Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Thanks, it was out of respect that I was trying to avoid saying it in the breakdown. Oops - I totally missed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) No problem. Just glad I didn't have to say the words within my framed post. Edited July 19, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I've asked this several times before and never received an answer. How did a small piece of tissue survive for two weeks in the wild, frozen part of that time, without destroying the cells? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenic_freezing Cryopreservation is a process where cells or whole tissues are preserved by cooling to low sub-zero temperatures, such as (typically) 77 K or −196 °C (the boiling point of liquid nitrogen). At these low temperatures, any biological activity, including the biochemical reactions that would lead to cell death, is effectively stopped. However, when cryoprotectant solutions are not used, the cells being preserved are often damaged due to freezing during the approach to low temperatures or warming to room temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 None of this story makes any sense. Good luck trying to find a fact. I want to be respectful too - but when people start telling me that they can establish the truthfulness and credibility of a witness over the phone - well, enough said. Yes. To stand so firmly that someone you never knew is telling you the truth merely from phone converstations. I don't get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Sure he has a right to post his "facts" all he wants. Just getting tired of all of his hostile remarks. It's particularly annoying because as part of a journalistic duty to keep on listening to him no matter what, I can't put him on ignore like the countless others. Wow. Just wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I would just as much like photos of SF's claims of said "steak" size and what his SOURCE is... Man, let the "reporter" off the hook about his news report, but not the researcher. What a strange world. Not my intent to let anyone off. If SF claimed to have photos, I'd direct the question his way. As I observed earlier, neither SF's or Dereck's account tells the whole story. One may be innacurate based on second or third hand reports, the other only provides the facts deemed pertinent and stops short of asking/answering some hard questions of the hunter. Asking us to accept that there is less to the story than there is, is as bad as asking us to believe there is more to the story than there is. I've been in positions like Dereck's in the past and actually respect how he has handled the situation. But we have two sets of claimed facts and both are sticking to their guns. Dereck says he has photos of the sample, and I believe him. The photos settle the contradiction - if shared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Wildman- to the question what specific violation was broken. Ca. dfg subdivision2 chapter3 section365 Bear-cubs and females with cubs may not be taken. as to intent if the shooter claims he thought they were bear then he should know the rules. as far as shooting unknown mammals, i think it means that you have to know what the heck your shooting before you kill something. ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Jodie, would freezing damage the DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Jodie, would freezing damage the DNA? I have researched for two weeks and all I can find is what freezing does to the cells. If it destroys the cells I would think it would also destroy the DNA, maybe someone who is a chemist has an answer.....I keep hoping to snag someone's attention who can answer me. Another question, does the NDA include this story of what happened? Why would Derek have an NDA not to talk about the DNA research that would include this scenario or is the NDA between the shooter and the Olympic Project? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 ... as far as shooting unknown mammals, i think it means that you have to know what the heck your shooting before you kill something. ptangier And yet the shooter, I believe, probably knew exactly what he was shooting all along. All the claims of innocent mistakes are pure balderdash, imho; a smoke screen to let him off the hook; to excuse himself with his buddies and with the uproar that he knew would follow. It was time to 'think fast' and he came up with the most probable of excuses -- he thought it was a bear. So, then, what are we to think of his shooting of the baby? Did he think that was a bear cub? I feel the crunching gristle of veins in my teeth every time I think about that horrible scene... - Dudlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Please understand, this story is not mine, and it will be told first person when he feels like it's time. I'm not trying to bait anybody here, I wouldn't even be talking about it if lindsay wouldn't have broke his a version of it. I've felt like I needed to do damage control. If I wouldn't have stood up and said something there's no telling what this story would sound like at this point. The shooter himself asked me to come on and tell the true account. That's the only reason I'm here right now. The sad part is I completely feel like I'm wasting my time because half of you don't believe a word of it anyways. I do have photos of the sample, but I'm not going to break my word and just put them out there to make folks happy. That's not my job here. Biggest, I absolutely have my reasons beyond phone conversations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I think the old saying of "consider the source" very much applies here and I think if you had ignored the story it would have died of natural causes, but that is just my opinion. What is done is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Well ask and ye shall receive...I guess I wasn't asking the right question INDIE, yes it does destroy the DNA according to this research article. The only way it wouldn't is if the sample was retrieved from thick tissue like they did with the Woolly Mammoth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392932/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) Jodie, could it be that Flavobacterium columnare are particularly delicate as opposed to Bigfootus gigantis? Edited July 19, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Wildman- to the question what specific violation was broken. Ca. dfg subdivision2 chapter3 section365 Bear-cubs and females with cubs may not be taken. as to intent if the shooter claims he thought they were bear then he should know the rules. as far as shooting unknown mammals, i think it means that you have to know what the heck your shooting before you kill something. ptangier If I recall from Dereck's account, the young were not visible when the first individual was sighted and shot. They only appeared after she had run off into the woods. Am I wrong? This is the thing that bothers me about the hunter's account through Dereck. It appears to have been sanitized to fit within the letter of the law. I'm not saying that Dereck has sanitized it, but I am saying that the hunter has motivation to sanitize it and remediate "loose facts" with "tight facts". If so, then Dereck's second hand account may be no more accurate than SF's third hand account. The only difference is that certain forensic evidence has passed through Dereck's organization. Unfortunately, the reported size and condition of the "small steak" provided to Ketchum make Dereck's account of its recovery improbable - not impossible, but improbable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts