X-Message-Number: 28905
From: 
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:53:11 EST
Subject: Bedford

I assume no one has made a big deal of the Bedford anniverary because there  
is no history of effectiveness of such efforts. However, there may be a few  
latecomers who might be mildly interested in some of the background.
 
Bedford's freezing was primarily owing to Bob Nelson and myself. I talked  

him into it, over a period of time, and Nelson was the prime mover in the actual
 arrangements. Prehoda played a temporary part and kept the body one night in 
his  garage. My brother Alan and I flew out for the feezing and aftermath. 

Further  details can be found in Bob Nelson's book, WE  FROZE THE FIRST MAN. As
you  know, Bedford finally found a place with Alcor.
 
A big publicity boost was mostly missed. Life magazine--then a leading  

weekly--did a multi-page feature, but the astronaut tragedy resulted in a  rare

split edition. Partway through the run, our story was pulled and the  astronaut
story substituted. The big urban centers did not get our version. Who  knows 
what might have resulted otherwise.
 
Roberrt Ettinger
 
 
Message #28896
From: "Chris Manning"  <>
References:  <>
Subject: Bedford Day, 12  January
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:23:54 +1100

Perhaps there is  something other members of this group know that I don't, 
but I am a little  puzzled/surprised that neither CI nor Alcor appear to have 
said or done  anything to mark the 40th anniversary of the first human 
cryonic suspension,  that of Dr James Bedford on 12 January, 1967.

The fact that he has been  in suspension continuously for all of that time 
(and his body was found to  be in good condition when it was examined in 
1991) has to speak well of  cryonics and although he is with Alcor, I would 
have thought this is an  issue that should be thought of as transcending any 
differences that may  exist between the two companies.




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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28905