Ron, it would be nice to get a source for some of your comments w/ re to the Iceman, items that your referenced early on in your posts.

Lu Ann Lewellen: I would say that Hansen could have very well thought that his model was good enough to fool Sanderson and Heuvelmans. And supposing they hadn't been fooled? How would that have hurt Hansen? Would Argosy have been excited about publishing an article about a carnival exhibit that oh, so amazingly, turned out to be a fake? How many carnival goers would have read whatever Heuvelmans had written about it? Would either Sanderson or Heuvelmans have ever written anything?

We don't know how Heuvelmans and Sanderson represented themselves to Hansen, anyway, or what they told Hansen their intentions were. As to Sanderson and Heuvelmans' actually being scientists, I know of only one scientific article ever written by Sanderson, which was early in his career, and the only actual science ever done by Heuvelmans that I know of was his thesis which was written on Aardvark teeth (a perfectly respectable subject for a thesis). I'm not sure if it was ever published. So to the extent that Sanderson and Heuvelmans were ever scientists, which was minimal, they had stopped being scientists long ago. A scientist is someone who spends his or her time finding out new, true, things about the natural world and who publishes those things, which thereby become contributions to and incorporated into the world's scientific knowledge.

Maybe Hansen had found out that Heuvelmans and Sanderson were just sensationalist writers of bullshit and figured that they would be happy to find something like the Iceman that they could write more bullshit about, whether they were fooled or not. Hansen, Sanderson, and Heuvelmans were actually birds of a feather. They all three made a living by selling nonsense and/or fakery. It takes one to know one.

I actually think it not unlikely that Sanderson was not fooled or that he had strong doubts about the Iceman, because he scattered weasel phrases throughout his writings about the Iceman, something like "If this thing is real, then it was a creature that...." If he was just unsure about the Iceman's status, then if it were ever proved to be a fake, Sanderson would have an out and could say "Well, as should be clear from what I've written, I thought that it might be a fake, but the existence of such a superb fake, good enough to completely fool a trained scientist like Heuvelmans, was certainly worth calling afttention to." Sanderson was not averse to publishing stuff that he knew was crap, because he personally just made up such stuff out of whole cloth.

Just wondering if the source of the smell that you mentioned is from a specific letter from someone that we can see, such as the letter I shared with this group with Heuvelmans' letter.

Daniel Perez: Are you talking about the statement that the smell was emanating from some insulation, from improper sealing, or my contention that it was probably from dog tissue? What was the letter that you are referring to as accompanying a letter from Heuvelmans?

Rotting dog tissue. Can we any letter where any one of these guys makes that statement?

Daniel Perez: There is, as far as I know, no extant letter dealing with the matter of the dog tissue. There was a letter relevant to your question, however. (I'll get directly to your question a long way down.) I read that letter. It mentioned the FBI and therefore, it, like every other letter mentioning the FBI and/or Hoover, it is no longer available, and probably no longer in existence. The letter was from Sanderson to Napier. It stated that Hansen had discussed with him how he had come clean to FBI investigators and admitted to them that the Iceman was a fake. As to why Hansen admitted/discussed this with Sanderson, I'm guessing that Hansen knew or figured that the results of the FBI's investigation were already known to Sanderson because it was Sanderson who sicced the Smithsonian on Hansen, which in turn had sicced the FBI on him--Sanderson was the one who had started the ball rolling to get the identity of the Iceman elucidated in the first place.

I'm assuming that the FBI didn't just take Hansen's word that the thing was a fake--they would have wanted evidence for Hansen's claim. Lu has claimed that, since the Iceman was real (in her opinion, anyway), it was probably smuggled illegally into the country, and that could have caused Hansen and the "owner" problems if it became known to law enforcement, and that was why they had created a model that could be substituted in the real Iceman's place, in case lawmen came sniffing around. The reasons why Lu thinks that the Law might have been interested in the Iceman, if real, just might have had something to do with the FBI's actual interest. I'm guessing that the FBI demanded to see correspondence between Hansen and the makers of the Iceman, also records to show that Hansen had paid for its manufacture, rather than some mysterious "real owner," that his financial records showed that he had never received any reimbursement from the mysterious "real owner," and so on. I say that I saw a letter from Sanderson, saying that the FBI had established that there was no genuine Iceman, and Hansen is reported to have complained about having been hassled by the FBI (I'm not the source of that information.)

Napier, in his writings, states that Hoover was asked by the Smithsonian to look into the matter but that Hoover refused to because there was no evidence that a crime had been committed and that was the end of it. Well, how could Hoover have known that "no crime had been committed" without ever looking into the matter to see if a crime had been commited--that is, after all, what law enforcement agencies are for. I say that I saw correspondence from Sanderson saying that the FBI was involved, I say that I saw letters from Hoover, showing that he was interested in this business, at least one other person has claimed that Hansen complained about an FBI investigation, and no letters from Hoover or ones that could have mentioned the FBI are now available, and we know that such letters existed. The FBI said there was no involvement by them and Napier essentially says the same thing. Who ya gonna believe--the FBI and Napier or me and Hansen? Why would either of us make that up? To be continued. Dog tissue will show up eventially, I promise.

Ron Pine: The dog tissue can no doubt be found on the model in Austin, Texas. Just ask Steve Busti to scrape some off for you.

I did not invent the smuggling thing. That is in Heuvelmans' book too. You might want to read it sometime. It has quotes from Napier.

"In my own counter-memorandum to Napier, dated the following day, I had nearly simultaneously suggested that the agreement linking Hansen with the mysterious Hollywood mogul might be connected with some former involvement in the smuggling of drugs or young Asian prostitutes. I wrote that: 'It is quite likely that Hansen’s persistent reluctance to reveal the real origin of the specimen arose from his fear of also revealing the existence of the smuggling network.'”

Heuvelmans, Bernard. NEANDERTHAL: The Strange Saga of the Minnesota Iceman. Anomalist Books. Kindle Edition.

Heuvelmans surmised the Iceman might have been smuggled out in a body bag. Hansen's Air Force buddies might have been involved, another reason for the misdirection and secrecy. That might explain Mrs. Hansen's remark about protecting "the innocent ones".

So, anyway, in the course of the aforementioned letter from Sanderson to Napier, I read that now that the cat was out of the bag as to the Iceman's bogosity, Sanderson asked Hansen how the thing had been constructed. Hansen gave a general answer and then Sanderson asked "but what about that smell of rottenness?" The answer was that rotten dog tissue had played some role in the Iceman's construction.

The issue of the tissue was not elucidated beyond that and, as a result, I made an incorrect assumption. I assumed that a small amount of dog tissue had been involved in the Iceman's construction, on purpose so that it would smell. I thought that, when the carnival goers were viewing that model, just a hint of decay, not enough to really turn them off, would give the model more believability. It seemed very strange to me, however, that something as unlikely as dog tissue would have been used for such a purpose. Why not something more easily obtainable, like some chicken guts or something? I guessed that some unusual occurrence must have made some dead dog tissue readily available. Later, however, I read the account stating that the odor picked up by Heuvelmans and Sanderson was quite strong, that it was something new to Hansen, and that he was quite upset about it. So there went my idea about an intended mild odor.


Then I was made aware of Sanderson's and Heuvelmans's first-hand accounts of the hair that they saw on the Iceman. Sanderson said, as I recall, that he leaned way over to a spot where he was real near the glass, where the glass was real near the model, and where the ice was real clear, and he saw what looked like agouti (banded) hair. Now that would be a very strange thing to see on a real creature of that apparent sort, becuse no apes or humans have agouti hair. But some breeds of dogs do. Heuvelmans, however, took some photographs which he said showed non-agouti hair. He therefore concluded that Sanderson had been mistaken about having possibly seen agouti hair.

Since the hair that Heuvelmans saw was non-agouti and he thought that the Iceman was for real, he figured that the whole supposed creature would have the same kind of hair, as indeed one would expect. He'd seen non-agouti hair and Sanderson said that he'd seen agouti hair. And Heuvelmans knew that apes and humans don't have agouti hair and since he thought that this was a real human-like creature, Sanderson COULDN"T have seen agouti hair (actually, Heuvelmans said that no primates have agouti hair, which is false.)

I, however, believe that both saw exactly what they said they saw. Neither realized that he was looking at a composite creature. Various accounts claim that the model was made out of latex with bear hairs stuck in it. Bears for at least the most part, and possibly altogether, have non-agouti hair. Heuvelmans was looking at a part of the model with bear hair and Sanderson was looking at a part with dog hair. So my current hypothesis is that the model had some untanned, prone to decomposition, dog hide on it. Hansen had perhaps had to do some repairs on the model and had used dog hide. The dog hide began to rot and that's what caused the odor. I may soon have useful access to documents corroborating parts of what I've had to say about the Sanderson to Napier letter, including its actual existence, so if it's possible, I'll share that when I can.

Ron Pine: Hansen told S&H he'd had a model made and they even ran down the people who had a hand in it. This was published by Sanderson from the get go. The model had implanted bear hair. They also considered the thing was a composite. Sanderson wrote "how he would have proceeded to make such a fake using the hide of a very clear-skinned chimpanzee, spread over a human skeleton after some modifications to the hands and feet using a glove-spreader."

Heuvelmans, Bernard. NEANDERTHAL: The Strange Saga of the Minnesota Iceman. Anomalist Books. Kindle Edition.

Lu Ann Lewellen: I would think it very unlikely that that tissue would be there at present, although I suppose that some mummified remnant could still be there.

 

Since I wrote the long comments above, through the good offices of Dustin Severs, I have been provided with copies of the surviving documents written by Napier--ones which, in part, substantiate what I have written above. My analyses of these documents will follow in this thread, probably piecemeal, but for now, I want to say more about that "tissue business," I've gotten some new thoughts about that.

It seems very strange that Sanderson would have said that "dog tissue" was involved in the making of the Iceman, instead of saying, more specifically, "dog hide," which I had concluded explains Sanderson's having seen what he thought was agouti fur. Because Sanderson used the non-specific term "tissue," for what was providing the odor, and I didn't know at that time that the odor was really strong, I assumed, as I've said above, that decomposing dog "tissue" had been incoporated in the construction of the Iceman so as to provide a faint odor that would help convince his carny customers that the Iceman was an atual dead flesh-and-blood creature. That's why I wrote the question above to Lu and that started this thread. In a previous exchange with Lu, which appeared in this group some time ago, when I wrote that I thought that the dog tissue had been put there to help fool Hansen's customers, she wrote that the odor was not apparent to Sanderson and Heuvelmans until the glass was broken. If so, that would argue against what my hypothesis was in regard to that odor.

So, anyway, as seen above, I finally asked Lu what her source was for the supposed connection between glass breaking and the odor, and it came out, as is pointed out above, that there was no such connection. So what I'm now thinking is that the reason that Sanderson wrote dog "tissue" is that there was probably dog material associated with the Iceman in addition to just hide. It could be that the damage that the Iceman seemed to have sustained from gunshots could have been made more realistic-looking by Hansen's putting actual fresh muscle tissue in the supposed wounds, mere latex not having been able to perform that trick as efectively. He could have thought that the freezing in ice would keep that tissue from decomposing. In that case, Sanderson could have even been incorrect in his thinking that he was seeing agouti hair, and no hide need to have ever been involved, although, in that case, Sanderson's letter mentioning dog tissue and Sanderson's claiming to have seen agouti hair, which could have come from a dog, would be an interesting coincidence. A fair amount of muscle tissue could have perhaps provided more of an odor than mere hide could have.

 

 

 

Ron Pine: There are, of course, rumors of another model that was so bad it couldn't be used. If there was truly enough decaying dog tissue on the thing S&H examined to produce a strong odor there should be some of it left, unless the model was so thoroughly washed no decayed flesh remains. If that happened Hansen missed the mold on the face Rick West saw and photographed when Hansen showed him his model years before it appeared on Ebay.

Quick! Someone scrape the thing and test for dog DNA!

Lu Ann Lewellen: I think that I read that stuff by Heuvelmans long ago, but didn't see at that time whatever relevance it might have to what we're now discussing. My thoughts and information had not reached the stage then that they have now.

You read his book in French then? Or did you have some other source?

Lu Ann Lewellen: Dermestid beetle larvae and/or Clothes Moth larvae and the like will, over time, completely destroy, and I mean completely, any animal tissue if it isn't very, very securely sealed off from them or pesticides are used. They must be rigorously kept from getting at any dried animal specimens in museums. Regulations now restricting the use of pesticides around people have resulted in museums regularly freezing their specimens at very low temperatures for substantial periods of time to kill anything that might have gotten into them.

Ron Pine: See any insect damage on the model?

Really, all you have is a story of Sanderson, known exaggerator, being told by Hansen, known liar, that there was dog tissue involved. I'd bet there never was any on the model Steve Busti now has in his Museum of the Weird. But if there's no trace of dog tissue it must be because moth and beetle larvae ate it. Okay, then.

There were several knockoffs going around. Here's the one Rick West owned:

 

According to this interview Chambers wasn't very much involved in Hansen's model:

"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."

Was digging around internet. Chambers (of course was rumored to be involved). And found info about a Burbank Bigfoot he made that I hadn't heard of...

Lu Ann Lewellen: I can read French, with occasional use of a dictionary. Newspapers and novels are tough for me, although scientific articles in my general field are pretty easy, owing to one's knowing ahead of time what the author is likely to be sayng, simple present and past verb usage, and the same terminology being used in publication after publication. I really don't remember for sure if I read that particular account, but, anyway, whether I did or didn't, I don't think that any bells would have been set off in my head, with my then current take on things.

Lu Ann Lewellen: One may, of course, question that I ever saw such a letter from Sanderson, but your explanation of why he and Hansen might have said what I claim Sanderson said and what Sanderson said Hansen said sounds very odd. You say that Hansen was a liar and so when he said that dog tissue was involved in the construction of a phony entity that Sanderson and Heuvelmans had examined, he could have been lying, but at all times before and since Hansen maintained strenuously that the original Iceman was real. So why would he admit to Sanderson, on that occasion, that it actually was a fake made in part out of animal tissue? If his Iceman was for real, why would he lie that it wasn't? He wasn't lying.

The FBI had already found out that the Iceman was a fake and Hansen knew that Sanderson already knew or would soon come to know this And you say that we can't trust what Sanderson said because he was an exaggerator. But what would Sanderson be "exaggerating"--that it was really just a piece of ordinary steak that was causing the smell in the fake Iceman, not somthing as odd as dog tissue?

Also, it was to Sanderson's advantage to never let it be known publicly that the Iceman was for sure a fake, because that would make him look bad for having been taken in by that fake and would also detract from the Iceman's ongoing mystique, from which Sanderson could continue to benefit. On no other occasion, as far as I know, did Sanderson ever show that he knew for sure that the Iceman was a fake, and certainly never publicly. He showed this only in a confidential letter to his old buddy Napier, who had gratified Sanderson by getting the Secretary of the Smithsonian and the FBI involved in finding out just what the Iceman was. Of course, that letter turned out to be not that confidential because Napier showed it to me. Napier knew that I had a particular interest in cryptozoology and I think that he was also just showing off by making it apparent that he was involved in such a momentous endeavor, involving him, the Secretary of the Smithsonian and J. Edgar Hoover.

Daniel Perez: My sources are, as I've stated, my having read all ot the correspondence between Napier, Sanderson, Hoover and Ripley; Napier's books; Sanderson's writings, including what's been linked to above; Heuvelmans's writings (which I read years ago and haven't looked at lately); and the tiny, still extant,

remnant of Napier's correspondence about the Iceman, and which is apparently all that was allowed to get into the Smithsonian archives. It consists of only a selected few of Napier's communications with Ripley, no letters to anyone else. No letters from Ripley to any of the other three involved, none from Hoover, and none from Sanderson. There is not a single letter still preseved that even mentions Hoover's name. In Napier's writings, of course, Hoover is mentioned as being consulted in the matter, but the extent to which Hoover and his FBI became involved is grossly understated and misrepresented. I cannot answer your question as to my specific sources for any specific matters which I reported or commented upon, without your telling me the specific comments you are specifically interested in. I've made a lot of comments.

Ron, I'm not questioning that it is normal for government agencies to have a certain level of secrecy and concern for security, but that differs from the usual assumption that the government is actually covering up the known existence of a Bigfoot species.

Steven Streufert: You are absolutely correct. The second idea iabove is absolutely impossible. Actual coverups, however, that are not on a totally impossible scale, can and do occur, The issue here is one of terminology and classification. What is the minimum number of people that must be involved and how serious must the matter be that is being hidden befefore it can be called a coverup? Some folks would say that

Yeah, so, was Hoover acting to keep departmental and personal secrecy, or was he acting with full knowledge of the reality of the Bigfoot species trying to hide that "fact" from the general populace?

 

Real conspiracies *do* exist, but "conspiracy theories" rely upon the paranoid imagination and the argument from ignorance fallacy.

 if Little Johnny was engaged in petty theft, and the teacher who caught him and the principal who was told about it told no one else and did nothing about it because the student's father was a very powerful man in town, that could be considered a coverup. I would regard that as a more serious matter, however, than Hoover seeing to it that as few people as possible were allowed to know certain facts that would be embarrassing to him.

Steven Streufert: You took Travis J Hill Cartoonist to task for saying that there was a coverup. There is no question that only a selected, innocuous, few of Napier's written on paper communications were allowed to get into the Smithsonian's archives, and that Napier lied in his public writings about the extent of Hoover's and the FBI's involvement and kept mum about other matters. One of the surviving documents written by Napier states, specifically, that various facts of the matter are not to be made public. Whether the word "coverup" should be applied here, however, is, I think debatable. In commn usage, the term generally means suppression of evidence that a crime has been commited or of some action taken that, if generally known, could severely damage the reputation of someone or of some organization or agency. Hoover apparently didn't want it to get out that he had, for a time, taken the Iceman more seriously than he should have and had actually gotten the FBI involved, Ripley presumably didn't want it to get out that he had gotten involved to the extent that he did, and Sanderson didn't want it to get out that that he had given a fake as much credence as he had written that he had. Some could say that all of this constituted a coverup, although not of an earth-shaking nature.