Ron Pine: Getting away from Heuvelmans and on to Napier:

"In February 1969, the article by Bernard Heuvelmans appeared in a Belgian scientific journal, a mere two and a half months after the event. In this article, as already stated, Heuvelmans expressed his opinion that the corpse was 'real' and represented an unknown species of man. Now that the missing 'original' had been publicly authenticated as human, the apparent bullet wounds took on a somewhat sinister meaning. There was only one thing to be done and that was to inform the law. (Ivan Sanderson had in fact informed the New Jersey Office of the F.B.I. on his own account during January sometime earlier and received a dusty answer) So Mr. Ripley wrote to Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, requesting the cooperation of the F.B.I. in tracing the original exhibit Mr. Hoover was not very helpful and simply pointed out that as no violation of a federal law had been proved the F.B.I. had no power to act.

"In the meanwhile George Berklacy of the Public Relations Office of the Smithsonian and I had been doing a little digging on our own. Berklacy after an exhausting and dangerous mission on the telephone tracked down a commercial organization on the West Coast that claimed to have made the Iceman for Frank Hansen out of latex rubber and hair in April 1967 (the year it went out on the first tour of the circus midways).

"The name Pete Corrall was mentioned in connection with the model. Berklacy and I decided against releasing this name at the time, but since Hansen mentions Pete Corrall in the Saga Magazine article as the man who put the hairs into the Iceman model, there seems no special reason why it shouldn't be mentioned now. Of course there is no proof that the story Berklacy was given was true -in fact Sanderson told me later that he has been in contact with at least two other organizations which claim the same honor, but at the time it seemed to confirm my steadily growing conviction that the Iceman was a model and always had been a model. On my advice, the Smithsonian Institution issued a press release withdrawing its interest in the Iceman, much, I think, to the relief of all concerned, who were understandably jittery at the prospect of press headlines proclaiming 'Smithsonian Scientists Fooled by Carnival Exhibit'.

"The official disclaimer by no means ended my personal interest in the affair but it seemed to me that in view of what we had learned, it was only proper that the Smithsonian should be taken off the hook before it was too late. Indeed, there was some danger that it was already too late since Hansen had by then opened his new season by displaying the Iceman in a shopping precinct in St Paul, Minnesota, and was attracting scientific customers from nearby universities. It is not without relevance with regard to Hansen's motivation that as a crowning touch he had by now added to his display boards bearing the title “the Near-Man, the Siberskoye Creature,” the words 'Investigated by the F.B.I.' (Siberskoye is an artificial word, roughly translated “Siberskoye man meaning man from Siberia)."

Jevning, William. The Minnesota Iceman (Kindle Locations 1063-1067). Kindle Edition.

Is the Jevning book a reliable source on these matters?

I'm using the Jevning book to quote Napier rather than typing it all out from the paperback. Anyone owning Napier's book can check it out to see if Napier is being quoted accurately.

But, is the book as a whole worth getting?

I thought so. I got it.

As far as the exit head wound and the brains hanging out the back, could they have gotten a real view of these things with the things stuck in a narrow case and frozen in ice? Perhaps the eyeball and blood and apparent brain tissue were added to a model for realism and then frozen?

Terry Cullen claimed Hansen turned the thing over for him and he saw this himself. If the model in Austin doesn't have it it's not the same thing. If it does that detail might have been replicated too. It would be interesting to find out either way.

If the model in Austin doesn't have it, perhaps those were simply extraneous detailings that were added, that could have been cleaned off when the model was unfrozen? This is on top of the possibility of adapting and grooming a model before freezing it again.

 

And we'd believe Terry Cullen... why? Even IF there were two of them BOTH could have been models.

Lu Ann Lewellen: I have all of the books (editions) I think that Napier wrote about the Iceman, and I've gone back and reread what he said about it, recently, so I didn't need to have my memory freshened up as to what he wrote. However, other followers of and participants in this thread no doubt will have been glad to have the opportunity to read it.

