Comments on: Rejecting The Minnesota Iceman

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:50:03 +0000

The list of 15 differences was formulated by Sanderson and Heuvelmans, and never shared publicly or with Mark Hall and me. This was done so Sanderson and Heuvelmans could privately tell if the “real body” was ever shown again by Hansen, without Hansen or the secret owner knowing what these discovered differences were.

The list may be hidden in the archives of Heuvelmans’ files held in the zoology museum in Switzerland.

By: Lu Ann Lewellen

Lu Ann Lewellen — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:13:20 +0000

Loren, could you please list the 15 differences? I’ve read there were differences, but not what they were.

By: HOOSIERHUNTER

HOOSIERHUNTER — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 01:46:09 +0000

I agree with you Loren. After all this time the iceman probably doesn’t even exist anymore. Real or not, the time to examine it has come and gone. Frankly, I think you and the others showed a great deal of restraint. Had it been me and had I believed it was real, I can’t say that I might not have done a little unauthorized investigating with a drill.
Now, in this time, we must have a high standard that will be repected by scientists and unimpeachable as evidence. Sightings are fine but don’t advance the science. We must have hard evidence or we are simply spinning are wheels.
I know you must look back at the iceman with a kind of nostalgia. It represented more than just a body to you, it was an ideal and one that helped form your lifelong interest. It’s hard for us to say goodbye to cherished hope that these things represent to us. But when we do so, an important milemarker is crossed in our growth within a specific interest whatever that interest may be. It is also liberating and can give us new eyes with which to examine our interest. For you Loren, I think you can expect some new insights to come to you within the field of cryptozoology as these old chereished ideas are discarded to make way for the new.

By: proriter

proriter — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:10:59 +0000

“Fake and unproven evidence” is rather a contradiction, isn’t it?

Heuvelman & Sanderson may have been competent witnesses in other cases but surely not in this one. No one could be a competent witness with the Iceman insomuch as no one was ever permitted to examine the body directly. Frozen in a block of ice, indeed! It’s always something like that, isn’t it?

If you went to a dealer to buy a new car, and were shown instead a large block of ice, and the dealer said, “Trust me — there’s a Lexus in there!” — would you buy it? Of course not. Yet some people still buy this Iceman business under the guise of “keeping an open mind.” (Well, maybe some people would buy it, at that. . . .)

The smell of putrefaction is proof of nothing. Even the Georgia hoaxers apparently used opossum or other animal matter to add credibility. The two hoaxes are amazingly similar. The Georgia boys just forgot the ice, that’s all.

Take a look at Loren’s other, more recent post that shows some of the newspaper coverage of the exhibit. Take a good look at the photo of the exhibit itself. Doesn’t it just scream “Third-Rate Carny Crap” at you? If it doesn’t, you’ve never been to an old-fashioned circus sideshow.

Ah, but in our deeply personal desire to cling to any scrap of “proof” of BF, we must remain loyal to the Iceman, musn’t we? After all, we must always keep an open mind.

By: AlbertaSasquatch

AlbertaSasquatch — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:06:09 +0000

eyeofnewt, as someone else already pointed out, the smell wouldn’t really be that hard to fake. All you need is one piece of rotten meat and voila, there is your smell. Roadkill, steak, chicken, doesn’t matter if left long enough it will smell and it doesn’t even have to be that big of piece of meat for a large area to smell bad.

By: Artist

Artist — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:40:16 +0000

Naive or misguided or ill-informed or hoaxing people (Beckjord, Biscardi, Penn & Teller etc come to mind) arguing for the existence of cryptics of all types, will continue to use proven fakes (”Surgeon’s” Nessie photo, Georgia Beast in a box, Adamski’s UFOs etc) to support their stance, whenever and forever, and trying to toss them away, while an admirable gesture, seems to me an exercise in frustration, since we can’t control their antics.

Let’s just remember that fake and unproven “evidence” is a part of the game we questors are playing, and turn away.

BunniesLair: “My thoughts were, who in their right mind would call a press conference and get scientists eager for answers for a hoax?”

Yeah, well, probably nobody “in their right mind”, but now we KNOW who, don’t we?

No surprises there!

By: eyeofnewt

eyeofnewt — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:34:08 +0000

Loren always makes cogent arguments, but in this case I can’t get past the smell–of the Iceman, that is. Unless we’re willing to believe that both Heuvelmans and Sanderson lied on that point, concerning the specimen they examined (and no other that was substituted later), then we can’t logically reject it out of hand. We’ll never know for sure, but the actions of some Georgia jerks in 2008 have no connection whatsoever to opinions published by two professional zoologists 40 years earlier. The link just isn’t there.

By: omne51

omne51 — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:04:45 +0000

Like others, I agree with Loren’s logic on this.

Also, like others, I hope Loren’s shift isn’t simply due to hurt feelings over the Georgia Gorilla debacle.

By: Found_One

Found_One — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:23:05 +0000

However unfortunate the loss of the “real iceman” may be, we must consider the fact that there seems to be no solid history of the native habitat of him/her anyway. I have read it was found floating in the ocean, frozen in the woods, and shot out of a tree. Fact is, even if it was real, many of the stories have it coming from out of the country. So even if it was a “real animal/humanoid”, it may not have even been a NAPE. In anycase, I don’t really consider it a “pipe dream” to contemplate and even persue the idea of a large or even standard (small monkey-gorilla) size animal unknown to science on the continent of North America. And furthermore, let us keep in mind, almost every major animal “discovery” has been an animal well known by the natives. North American natives, know and knew our “Bigfoot” to exist, as fact.

By: Lyndon

Lyndon — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:57:29 +0000

I never bought into the Minnesota Iceman to begin with. From everything I have read, the whole thing seemed to be a hoax/sham from beginning to end. The stories didn’t add up and Hansen’s evasiveness is completely indicative of a con.

It’s unfortunate that, shall we say gullible or maybe overly wishful thinking, Sanderson and Heuvelmans continued to believe what they saw was real and continued to advocate it’s authenticity when most probably they were taken in by a conman.

It’s ironic that Heuvelman’s steadfastness concerning the Iceman is likely unfounded……in contrast to his antipathy towards the P/G footage. But there you go. That’s what happens when you are ‘too close personally’ to a particular subject. It clouds and influences your judgement.