusing that I suspected that 99% of exhibits at sideshows were fake even when I was a child.

At first I could only find books on P.T. Barnum, but in later years I was able to reads Doug Higley's Scary Dark Rides and Howard Bone's Side Show:My Life With Geeks, Freaks and Vagabonds in the Carny Trade. This led to looking up sideshow-related websites (which aided me in my search for information to use in this thread) and gave me a knowledge of attractions were advertised and the occasional telltale signs of fakery. I was often content to test this knowledge against advertisements in order to second-guess what they were really like,but there was one time in which I decided to test my knowledge against the exhibits themselves:

Back in 2001 or 2002, I was at a fair and noticed a sideshow whose artwork boasted of having a Bigfoot-looking creature called (if I remember correctly)the "Okefenokee Swamp Man" included amongst its exhibits. Inside, I saw obvious rubber pygmies, a latex alien in a "preservation chamber" (you can buy the exact same model at a well-stocked Halloween superstore), a pirhana in a jar (its being positioned far away and under dim lighting made me suspect that it was a fake), and a caged "Russian rat" (really a large, but ordinary white rat), and the furry head of the "Okefenokee Swamp Man." Despite not being able to see any stitches or anything that revealed an obvious hoax, I concluded that it was a fake. After all, it was surrounded by fakes and the remains of a real creature like that would be worth far more than its owner could get from displaying it in a sideshow. Years later, I got conclusive proof that my suspicions were correct. For you see, the head looked like a cross between a stereotypical yeti (crested head and white fur) and the de loys' ape (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/de-loys-x). Said ape has been shown to have been a hoax (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/raynal-de-loys) using a dead spider monkey (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/hell-shuker)...

The great promoter of the "Iceman", Ivan Sanderson, also promoted 15 foot penguins and chickens in dinosaur suits...

Speaking of which, here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvAd4tnMVu0) a video showing clips from the film that Sanderson thought used chickens in dinosaur costumes. As a special bonus, you'll also get a cameo appearance by an "apeman."

According to John Keel's Strange Creatures From Time and Space, the iceman's "...left arm was twisted awkwardly upward, and was visibly fractured midway between the wrist and the elbow, giving the appearance of a 'sawdust doll'" (89-90). I suspect that, as was the case with the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film, a potential sign of a hoax was ignored since other features seemed realistic to the viewers.

Also, Sanderson wasn't the only cryptozoologist fooled by a sideshow gaff (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/krantz-olaf).

As a special bonus, here are some more movies featuring frozen prehistoric creatures that predate the Minnesota Iceman:

Return of the Ape Man (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037217/maindetails) (1944)

The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045546) (1953)

Other:

Valley of the Dragons (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055583/maindetails) (1961) - This movie might have a frozen caveman at one point.

The Thing from Another World (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121) (1951) - Has an alien that was frozen during prehistoric times...

A typically crypto-convoluted story of someone trying to pass off a gaff as something real. Why is my photo so much clearer than the ones from the Cryptomundo blog? Is there some unwritten law that all crypto photos must be blurry and bad?

I love how, even in the blurry photos, the trees in the background are obviously flat paintings.

[LTC8K6]

My favorite frozen creature movie is The Thing (from another world).

Keep watching the skies!

[Crowlogic]

I actually got to see the Iceman in 1972. It was on display at the mall were I worked. I was there for a week or two. Cost 25cents to view it. The blown out eye socket was dramatic but the feet and especailly the hands were overly large it seemed. Hair density sparse and colored not unlike an Orang. Did it look real? Unless you knew the methodology of making something like this you really couldn't tell real or fake. The overly large hands bothered me. Really good fake.

[zooman63]

Does "Yeti de Bourganeuf" ring a bell...

[JohnWS]

Yes - a fake exhibited in the French town of Bourganeuf. I did some digging into this some time back (having been to Bourganeuf prior to hearing the story [and since], it was doubly interesting).

ETA:
My favorite frozen creature movie is The Thing (from another world).

Keep watching the skies! Oh yes!

[JohnWS]

Here's what I was looking for. THIS (http://cryptozoologia.zigzag.be/crypto.acgi$Rev_fr?art=ZZ000243fr&Session=S327698702&serial=950684519) magazine contains an article on the subject from THIS (http://www.ophys.fr/home.asp) man.

More HERE (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/eyesjohor/) Scroll down to 'My friend'.

Sorry if you knew all this!

Edit - clarity & correction.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Great job! I vaguely recall some proponents demanding that the sculptor provide proof that he actually made the "Yeti de Bourganeuf" back in the day. Granted, it's always good to have proof, but it still kinda struck me as people desperately clinging to the idea that it was real.

[Gravy]

The original Iceman is quite real, and resides in San Antonio. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gervin)

The Minnesota Iceman is hardly frozen in a block of ice. He's as active as can be. (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=4393377&page=1)

[Bigt]

The Minnesota Iceman? Never heard of it but I bet it's as real as the Kensington Rune Stone.

I saw Irvy the Whale at the Minnesota State Fair sometime in the 70's. I don't recall much about it though.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I recently noticed that a sidebar titled "Chambers and the 'Burbank Bigfoot'" on this page (http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html) makes some references to Frank Hansen and his Minnesota Iceman exhibit. My favorite was how he apparently approached some people at Universal Studios to build him a fake crashed flying saucer (complete with dead aliens). It seems to me that "The Thing From Another World" made a big impact on Mr. Hansen...

[William Parcher]

I actually got to see the Iceman in 1972. It was on display at the mall were I worked. I was there for a week or two. Cost 25cents to view it. The blown out eye socket was dramatic but the feet and especailly the hands were overly large it seemed. Hair density sparse and colored not unlike an Orang. Did it look real? Unless you knew the methodology of making something like this you really couldn't tell real or fake. The overly large hands bothered me. Really good fake.

The physical appearance of the 'iceman' was only one way to get a sense (opinion) about whether it was genuine. This was supposed to be some unidentified (or unclassified) hominoid.

The fact that it was displayed as a sideshow at a shopping mall is excellent evidence that it was not a genuine frozen hominoid (of any kind). IOW, you didn't have to actually see the iceman to have confidence that it was fake.

[Crowlogic]

So Parcher are you saying that one can base conclusions by just looking at the empherical evidence? You've just added tons of weight to the arguments of Bigfoot belivers who have confidence in the existance of Bigfoot because of the empherical evidence. Stick to Roger Patterson's wardrobe why don't you.

[William Parcher]

What?

[drapier]

So Parcher are you saying that one can base conclusions by just looking at the empherical evidence?

Empherical?

I love this word.

It contains at least three totally different meanings:
Emphasis
Empirical
Ephemeral

And it only has ten letters!

[Crowlogic]

William William William I was needling you about your obsession with Roger Patterson's clothes. Now it seems that you would not have wasted your precious time peeking at the Iceman sideshow because you sense it was a fake because they didn't get the Smithstonian to house it. So I paid my 25 cents and got to see the Iceman. So I can at least comment with first hand knowledge as to what the thing looked like. My eyes tol me it was a fake not heresay.

[William Parcher]

I probably would have paid the quarter to see it if I had the chance. Crow, your posts almost never make sense even when you try to explain yourself.

The issue is that a hominoid body on ice was displayed at a mall as a 'sideshow attraction'. Yeah, it's either a bipedal hominoid or it's a fake. If it's not a fake, then it is quite likely (default) that it is a modern human. This should present a legal and ethical problem. Authorities might want to know who is frozen inside the ice block. Could be a missing person or victim of a crime. Is it legal to haul around an unidentified dead person and charge money to see it? Do the federal and local authorities simply look the other way?

[ringmaster]

I had a chance to examine the Iceman, close-up, in the early seventies. That was before he was "frozen". At that time he as being correctly billed as "the 600 lb., stone, ape like man" in an open casket, by the owners son, Tim Malone. The gaff was carved from a single block of limestone, which gave the 'skin' a remarkable texture. The detail on the finger and toe nails was also remarkable. The only tell was the lack of open nostrils, which readily weren't visible.
Latter that year, owner Jerry Malone had a cameo role, on the Claude Aiken TV show " Movin' On", he played himself and had the beautiful Chevy semi- tractor that pulled the " Lil' Irvy" whale show.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

When I went back to this thread to post a link to some of the concept art for "King Kong vs. Frankenstein" (http://www.roberthood.net/daikaiju-antho/unnatural_history/kkvsfrank.htm) to replace the now-defunct links in my previous posts, I realized that I had missed a post:

I had a chance to examine the Iceman, close-up, in the early seventies. That was before he was "frozen". At that time he as being correctly billed as "the 600 lb., stone, ape like man" in an open casket, by the owners son, Tim Malone.

That would be a different iceman than the original Frank Hansen one, seeing as how the Minnesota Iceman was frozen in the 60's.

The gaff was carved from a single block of limestone, which gave the 'skin' a remarkable texture. The detail on the finger and toe nails was also remarkable. The only tell was the lack of open nostrils, which readily weren't visible.

Thanks for the information! I should note that the Cardiff Giant was also made of limestone.

Also, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUndA8D4NGQ) is a replacement link for clips of "The Lost World," a film which Iceman-supporter Ivan Sanderson thought used chickens in dinosaur costumes to accomplish its special effects.

[ponderingturtle]

There was also "The Cardiff Giant" (not Cardiff, the capital of Wales, but some hick US town), I can't recall any details, but he was a definite fraud & this was admitted to sometime later.

But he was then out frauded by PT Barnum.

Barnum offered to buy it, he refused, so Barnum had his own gaint(that looked better) made up and claimed that the first guy's was the fraud and he had the real one.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Thanks to a PM by tube, I was alerted to the fact that Verne Langdon himself has started a thread about the Minnesota Iceman over at the BFF (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=23405&st=0). Not only does he provide some behind-the-scenes insights on the creation of the Iceman, but he also confirms that the other "iceman" owned by Jerry Malone was in fact made by John Chambers. I'm definitely looking forward to his appearance on "The Bigfoot Show (http://www.thebigfootshow.com/)."

[tube]

Straight out of the block, Langdon's timeline is damning as it has Hansen initiating the Iceman gaff as early as 1964:

"Greetings! My name is Verne Langdon (http://www.vernelangdon.com), and from 1963 to 1969 I owned half of Don Post Studios, creators of "Over The Head rubber masks", and pioneer prop builders for Hollywood film and television productions. Some time during 1964 or even later (the year is vague for all the memories, but Werner Keppler was on staff in the lab at Universal Studios and Howard Ball was still alive, should you wish to pinpoint the time), Frank Hansen read about our studios in James Warren's and Forrest J Ackerman's Famous Monsters Of Filmland Magazine, and came to see us about the possibility of creating a "concept" - he showed us a rough sketch - a prehistoric creature he planned to freeze in a block of ice, and exhibit it throughout the United States."

Those that advocate the the "Iceman" was a real animal, like Ivan Sanderson and Loren Coleman, claim that there were two exhibits, the first one a real animal then the second a fabricated gaff. Obviously Langdon's timeline puts the kibosh on that notion.

[tube]

I finished listening to Brian Brown's (BFF's Bipto) podcast with Verne Langdon:

http://www.bigfootproject.org/bfs/BFS_007_dl.mp3

Great interview! Langdon goes into great detail about the back story of how Hansen approached him to create the gaff, but for various reasons declined the job. The work was done by Howard Ball, using "hot melt" which I understand is an industry term for a type of vinyl. Latex was not uses as it was thought to be too unstable in water.

Here is one of his comments that I liked:

“All anyone has to do is get a small understanding of the carnival business, and what was out on the road in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s to understand where a lot of the myths come from, and what people will do to get your attention and sell you something.”

[ringmaster]

Rick West has a lot of information and a picture about this at side show world, how ever Randii will not allow me to post a link to it. The picture of the Big Foot gaff in the West interview is not the same limestone "six hundred pound ape-like man" that Jerry Malone's son Tim exhibited at the Mid South Fair in 1975. I remember the year because Jerry had just done a cameo, as himself, on the Claude Aken TV show Movin' On. That is where Jerry picked up the handle "Tyrone", and also where he got the idea to race big trucks, which he did for the rest of his life.

[Skeptical Greg]

http://www.sideshowworld.com/home1.html

What do we look for in the index ?

The site is not searchable ...

You can post a URL - Just throw in some extra spaces and we can sort it out ..

[ringmaster]

I can't post a link until I've made 15 posts. Check your PM.

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is the Rick West link

http://www.sideshowworld.com/interviewRickWest.html

Thanks ringmaster, interesting/entertaining stuff...

