Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Jodie, could it be that Flavobacterium columnare are particularly delicate as opposed to Bigfootus gigantis? I think it has to do with how Derek describes the sample size, and how fast the temp changes. I'm digging deeper and every thing I am reading indicates that quick freezing will do it, or direct contact with the ice crystals in the snow. I was never clear as to whether snow was on the ground already or if it snowed later. I'm not sure it would matter if it was freezing up there. 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. That just furthers my theory that if this story is true- you know the part about two BFs being shot- then there is absolutely NO WAY that those samples were not taking with them in the moment. The part about them coming back 2 weeks later is simply too unbelievable, and it sounds like something some lawyer told himm to say "just in case". Not that I blame him for trying to cover his own butt, if that's the case. I think it is pretty certain though, that the samples were taken with them right after the kill in some form or fashion. They were bear hunting, so presumably they had the means to move a very large, heavy, dead animal. If they didn't do that, then at the very least I think they took the body of the juvenile with them. I don't particularly think that they cut the "steak" off the thigh and left the bodies, but I do find that more believable than the claim that they came back two weeks later. To me, that simply has no chance of being true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) 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? Sorry, I should have addressed this sooner. Water expands when it freezes. This definitely causes cellular damage, rupturing the cells. The depth and duration of the freeze determine how extensive this is throughout the sample. A mild freeze at slightly lower than 32 degrees Fahrenheit for a short time is not as damaging as a long freeze at lower temps. Any cellular analysis would be impacted to a greater or lesser degree. DNA is surrounded by aqueous fluids inside the cell. As the water freezes and expands, imagine the crystalizing molecules acting like a car jack placed in a window jam. As they expand they do damage. By this means, the tertiary and secondary structures of the DNA, and proteins, can be disrupted, and possibly even the primary structure. Under the conditions described, some of the DNA would be fragmented and some of it would not. I suspect that if we can reconstruct neanderthal DNA from millenia-old bones, the damage in this case is probably insignificant from the perspective of DNA analysis - given a large enough sample. Adding this last paragraph by edit: It should be possible to determine the weather conditions between the reported shooting and the reported recovery. An expert, someone moreso than I, could make a judgement call on whether or not the condition of the recovered DNA is consistent with the reported temperature conditions between the shooting and sample recovery. Edited July 19, 2011 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Thanks JDL, I don't know if Dr. Ketchum's lab is able to process bone thousands of years old but maybe she can handle flash frozen tissue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) I was poking around the taxidermy forum where the "shooter" first posted his story. There's an interesting thread there regarding these events. Some tidbits... Lindsay's original source for the shooting story posted that he's writing a book on the subject. Several members were skeptical of the account. Others seemed open (a few proclaiming BF sightings of their own). One poster wondered what happened to the original thread. Several posters seem to think the shooting occurred in the mountains of Nevada. Someone claimed this is the first year one could hunt bear in Nevada. He followed up by stating road hunting for bear in the northern mountains of Nevada is "laughable" (as if to dismiss the story). One guy asked whether the snow has melted because there are supposedly *three* shot up carcasses up there. We should probably take this with a grain of salt. These guys were privy to the original thread but you know what can happen. Edited for atrocious grammer. Edited July 19, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Well nuff said. Silver you get your wish. Roll with it baby! Admin please remove me from this forum. I will not be back. Thanks, DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 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? There's no NDA covering the shooting incident. Randles' NDA's, and everyone else's like him, are with them and Ketchum. I'm quite certain that the shooter doesn't have any NDA at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 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? - Dudlow In the shooter's defense, based on his original statements, he knew it was a BF, but he thought it was threatening him. I believe that version of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 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? No, you are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted July 19, 2011 Admin Share Posted July 19, 2011 Well nuff said. Silver you get your wish. Roll with it baby! Admin please remove me from this forum. I will not be back. Thanks, DR No need to do that Derek, we all know SF's agenda and character. You don't have to correct every claim he makes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockinkt Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Well nuff said. Silver you get your wish. Roll with it baby! Admin please remove me from this forum. I will not be back. Thanks, DR Why the histrionics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 In the shooter's defense, based on his original statements, he knew it was a BF, but he thought it was threatening him. I believe that version of the story. I would think that the " they were coming at me " story would be a must for legal reasons even if consequences are extremely doubtful. No court would ever prove he wasnt in danger. I just cant buy the fact that this taxidermist hunting machine wouldnt keep the bodies if he truly had one....please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 In the shooter's defense, based on his original statements, he knew it was a BF, but he thought it was threatening him. I believe that version of the story. The problem with him feeling threatened is that according to DR, the big one appeared and was shot from a distance of 80 to 100 yards. Hard to be a threat at that distance, I would think. If the shooter's story was that the female jumped out at them much closer, the version of being threatened would be much more palatable. This has been a sticking point for me from the beginning. I too believe the shooter knew it was not a bear. I believe when he pulled the trigger, he was well aware that he was attempting to bring down something very unusual. I'm not saying he knew WHAT it was he was firing at, just that he knew it wasn't a bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Woodenbong Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 The problem with him feeling threatened is that according to DR, the big one appeared and was shot from a distance of 80 to 100 yards. Hard to be a threat at that distance, I would think. If the shooter's story was that the female jumped out at them much closer, the version of being threatened would be much more palatable. This has been a sticking point for me from the beginning. I too believe the shooter knew it was not a bear. I believe when he pulled the trigger, he was well aware that he was attempting to bring down something very unusual. I'm not saying he knew WHAT it was he was firing at, just that he knew it wasn't a bear. If the story has any amount of truth in it, I doubt that he shot the female BF first. Its my opion that he shot the juvenille BF first and the screams from the 2nd juvenille alerted the mother who was about to comed own on the shooter and was shot second. But then again it could be just a story as most of us suspect. Surely a picture of this so called steak could be leaked, SF should be able to comne up with something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Looks like the BFF lynch mob already has the rope in the tree and they're fixin' to string'im up. I don't think it matters what story is told, it seems he's already been convicted. What a bloodthirsty mob we have here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts