Cryptomundo » Minnesota Iceman at Sideshow World

Minnesota Iceman at Sideshow World

Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 9th, 2006

Sideshow

In an effort to share some cryptozoological information with a new group of readers, and to obtain new information on the “mysterious millionaire,” I worked with John Robinson at Sideshow World to add an overview on that specialty site about the Minnesota Iceman.

Check it out at their specific page now devoted to the Minnesota Iceman there. Robinson has also posted an interesting photograph of the van that the late Frank Hansen drove around with the exhibit. Look closely at the photograph on the top of the vehicle.

MN Iceman

The Minnesota Iceman. Copyright Loren Coleman 1969.

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 9th, 2006 at 5:17 am and is filed under Abominable Snowman, Artifacts, Bigfoot, Breaking News, CryptoZoo News, Cryptotourism, Cryptozoologists, Cryptozoology, Evidence, Extinct, Eyewitness Accounts, Folklore, Forensic Science, Malaysian Bigfoot, Media Appearances, Museums, Obituaries, Pop Culture, Public Forum, Sasquatch, Yeti. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

26 Responses to “Minnesota Iceman at Sideshow World”

Chymo responds: April 9th, 2006 at 8:29 am
First time I’ve ever seen a pic of this fabled relic. I’ve been reading about it since I was a nipper, testing my toes in cryptozoological data. Grand!
texasgirl responds: April 9th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Anyone gonna watch the Jeff Corwin show on Animal Planet? He is going to do a show called Realm of the Yeti, about the sighting on Mount Everest.
Loren Coleman responds: April 9th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Texasgirl…yes, I mentioned that on “Yeti Mania Begins” on April 5th, here.

Look to that posting for more talk about that show…
swol responds: April 10th, 2006 at 9:09 am
You know, I believe I saw this at the Minnesota State Fair way back in the late 60’s or early 70’s. I don’t remember exactly what year, but I was pretty young.

I remember thinking that it looked pretty questionable to me even then.
The image here is clearer than what you could see back then.

I find it rather amazing that I was an actual witness to this piece of history.
jayman responds: April 10th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
One thing virtually everybody agrees on about the “Iceman” is that there was at least one model involved, and this must be the second. From what I have read, the original descriptions of Heuvelmans and Sanderson describe one corner of the mouth being slightly agape, and TWO (2) rather small teeth, a canine and premolar, being visible… in this picture 3 or 4 teeth are seen. There also does not seem to be as much blood pooled around the empty eye sockets as they noted. It sure would be nice to see an English reprint of Heuvelman’s book on the Iceman done… (hint)
Lorenzo Rossi responds: April 10th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Mr Coleman I think that your reconstruction of the story is very puzzled…

Have you ever read “L’homme de néanderthal est toujours vivant”?

Best regards.
Loren Coleman responds: April 10th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Lorenzo -

Please share what your insights are.

Also, anything you wish about your Mi-Teh Expedition 2004, please, 12/03/2004.

Merci.
Mnynames responds: April 10th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
I’ve always considered the reality of the Minnesota Iceman (The original, anyway) to be quite persuasive, owing to the great detail of the apparent corpse and the veracity of Sanderson and Heuvelmans. It seems to me such a tragedy that it should have been revealed in the manner that it was, and such a lost opportunity that it never found its way into the hands of those who knew of its importance.
Lorenzo Rossi responds: April 11th, 2006 at 1:55 am
Loren.

For example you’ve written: “Then the original body disappeared, and a model [...] replaced it [...]. But Sanderson and Heuvelmans knew of at least fifteen technical differences between the original and the replacement, thanks to photographs of the traveling exhibit taken by Mark A. Hall and Loren Coleman.”

But in the book of Heuvelmans about the Minnesota Iceman, Heuvelmans clearly write that he don’t believe in a substitutive model: he thought that the corpse was simple thawed and frozen another time.
And in the book there aren’t a single word about you or Mark Hall.
jayman responds: April 11th, 2006 at 8:01 am
Lorenzo, your comment points out the need for an English translation. I assume there must be rights issues that have prevented this - Loren, do you have any idea?
stonelk responds: April 11th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
I paid 50 cents to look at this iceman or one like it in Turlock California in 1972. I was 10 years old and thought it was the coolest thing.
Lorenzo Rossi responds: April 12th, 2006 at 2:37 am
JAYMAN-
You are right.
The problem is that the only english works about Minnesota Iceman are very, very, puzzled.

For example you’ve correctly wrote:
“From what I have read, the original descriptions of Heuvelmans and Sanderson describe one corner of the mouth being slightly agape, and TWO (2) rather small teeth, a canine and premolar, being visible… in this picture 3 or 4 teeth are seen”.

The fact is this:
When Heuvelmans and Sandersson (his work about the Iceman is very different from the work of Heuvelmans) saw “Bozo” for the first time the block of ice was more thick and the mouth of “Bozo” was more closed.

After the publication of their works the corpse disappeared for some times and when reappeared it was in the condition of the picture in this forum.
The block of ice was more thin, many particulars was more visible and the mouth of “Bozo” was more open.

At this point the opinions was four:

1) Hansen opinion: the “original” corpse was replaced by a model.

2) Smithsonian Institute (John Napier) opinion: nothing “original”. Sanderson and Heuvelmans saw only a model.

3) Heuvelmans opinion: nothing model. The corpse in the ice was the same. The ice was thawed, the corpse manually “modified” and then frozen again.

4) Opinion of Sanderson: the opinion of this man about “Bozo” changed every 5 or 6 days and was always different.

I’ve consulted all the original dossier of Bernard Heuvelmans, I’ve seen all the original pictures about this case and I’ve made a reconstruction in one article, but is in Italian only (my English is not enough good for a translation).
Loren Coleman responds: April 12th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Thanks to everyone, skeptic, true believers, debunkers, open-minded folks, closed minded individuals, critical viewers, firsthand observers, questioners, and agnostic alike…all your input is deeply appreciated.
Loren Coleman responds: April 12th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Lorenzo

Who is puzzled, perhaps, in their thinking, please, and their logic?

Please allow me to challenge this statement of yours:

“4) Opinion of Sanderson: the opinion of this man about ‘Bozo’ changed every 5 or 6 days and was always different.”

That would mean within the year of 1968, Sanderson would have espressed in the media or exchanged with you and others, 60 different opinions about what the Minnesota Iceman was. By the end of 1969, perhaps upwards of 120 different opinions would have been expressed.

Obviously, I am demonstrating the concrete silliness of your comment.

What correspondence did you have with Sanderson? What different opinions can you cite? What mere six different opinions can you quote from Sanderson?

Why is Sanderson a target here of such an over-inflated comment that is so far from any real sense of a considered opinion that might change over time and with new information by anyone studying the subject in-depth?
Lorenzo Rossi responds: April 12th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Dear Loren,
when you write “Obviously, I am demonstrating the concrete silliness of your comment.”

You’ve only demonstrate that you don’t know the meaning of “irony”.

You also write:
“What correspondence did you have with Sanderson? What different opinions can you cite? What mere six different opinions can you quote from Sanderson?”

My answer is:
Loren, with all respect, your knowledge about “Minnesota Iceman” dossier is not complete. I can only give you this suggestion:

To read the work of Sanderson “Preliminary Description of the External Morphology of What Appeared to be the Fresh Corpse of a Hitherto Unknown Form of Living Hominid” and to compare it with the work of Heuvelmans “L’Homme de Nèanderthal est toujours vivant”.

In this work Heuvelmans talk about all the different opinions of Sanderson.

You write:
Why is Sanderson a target here of such an over-inflated comment that is so far from any real sense of a considered opinion that might change over time and with new information by anyone studying the subject in-depth?

My answer is:
In his work “Historie de la Cryptozoologie” Bernard Heuvelmans wrote (about Ivan Sanderson) “Vers la fin de sa vie pourtaint il se refusait à rejeter la possibilité que les hominoides reliques eussent été largués sur notre planète par des vaisseaux spatiaux.

My opinion about Sanderson is the same of Michel Raynal which in his website write about “his tendency to some strange ideas and his lack of a critic mind”.
Loren Coleman responds: April 12th, 2006 at 11:04 am
With all due respect, I think this is unfortunately the forwarding of a personal feud that developed between Ivan Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans, which is being played out here.

Sanderson and Heuvelmans had a gentleman’s agreement to not publish independently about the Minnesota Iceman. Instead, Heuvelmans rushed back to Europe, and published his paper on Homo pongoides first, assuring that he would be able to give this specimen a new species’ name.

The bond between the two men was broken, and Sanderson then decided to publish in the journal Genus and the popular magazine Argosy.

From that time forward, both Sanderson and Heuvelmans disagreed about their separate views of the origins of what they had seen.

Interestingly, this split can even be seen here, between the European camp (Heuvelmans, Raynel, Rossi) and the AngloScotAmerican view (Sanderson, Coleman, Hall). There is no reason for it to continue today, but it has.

It is with sadness that I see one Lorenzo can not join with a Loren to further a study on this subject, because, indeed, it is only one about different points of view of history. The body no longer exists.

Of course Heuvelmans is going to have many negative things to say about Sanderson’s theories, because, after all, they were not in agreement with Heuvelmans.
Lu Ann Lewellen responds: April 12th, 2006 at 11:42 am
There are more color pictures taken by Bernard Heuvelmans. Would it be possible for us to see them?