Check out this pic:

http://www.sideshowworld.com/RW1Big%20Jim1a.JPG


I'm sure that's a big horse, but not as big as it looks .. ( remember the giant pig photos ? )

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

The picture of the Big Foot gaff in the West interview is not the same limestone "six hundred pound ape-like man" that Jerry Malone's son Tim exhibited at the Mid South Fair in 1975.

Interesting. Would this (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/burbankbigfoot.htm) be the limestone creation that he exhibited?

[Blue Mountain]

Here is the Rick West link

http://www.sideshowworld.com/interviewRickWest.html

Thanks ringmaster, interesting/entertaining stuff...

Check out this pic:

http://www.sideshowworld.com/RW1Big%20Jim1a.JPG


I'm sure that's a big horse, but not as big as it looks .. ( remember the giant pig photos ? )

It's mostly due to foreshortening: I'm pretty sure that man is several feet further away from the horse than at first appears. Having the horse's nose just appearing to touch his hat is pretty clever.

Overall the photograph has been very well composed.

[ringmaster]

Interesting. Wouldthis[] be the limestone creation that he exhibited?
No, the limestone creature had sparse body hair, pronounced skin pores and a bullit wound in the eye. The nails on the hands and feet were very convincing,
The only tell was a lack of nostrile opening, which could not be see from the top. I thought that was the one that was later frozen, but I am no longer sure.
West seems to be saying he owed more than one, and Jerry Malone is reported to have sold two different gaffs.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

No, the limestone creature had sparse body hair, pronounced skin pores and a bullit wound in the eye. The nails on the hands and feet were very convincing,
The only tell was a lack of nostrile opening, which could not be see from the top. I thought that was the one that was later frozen, but I am no longer sure.
West seems to be saying he owed more than one, and Jerry Malone is reported to have sold two different gaffs.

Thanks for the information. It sounds like a knockoff version of Hansen's Iceman. The description you gave reminds me of some exhibits noted here (http://orgoneresearch.com/mysterious_creature_in_ice.htm) (towards the bottom) and in post #11 here. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11619&st=0)

I can only hope that someone finds/posts a picture of that limestone creation on of these days.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Some supporters of the Iceman's reality tout the credentials of one Terry Cullens. However, as this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1P3_aO_pRI) clip from "Unsolved Mysteries" shows, Cullens (and others who seemingly vouch for the Iceman being real) were kids or teens when they saw the Minnesota Iceman!

[kitakaze]

Thanks to a PM by tube, I was alerted to the fact that Verne Langdon himself has started a thread about the Minnesota Iceman over at the BFF (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=23405&st=0). Just like Dfoot said months ago:

FOR EXAMPLE: VERN LANGDON worked for Chambers on POTA. He ran DON POST where everyone got lots of items to use with their monster suits from time to time. Vern will tell you that he thinks Patty isn't good enough to be a real Chamber's job. Everyone knows this. But that's not what it was. Chambers was involved in helping put together this thing in a way very similar to the way he helped put together the MINNESOTA ICEMAN for FRANK HANSEN.

VERN LANGDON is alive and well. He'll tell you that HANSEN called him at Don Post Studio and wanted an Iceman exhibit (this was an old carny thing done all the time for years). Langdon sent him to Chambers. Chambers sent Hansen to HOWARD BALL and advised on how to do certain things.

LANGDON used to have a name for their group. He called them "funsters." They were big time into practical jokes.
http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/Dfoot/Chambers-Post-Langdon.jpg
That's CHAMBERS in the top photo on the far left with POST and VERN LANGDON on the far right. They were constantly churning out all of the materials you would need for a Patty type creature. Patty didn't come from there but her hands and hair may well have started out there.

[Correa Neto]

I haven't checked the whole thread. This put, I really think someome should say a word or two there regarding Dfoot's position, since he was right on spot regarding this issue. He deserves the credit, regardless of the grudges some footers may have with him.

Sorry if this was already made.

[kitakaze]

I haven't checked the whole thread. This put, I really think someome should say a word or two there regarding Dfoot's position, since he was right on spot regarding this issue. He deserves the credit, regardless of the grudges some footers may have with him.

Sorry if this was already made.That was a partial quote of a post from the PGF thread that Dfoot made May 28th of this year detailing Patterson's Hollywood connections and details of how the PGF hoax came together. Literally everything that he said regarding Langdon was bang on. I listened to the lengthy BFF interview by Brian Brown with Langdon. He was contacted by a friend who had seen the G Boyz presser and thought Bigfoot actually had been found. Langdon watched and immediately realized it was Minnesota Iceman Part Deux. That is how he wound up at BFF where right off the bat the cult members jumped on him when he referred to Patty as a 'crummy suit'. Brian Brown (Bipto) quickly realized that he was for real and thus came the interview (which is excellent and full of hilarious anecdotes. I love when he refers to Patty walking like Richard Prior).

I used to think that barring Gimlin confessing his role in the PGF hoax we would never be able to put the thing to bed. Considering recent events I'm having seconds thoughts. I think eating crow served by Dfoot is the least thing a bunch of heart-broken Bigfoot enthusiasts are going to be worried about, more like getting their Wheaties in their mouth and their pants on the right way after the world crush. I'll talk more about this in the PGF thread.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Correa,

I provided a link to Dfoot talking about Mr. Langdon's comments on the Iceman in my first post of the thread. However, it's admittedly easy to miss due to all of the links in it, so I'm not upset that you missed it. Here's something interesting: In one of the BFF Iceman threads that I linked to, Dfoot actually mentioned the Cult Movies magazine article on the matter that Mr. Langdon said he was surprised nobody had found (He made that comment during the "Bigfoot Show" podcast).

[kitakaze]

Correa,

I provided a link to Dfoot talking about Mr. Langdon's comments on the Iceman in my first post of the thread. However, it's admittedly easy to miss due to all of the links in it, so I'm not upset that you missed it. Here's something interesting: In one of the BFF Iceman threads that I linked to, Dfoot actually mentioned the Cult Movies magazine article on the matter that Mr. Langdon said he was surprised nobody had found (He made that comment during the "Bigfoot Show" podcast).Wow, sorry, Atomic. I totally missed that. I actually found Dfoot's comments by complete fluke while randomly clicking on posts of his looking for his gloved hand wave gif. The weird thing was that I had just listened to the Bipcast interview with Langdon the night before. I'll go into it later in the PGF thread but a convergence of events regarding the Minnesota Iceman gaff, Georgia Boyz Hoax, and PGF has me at the highest level of confidence in the PGF being a hoax that I personally have known.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Over in the PGF thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3990899&postcount=15445), a poster known as crowlogic commented that she had seen the Iceman exhibit in 1972 and that:

The creature I veiwed in ice in 1972 was NOT the same creature that appeared in the Argosy magazine article of 1968.

There are two possibilities here:

1) crowlogic saw a Minnesota Iceman knock-off. As noted earlier in the thread, such exhibits did exist and someone passing a rip-off of a gaff as the real deal isn't unheard of (Barnum's Cardiff Giant).

2) What crowlogic saw was the original iceman with a few details changed and frozen in a way that didn't disguise it as much as it had been in the 60's. I suspect this is what happened, as a BFF poster named wolftrax did a series of .gifs comparing the two supposedly different Icemen (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14003&st=132). I personally feel that this .gif animation (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16443) best shows how the original Iceman and the "replacement" are actually one and the same.

I should also note that animation reminds me of the YTMND.com "doesn't change facial expressions" fad, as shown here (http://lohanfacial.ytmnd.com).

[Crowlogic]

Over in the PGF thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3990899&postcount=15445), a poster known as crowlogic commented that she had seen the Iceman exhibit in 1972 and that:



There are two possibilities here:

1) crowlogic saw a Minnesota Iceman knock-off. As noted earlier in the thread, such exhibits did exist and someone passing a rip-off of a gaff as the real deal isn't unheard of (Barnum's Cardiff Giant).

2) What crowlogic saw was the original iceman with a few details changed and frozen in a way that didn't disguise it as much as it had been in the 60's. I suspect this is what happened, as a BFF poster named wolftrax did a series of .gifs comparing the two supposedly different Icemen (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14003&st=132). I personally feel that this .gif animation (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16443) best shows how the original Iceman and the "replacement" are actually one and the same.

I should also note that animation reminds me of the YTMND.com "doesn't change facial expressions" fad, as shown here (http://lohanfacial.ytmnd.com).

After clicking the link to the Iceman gif from Wolftrax at BFF I'm more certain than ever that what I saw was either a different model or a modified original. When I saw the Iceman the blown out eye and empty socket was very visible as was a plume of blood and tissue? More than what is shown in the color photo of Iceman (prototype). I also remember the mouth being more open and could have maybe seen some lower teeth in the front. The nose of the model I saw had a more pronounced pug with the nostrils nearly forward facing. Nevertheless it does lend creedence to the story that the exibit was changed early on. Photos of the Iceman from 1972 would be helpful.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

After clicking the link to the Iceman gif from Wolftrax at BFF I'm more certain than ever that what I saw was either a different model or a modified original. When I saw the Iceman the blown out eye and empty socket was very visible as was a plume of blood and tissue?

Based on what you've said here (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=23516) when shown a picture of the "replacement" Iceman, I'm certain that you didn't see the real Minnesota Iceman. In fact, your description seems to indicate that you saw the knock-off owned by Jerry Malone (as described here by ringmaster).

[JohnWS]

Hopefully it's not already here and I've missed it, but primatoligist John Napier had this to say about the Iceman (the 'original') when he was brought in by Sanderson who thought the Smithsonian Institution should become involved.

I think this extract is from his book Bigfoot (1973), but I first saw it in a mildly edited form in Jerome Clark's Unexplained (1993). I Googled the text and found a fuller version on the Bigfoot Encounters site (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/napiertake.htm).

My first reaction, based on the creature's anatomy, was extreme dubiety; the characteristics of the Iceman seemed to me then-as now-to combine the worst features of apes and man and none of the best features which make these two groups extremely successful primates in their respective environments. As described, the Iceman's foot was specifically adapted neither for climbing, as in a chimpanzee for example, nor for a two-footed walking gait on the flat as in man.

I also love Clark's summing up of the Iceman chapter:

Reasonable human beings do not seek the truth in carnival sideshows. It may, of course, reside there on some exceedingly rare occasion, but even if we choose to ignore the Balls' apparently devastating testimony and allow ourselves to imagine that Hansen managed to pull off the greatest switch in the history of zoology, we cannot escape Napier's troubling obsevation that the iceman, even when scrutinized before all the excitement began, looked not at all like anything that could have ever walked the earth.

[Drewbot]

As described, the Iceman's foot was specifically adapted neither for climbing, as in a chimpanzee for example, nor for a two-footed walking gait on the flat as in man

Would John Napier's criticism of the foot of the MIM, be the catalyst for the theory of the Mid-Tarsal-Break foot? In order to overcome this same criticism of the Bigfoot foot, a talking-point about Mid Tarsal Break was utilized to explain Bigfoot's Specialized foot which is adapted for both climbing and walking.

Here is an excerpt from an Email I recieved from Dr. Meldrum, I had asked him
Would your scientific study of sasquatch allow you to say that Sasquatch has a well-developed Achilles tendon, similar to humans? If yes, then why would the foot require a mid-tarsal break similar to great apes, which do not have a well developed Achilles tendon?
If no, then wouldn't that preclude witness testimony saying that Sasquatch walked smoothly/gracefully, and/or was able to run down prey animals? (Lack of Achilles development would require that highly accelerated bipedal travel would be unlikely. (From the Bill Sellers study, detailed here- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6990319.stm )

Was this response coined long ago to overcome the Napier Critiscm? When did the MTB lingo become standard Bigfoot talk?

Sasquatch certainly would be expected to have characteristics associated with bipedalism. If the P-G film can be accepted at face for the sake of discussion, the film subject shows a lengthened Achille's tendon cxompared to a gorilla or chimp, but one shorter than the average human. Retention of the flexible midfoot affords several advantages (enumerated in the book) and associated/correlated anatomies of the foot are evident in multiple independent examples. A flat flexible foot doesn't preclude efficient walking and bursts of speed -- observe a chimp. But ape, and sasquatch I suggest, lack the specializations of the human foot and gracile body form, and physiology, selected for endurance walking and more specifically -- endurance running.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Would John Napier's criticism of the foot of the MIM, be the catalyst for the theory of the Mid-Tarsal-Break foot?

I think that Dr. Meldrum created it as an explanation for some tracks he saw in 1996 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1306393&postcount=474). Said tracks sound like they were the result of overlaid bear tracks. Then this was applied to a single track associated with Patty and a trackway found by Paul Freeman.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

The following is a response to a post made in the PGF thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4004624&postcount=15610):

Here's the source, AMM.

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

This was a response to when I asked her to provide a source for her claim that Frank Hansen had told Sanderson and Heuvelmans that he had a model made of the Iceman when they first examined it (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4003361&postcount=15601).

Now, wolftrax showed that both (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14003&st=99) "icemen" (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14003&st=132) are the same (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16443).

Why would Hansen claim to exhibiting a model of a real creature after the people behind the Iceman model were found? Simple, it because would've killed his business in the long run for him to display something that was commonly known as a fake. But if it was advertised as a "recreation" of something, then there'd still be some interest. Let's not forget that Sanderson and Heuvelmans fought hard for the Iceman being real and that no fake could have possibly fooled them (as noted later in the post).

Bear hair. This was a big deal on BFF because bear hair is agouti. So is Squirrel Monkey hair.

Sanderson said here (http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/sand.html) that:

Would that we could give absolute proof of this observation but, without having examined so much as one hair we cannot; yet, all the long, straight hairs would seem to this observer to be definitely but dully banded in what is known to mammalogists as the typical "agouti" manner. This is to say, each hair has lighter bands, starting wide at the base and decreasing in width towards the top. If this be a valid observation, we have here a most unique item in that no hominid or pongid hair is known with this type of coloration. Not until we come to the so-called monkeys — Cynopithecoids, Coloboids, Cercopithecoids, etc. — do we encounter this condition.

Bolding by me. Notice that he says that he's not 100% sure about the
Iceman having agouti hair. This seems to say that pongids, such as a chimpanzee, would not have agouti hair. This contradicts Sanderson's statement in the link LAL provided (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/iceman.htm):

An object such as this could possibly be constructed, starting with the skin of a large male, pale-skinned chimpanzee, using a human skull, glovemakers wood racks for the hands, and so forth. The original could have been of this nature, and then a copy, or copies, made from it.

Once again, bolding by me. This contradicts his claim (http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/sand.html) that:

You just cannot ‘make’ a corpse like this, either out of bits and pieces of the bodies of other animals, or of wax, with some half a million hairs inserted into it,” he stated. “And you can’t get the kind of hairs that cover this corpse from any other kind of animal that I know of. Also, the proportions of this body, and several of its special features, are just not known at all – or, at least, have never been suggested either by paleontologists who have studied the fossil bones of primitive man-things, or even by the skilled artists who have fleshed out and made reconstructions of what the former have found. In fact, any ‘artists’ setting out to ‘make’ such a thing would have to have a model, and none is available. But, apart from that, you can’t completely fool two trained morphologists with zoological, anatomical and anthropological training. No! Bozo is the genuine article.

Sanderson also noted (http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/sand.html) the following regarding his observations:

Any conclusions that follow amount, frankly, to little more than speculation because the specimen could not be handled and had to be viewed from no closer than a foot at best, through four sheets of plate glass and a varying amount of clear, frosted, or totally opaque ice.

Hilariously enough, a detailed reading of the above article, LAL's link (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/iceman.htm), and this (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy2.htm) confirm that Sanderson made those statements in the exact same Argosy article!

Oh, and check out the dates given in those articles. Sanderson and Heuvelmans examined it in December 1968, but Hansen didn't tell them the copy story until January 1969. In other words, Hansen didn't tell them about the model when they first examined it.

S&H found two companies claiming they made models. Note the date: 1969.

Verne's downloaded. I'll look forward to trying to work in headphones.

After listening to the podcast, I think you'll understand the truth about the "two companies" claim. Although I should note that other Iceman-type sideshow exhibits were made, so it's possible (seeing as Sanderson didn't name the studios he was talking about) that they got mixed up about which one was the Minnesota Iceman. I suspect the "Hansen brought it to different companies for different features" one is the correct one, though.

[CptColumbo]

Funny. I live in Minnesota, get one of the local papers and occasionally watch the local TV news, yet have not heard about this.

[Correa Neto]

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

How long it took for him to reach this brilliant conclusion?

ETA- don't you think something is missing at Coleman's text? Say, like a new information given by someone who was involved with the making of MIM gaff? Or a certain poster who was shown to be correct in his reasonings? Or at least something like "yep, skeptics were -once again- correct".

Hey footer, want some crow?

[kitakaze]

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

How long it took for him to reach this brilliant conclusion?

ETA- don't you think something is missing at Coleman's text? Say, like a new information given by someone who was involved with the making of MIM gaff? Or a certain poster who was shown to be correct in his reasonings? Or at least something like "yep, skeptics were -once again- correct".

Hey footer, want some crow?

http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/cryptoons.jpg

Cryptodoofus Coleman is pushing new frontiers in hackness.

In the midst of the Georgia Bigfoot hoax, which held many metaphorical Minnesota Iceman moments for me, with its block of ice, the body in the ice, the huckster, the media, and the learned saying what they said, I had a stark revelation. I could no longer support the promised hopes that had been embodied for me in the Minnesota Iceman.Yes, Coleman. You did have a revelation. The name of that revelation is Verne Langdon, you lying ass.

You minimize your involvement in the Georgia Boyz hoax, shirk your responsibility in creating hype for it, try to pretend cryptomumble scooped William Parcher on finding the suit, and now spin your realization of MIM gaff as a revelation of insight. You punt this when you know damn well it had nothing to do with insight and everything to do with Verne Langdon, the man at the center of the events leading to its creation coming forward with his story after he saw the hype of MIM Part Deux in Georgia.

Coleman, you are a complete loser and try to pass off pseudo-intellectual blather to try and keep people tuning into your cryptozoology and hominology pseudo-science woo woo garbage. You make your living in encouraging people to suspend their disbelief, to hope beyond hope for the Boss in the woods and the beast in the loch. A tree frog gets reclassified as a separate species or someone finds a new grasshopper and you spin it as a victory for cryptozoology. Horse poo, sir. Garbage that you've been pushing for decades is exposed as such and you pretend like you had an epiphany.

It's a cryptid world. :rolleyes:

You, sir, are a shameless hack and a blatant spinster. Do the world a favour and try some real introspection on your crypto-idiocy.

[tube]

Contratulations, Loren Coleman, for finally listening to what the skeptics have been saying for the last 40 years.

