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.

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.

-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?

“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.

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!

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…

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.

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