Category Archives: Cryonics

A SCORNED wife raided her ex-husband's cryogenics lab and stole the frozen brains of people who hoped to be brought back to life.

Valeria Udalova, 59, and staff from her company grabbed the remains of people who paid thousands of pounds hoping they could be resurrected.

5

5

Some of the corpses were from Britain and the US and were stored in Valeria's ex-husband Danila Medvedev, 41, lab in the Moscow region of Russia.

The lab is Russia's leading cryo-storage facility, say reports.

They drained liquid nitrogen from giant dewar flasks containing frozen bodies and grabbed these and some detached human brains, then loaded them on trucks.

Police were called and intercepted the macabre cargo of human remains preserved by Frankenstein technology offering humans the chance to "come back to life in future.

But Medvedev told RTVi:"The police did not catch Valeria.

She left, taking someone's brain from the cryo-storage.

The brains of our neuro-patients were kept separately, in special metal medical boxes."

Both Medvedev, who runs KrioRus, and its ex-boss Udalova, who started a new company called Open Cryonics in Tver region, claim to be the legitimate owners of the human remains.

Police are now examining the rival claims while demanding the feudingex-spouses guarantee the integrity of the frozen corpses and brains as well as the bodies of dozens of dogs and cats that owners wanted to bring back to life in the future.

There are fears the remains may have been damaged in the raid.

Valeria did not do it well, she just cheated, alleged Medvedev, who started a new family with another woman.

There was a risk of damage, it is impossible to transport dewars in a horizontal position.

While attempting to steal our dewars, this nitrogen was spilled, most of the nitrogen was poured onto the ground, added Aleksey Potapov, an expert with KrioRus.

Thehuman remains "began to heat up.

Udalovaclaims she was unfairly ousted from her old company and is the rightful owner of its assets.

"There are a lot of orders from different countries, especially from dog and cat owners, she said.

This is the reason why Medvedev wanted to take KrioRus for himself.

The cost of full body cryopreservation is around26,000, or to save only the brain, 11,000.

Some 82 patients were in the company's warehouse, including 25 foreigners.

Among the brains frozen in the Moscow store is Dr Yuri Pichugin, who died in 2018 after inventing the chemical cocktail which preserves people for posterity in a deep freeze at minus 196C.

A brain woken in the decades or centuries to come could be implanted in another human body, it is claimed.

5

5

5

Read the rest here:

Scorned wife raids ex-husbands cryogenics lab stealing frozen brains of people who hoped to be brought b... - The Sun

Two Russian cryopreservation companies, run respectively by former spouses, have been in open conflict. This Wednesday, the ex-husbands firm accused his ex of trying to steal frozen bodies and equipment from a warehouse of his in the city of Sergiyev Posad, in the Moscow region.

In 2006, Valria Udalova and Danila Medvedev, who are currently divorced, they co-founded the cryopreservation company KrioRus, which is dedicated to freezing and storing carcasses of people and animals with the purpose of resuscitating them in a hypothetical future. The bodies are placed in special containers, called Dewar vessels, where, according to the company, they can be preserved without significant changes for hundreds of years.

In 2019, other founders of the firm They expressed their dissatisfaction with the activities of the director, a position then occupied by Udalova, and they decided to dismiss her. In response, Udalova registered another cryonics company of the same name, KrioRus. Medvedev, for his part, co-founded a company called Otkrytaya Crionica.

This Wednesday, from Otkrytaya Crionica they denounced that the day before Udalova employees entered a cryogenics warehouse, cut a part of the hangar wall with an autogenous torch, drained most of the nitrogen from the Dewar vessels, they carried them horizontally along with the patients in two cars and tried to carry them away in the direction of a still unfinished cryogenics warehouse in Tver.

Otkrytaya Crionica employees called the police, who succeeded in having the Dewar glasses returned to the company. The damage caused to cryopatients and to the warehouse still to evaluate. Valrias actions were extremely irresponsible, since they are outside the legal framework and endanger cryopatients. Now the question of starting a criminal case will be determined, said one of the founders, Dmitri Kvasnikov.

Meanwhile, Medvedev declared to the telegram channel Podyom that his ex-spouse wanted to take the Dewar glasses in order to develop his new company. In order for Valria to collect money from new clients, she needs to show that she has a warehouse and cryopatients, he said.

Udalova, for her part, explained that while she was still the director of KrioRus, she had formalized the sale of containers with cryopatients to her new company. I have valid contracts for all teams, but the Police demanded to leave them in the previous place to order the documents, he said.

In a comment for the Gazeta.ru portal, Udalova he refused to clarify if there were bodies in the Dewar vessels and if they were damaged while being transported. Our company only decided to move the equipment from one place to another. My ex-husband and ex-founder Danila Medvedev made a false complaint to the Police, that we were stealing our own equipment. [] He wants to take over everything, he tries to pressure me with all kinds of illegal methods, Held.

If you found it interesting, share it with your friends!

View post:

Two cryopreservation companies, run by ex-spouses, fight over frozen corpses and one tries to remove the bo... - Market Research Telecast

Whether as a means of traveling through deep space, a life-saving measure, or a process of slow time travel, placing humans in suspended animation is a well-worn trope in genre fiction. Futurama, Star Trek, and the Fallout gamesall prominently utilize some form of suspended animation as a plot device, but never has the concept of freezing one's self and waking up in the future been more ridiculously utilized than in 2006s Idiocracy.

In it, U.S. Army Corporal Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson) follows in the famed footsteps of Phillip J. Fry, Khan Noonien Singh, and Han Solo, on an unintentional trip to the future. Flawed as the premise may be, suspended animation is an ongoing area of research and may one day assist in medical treatments and long-term space travel.

THE CASE FOR SUSPENDED ANIMATION

There are plenty of sci-fi tropes that stretch the bounds of credulity. Time travel, teleportation, invisibility all potentially possible with sufficiently advanced technology, but not something we see a lot of empirical evidence for in the real world. At least not on the macro-scale. Suspended animation, however, is downright commonplace if you know where to look.

Rotifers, a collection of relatively simple microscopic animals, are common to freshwater environs all over the world. They feed on algae and dead bacteria, among other things, and are often preyed upon by the more famous tardigrade. These entirely female species reproduce asexually and have a lot of the same incredible abilities as tardigrades, namely the ability to survive in harsh environments.

In the event their watery home dries up, rotifers undergo anhydrobiosis, a process that involves contract into themselves and slowing their metabolism, perhaps even halting it altogether. In this state, rotifers and similar creatures lay in waiting for suitable conditions to return.

In the normal course of events, the waiting period should be relatively short, a few days or months, maybe a season. There have been documented cases of anhydrobiosis lasting for several years, but those instances pale in comparison to a recent discovery published in the journal Current Biology.

A team of researchers, studying permafrost in Siberia, recovered bdelloid rotifers from ice core samples dating back approximately 24,000 years. The researchers clarified that not all rotifers survive such extended deep freezes. In fact, only 1 in 20 or fewer samples result in successful reanimation. Still, those who do survive are able to exit their anhydrobiosis stage and even reproduce ahappy result of that asexual reproduction mentioned above.

The way in which small animals like rotifers and tardigrades accomplish these incredible levels of suspension arent wholly understood, but part of the process seems to involve the manufacturing of antifreeze-like chemicals which prevent the formation of ice crystals in their tissues. Understanding precisely how that unfolds could unlock an avenue for human cryonics.

Other animals, more complex than the humble rotifer, undergo different types of suspended animation which are nonetheless equally intriguing.

Hummingbirds have a staggeringly high metabolism, requiring near-constant consumption of nectar in order to survive. Their heart rates are so fast they sound less like the rat-a-tat drumbeat were used to and more like an incessant buzzing. Its difficult to imagine an animal more diametrically opposed to the concept of suspended animation, and yet, in the Andes mountains of Peru,these fast-flying birds have adapted to slow down. At least at night.

Many birds, and other animals, enter a state known as torpor when necessary. Similar to hibernation, torpor allows an animal to severely decrease its metabolism in order to wait out lean times. For black metaltail hummingbirds, the lean times come every night when temperatures drop.

As night falls and temperatures decrease, these birds decrease their body temperatures to just above freezing, and their heart rates, usually thrumming at 1,200 beats per minute, decrease to as low as 40.

The common theme, whether you are a rotifer or a hummingbird is the slowing down of metabolism, decreasing the bodys energy needs until you can return to a more active state. Achieving such a state in humans has thus far proven difficult. Though there are some promising areas of research.

WHAT ABOUT US?

The human body is capable of at least temporary suspended animation, under the right conditions. We know this because it has happened, accidentally. The trouble is figuring out how to make it happen reliably.

Emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) has shown some promise in extending treatment timeframes in pigs, which are often used as a stand-in for humans in medical research. The process involves pumping ice-cold saline solution into the aorta, dramatically reducing body temperature to approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit.

At this temperature, brain and body activity slows, buying doctors time to treat injuries. A small clinical trial began at the University of Marylands Shock Trauma Center, targeting patients with acute trauma and a low estimated chance of recovery. The aim is to extend the critical treatment window from minutes to hours. At the time of this writing, the results of that study are not available.

This process of freezing might be useful as a last-ditch treatment option or for those willing to throw in their chips on a chance at being resurrected in the future, but isnt being seriously considered by space agencies as a method of deep space travel. Instead, both NASA andESA are exploring torpor as a potential solution.

Vladyslav Vyazovskiy is part of the team put together byESA to answer this question. He suggests theres probably no biological barrier to human torpor, given that the process spans all types of mammals including primates.

Success in this area will require a more robust understanding of the precise mechanisms in place when animals enter and exit torpor. Today, we dont know whats happening biologically to induce this state, or what the potential impacts might be on humans. Finding answers to these questions could provide significant advancements in both medical treatments and the future of space exploration.

Research is ongoing, and with any luck, we might one day be able to nap through the hard times. What a world it could be. Hopefully, it'll be a smarter world than the one we see in Idiocracy.

Excerpt from:

Could suspended animation send you into the future to become the smartest person alive? - SYFY WIRE

Cryonics Technology Market Overview and its regional growth since 2021-2027

The study gives a clear view on the Global Cryonics Technology Market and includes a detailed competitive scenario and thorough company profile of the key players operating in it. To get a clear idea of the competitive landscape in the market, the report conducts an analysis of Porters Five Forces Model, SWOT analysis, and Pestel analysis. The Cryonics Technology market report also provides a market attractiveness analysis, in which the segments and sub-segments are studied on the basis of their market size, growth rate, and general attractiveness.

Global Cryonics Technology Market Review 2017-2021 Forecast to 2027 Analysis by Type, Technology, Application, End-User, Industry Vertical, and Region into its vast depository of research reports. In the first section of the report, the market definition, market overview, product description, product scope, product characterization, and product specification has been discussed. The information presented in this report provides an overview of the latest trends and development plans, patterns, and policies observed in the global market.

Request For Sample Report : https://marketstrides.com/request-sample/Cryonics-Technology-Market

Top Manufacturer Detail PraxairCellulisCryologicsCryothermKrioRusVWRThermo Fisher ScientificCustom Biogenic SystemsOregon CryonicsAlcor Life Extension FoundationOsiris CryonicsSigma-AldrichSouthern Cryonics

Cryonics Technology market is segmented on the basis of type,application and end user region,Based on type-Slow freezingVitrificationUltra-rapid

Based on application-Animal husbandryFishery scienceMedical sciencePreservation of microbiology cultureConserving plant biodiversity

Recent Cryonics Technology Market value for different regions.