Let me summarize my points. In the correspondence that I read, Hoover was an active participant, for a considerable period of time, and at least up until the end when the letter from Sanderson was recieved. I believe that the Sanderson letter was the last one shared with me. Hoover was interested in and curious about the Iceman. At no time did he say that the FBI would not become involved and certainly he would never himself have given a ridiculous excuse for not having become involved, like "if you yourself prove that a crime has been committed then the FBI may become interested, but otherwise we can do nothing. We simply would not have jurisdiction. We are not allowed to conduct investigations to see whether crimes have been committed, that's up to you." At no point did I see communication from Hoover, saying or indicating that they were or were not looking into the Iceman business. The letter from Sanderson said that because the FBI had demonstrated that the Iceman was a fake, Hansen felt no need to continue the charade of saying that it was for real and so when Sanderson asked how the thing had been made, Hansen told him. The way the letter was written seemed to make it clear that the FBI's having solved the case was already common knowledge among the Smithsonian letter writers and receivers, or at least it would be no surprise to them, and when Napier shared the letter with me he certainly in no way gave me the impression that this was not the case.

Sanderson said specifically that Hansen stated that the odor was owing to "dog tissue" (Sanderson's exact wording, anyway--Hansen probably did not use the word "tissue," and may have been quite specific as to the kind of tissue)--"dog tissue" that is, that had been incorporated into the Iceman's construction. This blew my mind because of the strangeness of dog remains being involved, of all unlikely things. One would think that chicken tissue or pork or beef or a piece or pieces of some squirrel or rabbit that Hansen had shot on his place would have been what he would have used. If Hansen were just making up the story of some animal tissue's being involved, why would he have picked "dog tissue," out of the blue? That particular, odd, specificity makes it seem to me that both Hansen and Stevenson were telling the truth for once, because why would either be making up a story with that strange feature?

One reason why "dog tissue" ended up both amazing me and amusing me, and has made it so memorable, was that it gives the matter a zoological nomenclatural significance and zoological nomenclature happens to be a specialty of mine. Accrding to the Rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, after Heuvelmans named "Homo pongoides," that name would end up being what would be called a "junior synonym" of the name of the domestic dog, Canis familiaris, because that would be the part of the Iceman made out of an animal.

 

I told another Curator who worked at the Smithsonian, Alfred Gardner, about the Iceman's being partially made of dog tissue and that thereafter every time some zoologist wrote out a complete synonymy of the name Canis familiaris, such complete synonymies being common features of scientific taxonomic articles, they'd have to list Homo pongoides as a synonym of Canis familiaris, and he told me that I was nuts. However, that is what the Rules would dictate.

If there's any truth to this story Hansen could have used road kill. I'm sure everyone at the Smithsonian would have had a good laugh over this yet the dog tissue story does not appear in any of the books, articles, websites or videos I've found so far. Why do you think this is?

Napier told the world that Sanderson told him how an Iceman "might" have been construced. So I suppose that Sanderson started out like this: "OK, John, let's say that you want to build an Iceman. Now keep in mind that you've got to get some dog tissue, and then...." Napier: "Whaaat?"

 

The only conversation--an exceedingly brief one--that I ever had with anyone, and in which I mentioned the dog tissue business, was with Alfred Gardner in his office. Nobody laughed. This wasn't until after I'd found out about Heuvelmans's having named Homo pongoides. No reporters nor Heuvelmans nor Napier nor anyone else was present to put out a story about my having mentioned this matter to Gardner. You have a vivid imagination if you extrapolated from what I wrote above to a great epidemic of levity having convulsed the Smihsonian over my little remark to Gardner, which I'm sure he never shared with anyone else, because he dismissed it out of hand, called me nuts because of my nomenclatural conclusion and just went back to work.

My bad. I should have surmised nobody laughed. Your imagination isn't so bad either but Heuvelmans gave some detail about Napier's call to Sanderson:

"This 'spontaneous' revelation [about the wax museum employee] was perfectly timed to confirm Hansen’s latest declarations. Not that there was much cause for such a fuss; it merely confirmed what was already known, namely that a copy of the specimen had been fabricated earlier so that it could replace the original 'in case there were to be problems.'

"When Napier called Sanderson about it, the latter merely shrugged and declared that the wax museum’s call was clearly a ploy aiming at discouraging the Smithsonian’s interest in the matter. Sanderson also claimed that he had found another professional model-maker who had crafted a similar model, again for Hansen, but in April 1969. In any case, the specimen that he and his friend Bernard had carefully examined was certainly not made out of rubber because it was rotting away with a noxious smell. Furthermore, added Sanderson, even if that specimen had been a fake, which it couldn’t be for a variety of other reasons, it would necessarily have been constructed from parts taken from living beings. And he went on to explain, in that tone of his that bore no contradiction, 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.

No mention of starting out with dog tissue. The fact remains Sanderson did not so much as mention dog tissue in a footnote, as far as I know.

Maybe they *did* use roadkill? I mean, Rick Dyer did.

Lu Ann Lewellen: I said that you had a good imagination because you made up an imaginary scenario of what had happened among the Smithsonian staff, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, and then tried to use this creation of yours as an actual argument against something that I had written, by saying that, to your knowledge, no one had ever published anything authenticating your imaginary account. When I pointed this out, you made a remark suggesting that imagination has been playing a part in what I have stated that I had witnessed. The indisputable fact that your comment was pure imagination is right here on this page for anyone to see.

Now what we are dealing with here is basically conflicting accounts given by me and two other people, Heuvelmans, and Napier (Sanderson, not so much). The fact that my account of events differs from certain other people's accounts-- accounts which you seem to have come to revere--by no means provides proof that my account is imaginary.

Why is my wisecrack about Smithsonian laughter even important? It did not have to be taken seriously. I did not use it as an argument. How did you get that idea?

Assuming the dog tissue communication actually happened Napier did not include it in his press release or in his book. Your post is the first I've heard of it. If it was proof of a hoax I think it's strange it didn't get publicity, with or without gales of laughter. Laughter from skeptics isn't unknown.

To get back to the original post, the idea that the odor emanated after the glass cracked may have come from Hansen. I did not read about that here first but it appears in Jevning's book when he quotes from Mike Quast's book:

"According to Hansen, what does not appear in either scientist's report is just how they became convinced the Iceman was real. To get the best possible view of it they had hung bright lights over the glass under which it lay, and while Hansen was away from them for a moment one of them placed one of the hot lights directly on the ice cold glass. It shattered, and a pungent odor like that of rotting flesh rose from the ice. This convinced them that an actual corpse, freshly killed, lay before them. Hansen will never forget what the distinguished scientists said when he reminded them of their promise not to publicize the story at that point. 'We are scientists first,' they told him, 'and gentlemen second.' (He doesn't say exactly which one of them said this.)" (p. 144).

Jevning, William. The Minnesota Iceman (Kindle Locations 1272-1274). Kindle Edition.

I tried to order Quast's book on it circa 2011 but wasn't successful. Looks like he has a new one out with a chapter on the Iceman.

The imaginary tale that Lu came up with reflects, I think, a misconception that just might be held by others--that the staff of the Smithsonian was acutely interested in the issue of the Iceman, was gossiping about it, and wanting to keep up-to-date on it. I think that the people who would think that that was the case are engaging in projection. THEY, who take an extreme interest in the Iceman, and would have wanted to know the latest poop on it, if they had been working at the Smithsonian at the time, just can't imagine how the actual people working there could have had little or no interest. In fact, the Iceman saga was pretty much ignored by 99+% of the Smithsonian employees, including the scientific staff. After the "ball was dropped," the idea that in 2020 some folks would still be be discussing it and people arguing that the Iceman was real would have astounded and puzzled them.

Aside from the main participants, and maybe Galler, who, as I recall was the Assistant Secretary for Science, nobody but me was really interested. And the only people I talked with about it were Napier and his wife. The brief exchange that I had with Gardner was sometime later, and Gardner wasn't saying that I was nuts in my saying that there was dog tissue in the Iceman--he was saying that I was nuts, owing to the technical nomenclatural conclusion that I had drawn from that fact. The non-reaction concerning the P-G film when it was shown to me and Napier and others was similar. After everyone saw the film they just went back to their offices and forgot about it. I think that Napier would never have published on bigfoots if he hadn't gotten involved with the Iceman.

Changing the subject bit: The nature of the involvements of all of the participants, Heuvelmans, Sanderson, Napier, Hoover, and Ripley, were such that the Iceman affair was sure to end up reflecting badly upon them them all, unless one's involvement could be completely hidden from the public, as Hoover had the ability, strong motivation, smarts, and institutional experience and policy to see to effectively. Napier was a fool throughout and he didn't have enough sense to keep his foolishness from eventually becoming obvious to everyone, including the public at large. Lots of foolish people have at least enough sense not to advertise it for all to see. Ripley was a fool to be roped in by Napier, and Sanderson and Heuvelmans were fools for being taken in by the Iceman. I don't think that Heuvelmans ever got over his belief. They all had vested interests in coming out of this mess looking as good as possible. In other words, they had plenty of motivation to shave or bend the truth when this was to their advantage. Heuvelmans may have been the least guilty of doing this, aside from Ripley, who just kept mum. Heuvelmans may have been mostly just repeating what he'd been told.

 

Lu Ann Lewellen: I would not have brought up your having come up with that fable if you hadn't said that what I was reporting was based on my imagination. When you said that you hadn't read anything anywhere about the Smithsonian's employees all laughing about what I said in my conversation with Gardner, I could see no other way that that could be interpreted than that since my account didn't agree with anything that you had read somewhere, which is pretty much your constant refrain, that your argument was just more of the same.

So only Sanderson and Heuvelmans examined the Iceman, albeit through layers of glass and ice, took photos and made measurements and drawings. Napier didn't, the FBI didn't, Ripley didn't....yet it's somehow "proven" it was a fake?

I wish you would stop twisting what I say. I said I hadn't read anything about dog tissue. I've done searches for it in my Kindle books and on the Internet and can't find anything. Evidently this information didn't make the rounds.

 

Also quoting Quast: "The reports published by Sanderson and Heuvelmans brought an incredible amount of attention Hansen's way, much to his anger because he had insisted on no publicity when he allowed them to examine the Iceman. He was particularly upset with Heuvelmans, whose report appeared first."

Jevning, William. The Minnesota Iceman (Kindle Locations 1266-1268). Kindle Edition.

It's understandable Hansen was upset about authorities snooping around and anyone trying to confiscate the specimen, especially if he didn't own it. A story about dog tissue might have been devised to throw them off.

 

This is what I said in its entirety: "Ron Pine If there's any truth to this story Hansen could have used road kill. I'm sure everyone at the Smithsonian would have had a good laugh over this yet the dog tissue story does not appear in any of the books, articles, websites or videos I've found so far.
Why do you think this is?"

This is "proof" the thing was a fake and Sanderson and Heuvelmans were "fools" but apparently no hilarity or press releases ensued. That seems odd to me. A phone call about an anonymous employee and Sanderson's scenario of how he, Sanderson, would have made a model were enough, apparently.
I should never have said "I'm sure". I'll retract that. I had no idea my wording would be a big deal.

 

Ron Pine: I did not say I "hadn't read anything anywhere about the Smithsonian's employees all laughing about what I said in my conversation with Gardner," I have not read anything any where else about Hansen telling Sanderson he used dog tissue. Your scenario of Sanderson starting out with dog tissue in his description of how he would have made a model was imaginative. So was Sanderson's idea he could have found a clear adult chimpanzee skin. The model wasn't made of one anyway.

It appears Sanderson didn't take Hansen's assertion about dog tissue very seriously.