Comments on: More On The Minnesota Iceman

By: AreWeThereYeti

AreWeThereYeti — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 20:21:24 +0000

Loren, I can’t wait! However, unless “this” Minnesota Iceman turns out to be a still-frozen biological specimen, we are – by default, I guess – stuck with nothing but a cleverly constructed gaff.

In fact, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that what is revealed at the Museum of the Weird’s unveiling will be nothing more than the so-called replacement (gaff) and NOT the original, allegedly flesh-and-blood, corpse.

While the resurfacing of the replacement Iceman after all these years is quite amazing in itself, not to mention a valuable relic, touchstone, artifact – what have you – in the annals of Bigfoot lore, it cannot offer anything in the way of real proof that its precursor was the real deal. And so the controversy will continue. Sigh…

But… Oh, how I’d LOVE to be proven WRONG on this one!

By: not even wrong

not even wrong — Sat, 29 Jun 2013 00:13:38 +0000

The discrepancy I see between the pictures is the teeth. The recent picture seems to match the one you took and shows the teeth. But in looking at the picture from their book and their drawings it looks like the mouth is closed. Could two have been made around the same time? If so, where is the other one?

By: Red Pill Junkie

Red Pill Junkie — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:19:03 +0000

I seem to remember reading that in the ‘original’ Iceman Heuvelmans noticed a bullet wound in one of its eyes