I'm tempted to gloat over this; after all, I was the one who uploaded several damning pieces about the "Iceman" on my website; you know, Ivan Sanderson with his 15 foot penguins, and his rubber-suited chickens... Sanderson was most certainly a Crypto-Crank, and was really the only toe-hold the true believers had that the "Iceman" was anything more than a gaff.

But rational skepticism was there long before me, so I cannot really take much credit.

But gloating is not good skepticism, so I'd like to publicly congratulate Loren Coleman for his "moment of clarity" in terms of critical thinking.

Like other skeptics, I have to wonder of Coleman is simply not mentioning whether Verne Langdon's recent and public first-person account had anything to do with his change of heart.

Hot-melt vinyl. Howard Ball. Ventilated hair. Exhibit obscured by thick ice. Sideshow exhibit. Case closed.

[Correa Neto]

What? How dare you saying "case closed"?

It was never proven to be a hoax!
There were two icemen, one was the real thing, the second was a hoax, the first, the real deal.
The real body was hidden and probably destroyed by a Christain fundamentalist who thought its existence threatened his faith.
No one would bother making those details!
There are reports it was brought from Asia!
It disappeared because the ehxibitors were afraid of possible lawsuits, since they were ehxibiting the carcass of something which was too human-like.
It disappeared because mainstream science turns a blind eye towards bifoot!
The corpse was destroyed after a failure on the refrigerator caused it to rotten.
:duck:

Am I the only one with the impression of seeing a potential implosion at bigfootery's not-very-far horizon?

Only the tru-believers and the ignorant ones staying aboard...

[kitakaze]

Am I the only one with the impression of seeing a potential implosion at bigfootery's not-very-far horizon?

Only the tru-believers and the ignorant ones staying aboard...You are not the only one. I think Bigfootery is in big trouble and knows it. The faithful are circling the wagons. The dermals got tubed, an elk sat on the Skookum Bigfoot body imprint and elked it all up, the Freeman footage came from Paul Freeman, the Memorial Day Footage took a hike, the sound recordings were a coyote/elk karaoke party, nobody can bear the Pennsylvania photos, the Georgia bigfoot body on ice is in hot water, and the Minnesota Ice Man is history (no what I mean, Verne?).

Patty is very close to getting pantsed and watching a a live feed of fat hick point at the bushes is what passes for entertainment now.

Bigfoot has definitely jumped the shark.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

You are not the only one. I think Bigfootery is in big trouble and knows it. The faithful are circling the wagons.

Agreed. This is exactly what I was thinking when I saw a Cryptomundo entry with an embedded Youtube video of the PGF that was posted not long after the Georgia fiasco. "Quick everyone, get behind Patty! It hasn't been duplicated yet, so it's still safe to believe!"

Also, it looks like Coleman is slightly owning up to his support of the Georgia hoax:

I had hopes, fleeting ones, yes, but hopes, nevertheless, that, against all my instincts regarding the unholy three Biscardi-type personalities, an actual body would be revealed during the summer of 2008, too. But that hope lasted for about ten minutes.

And this vaguely reminds me of his "The Surgeon's Photograph isn't of Nessie...but it could be" stance:

For me, it does not matter if the Minnesota Iceman is a carnival gaff, a Hollywood model, or an actual body, at this point, for it never existed in any state of physical reality within hominology.

Verne Langdon finally got a mention:

AlbertaSasquatch responds:
September 10th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I would have to totally agree with you Loren. The Iceman should be thrown out and we should all turn our backs on it and get back to researching “real” encounters, evidence, etc. There is also the fact that Verne Langdon pretty much outed Hansen on the BFF not very long ago and told his side of the story, which involved Hansen trying to get many people in Hollywood to make a model for him. The person that eventually made the model was the same man the made the dinosaur, mammoth, etc models at the La Brea Tar Pits in California. Throw it out, it’s just another hoax.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Peter said that the MIM may have been originally the 'real thing'......and that Sanderson and Heuvelmans were not easily fooled.

If you look at page one of this thread, you'll see that the chance of the MIM originally being the real thing is terribly low. In addition to the giant penguin hoax, Dr. Sanderson thought that the stop-motion dinosaur effects in the original 1920's version of "The Lost World" were accomplished by putting chickens in rubber dinosaur costumes. As if that wasn't enough to cast doubt on his ability to judge special effects, his paper on the iceman notes a way to fake such a thing (although earlier in the paper, he said it was impossible to do so). And any proponent who supports the idea that Dr. Heuvelmans isn't easily fooled should remember that he said the PGF was a hoax.

In my opinion, one of the best arguments for John Chmabers not being involved comes from his friend Verne Langdon, which can be basically paraphrased as "John Chambers was a perfectionist and there's no way he would've made something that crummy." This makes sense when you consider the logical flaw with statements like "That's an obvious fake, therefore a highly respected makeup artist was involved."


"So I found John Chambers, and he was, you know, not that well. He was in a nursing home at the time....and I talked to him over the phone, and he told me definitively that he did not design the suit for the Patterson Film...and then he paused for a moment, and he said..."But I built that other one for that Carnival"....and I said "You mean the Minnestoa Iceman?"...and he said..."Yeah, that one".

John Chambers did not build the Minnesota Iceman. In fact, the credit goes to one Howard Ball. However, Chambers did provide some advice to Mr. Hansen about where to go for having hair applied. Also, Chambers was definitely involved in the creation of the "Burbank Bigfoot" and is credited for having created a Minnesota Iceman rip-off for a carnival showman.

Finally, I found two (http://makeupandmonsters.com/PenikasChambers.htm) interesting-looking (http://www.makeupandmonsters.com/FAKE_Bigfoot_stories.htm) links regarding John Chambers, the PGF, and frozen Bigfoot hoaxes. I say "interesting-looking" since I have some errands to run and don't have the time to check them out for myself right now.

[Spektator]

I(snip) In addition to the giant penguin hoax, Dr. Sanderson thought that the stop-motion dinosaur effects in the original 1920's version of "The Lost World" were accomplished by putting chickens in rubber dinosaur costumes. (snip).
By my calculations, you would have to put 31,219 average-sized chickens in a T. Rex costume. And how would you get them to move together to make the costume walk?

(Graham Chapman voice) Stop that. It's silly. (/Graham Chapman voice)

[desertyeti]

Your calculations are off.
It would in fact require 63,479 chickens...

wait...what?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1050649ef68f28a941.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16108)

[Spektator]

Your calculations are off.
It would in fact require 63,479 chickens...

wait...what?
[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1050649ef68f28a941.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16108)
I didn't carry the one.

