Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) You can get a patent on a genome, can't you? (Or can you?) You can own rights to a specific critter's DNA, even a human's, even not yours, but genomes, I am not sure about that stuff. Looks like a slippery slope from here, though. Edited February 1, 2012 by Kings Canyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 You can get a patent on a genome, can't you? (Or can you?) You can own rights to a specific critter's DNA, even a human's, even not yours, but genomes, I am not sure about that stuff. Looks like a slippery slope from here, though. according to wikipedia you can patent a sequence of DNA with known function. This patent doesn't apply to natural occurences of said sequence however. So if Ketchum were to patent a sequence of BF DNA she wouldn't be able to charge BFs for the use of the sequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 And it still won't change the pesky little fact that humans are members of the species Homo sapiens. This is in opposition to the claim Mulder presented three days ago -- that an animal could be Homo sapiens and NOT be human. (post #1801 of this thread) That seemingly impossible claim is what I questioned, remains unanswered and unsupported, and I'm guessing only Mulder can provide us with a source for such a claim, if one even exists. Had Mulder provided a factual source to begin with, you'd have heard very little from this a-hat. RayG If you had even bothered to think about it, the answer to your challenge is obvious. Humans are a specific group (H Sapiens Sapiens)...any other H Sapiens is H Sapiens, but is emphatically NOT human. I shouldn't have to point that out to you. Have y'all considered the strangeness of the NDA's? All scientific work that I have known of doesnt't feature nDA's. The data is discussed freely and openly even during peer review. Scientists go to symposiums and discuss findings pre-publication all the time. The only reason these NDA's exist is for $$$$ reasons. It makes no sense. Neither does all the secrecy in regards to publication dates ,content ....etc It smells like a big cash grab rather than a true scientific paper. Nothing says it can't be both. Have y'all considered the strangeness of the NDA's? All scientific work that I have known of doesnt't feature nDA's. The data is discussed freely and openly even during peer review. Scientists go to symposiums and discuss findings pre-publication all the time. The only reason these NDA's exist is for $$$$ reasons. It makes no sense. Neither does all the secrecy in regards to publication dates ,content ....etc It smells like a big cash grab rather than a true scientific paper. Nothing says it can't be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Okay, What is happening? I went to Melba's FB, nothing, here, something's going on. What is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I just don't see Ketchum, and the crew going for a big cash grab, does there members list look like people who need to destroy their professional reputations for a Bigfoot cash grab? Do they look like the kind of people who are stupid enough to think they can pull the wool over the scientific communities eyes? Erickson wants to recoup some of his investment maybe, is there something wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 me three. And when your priority is making money, other things will often suffer. From what we saw in the copyright document (another strange tactic), it would appear that what suffered in this case was figuring out the meaning of the data. So you've seen the paper then, to know what it says and to be able to diagnose any flaws in it's contents? Or are you just blowing more doubt and smoke up our collective hoo-ha-s? My guess is the later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Mulder, I picked up this definition of the word human from an online dictionary. human (hymn) 1. A member of the species Homo sapiens; a human being. 2. A member of any of the extinct species of the genus Homo, such as Homo erectus or Homo habilis, that are considered ancestral or closely related to modern humans. Homo sapiens sapiens is only a subspecies of human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Mulder I believe they are making reference to the description that came with the copy righted title,Sasquatch:The Tribe Revealed. Ketchum explained that was an earlier copyright that was already discounted from the furthering of their own studies. I suspect,and this is only speculation here, that first title was more of an Erickson thing,and with the intervention of Ketchum and Dr. Leila Hadj-Chikh , Erickson science was probably needing to be more refined. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to my meager senses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 according to wikipedia you can patent a sequence of DNA with known function. This patent doesn't apply to natural occurences of said sequence however. So if Ketchum were to patent a sequence of BF DNA she wouldn't be able to charge BFs for the use of the sequence. No, but she could charge anyone wanting to analyze a genetic sample to compare against the BF sequence for the right to reference it. The patenting of gene sequences is big business these days, and causing no small amount of consternation in the international community as big corporations (largely agrobusinesses at the moment) lock up the legal rights to whatever plants (and sometimes animals) that they can get their hands on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) I just don't see Ketchum, and the crew going for a big cash grab, does there members list look like people who need to destroy their professional reputations for a Bigfoot cash grab? Do they look like the kind of people who are stupid enough to think they can pull the wool over the scientific communities eyes? Erickson wants to recoup some of his investment maybe, is there something wrong with that? Melba will become famous, and will be all over the talk shows, it will be really exciting for her, and the other major players. They could end up household names, and in famous magazines. Who knows how much attention this will receive. HOWEVER: It could be treated as a joke by big name news channels. edited to add However.. Edited February 1, 2012 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 That all depends on how strong the science is,do you think Dr. Melba Ketchum and Dr. Leila Hadj-Chikh would put their reputation on the line without good science? I don't think so, but I could be wrong,sure would surprise me to see a Ph.D. in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology from Princeton University participate in a Bigfoot hoax, as well as Dr. Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 If you had even bothered to think about it, the answer to your challenge is obvious. Humans are a specific group (H Sapiens Sapiens)...any other H Sapiens is H Sapiens, but is emphatically NOT human. I shouldn't have to point that out to you. Simply restating your claim doesn't make it true, even if you state it emphatically. I'm completely ignorant of any source that actually supports the claim you're presenting, do you, or do you not have one? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) I really don't have anything intelligent to add, but after watching the fawning and fainting going on here daily, and especially today over absurd Twitter and Facebook postings, I just thought I'd add to the collective intellectual process by using a lot of words made up of letters and punctuation so in case anyone can rearrage some of it to make a cogent and relevant thought, you may do so. On a related note, looking at the Erickson page mentioned above, I LOVE the threats about lawsuits over 'anything' claiming to have to do with the project or the movie. Someone creative here ought to make a short parody trailer and YouTube it then let Erickson sue. I literally read some threads here like this one, and hold my breath because I can't believe the amount of life anyone would invest in worrying about ... "The Ketchum Report". I can only imagine how laughable to the "outsiders" who come here to read the threads here, this all must be. Edited February 2, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove comments unrelated to the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Is there an actual quote anywhere where Dr. Ketchum states explicitly, "I have submiutted a final draft and it has been accepted?" I saw the "no pub date," message recently, but it seemed to lack a difinitive statement the work is done and accepted, although it seemed to imply she was on a final version and so acceptance also implied, as it would have to be in the end of peer review process? Perhaps, I am a tweet or FB message behind, or a perhaps too focused on her word usage. Can you imagine what a mess this would all be in by now if those NDA's weren't in force? Why? For me is the uncertainty, secrecy, jokeying that makes it look messy. If it were all out on the table (perhaps witholding exact locations and images) about where she is in the process and who the submitters are and if the Sierra Kills actually happened, it wouldn't? I mean really, what to lose there? Only raw data puts at risk and noone has that. Only secrecy required to get a jump on competition (is why the do in industry) so why then? Is there a geneticist competing with her to scoop these samples and story? This seems more about consolidation, power and money. You are right this is big stuff for her. that is reflected in the early domain registrations, the copyright plans/applications and most probably patent applications not yet visible. Say noone signed an NDA but they dont have results..and the argue all over the net...so what? They must have an affidavit or declaritive statement of some kind as supporting witness evidence and if their ranting is in contradiction it would be a problem, but if not? Then what's the problem? I don't get it anymore, I used to think this was all Kosher...the secrecy was to protect the important project. I don't anymore, I think it is to protect her position in that project, so some others... We'll see I guess, it will be public record hopefully, eventually. I don't think I buy an argument secrecy is required to foil our Government and it's covert aim to keep Bigfoots hidden, or they would have ended this sooner rather than later? According to Justin he made the Government aware long before it got to the bloggers. Sasquatch sells. Sad. We may rue the day. I have conflicting hopes/fears about what this may mean for Sasquatches. Edited February 2, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I really don't have anything intelligent to add, but after watching the fawning and fainting going on here daily, and especially today over absurd Twitter and Facebook postings, I just thought I'd add to the collective intellectual process by using a lot of words made up of letters and punctuation so in case anyone can rearrage some of it to make a cogent and relevant thought, you may do so. This is the funniest thing I've seen posted on here in quiet awhile, Guy, kudo's to you for my laugh for the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts