Hey! I vividly remember this cover, the May 1969 issue of Argosy magazine!
My father’s family was fond of some of these weird men’s magazines of that time, which often featured macho masculine heroic men battling ferocious creatures in the wilderness, or going fishing. I walked off with a copy, and kept it in the attic of my grandmother’s house, which I’d adopted as my workshop for building model airplanes. I spent many afternoons up there and browsed this, and a few copies of National Lampoon, while I was waiting for the glue or dope to dry. This was a particularly memorable issue, since it featured a cryptid with photos and reconstructions. I can still picture it lying on the desk in that room, where it rested for several years.
It was a hoax, a spectacularly graphic bloody hoax. Here’s a recent video series that traced the history of the Minnesota Iceman, summarizing the controversy. The story changed so many times that it is definitely unbelievable.
It’s still around. It was sold to a place called The Museum of the Weird in Austin, Texas. I’d love to see it someday.
It’s often called the Minnesota Iceman, but some people resent that and say it was a Wisconsin Iceman: How a Wisconsin Bigfoot Became the Minnesota Iceman. Wisconsin can have it, I don’t mind.
My father had that magazine.
I remember it being at the Calgary Stampede. I did not pay to look at it.. Even then I knew it was hoax.
Is there any way we can give it to Illinois?
It’s in Texas now. I say we rename it the Texas Iceman.
Would it be more scientifically relevant if they found the original Minnesota Nice Man?
The Ben G. Thomas channel, and it’s sibling Seven Days of Science, are excellent Youtube channels. Highly recommended!!!!!
It’s no Cardiff Giant.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/cardiff-giant-fort-dodge-museum
The fig leaf must be a new addition.
Yeah but did you ever go visit the Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe down on the Seattle waterfront? It was a Summer ritual for us kids. CREEPY as fuck! All hail Sylvester!
Wasn’t Argosy the magazine which printed the original Bermuda Triangle story?
The story only became well known with Berlitz books many years later, but IIRC Argosy printed the article inventing the term and supernatural bullshit.
mordred, I just took a look: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-bermuda-triangle-what-science-can-tell-us-about-the-mysterious-ocean
chigau@1–
At its peak, Argosy was one of the best pulp magazines published. Unfortunately, its lifespan was much longer than its peak.
I’m boggling at this part:
“Hansen himself eventually admitted that the story of the Minnesota Iceman was a hoax – It wasn’t the missing link in human evolution, and it wasn’t discovered in the seas of Siberia. It wasn’t even from Minnesota.
Hansen said he had actually encountered the creature alive in the woods of Wisconsin while he was hunting. He promptly shot it dead and invented the whole story.”
Hansen admits to unaliving a bigfoot, and the site’s editor seems to agree the thing was a hoax, but bigfoot is real and it’s OK to do that to them???
I think that should rather be parsed as, Hansen killed a human being with some sort of physical and craniofacial differences and oddities (possibly acromegaly and hypertrichosis, and maybe some others), and rather than give the guy a decent burial, Hansen decided that he could make a lot of money displaying the body while ginning up a sensationalistic story.
If the shooting story holds any credence, that is.
WikiP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Iceman ) says:
“… and rather than give the guy a decent burial, Hansen decided that he could make a lot of money displaying the body while ginning up a sensationalistic story.”
Good on Hansen. The guy didn’t mind, after his death. A decent burial made zero difference to anyone.
The claim that Hansen shot the being that would become the Iceman wasn’t some off-the-cuff remark; it was part a long, vivid, lurid story published in the magazine Saga in July 1970.
https://www.museumoftheweird.com/2013/06/30/frank-hansens-story-of-the-minnesota-iceman/
It beggars belief that someone who claims, in the story, to have concerns about the legality of committing possible homicide and mistreatment of a corpse, would ever publish the story that details this commission of possible homicide and mistreatment of a corpse, even if he coyly ends with:
There’s a bit of a rambling last word here, by a True Bigfoot believer, which clarifies nothing.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121122000320if_/https://jevningresearch.blogspot.com/2012/01/dmitri-bayanov-update-on-minnesota.html
Sure.
But I most certainly quoted what I addressed, Owlmirror.
Isn’t the “missing link” between humans and other great apes the resemblance between our chromosome 2 and the others’ chromosomes 2 and 3, and the presence of retroviral signatures consistent with a common ancestor?
I mean, it’s not quite as sexy as a preserved specimen of a half-human, half-something-else creature; but that’s not even what anyone who understands any science would expect anyway.
While there’s plenty of genetic evidence for humans being related to apes, it is also true that genes affect growth and development, including the growth and development of bones. And when the bones of different hominids are examined, it is found, as expected, transitional features between apes and early and late human ancestors.
Well, it kinda is? Depending on what “half” means.
To put it another way, there is disagreement and controversy on whether hominids from the transition of late Australopithecus and early Homo should be classified as Australopithecus or as Homo — that is, they often have bones that have features that belong more-or-less to Australopithecus and also features that belong more-or-less to Homo.