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.
The Minnesota Iceman. Copyright Loren Coleman 1969.
Texasgirl…yes, I mentioned that on “Yeti Mania Begins” on April 5th, here.
Look to that posting for more talk about that show…
Lorenzo -
Please share what your insights are.
Also, anything you wish about your Mi-Teh Expedition 2004, please, 12/03/2004.
Merci.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.