Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kitakaze

Minnesota Iceman Hoax

Recommended Posts

Guest BitterMonk

West is right. It is hard to believe. It's even harder to believe that anyone today would still be trying to pass this off as anything but a clever carnie's gaff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

lol! Word to yo mutha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Ajciani and anyone else who may be interested, De Sarre's site is back so here's Lorenzo Rossi's article with picture by Coleman captioned Heuvelmans. I use Google toolbar translator since my Italian is even worse than my French. It does a fair job but some of the English phrasing needs translating. :lol:

I'm still mystified by the mouth photos. Do they look to you like they're from the same set as Coleman's? (I'm awaiting his reply.) That eye is staring at me. Could Hansen have inserted, gross possibility, an artificial eye into a cadaver? If so he got it awfully low. Is it real or is it pareidolia?

mouthshots-1-1.jpg

The Minnesota Iceman was never a "carnival" exhibit. See page 225, The Mystery Continues............

ETA link to paper by Jordi Magraner ( Les Hominides reliques d'Asie Centrale )

Edited by LAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blackdog

I saw it twice in different years at a carnival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Apparently, Heuvelmann gave the Iceman decidedly Yeti-like feet.

img019.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So which image was shown to the Pakistanis and Vietnamese and confirmed as their respective wildman?

iseman3.jpgMinnesotaiceman.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ajciani

West is right. It is hard to believe. It's even harder to believe that anyone today would still be trying to pass this off as anything but a clever carnie's gaff.

Perhaps you misunderstood West. The mannequin was so obviously a mannequin, that he couldn't believe anyone would have been fooled by it.

Which brings me back to what I've been saying: someone would have to get an up close and personal look at the exhibit, both the "real" and the "fake" to compare them. Unfortunately, the thing is no longer being displayed, so we have to use historical investigations. These were done in the 60's and 70's, and what we got were a couple people who investigated and said "real", another couple who investigated and said "obvious fake", and another couple who said, "I've seen both."

It is obvious that Heuvelmans and Coleman thought that there were two different displays.

If it would make people happy, they could consider that there were two mannequins; a convincing one and a first attempt, but it is clear there were different versions of the thing. What was photographed in 2002 is not the same as what was photographed in the 1960's. It's close, but it's not. Like telling the difference between a Cuban cigar and a fake Cuban cigar, but you don't get to smoke or examine either. You have to rely on one man who smokes one and says, "these Habanos are great", and another man who smokes the other and says, "poorly rolled, harsh flavor". You don't even get to analyze the ashes. All you get to do is inspect two poorly lit photographs of them in the wrapper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

No, that wasn't the case. The only reason the Iceman was "Obviously fake" was because when Coleman saw it Hansen had said he got rid of the real one. This is Heuvelmans and Colemans, side by side:

facecomp.jpg

Anyone can see they are one and the same. Now to say this one is obviously a different one:

MIMmodeladj.jpg

You're looking at it from a completely different angle. Same blocky nose, same hair pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

So which image was shown to the Pakistanis and Vietnamese and confirmed as their respective wildman?

De Sarre's site is having server troubles again so I can't check, but I think Loofs -Wissowa and Magraner both used a reproduction of the life-sized drawing by Alika Lindbergh under Bernard Heuvelmans' direction. I was just reading about that when the site went down.

iceglax.gif

Apparently Heuvelmans disagreed with Sanderson about the hair being agouti. This was an illusion caused by a string of bubbles in his opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Perhaps you misunderstood West. The mannequin was so obviously a mannequin, that he couldn't believe anyone would have been fooled by it.

That's how I read it too.

Heuvelmans thought the differences were due to Hansen rearranging the cadaver, Sanderson thought Coleman saw a copy and Roche thought Colman saw the original. Plenty to choose from.

The snow-shovel feet and "goose" chest fit with cold adaptations. So much for Nam. I'm back to the Russian trawler. :lol:

There's a chance the Iceman still exists and has been seen after it was supposedly destroyed. I'm waiting for more on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blackdog

Plenty to choose from.

The snow-shovel feet and "goose" chest fit with cold adaptations. So much for Nam. I'm back to the Russian trawler. :lol:

:lol:

This is too much! You can't make up your mind which lie you believe?

It's a carny gaff Lou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

From Jordi Magraner's paper:

"The corpse was preserved in ice and shown on fair grounds in Minnesota (U.S.A.). It was already in a state of decomposition when Heuvelmans was able to examine it and to collect data from people who had seen it unfrozen. The orbits were empty and bloody, the limbs broken and wounded, the back of the skull was smashed in, revealing a part of the brain. Although the origins of the hairy dead body with unusual hands and feet for a modern man, were the cause of increasing disinformation concerning the value of the specimen, the genuine knowledge, derived from the first months of calm observation, confirms the keen scientific interest shown by the scientists who examined the photographs at great length. From December 17 to 19, during 11 hours, Heuvelmans described, noted, observed and photographed the corpse. On January 4, the anthropologist C.S. **** examined the photographs and wrote: "It is a whole body and not a composite creation or a model. Moreover, not only is it a hominid but it is also a kind of Man, even if some of the anatomic features are altogether surprising, and of the utmost interest to specialists in physical anthropology" (****, 1969). The first scientific memorandum was sent on January 14 to the Belgian Royal Institute of Natural Sciences, where it was submitted to the Director, A. Capart, and to the head of the Institution's Anthropological Section, F. Twiesselmann. The memorandum was immediately sent for priority printing and was published less than one month later. On February 5 and February 9, a text on the study was sent to W.C. Osman-Hill and J.R. Napier, who was then director of the Primate Biology Program at the Smithsonian Institution. The latter announced that they were interested and a team was appointed to perform an autopsy. On February 20, the showman who owned the corpse was informed of its sudden importance and refused all access, once and for all. The secretary general of the Smithsonian Institute wrote him directly on March 13 stating that, according to Dr. Heuvelmans description and photographs, it was of "great interest to the scientific community" and could well "turn out to be an eminent contribution to human knowledge." On May 5, Professor Murril of the Anthropological Department of Minnesota went to examine the corpse in turn and told Napier of his stupefaction (Heuvelmans, 1974). But the traveling showman obstinately continued to refuse to give scientists access to the body, and the affair quickly died out. The discovery of the corpse remains valid, nevertheless. The scientists who were able to see it, or who examined the photographs thoroughly, have never had any doubt about its value and strangeness.

After having discussed this matter with Heuvelmans and examined the original color pictures of the frozen man, the above mentioned scientists had no doubt about the study and the genuineness of the corpse.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/jordi.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

Even lightening this image:

Model2.jpg

with this one:

2127991.jpg

and this one:

5836190.jpg

Like so:

Model2compcopy.jpg

You can see they are the same. Check out the right cheek on the West photo and the Heuvelmans photo top right. Same nose. Same right eye. Same chin, same hair on chin. Same mouth, same teeth. All look fake.

Edited by wolftrax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...