Key Questions Answered in the Report:Where does the Global Cryonics Technology Market stand at present? How is the market going to prosper over the next 5 years?What are the advanced technologies that are going to bring revenue to the market?What is the historical and the current size of the Global Cryonics Technology Market?Which segments are the fastest growing and the largest in the Cryonics Technology market? What is their market potential?What are the driving factors contributing to the market growth during the short, medium, and long term?What are the potential opportunities for the key players in the market?Which are the key regions from the investment perspective?

By Region of Cryonics Technology market:

North America (United States and Canada and rest of North America)Europe (Germany, France, Italy and rest of Europe)Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, India, South Korea and the rest of Asia-Pacific)LAMEA (Brazil, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the rest of LAMEA

Check Discount For This Report: https://marketstrides.com/check-discount/Cryonics-Technology-Market

Recent Market value for different regions.Cryonics Technology Market Key Vendors and Disruptors Study.Sales data for market competitors.Market shares in different regions.Cryonics Technology Market SizeMarket Standards and ChangesRecent Development for Competitors.

About Us:

Market Strides is a Global aggregator and publisher of Market intelligence research reports, equity reports, database directories, and economic reports. Our repository is diverse, spanning virtually every industrial sector and even more every category and sub-category within the industry. Our market research reports provide market sizing analysis, insights on promising industry segments, competition, future outlook and growth drivers in the space. The company is engaged in data analytic and aids clients in due-diligence, product expansion, plant setup, acquisition intelligence to all the other gamut of objectives through our research focus.

Our pre-onboarding strategy for publishers is perhaps, what makes us stand out in the market space. Publishers & their market research reports are meticulously validated by our in-house panel of consultants, prior to a feature on our website. These in-house panel of consultants are also in charge of ensuring that our website features the most updated reports only.

Contact Us:

Company Name: Market Strides

Contact Person: Nikolai Egger

Email: sales@marketstrides.com

Phone: +1 856 677 8909 (US)

Original post:

Conclusive Study of Cryonics Technology market 2021 forecast to 2027 The Manomet Current - The Manomet Current

Astrophysicist J. Allen Hynek displays a photo of a fake UFO at a 1966 press conference. Image: AP

This summer, a defense report and a new Harvard research project have renewed the publics interest in UFOs. But neither are likely to change many minds.

On June 25 of this year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a brief report entitled Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. It fulfilled a 2020 directive from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired at the time by Marco Rubio, which ordered the national intelligence director to publish an unclassified, public appraisal of the potential aerospace or other threats posed by the unidentified aerial phenomena to national security, and an assessment of whether this unidentified aerial phenomena [UAP] activity may be attributed to one or more foreign adversaries. The request came partly as a response to news reports that Navy personnel had, in recent years, filed a number of incident reports involving UFOs.

Since 1947, UFOs have been caught in cycles of periodic, animated interest from government officials, enthusiasts, and scientists. But results are always inconclusive.

In the lead-up to the reports release, both believers and skeptics were abuzz with anticipation. Chatter on social media was lively, and the self-styled crusader for government disclosure about UFOs, former intelligence officer Luis Elizondo, announced he would run for Congress if the report seemed misleading.

In the end, the preliminary assessment proved a mixed bag. Enthusiasts could be buoyed by the governments admissions that most reported UFOs were real objects, that only 1 in 144 could be definitively explained, and that fear of ridicule had thus far stymied witnesses and thereby inhibited effective inquiry. Debunkers, on the other hand, could point to the fact that most reports suffered from a lack of sufficient specificity, that the overwhelming majority of UAP demonstrated conventional flight characteristics, and that there remained a great many mundane explanations for the phenomena. All sides felt vindicated, all could claim victory.

And so, ambiguity reigns. To anyone familiar with the history of unidentified flying objects, this represents a familiar state of affairs. The first modern report of a UFO took place in Washington State in 1947, and since then the phenomenon has been caught in cycles of periodic, animated interest from government officials, civilian enthusiasts, and scientists. During such moments, it always seems that the riddle of UFOs is about to be solved. But the result is always inconclusive findings and a dispersal of interest, leaving few minds changed and everyone returned to their corners to await the bell for the next round. The seeming effervescence of our current moment notwithstanding, its doubtful we should expect anything different this time around.

Its easy to forget that, not long ago, the media was not giving regular updates on UFOs.

This most recent fanfare surrounding UFOsor UAP, as those seeking distance from UFOs outsize reputation now preferbegan in December 2017, when the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Politico all published exposs revealing the existence of a secret government program which, between 2007 and 2012, had investigated UFOs. Then followed viral videos of Navy pilots encountering unusual objects (reported upon in the same outlets); a cable television series on the incidents featuring Elizondo and former Blink 182 band member Tom DeLonge; announcement of the first human-detected interstellar object to enter our solar system (Oumuamua); and a highly publicized, though admittedly frivolous, attempt to storm Area 51 in Nevada. And in July, astronomer Avi Loeb announced the creation of a new project at Harvard University, called Galileo, that will use high-tech astronomical equipment to seek evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts in space and possibly within Earths atmosphere. This follows closely on the publication of Loebs book Extraterrestrial, in which he argues that Oumuamua might be an artificial light sail made by an alien civilization.

Its easy to forget that, not long ago, the media was not giving regular updates on UFOs. On the contrary, during the past two decades, public discussion of UFOs has been limited. But interest in UFOs has cycled through a couple of phases of ups and downs. The 1960s ushered in a revival of the supernatural in popular culture that flourished throughout the seventies, eighties, and into the nineties. If youre old enoughsay, over the age of fortyyou may still have memories of Leonard Nimoy narrating the occult and mystery TV series In Search Of (197782); of listening to interviews with telepathic spoon benders and alien abductees on the daytime talk shows of Mike Douglas, Merv Griffin, and Phil Donahue; or of browsing through the extensive paranormal section at your local public library or Waldenbooks. New Age philosophy, extrasensory perception, exorcisms, reincarnation, telekinesis, astrology, channeling, psychic healing, cryonics, Satanic ritual abuse claims: UFOs were sucked up into this paranormal wave and boosted by the lively syncretism of it all. The rising paranormal tide lifted all boats.

All this publicity surrounding the supernatural also gave rise to a revival of debunking, with prominent figures taking it upon themselves to call out erroneous claims and expose frauds. In 1976 a group of dedicated skeptics founded the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), headed initially by philosopher Paul Kurtz and sociologist Marcello Truzzi. At the organizations inaugural conference, Kurtz expressed worry about the growing number of cults of unreason and other forms of nonsense. Noting the popularity of related beliefs in Nazi Germany and under Stalinism, he lamented the fact that Western democratic societies are being swept by other forms of irrationalism, often blatantly antiscientific and pseudoscientific in character. Skeptics needed to be decisive. If we are to meet the growth of irrationality, he insisted, we need to develop an appreciation for the scientific attitude as a part of culture. During the seventies and eighties, a number of well-known personalities associated with SCICOPincluding aviation journalist Philip J. Klass, illusionist James Randi, and astronomer Carl Saganagreed and assumed the roles of public myth-busters.

Mudslinging over convictions is familiar to historians of religion, a domain of human existence marked by deep divisions over interpretations of belief. But science has often found itself engaged in similar debates and conflicts.

Over the last fifty years, the mutual antagonism between paranormal believers and skeptics has largely framed discussion about unidentified flying objects. And it often gets personal. Those taking seriously the prospect that UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin have dismissed doubters as narrow-minded, biased, obstinate, and cruel. Those dubious about the idea of visitors from other worlds have brushed off devotees as nave, ignorant, gullible, and downright dangerous.

This kind of mudslinging over convictions is certainly familiar to historians of religion, a domain of human existence marked by deep divisions over interpretations of belief. But science too has found itself engaged in similar debates and conflicts over the centuries. Venerated figures and institutions have regularly taken it upon themselves to engage in what has been dubbed boundary work, asserting and reasserting the borders between legitimate and illegitimate scientific research and ideas, between what may and what may not refer to itself as science.

When scientists engage in boundary work, they are doing something more than saying this is true or that is false. Instead, they are setting up the ground rules for what will be considered acceptable questions, methods, and answers when it comes to doing science. In essence, they are saying, this is a question we may pursue in science or that is an impermissible way of conducting an experiment. And there are any number of examples of this in the modern world.

Take psychology, for instance. Until the middle of the nineteenth century, it was a subject that largely fell under the domain of philosophy. Then, during the second half of the century, some scholars interested in psychology took their cue from the natural sciences and started conducting experiments with animals and human beings. In this way, psychology began to establish itself as an independent social scientific field. That status remained contested, however, and psychologists had to defend their claims of being a legitimate science for decades. Boundary work was essential to this mission. So, when prominent researchers such as William James, Frederic Myers, and Eleanor Sidgwick argued that psychical researchthe study of the power of mediumship, telepathy, clairvoyance, and life after deathshould be included as part of academic psychology, many practitioners bristled. Experimentalist Wilhelm Wundt, Science editor James Cattell, and Harvard psychologist Hugo Mnsterberg were just some of the influential figures to repudiate the phenomena as nothing but fraud and humbug and to bemoan research about them for doing much to injure psychology. Their judgments eventually won the day and, as a result, parapsychology was shifted from science to pseudoscience.

Boundary work has also been evident in policing the how and what of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). When SETI takes the form of astronomers using telescopes to seek evidence of intelligent radio signals and mechanical objects in outer space, it is accepted as a mainstream (though, admittedly, underfunded) academic pursuit. The study of UFOs, on the other hand, is brushed off as pseudoscience. UFO investigation has, consequently, been largely privately funded and conducted by committed individuals in their free time.

This stark divide did not happen overnight, and its roots lie in the postwar decades, in a series of events thatwith their news coverage, grainy images, celebrity crusaders, exasperated skeptics, unsatisfying military statements, and accusations of a government cover-upforeshadow our present moment.

When astronomers use telescopes to seek evidence of extraterrestrials, it is accepted as a mainstream academic pursuit. The study of UFOs, on the other hand, is brushed off as pseudoscience. This stark divide did not happen overnight.

It all started in June 1947, when a private pilot, Kenneth Arnold, reported seeing a group of bat-like aircraft flying in formation at high speeds near Mt. Rainier. He described their motion to the media as moving like a saucer would if skipped across water, and an enterprising journalist had found his headline: he christened them flying saucers. That summer, flying saucers were reported across the United States, and the press began wondering what exactly was going on.

The thought that the objects might have been extraterrestrial visitors did not rank highly on the list of possibilities considered by most people at the time. A Gallup poll published just a few weeks after the Arnold sighting asked Americans what they thought the things were: while 90 percent admitted having heard of flying saucers, a majority either had no idea what they could be or thought that witnesses were mistaken. Gallup didnt even mention if anyone surveyed brought up aliens. Ten years later, in August 1957, Trendex conducted a similar survey of the American public and found that now over 25 percent believed unidentified flying objects could be from outer space.

Three things had happened in the meantime that made this possible. First was media saturation. Newspapers and magazines across the world covered and outright promoted the flying saucer saga, especially after 1949. Then, what had begun as a distinctly U.S. phenomenon soon became a global one, as UFOs began to turn up in Southern Africa, Australia, Europe, and South America. By the mid-1950s, few in the world could say they had never heard of flying saucers.

Second was the rise of flying-saucers-from-outer-space promoters. In 1950, three influential books by pulp and entertainment writersDonald Keyhoes The Flying Saucers Are Real, Frank Scullys Behind the Flying Saucers, and Gerald Heards The Riddle of the Flying Saucershit bookshelves, each arguing that the overwhelming evidence showed that aliens were visiting, more likely than not in response to the detonation of atomic bombs. The authors provided the model for a new kind of public figure: the crusading whistleblower dedicated to breaking the silence over the alien origins of unidentified flying objects.

Third, some Americans were so curious about the phenomenon that they sought out like-minded others. Inspired by the development of science fiction fan clubs and newsletters in the 1930s and 40s, enthusiasts beginning in the early 50s organized local saucer clubs where members could meet to discuss the latest developments. By the end of the decade, some had grown into vibrant organizations, with national, even international followings and monthly newsletters which actively solicited contributions from members about their own sightings and theories.

So, by the end of the 1950s, flying saucers didnt just make news; they had champions who helped make them news. Some enthusiasts, however, believed interest in UFOs needed to be channeled into something more than a hobby or pastime. The Air Force had been conducting its own investigations into the flying saucer phenomenon since 1947. Saucer groups, however, placed little confidence in the military and were especially frustrated by the secrecy surrounding its work. They believed it was time for civilians to seize the day and to begin investigating cases in a more thorough and open manner.

Keyhoe, Leonard Stringfield, Morris Jessup, and Coral and Jim Lorenzen were some of the leading pioneers in this effort. At first, most civilian investigators had to rely exclusively on newspaper and magazine articles for their source materials. By1965, however, the Lorenzens and Keyhoe were directing large organizations (the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization and the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, respectively) with national reach, allowing them to send members into the field to conduct interviews and examine sites. By 1972 the Lorenzens had put together a manual for field investigators, guiding them through the kind of equipment and procedures to use when going about their work.

The first generation of ufologists was buoyantly optimistic. They saw themselves as trailblazers who, though now dismissed, would one day be vindicated when ufology was established as a legitimate research enterprise.

In this way, a new field of study was bornufology, as it was dubbed. That first generation of ufologists was buoyantly optimistic. They saw themselves as trailblazersit was not uncommon for comparisons to be made to Galileowho, though now dismissed by the establishment, would one day find their endeavors vindicated when ufology was established as a legitimate research enterprise.

Major scientific associations and most academic scholars saw matters differently. They considered ufology yet another example of a pseudoscience. While some went about publicly debunking its methods and findings, most academics opted to simply pay ufology no heed.

By the mid-1960s, however, a few scientists working at major U.S. universities had reached a different conclusion. They believed that UFOs were genuine physical phenomena that warranted serious scientific study. Northwestern University astronomer J. Allen Hynek was one such figure. Hynek was the scientific consultant to the Air Force in its investigations into unidentified flying objects. At first skeptical about the claims of witnesses, he grew puzzled by the growing number of cases that seemed to defy conventional explanation.

In the early sixties, Hynek began holding UFO discussion meetings in his home with interested colleaguesat first from Northwestern, but then from other universities as well. The group included French computer scientist Jacques Valle, who would go on to become a leading voice in ufology. Soon, Hynek was referring to the circle as The Invisible Collegea reference to the secretive group of seventeenth-century natural philosophers who had touted experimental research and defied church dogma. The name stuck, and continues to be used to refer to academics who study and exchange ideas about UFOs but do so clandestinely for fear of hurting their careers.

Another ufologist who rose to prominence in the 1960s was James McDonald, an internationally respected atmospheric physicist at the University of Arizona. An expert in cloud physics and micrometeorology, he had begun privately looking into UFOs in the late fifties and joined a leading UFO organization. In 1966 he suddenly went public as an outspoken advocate for the position that UFOs were, as he put it, the greatest scientific problem of our times. Though a latecomer to the scene, McDonald was a constant public presence, making the case for the scientific study of UFOs in press conferences, public lectures, and TV and radio interviews. He railed against what he considered the Air Forces incompetence in handling the matter, and he took it upon himself to interview hundreds of witnesses.

Though widely acknowledged to be accomplished and eloquent, many of his fellow scientists found McDonald to be dogmatic and abrasive. So when it was announced in October 1966 that the University of Colorado at Boulder had agreed to serve as the home for a scientific committee funded by the Air Force to study the UFO phenomenon, McDonald was not invited to serve as a member. Like Hynek and Valle, McDonald instead was asked to consult now and again with the committee, but all three were left out of the groups day-to-day activities and deliberations.

The projects director was nuclear physicist Edward Condon, who had spent decades working in and with the government dating back to the wartime Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb. His involvement with the military, however, hadnt stopped him from criticizing it for being too secretive. After the war, he was also a leading voice insisting that civilian authorities be put in control of atomic energy, and he had to face down accusations before the House Un-American Activities Committee on several occasions. Here, then, was a no-nonsense academic, who was not easily intimidated and despised government secrecy. He seemed the ideal choice to head up this first-ever funded scientific study of UFOs by academic researchers.

The Condon Committee began its work in November 1966. Excitement and anticipation surrounded the start of the project. Ufologists, UFO enthusiasts, members of the Invisible College, the Air Force, and the general public all expressed high hopes that the world would finally have an answer to the riddle of the flying saucers. Their enthusiasm was soon quashed. While some ufologists were asked to make presentations before the committee, word inside the Colorado group was that Condon considered the possibility of alien visitors to be preposterous. Disgruntled insiders reported that researchers were being steered toward concluding that the UFO phenomenon had a psychological explanation.

Condon came to consider his involvement in the study of UFOs the biggest waste of time that I ever had in my life.

McDonald was careful to cultivate contacts within the Colorado project. His personal papers, now housed in the archives at the University of Arizona, show that he received surreptitious updates from Boulder on an almost daily basis. As he did, he became more and more frustrated by what he saw as Condons attempt to stop any serious consideration that UFOs might have extraterrestrial origins. In early 1968 he, along with several people serving on the Condon Committee, confronted Condon with evidence that he had no intention of conducting a legitimate scientific investigation into unidentified flying objects.

The move outraged Condon, who fired the committee members for dereliction of their duties. McDonald went to the media, finding a journalist at Look to write an expos chronicling what was portrayed as Condons incompetent and imperious management of the project. And with that, all bridges had been burned. Ufologists dismissed the work of the committee even before it had released its report in January 1969. McDonald demanded a new scientific study be conducted. The Air Force formally shut down its UFO task force. And Condon came to consider his involvement in the study of UFOs the biggest waste of time that I ever had in my life.

The Condon Committees final report did not mince words. Our general conclusion, it stated, is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledgethis despite the fact that around a third of the cases examined remained unexplained. No one was terribly surprised, least of all people in the UFO community. Rather than settling the matter of UFOs for good, it simply escalated the mutual mistrust between believers and skeptics, between amateur ufologists and academic scientists.

Was the Condon Committee a failure then? At first glance, it would appear so. Without question, it fell victim to the political machinations of bad actors such as McDonald. Nevertheless, one has to wonder if any study at the time could have resolved the matter. If the 202021 UAP task force found itself confronted with ambiguities and a lack of information, this was surely even more the case in the 1960s.

And it must be said that both back then and today, there are many people for whom the mystery is the matter. UFOs may well be far more interesting to ponder than to actually solve. And fittingly, the decades that followed saw the rise of the UFO as mystery, with increasingly bizarre stories of alien abductions capturing the attention of readers and TV audiences between 1975 and 1995. Yes, there had always been outlier abduction reports dating back to the 50s and 60s. But now the floodgates opened, and with them a new generation of UFO advocates.

Chief among them were artist Budd Hopkins, horror writer Whitley Strieber, historian David Jacobs, and psychiatrist John Mack: each came onto the scene in the 1980s and 90s insisting on the veracity of those claiming to have been kidnapped, examined, and experimented upon by beings from another world. The ufology of investigating the nuts and bolts of unidentified flying objects gave way on the public stage to these new missionaries who simultaneously played the role of investigator, therapist, and advocate to their vulnerable charges.

There are many people for whom the mystery is the matter. UFOs may well be far more interesting to ponder than to actually solve.

In many ways, it was Macks involvement that signaled both the culmination and end of the headiest days of alien abduction. A distinguished Harvard psychiatrist, when Mack began working with and publishing accounts of abducteesor experiencers, as he called themin the early 1990s, he lent the study of extraterrestrial captivity an air of legitimacy it had been lacking. A five-day conference at MIT in 1992 on the alien abduction phenomenon, followed by a book on the subject two years later, brought him the affection of many in the UFO community and the scorn of many of his colleagues. The Harvard Medical School initiated a review of his position; he retained tenure, but after, as review board chairman Arnold Relman later put it, he was not taken seriously by his colleagues anymore. Claims of alien abduction have continued since then, but one would have to search far and wide to find a clinician of Macks stature who would go on record saying they believed them.

And so here we are a quarter century later, and we are again hearing some rumblings from within the scientific community. Some scientists involved with SETI have publicly called for the interdisciplinary study of UFOs. And now Loeb (another Harvard professor) has announced the Galileo Project. With an initial private investment of nearly $2 million with which to work, the Galileo Project will certainly have access to equipment qualitatively better than what existed in the fifties and sixties. Will this make a difference? Many of Loebs colleagues are skeptical about the prospect. If history is any guide, its questionable a project like this will succeed in persuading diehard believers and skeptics to rethink their positions.

Excerpt from:

UFOs and the Boundaries of Science - Boston Review

Good news: you heard wrong! With CI, the minimum fee for cryopreservation at CI (which includes vitrification perfusion and long term storage) is $28,000 a one-time fee, due at time of death. And though the fee can be paid in cash, usually a member has a life insurance policy made that pays the amount to CI upon death. A term life insurance policy in the amount of the minimum fee often costs around $30 per month for a person starting their policy in good health at middle age. Funding at a higher level can be used to defray additional costs, including transportation (which is not included in CIs base fee) or even a cryonics standby team to perform rapid cooling and cardiopulmonary support upon pronouncement of death.

Advice from an insurance professional is recommended before selecting a policy.

A person who wishes to become a Lifetime CI Member can make a single membership payment of $1,250 with no further payment required. If a new member would rather pay a smaller amount up front, in exchange for funding a slightly higher cryopreservation fee later on ($35,000), he or she can join with a $75 initiation fee, and pay annual dues of only $120, which are also payable in quarterly installments of $35. (And such a dues-paying member can upgrade to Lifetime Membership at any time, saving $7,000 and future any dues.) Members at a distance may have to pay local funeral director fees and transportation costs to Michigan to be cryopreserved. These payments are not made to CI, and are not included in the figures outlined above.

Take a look at our Membership FAQ and the membership application forms to find out more. And if you've got any questions, or want to talk about making special arrangements? Give us a call at (586) 791-5961 or drop us an email at CIHQ@aol.com. We're more than happy to help.

Read more from the original source:

Frequently Asked Questions | Cryonics Institute

On December 15, 1966, animation legend Walt Disney died from complications of lung cancer, for which he had undergone surgery just over a month earlier. A private funeral was held the next day, and on December 17, his body was cremated and interred at Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California. But while Disney undoubtedly lives on through the legacy of the beloved feature films and theme parks that comprise much of his lifes work, shortly after his death, a rumor began to circulate that he might be living on in a more literal sense as well with his body suspended in a frozen state and buried deep beneath the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyland in Anaheim, California, awaiting the day when medical technology would be advanced enough to reanimate the animator.

Over the years, proponents of this seemingly absurd rumor have cited the secrecy surrounding Disneys death and burial as evidence of its veracity. They claim that news of his passing was intentionally delayed in order to give his handlers time to place his body in cryonic suspension and that both his funeral and the actual location of his burial plot have been kept secret as a means of further concealing the truth of his interment.

Disneys lifelong interest in the future, projects such as his EPCOT Center (Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow) and the technical innovations for which he was known throughout his career would no doubt have lent the rumor a certain air of truth, while a Time magazine article about the cryonic freezing of a 73-year-old psychology professor also lent its weight.

The assertions of two separate biographies of DisneyLeonard Moselys Disneys World (1986)and Marc Eliots Walt Disney: Hollywoods Dark Prince(1993)which claimed that an obsession with death led Disney to an interest in cryonics, surely did their part to perpetuate it through the years as well.

In a 1972 biography about her father, Disney's daughter Diane wrote that she doubted he had even heard of cryonics.

Photo: United Artists/Photofest

The exact origins of the rumor are uncertain, but it first appeared in print in a 1969 Ici Paris article in which a Disney executive attributed it to a group of disgruntled animators seeking to have a laugh at their late taskmaster employers expense.

Disneys daughter, Diane, wrote in a 1972 biography about her famous father that she doubted her father had even heard of cryonics. It has been further discredited by those pointing to the existence of signed legal documents that indicate Disney was in fact cremated and that his remains are interred in a marked plot (for which his estate paid $40,000) at Forest Lawn, the exact location of which is a matter of public record.

Further, by all accounts, Disney was known to be a very private man in life, making the quiet circumstances of his cremation and burial far from suspect, and the assertions in Moselys and Eliots biographies have been widely rejected as unfounded.

Yet despite the apparent lack of any credible evidence supporting a connection between it and Disney, the existence of cryonics is very much a reality. Since 1964, when Robert Ettinger published a work discussing the plausibility of freezing human beings for the purpose of bringing them back to life, a significant cryonics industry has developed in the United States.

Today,companies such as Suspended Animation Inc.,Cryonics Institute and Alcor Life Extension Foundation offer their clients the opportunity to have their bodies placed in a large metal tank in a state of deep freeze known as cryostasis, for the purpose of being restored to life and complete physical and mental health at a theoretical point in the future when medical science is advanced enough to do so.

According to reports, there are hundreds of people being kept in cryostasis at facilities around the country and thousands more that have already made arrangements for their own preservation. Following his death in 2004, baseball legend Ted Williams became the highest-profile person to date to be placed in cryostasis.

Cryonics is not without its detractors, however. Its science has been largely dismissed as fantastical. Still, its the futuristic stuff of science fiction that maybe even Disney himself would have appreciated.

Go here to see the original:

Is Walt Disney's Body Frozen? - Biography

A radical love story for right now, from one of the most gifted writers working todayNew York Times

In Brexit Britain, a young transgender doctor called Ry is falling in love against their better judgement with Victor Stein, a celebrated professor leading the public debate around AI.

Meanwhile, Ron Lord, just divorced and living with Mum again, is set to make his fortune launching a new generation of sex dolls for lonely men everywhere.

Across the Atlantic, in Phoenix, Arizona, a cryonics facility houses dozens of bodies of men and women who are medically and legally dead but waiting to return to life.

But the scene is set in 1816, when nineteen-year-old Mary Shelley writes a story about creating a non-biological life-form. Beware, for I am fearless and therefore powerful.

What will happen when homo sapiens is no longer the smartest being on the planet? Jeanette Winterson shows us how much closer we are to that future than we realise. Funny and furious, bold and clear-sighted, Frankissstein is a love story about life itself.

Read more here:

Jeanette Winterson, stone gods, oranges are not the only ...

Cryonics Technology Market Forecast 2029: Revenue, Size & Growth

Global Cryonics Technology MarketForecast till 2029research includes reliable economic, international, and country-level forecasts and analysis. It offers a holistic view of the competitive market and thorough analyses of the supply chain to help companies identify closely significant trends in the company practices seen in the sector. Major Companies listed in this Reports arePraxair, Cellulis, Cryologics, Cryotherm, KrioRus, VWR, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Custom Biogenic Systems, Oregon Cryonics, Alcor Life Extension Foundation, Osiris Cryonics, Sigma-Aldrich, Southern Cryonics.

Free Sample Report & Pie Charts Available@jcmarketresearch.com/report-details/1370030/sample

Regional Breakout for Cryonics Technology Market: North America XXX million $, Europe XXX million $, Asia XXX million $ & Rest of World.

OverviewCryonics Technology Market including Types & Application:

North America:United States, Canada, and MexicoSouth & Central America:Argentina, Chile, and BrazilMiddle East & Africa:Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, Egypt and South AfricaEurope:UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and Russia

Application: [Application]

Types:[Type]

Cryonics Technology Market Leading Competition:In this section, the report provides information on Competitive situations and trends including merger and acquisition and expansion, market shares of the top ten players, and market concentration rate. Readers could also be provided with production, revenue, and average price shares by manufacturers.

Get Special Discount in Covid-19 @jcmarketresearch.com/report-details/1370030/discount

Research Methodology:

The market engineering process uses a top-down and bottom-up approach and several data triangulation methods to evaluate and validate the size of the entire market and other dependent sub-markets listed in Cryonics Technology report. Numerous qualitative and quantitative analyzes have been conducted in the market engineering process to list key information / insights. The major players in the market were identified through the second survey and the market rankings were determined through the first and second surveys.

Primary Research:

During the first survey, we interviewed various key sources of supply and demand to obtain qualitative and quantitative information related to Cryonics Technology report. Key supply sources include key industry participants, subject matter specialists from key companies, and consultants from several major companies and organizations active in the digital signage market.

Secondary Research:

The second study was conducted to obtain key information on the supply chain of the Cryonics Technology industry, the markets currency chain, pools of major companies, and market segmentation, with the lowest level, geographical market, and technology-oriented perspectives. Secondary data was collected and analyzed to reach the total market size, which was verified by the first survey.

Global Cryonics Technology Market Detailed study of each point:

TheCryonics Technology Marketstudy offers a comprehensive overview of the current market and forecasts by 2020-2029 to help identify emerging business opportunities on which to capitalize.

The report provides an in-depth review of industry dynamics in Cryonics Technology, including existing and potential developments to represent prevailing consumer pockets of investment.

The report provides details concerning key drivers, constraints and opportunities and their effect on the Cryonics Technology market.

Industry players Praxair, Cellulis, Cryologics, Cryotherm, KrioRus, VWR, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Custom Biogenic Systems, Oregon Cryonics, Alcor Life Extension Foundation, Osiris Cryonics, Sigma-Aldrich, Southern Cryonics strategic analysis and industry position in the global Cryonics Technology market;

The report elaborates on the SWOT analysis and Porters Five Forces model.

The market-study value chain review gives a good view of the positions of the stakeholders.

GetCustomized Report Toc @:jcmarketresearch.com/report-details/1370030/enquiry

Major Highlights of Cryonics Technology Market in Covid-19 pandemic covered in report:

Market Competition by key manufacturers in the Cryonics Technology industry. Discussed Sourcing strategies, industrial chain information and downstream buyers data. Distributors and traders on Cryonics Technology marketing strategy analysis focusing on region wise needs in covid-19 pandemic. Vendors who are providing a wide range of product lines and intensifying the competitive scenario in Cryonics Technology covid-19 crisis. Also highlights of the key growth sectors of Cryonics Technology market and how they will perform in coming years.

Buy Full Copy Global Cryonics Technology Report 2029 @jcmarketresearch.com/checkout/1370030

** The demand is measured on the basis of the weighted average sale price (WASP), which requires the manufacturers taxes. The currency conversions that were used to construct this study were determined using a given annual average rate of currency exchange from 2020.

Find more research reports onCryonics Technology Industry.By JC Market Research.

About Author:

JCMRglobal research and market intelligence consulting organization is uniquely positioned to not only identify growth opportunities but to also empower and inspire you to create visionary growth strategies for futures, enabled by our extraordinary depth and breadth of thought leadership, research, tools, events and experience that assist you for making goals into a reality. Our understanding of the interplay between industry convergence, Mega Trends, technologies and market trends provides our clients with new business models and expansion opportunities. We are focused on identifying the Accurate Forecast in every industry we cover so our clients can reap the benefits of being early market entrants and can accomplish their Goals & Objectives.

Contact Us:https://jcmarketresearch.com/contact-us

JC MARKET RESEARCH

Mark Baxter (Head of Business Development)

Phone:+1 (925) 478-7203

Email:sales@jcmarketresearch.com

Connect with us at LinkedIn

http://www.jcmarketresearch.com

Continue reading here:

Cryonics Technology Market to Eyewitness Massive Growth by 2028: Praxair, Cellulis, Cryologics The Manomet Current - The Manomet Current

BUSINESS

An article on Friday about President Bidens plan to increase electric car sales referred imprecisely to the mileage rating of the Ford F-150. While the hybrid version gets roughly 25 miles to the gallon, the basic model gets only about 20 miles per gallon.

A picture caption with a cover story this weekend about visitors returning to the city misidentifies a park. The image shows people seated on the grass in North Fifth Street Pier and Park, not Domino Park.

An article last Sunday about the cryonics industry misspelled the name of a Russian cryopreservation company. It is KrioRus, not KryoRus.

An article last Sunday about moneymaking pandemic hobbies misstated the name of a gardening company. It is PlantParenthood, not PlantParent.

Because of an editing error, an article on Page 38 this weekend about state laws regulating education refers imprecisely to the prisoners held at Perm-36, a notorious special regime camp for political prisoners in Russia. The population of prisoners was disproportionately Ukrainian, not just mostly Ukrainian.

An article on June 27 about childhood obesity and the pandemic misstated the number of children between the ages of 2 and 17 who had their body mass index measured during visits to the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia Care Network. It was about 300,000, not more than 500,000.

An article on June 27 about the potential for wind-powered cargo ships referred incorrectly to the views of the International Chamber of Shipping. The chamber endorses a carbon tax. It is not the case that it supports a levy instead of a carbon tax.

Errors are corrected during the press run whenever possible, so some errors noted here may not have appeared in all editions.

To contact the newsroom regarding correction requests, please email nytnews@nytimes.com. To share feedback, please visit nytimes.com/readerfeedback.

Comments on editorials may be emailed to letters@nytimes.com.

For newspaper delivery questions: 1-800-NYTIMES (1-800-698-4637) or email customercare@nytimes.com.

See original here:

Corrections: July 4, 2021 - The New York Times