[JcR]

Just thought this (http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.weird-encyclopedia.com/images/minnesota-iceman.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.weird-encyclopedia.com/Minnesota-iceman.php&usg=__QugpTgQ4MB1lbllDXNmk25nMCBI=&h=468&w=350&sz=49&hl=en&start=290&tbnid=5C_kgPzJcfOMlM:&tbnh=128&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpatterson%2Bbigfoot%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp% 3D20%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26start%3D280) was a cool link

[Blackdog]

That's interesting. That's my scan of my Argosy magazine cover I posted on BFF a while back. I still have that picture and my original scan without the mailing address fuzzed out on my computer. I'd search for my original post but I can't log in at the BFF.
A quick search shows that it's posted on a few other sites too.

I can't remember at the moment where the magazine is but I'm sure it's in storage somewhere.

[JcR]

That's interesting. That's my scan of my Argosy magazine cover I posted on BFF a while back. I still have that picture and my original scan without the mailing address fuzzed out on my computer. I'd search for my original post but I can't log in at the BFF.
A quick search shows that it's posted on a few other sites too.

I can't remember at the moment where the magazine is but I'm sure it's in storage somewhere.

I keep hoping that someday I will stumble across a box with some of these old magazines inside.

[Penamunde]

The Minnesota Iceman is setting next to the Ark of the Covenant, next to the banged up UFO with the Bulletmaker's Bigfoot photos in the glove compartment....:)

[kitakaze]

As I explained in the Munns thread, I've been going to a lot of effort to engage the make-up FX community around the world to have a look at Munns' arguments and the PGF. Today FX Lab member, author and journalist Joe Nazzaro shared an excerpt from a 1997 interview with Chambers where he asked him about the film and Chambers went of talking about the Bigfoot hoax he did do, the Minnesota Iceman. Here is that excerpt from Nazzaro...

Here's an excerpt from an interview I did with John Chambers back in '97. As you can see, I was trying to address the long-standing rumors that he had been involved with the classic footage and here's what he said, sort of:

Joe: There’s been a rumor that you did the Bigfoot make-up seen in that famous clip?
John: No. I made up a Bigfoot and it’s going around yet. I used an actor who was over seven feet tall, and I said, how am I going to make that bigger? I had a couple of guys who weren’t working, and I had trained them to be with me when I had big jobs to do, mixing the plaster and things like that, so I used them, and we got this guy and gave him a few hundred dollars, I said, ‘It’s bare minimum, but I want to give these guys some work,’ and there was one guy I promised he’d do it, he wanted a Bigfoot, and he said, ‘I don’t want my face that way,’ but I said, ‘I’ll rig up the forehead a little, make a bigger forehead-’ and he said, ‘Don’t ever mention my name.’ This was a full body for a coffin, and they wanted him in a coffin, and we didn’t care what he was made of, so the most expedient way which was to take artificial stone, which was dental stone and it’s hard and we cast him in sections- head, half of the body, legs, feet; they cast beautifully, and when I put them together, I worked the texture into where the blend lines were, but on the lower legs, I separated them and added a section to make him over eight feet, so when I put that section in, he was a giant. I had Werner Keppler lay hair on it for me, and the breasts had little nipples, all the pores on his face, and if you scrutinized it, you wouldn’t believe it, it looked so natural. We had a coffin made, a big, heavy red-lined box but it looked like an open coffin, and it weighed a ton. I had it taken out and tested in the carnival area, so I could see what people were saying.
Joe: So what was this being done for?
John: A carnival. There are a lot of guys out there doing that. You know the block of ice with this body that was frozen in a block of ice? This guy’s story was really good, and he brought it to me wanting artificial eyes, and I gave him artificial eyes and I gave him the people that would do the hair, and then he had it implanted in ice. He finally got arrested by the Canadians, bringing that body across the body. They wouldn’t let him go into the ice to see if it was fake or flesh. That’s what happened with this thing; it was passed off as a real body- people would say, ‘Look at the toenails, look at the... it must be real!’ We had a speaker right near him, and we were listening to everything, but the funny thing was, the guys says, ‘I need a sign to really finish this, and I don’t know what to with it.’ I said I had an idea to make it real, so I said, ‘Listen to what I say: the creature in this coffin once lived and felt the sunset glow; like that poem, “Who lived and saw the sunset glow; now he lies in Flander’s Field;’ I took some of those phrases and put in, so it said, ‘This creature was alive, in this coffin,’ but I didn’t tell them, I put a fly under his arm, a big horsefly, and it lived and felt the sunset glow,’ and I said, ‘I’ll prove it for you, do you believe me now?’ He said, ‘You can do that?’ so I had the fly caught, because when he was challenged, he had to show the fly! That character was on the carnival circuit for years, but that was the kind of jobs I got.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Kit,

Chambers is describing the limestone MIM knock-off that was mentioned earlier in this thread. According to Vern Langdon, Chambers only provided some consulting work on the Iceman.

I should also note that the site hosting my article on the Minnesota Iceman is in the process of moving from Blogspot and my link given in the MonsterTalk thread will eventually stop working. You can find it at its new home here (http://www.gravediggerslocal.com/?p=1790).

[Cainkane1]

So what ever happened to this exhibit?

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

So what ever happened to this exhibit?

The late Frank Hansen was toying with the idea of selling it, but that fell through due to his death. The Hansen family probably has it in storage somewhere.

[William Parcher]

The Minnesota Iceman is a Bigfoot killed in the Bluff Creek Massacre (http://www.network54.com/Forum/23217/message/1304862867/Patty+vs.+Iceman....) which also took the life of Patty.

First put on tour in 1968, what are the chances that this bigfoot encompassed in an iceblock is from the same clan as Patty? Killed just a mere one year before perhaps? Possibly one of the three or more seen in the film as it is slowed down?

There could be a connection...

I would almost bet my life. Given the time frame and the people involved and the circumstances... yes that is the case.

[Marduk]

I should also note that the site hosting my article on the Minnesota Iceman is in the process of moving from Blogspot and my link given in the MonsterTalk thread will eventually stop working. You can find it at its new home here (http://www.gravediggerslocal.com/?p=1790).

Thats a great article, but I found a lot of the links were dead.
;)

[catsmate1]

Thats a great article, but I found a lot of the links were dead.
;)
Like the bigfeet?:D
[Sorry]

[kitakaze]

So what ever happened to this exhibit?

MIM then...

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigmim4.jpg

MIM 2002...

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigmim1.jpg

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigmim.jpg

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigmim2.jpg

Source...

http://www.sideshowworld.com/70%20UPFM/RW-Book/RW-Book.html

Those pics were posted by LAL at the BFF.

[Correa Neto]

And we are supposed to believe this is not similar to what the GABoyz presented?

[Marduk]

i like the way that the mold has darkened the facial features, yet the nose hasn't collapsed and the eyes are still present
:D

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Thats a great article, but I found a lot of the links were dead.

Thanks! Yeah, the loss of the old BFF did take away a lot of great links. However, please let me know if you found any non-BFF dead links, as the switch from Blogger over to Wordpress messed up the formatting in a lot of the old articles.

MIM 2002...

Yowza, what a great find! I just might have to update my article to link to this. :)

Those pics were posted by LAL at the BFF.

So I take it she's finally off the "Hansen had a real creature" bandwagon?

[kitakaze]

Wild horses could not drag Lu from that. She remains one of the many Bigfoot believers who are unfazed by a confession by Hansen and the original iceman model right in front of their eyes. Hansen simply had a very gifted artist recreate the real thing down to the most miniscule detail in their minds. It's bacon and eggs to believer teflon.

[Drewbot]

When I saw Lu say that it was a replica of the real Iceman I almost choked. What are we arguing with?

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Wild horses could not drag Lu from that. She remains one of the many Bigfoot believers who are unfazed by a confession by Hansen and the original iceman model right in front of their eyes. Hansen simply had a very gifted artist recreate the real thing down to the most miniscule detail in their minds. It's bacon and eggs to believer teflon.

I really shouldn't be surprised, but wow. This is right up there with her statement how the discovery of suit that looked exactly like Patty being found in Patterson's possession would only make her assume it was the suit intended for Roger's docudrama.

[Lorenzo Rossi]

Dear sirs (sorry for my bad english),
my name is Lorenzo Rossi and I'm an Italian naturalist interested in the story of the cryptozoology.

I'am not agree with some comments in which cryptozoology is seen only as a "monsters hunting", but as they say, that's another story...

I decided to enjoy this forum to ask you some questions about the iceman.
I live near Lausanne and intrigued by this case, I visited the Museum of Zoology of the city, which houses all of the "files" of Bernard Heuvelmans.

I could see all the original photographs taken by him to the iceman and read the detailed reports that he left in his diaries and in his book "L'homme de Neanderthal east toujours vivant."

The reconstruction of the facts written by Heuvelmans is very different from what I have read in various books, booklets, forums and websites on the subject written in English and I think it is a pity that his book was never translated into English.

But even this is another story...

Heuvelmans mentions Howard Ball and the "puppet" made ​​by him in his book and I've always been curious to see pictures of it. Seeing the pictures of Rick West I was very impressed by the quality of the work of this artist.

Unfortunately the photographs are only three and does not depict all the details of the body. Do you know if there are others?

I have another questions also:
1) In the caption of a photograph I read that: "mold had darkened the facial features". How does mold has acted only on the coloration of the face and not on the rest of the body?

2) The face of the Ball's model is quite different from the one photographed by Heuvelmans, in which the mouth of the "creature" was obviously closed. Even the foots and the toes are totally different. This case has always fascinated me for the strange behavior of Hansen. For example: why bother to make changes to the model?

3) Do you know if exist pictures of the iceman during the last years of exhibition in the early '80?

Best regards,
Lorenzo Rossi.

[kmortis]

Please keep it on topic and civil. The topic is not the other posters.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

The reconstruction of the facts written by Heuvelmans is very different from what I have read in various books, booklets, forums and websites on the subject written in English

Welcome! I would love to hear more on this sometime.

Unfortunately the photographs are only three and does not depict all the details of the body. Do you know if there are others?

I'm afraid I don't know, but the book mentioned in the post showing those pictures might have more.

1) In the caption of a photograph I read that: "mold had darkened the facial features". How does mold has acted only on the coloration of the face and not on the rest of the body?

Well, if we assume it is in fact mold and not the shadow of the arm held over the face, I would imagine that the blood Hansen used for the shot out eye effect would be the reason.

2) The face of the Ball's model is quite different from the one photographed by Heuvelmans, in which the mouth of the "creature" was obviously closed. Even the foots and the toes are totally different.

It's a shame that the demise of the old Bigfoot Forums destroyed wolftrax's animated .gif comparing the original and supposed replacement iceman, as I think he did a great job of showing they are one and the same.

When comparing the old pictures of the iceman with the newer ones, please keep in mind that Ivan Sanderson said (http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/sand.html):

Any conclusions that follow amount, frankly, to little more than speculation because the specimen could not be handled and had to be viewed from no closer than a foot at best, through four sheets of plate glass and a varying amount of clear, frosted, or totally opaque ice.

So, considering how the modern pictures show the defrosted model, it's easy to see what they would not seem to be an exact match at first. The difference in camera angles and lighting is important as well. Look up "myspace voodoo" to see just how much such factors can make a difference. Come to think of it, the "blood" covering a portion of the face would also be an issue to consider.

It seems to me that the older picture of the iceman shows an open mouth that is blacked out. The shadow effect could also account for the supposed differences with the feet and toes. Then again, maybe the feet/toes had more hair covering them in the old days.

This case has always fascinated me for the strange behavior of Hansen. For example: why bother to make changes to the model?

Pretend you own the iceman exhibit for a minute. You have two scientists singing the praises (and authenticity) of your exhibit and business has been quite good as a result. But now someone (John Napier) has succeeded in getting the Smithsonian interested. If they expose the iceman as a hoax, both your business and reputation are ruined. So what do you do?

First, tell some made-up story about a "real owner" and withdraw the iceman from circulation. Claim that in its place will be a recreation. After all, the public should show more interest in a recreation of a supposedly real being than a proven hoax. But since Sanderson and Heuvelmans will no doubt return to examine the iceman, you can't simply put the iceman back out and claim it's something different without risking them exposing you.

So you have to make a few modifications to the model, maybe freeze it so that people get a better look at it than the way you had it when you were trying to pass it off as a real creature. The water freezing around the model could also subtly alter things as well.

3) Do you know if exist pictures of the iceman during the last years of exhibition in the early '80?

If there are any such pictures online, I do not know of them. But you never know what someone might find in a family photo album sometime and decide to upload.