François de Sarre has written me that the one above was taken by Heuvelmans in 1968, but how can that be if it was taken by Loren Coleman? Even the photos are “puzzled”!

It appears here and elsewhere on the site.

My Rossi, is this the article you meant? It can be translated using Babel Fish or Systran by those of us who are not bilingual.

I’m loving this discussion. Please continue.

Lu
Lorenzo Rossi responds: April 12th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
For Mr. Coleman

You write:
It is with sadness that I see one Lorenzo can not join with a Loren to further a study on this subject, because, indeed, it is only one about different points of view of history. The body no longer exists.

My answer:
I simply think that we have two different opinion, but this not means necessarily “war”.

For example I don’t agree the conclusion of John Napier about the iceman based on the measurements and the sketches by Sanderson that I consider less precise than those of Heuvelmans.

I can’t agree about the last theory of Sanderson about the origin of the relic hominids also.
Lorenzo Rossi responds: April 12th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Lu Ann.

You write:
François de Sarre has written me that the one above was taken by Heuvelmans in 1968, but how can that be if it was taken by Loren Coleman? Even the photos are “puzzled”!

My answer:
My original article is without pictures, the pictures in article has been inserted by De Sarre.

I can also say that I’ve seen this picture in the dossier of Bernard Heuvelmans in Museum of Zoology in Lausanne.

At this point you’re right… the situation is puzzled…
Lu Ann Lewellen responds: April 12th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
This is where I saw it first.

I inquired on the origin of the photo from two American researchers, but got no answer on that. François was very helpful and quick to reply. He wrote he thought the color photos were in the museum in Lausanne and suggested I write to you.

And here you are!
Loren Coleman responds: April 12th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Lorenzo Rossi writes:

“I can also say that I’ve seen this picture in the dossier of Bernard Heuvelmans in Museum of Zoology in Lausanne.”

During the time of the Minnesota Iceman, as I have mentioned before, myself, Mark Hall, and perhaps others (Cullen?) were corresponding with Ivan T. Sanderson, and sending him photographs of the exhibition as we were seeing it. Likewise, I was an early correspondent of Bernard Heuvelmans, and I too was sending materials and photos to him.

Photos taken in 1969 by Hall, Coleman, and/or passed along by Sanderson, would naturally be in Heuvelmans’ possessions and files archived at the Swiss location.
Lorenzo Rossi responds: April 13th, 2006 at 3:17 am
For Mr. Coleman:

-You’ve seen the “thing” with your eyes… what’s your opinion?

-I’m looking for an interview to Frank Hansen published years ago (I think in 1995) on the Fortean Times do you know it?
Loren Coleman responds: April 13th, 2006 at 5:52 am
Please see my book, Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America, for there I explored many different ways to think about this event, including relating it, as has Jean Roche, to the classic North American Bigfoot.

I conclude: “Until one of these mystery primates is discovered, we will not understand the true role the Iceman should play in the history of hairy hominoids studies. But for now, we must accept that the enigma of the Minnesota Iceman remains as one of the most hotly debated episodes in hominology.”

One of the reasons I write books is so I can fully express my thoughts and opinions, findings and considerations. A sentence or two here, a paragraph or two there, unfortunately does not do an issue such as this justice.

This is a good forum for comments, but the blogs and books do contain my sense of this issue already, rather well. No reason to even try to attempt the totality of what I think here, of course.

As to Frank Hansen, his interviews were always a surprise, regarding which story he would tell.
jayman responds: April 13th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Reading Heuvelmans’ “l’Homme Neanderthal…etc.” would certainly be enlightening but it is inaccessable to most Americans, myself included, because of the language barrier. Does anybody know when it will go into the public domain?
MattBille responds: April 24th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Did Sanderson ever submit a paper on this to an American or other English-language journal? If not, why not? The darn thing was here in the United States, after all.
Loren Coleman responds: April 24th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Sanderson is no longer alive so answers to questions about “why not” have to be pure speculation.

As mentioned above, there was a bit of an ego war going on here. Heuvelmans decided to break a promise and rush into print. So Sanderson naturally picked the two fastest avenues he had available: a popular article in Argosy and a scientific paper published in Genus. Both were in English.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More

Minnesota Iceman at Sideshow World

Spread the Word!

26 Responses to “Minnesota Iceman at Sideshow World”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

T 84 Viagra

taking viagra after the expiration date

cheap gerneric viagra

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

Non Prescription Viagra

Viagra Illegal Phillipines

Side Affects Of Viagra

Buy Viagra Online At

taking viagra woman

Viagra And Cannabis

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

Viagra Bon Marche

taking viagra woman

Impotence Viagra

cheap gerneric viagra