Walt Disney is Cryogenically Frozen (and will be thawed in the near future)

"This debate is about the “near future,” as opposed to the indeterminate future."I believe my opponent is highliting that the near future is a definitive thing. However, what I would like to point out is that the near future is not a definitive thing, but a relative thing. The near future for an adult might be ten years, while the near future for a child may be ten minutes - therefore, this is really just a matter of perspective. I do apologize, however, that I failed to make this clearer at the beginning of my argument earlier in the debate. Many historians still consider the United States to be a new country, despite the fact that the United States has existed for a few hundred years at most."A great decade for medical advancements, but by pro’s own admission doctors thought events that take hours happened almost instantly; that even restoring someone to technical life, would be moot since it would leave them in “a vegetative state.”Perhaps, but that certainly didn't stop them from attempting cryonic preservation in the 1960's, did it?"New knowledge almost fifty years too late for Walt. Not getting into this being stem cells only, we are still left with them needing future knowledge to remove oxygen from the corpse, and to recover within “17 days.”On the contrary - new knowledge affirming that Walt could indeed be brought back to life if he is cryonically preserved as we speak."Ten hours, at 68°F, decay slowed. Multiple that level of decay by a 1/1000th the time Walt has been dead (going on to 48 years, or over 17,000 days) and there would be no chance of recovery. This is not even to confuse it with freezing… “The process of freezing inflicts a level of damage which cannot be reversed by current medical technology.” Expect to see this quote again, even more so considering the comparison to fifty year old technology that likely had greater risk of damage." As my opponent has brought this fact up again, I will use it to, in actuality, confirm my argument - it was discovered that cooler temperatures had slowed the rate of decay in this scenario. Therefore, cooler temperatures are the cause of preservation of this woman, and cryonic temperatures could preserve a patient for the future when a cure for the disease, and the tissue damage caused my the freezing state, are discovered.As for the second part of my opponents argumet... this is, indeed, the theory of how cryonic preservation works; the patient is preserved until such technology is discovered which would allow the repair of the tissue damaged by the freezing temperatures. Again, I would like to extend my argument concerning the prehistoric virus; ancient cells have indeed been preserved and brought back to life by means of freezing temperatures."In short those books suck."Indeed, it would be easy to dismiss these writings in such a fashion, but this does not deny that the evidence exists. In fact, Walt Disney - Dark Prince of Hollywood is an award winning biography. "Marc Eliot is the New York Times bestselling author of more than a dozen books on popular culture, among them the highly acclaimed biography Cary Grant, the award-winning Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince, and most recently American Rebel: The Life of Clint Eastwood, plus the music biographies Down Thunder Road: The Making of Bruce Springsteen, To the Limit: The Untold Story of the Eagles, and Death of a Rebel about Phil Ochs. He has been featured in many documentaries about film and music and has written on the media and popular culture for numerous publications. He divides his time among New York City; Woodstock, New York; and Los Angeles."[1]The author for the second book, Leonard Mosley, is not just any author just trying to make a buck either - he was actually a "journalist, historian, biographer, and novelist." [2]A well thought review for the book Disney's World by historian Marc Eliot is as follows:"Leonard Mosely has built a reputation for accuracy and objectivity, and in "Disney's World" he makes no exception. Even in the few instances where a dispute exists relating to the nature of the event, Mosely fairly presents all sides.In Disney's World, Mosely chronicles the "rags to riches" story of one of America's great empire builders of the 20th century. Faced repeatedly with insurmountable odds and continuing crises, Mosely inspires the reader with Walt Disney's unstopable courage and determination to succeed.Sources for Mosely's material include actual interviews with members of the Disney family, former employees and associates of Walt Disney,and from available public records. And most importantly, the author was given access to the Disney Archives by the corporation.As a result, certain previously unknown facts appear in this book. But Mosely is careful to confirm each fact, and notifies the reader if there is a question. Mosely also exposes a dark side to Walt Disney, but presents the facts in a fair and objective manner.Mosely's "Disney's World" is inspiring, uplifting, factual, and historically interesting. It is a "smooth read", and the reader will have difficulty putting the volume aside." [3]As for my opponent's referenceing of Snopes as a one-and-only counterargument to the biographical literature I have referenced... well... "Snopes.com is a Scam" (an article from fourwinds10.net) "For the past few years www.snopes.com" target="blank">http://www.snopes.com... has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. "David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the Website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticims - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have "the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint. "A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place." [4] Although I have used snopes as well in some of my sources, I would not personally use Snopes alone to defend any of my arguments. Let's be honest - can a "mom and pop operation" really hold up against two certified authors of Walt Disney's biography? More research is needed. "Small misconception about him, he was not merely of the first, he was an inventor of such things as the multiplane camera. However a prodigy in one area, means nothing in the others. Cryonics is a medical technology, thus far outside the area of his expertise." Although I concede that he was indeed the inventor of these new technologies, I still affirm that Walt Disney was the kind of person who would have tried new things. As Walt Disney once said, "We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths." [5] "I accept this. As there have been no successful human head transplants, a frozen head cannot be brought back. One day maybe, but the scientist leading the field pins his hope of promise in the procedure on rats, and insists “As the human brain can only survive without oxygen for one hour, the surgeons would have to remove both heads and connect the recipient's head to the circulatory system of the donor body within this time frame” [5]. Another promising development that is half a century too late for Walt." Actually, an italian neurosurgion has recently stated that such a procedure is now possible. [6] I resent that I am running short on characters remaining, so I will need to keep the final part short: I referenced michael jackson as a counterexample, not a red herring; prehistoric virus - viruses are cells, human tissue is made up of cells. We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com... We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com... We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com... http://www.amazon.com... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.amazon.com... [3]http://www.fourwinds10.net... [4]http://www.brainyquote.com... [5]http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [6]