X-Message-Number: 21529
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:04:24 EST
Subject: Platt

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Platt's post in Cryonet 4/2/2003 attempts to cast doubt on my earlier posts, 
while not actually disputing anything I said or offering any contrary 
information concerning the vitrification questions. As it happens, I (and 
others) received a copy of a message to Platt from one of the researchers, 
just a couple of days ago, confirming what I said. So--apparently two 
possibilities concerning that message:

a) Platt hasn't seen the message. Seems unlikely. 

b) His trolley is completely off the tracks.

Robert Ettinger
In a message dated 4/2/2003 5:01:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, 

> Bob Ettinger's previous post stated that as of early this year (date
> unspecified), no vitrified organ has been recovered from a temperature as
> low as dry ice. I requested a reference for this statement. Here's his
> response:
> "Strange! As one of the head honchos of Alcor (the number two man now,
> apparently), with presumably close ties to the researchers, he ought to
> KNOW what the facts are. In any case, I have authoritative letters on
> file, and while confidentiality was not stipulated, it is obvious that
> public copying was not desired in the context of a Cryonet squabble. Aside
> from that, the information is NOT private or confidential, but was
> publicly disclosed at an Alcor meeting last fall, although it missed my
> notice at the time and apparently Platt's too."
> Points:
> 1. My knowledge of the facts is irrelevant, since I made no statement of
> fact. I simply asked Ettinger to substantiate his categorical statements,
> because historically he has posted numerous messages here which contain
> "facts" that are not backed up with citations or elementary error
> checking, even though he could accomplish this in most cases with a single
> phone call. I asked if he had bothered to make such a phone call in this
> instance. Apparently the answer is "no."
> 2. Apparently in this case his sources consisted of letters, from persons
> he refuses to name. He does not state a date when he received the letters.
> I am willing to bet they were received some time in 2002.
> 3. He refers to a meeting "last fall" which I assume was the Alcor
> conference that occurred about six months ago.
> 4. Since his original post on this topic claimed that the information he
> was citing was correct as of early this year, I have to conclude a) he
> didn't bother to check whether his months-old data was still accurate and
> therefore b) his statements should be disregarded.
> ------------------------------------


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21529