Guest Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 There will be press releases for all of the papers, and mags like National Geographic. Mike I think it is pretty presumptive at this point to think that the release of the so-called paper will generate any interest in the press other than the tabloids. I have seen no evidence that there is anything of import in this paper. I have also seen no confirmation that the paper has been accepted for publication. I think it is pretty safe to assume that as of today, the paper has not been accepted for publication. Finally, as a lawyer, I can tell you that NDAs are not worth the paper there printed on and in my opinion the NDA's are an excuse for not coming forth with details. Noting about this paper has been confirmed but "a paper has been submitted". Anyone can submit a paper and then make vague claims about what it purports to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 NDA's aren't worth the paper they are written on? What?!!!!! I have just protected an invention prior to its patenting through a series of NDAs, and it worked a treat despite being half way around the world under a different legal system. My legal advice was the complete opposite of what you have just given. I paid for that advice, so that's the advice I'm going to take, rather than your freebie. You are, of course, entitled to your speculation on the existence or otherwise of the paper, and whether or not anyone will be interested. I happen to know that the BBC will be very interested, but that doesn't quite fit with your world view...... BTW, I didn't claim that there would be interest in the press (although I am sure there will be).......simply that there will be a press release. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) Here's the layperson version Human mumbo jumbo DNA that is so unusual, yet so many samples that are alike, gathered under squatchy circumstances, that it's a statistical slam dunk they must be from a new species Edited May 9, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I think it is pretty presumptive at this point to think that the release of the so-called paper will generate any interest in the press other than the tabloids. I have seen no evidence that there is anything of import in this paper. I have also seen no confirmation that the paper has been accepted for publication. I think it is pretty safe to assume that as of today, the paper has not been accepted for publication. Finally, as a lawyer, I can tell you that NDAs are not worth the paper there printed on and in my opinion the NDA's are an excuse for not coming forth with details. Noting about this paper has been confirmed but "a paper has been submitted". Anyone can submit a paper and then make vague claims about what it purports to prove. I think your presumption that only tabloids would be interested is .... interesting. Not that I read tabloids, but I don't recall them breaking news regarding Denisovan DNA, Neanderthal DNA, or the Red Deer Cave people. Meanwhile many of the major newspapers and magazines covered those pretty well, unless you count the New York Times, Nature, or Science as tabloids.... I also find it rather amusing that you say you are a lawyer, yet think that NDA's are "not worth the paper there [sic] printed on". Are you advising your clients to either not sign NDA's or advising them to break the terms of the NDA's? How would you advise them in regards to getting future opportunities to participate in research, jobs, or business opportunities that require NDA's once they have established a reputation for disregarding them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I want to be clear. I was not giving legal advice. I was just giving my opinion as to NDAs which is nothing more than a contract. NDAs are often lumped with agreements not to compete which is a different animal. They are also usually purchased as in a settlement agreement. I pay you this amount you agree not to disclose this fact. If you do, then I will sue you to get my money back. That type of NDA has some teeth. Other types of NDAs usually do not. Anyone who signs an NDA is free to disregard the NDA as they choose. They just have to pay the price for the contract breach. The remedy against such person is the damages that resulted from the "breach of the contract". There usually isn't a lot of damages in the breach of NDA so that is what I mean when I say they are not worth the paper they are printed on. I am a big fan of the BBC by the way and I am a little puzzled how you could make presumptions about my world view based upon my skepticism and speculation regarding the Ketchum Paper. I think your presumption that only tabloids would be interested is .... interesting. Not that I read tabloids, but I don't recall them breaking news regarding Denisovan DNA, Neanderthal DNA, or the Red Deer Cave people. Meanwhile many of the major newspapers and magazines covered those pretty well, unless you count the New York Times, Nature, or Science as tabloids.... I think you missing my point. The Denisovan DNA and the Red Deer Cave people was breaking news. In my opinion, I simply do not think that the Ketchum Paper, if it is every published, will be breaking news. I have seen no evidence that the paper contains anything of merit. I have seen unverified second hand information about what the paper purports to prove. I have also read some unsubstaniated hyperbole about the so-called paper. However, not a single person can verify that the paper has been accepted for publication. No one can identify a single Ph.D that has worked on the paper except for Dr. Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I would think as a lawyer you would understand the potential significance of Dr Ketchums study, particularly if it plays out the way it has been "leaked" to. Again, I would like to mention this in not a fish, or an obscure Asian monkey we are talking about here. As for any other academic types stepping forward, or revealing they are part of all this, of course they would not, they also would understand the significance and potential of the study. Not to mention they certainly do not feel they answer to any internet forum speculators, no matter how they dress themselves up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Bigfootnis, you are correct that it is easy to break an NDA if you are so motivated, especially if you have not been compensated for signing one. However, as a person that regularly signs and abides by NDA's I also understand very clearly that if I get a reputation in my industry for breaking NDA's my future opportunities will dry up. Trust is everything. Your assumption that the other people involved in the study should feel free to break their NDA's to satisfy a bunch of BF enthusiasts doesn't account for the fact that these people are likely involved on a regular basis with projects that require a reputation of their word being their bond when it comes to NDA's. If I were one of the people involved in the study and I happened to also read forums such as BFF I would be less inclined to come out with any statement of my involvement with the study in advance of publication. The level of rancorous speculation and character assassination of Dr. Ketchum would motivate me to keep my silence and my terms in the NDA until after publication. I would let her continue to be the lightening rod and let me keep on doing what I do without distraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I am a little puzzled how you could make presumptions about my world view based upon my skepticism and speculation regarding the Ketchum Paper. .......erm, because you said this: I think it is pretty presumptive at this point to think that the release of the so-called paper will generate any interest in the press other than the tabloids. Difficult to get confused over your meaning there, I reckon. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I agree John C that if the paper plays out the way it has been leaked, then it will have potential significance and it will be breaking news. I just have doubt that it will play out as it has been leaked. And for the record, I am a believer. I just have doubts about this paper. Bigfootnis, you are correct that it is easy to break an NDA if you are so motivated, especially if you have not been compensated for signing one. However, as a person that regularly signs and abides by NDA's I also understand very clearly that if I get a reputation in my industry for breaking NDA's my future opportunities will dry up. Trust is everything. You make a good point on the reputation part of the NDA and trust is everything. And I will also note that I would have been better off saying "In my opinion" rather than "it is presumptive at this point". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Its the potential significance that, to me, makes for no surprise in the delays, as well as Dr Ketchums conservation efforts beginning prior to the release. I can definitively see the potential for some people higher up in the "institution" saying. " You cannot just release results that indicate this is a living relative from the same branch as man" It could very well upset, and change the overall definition of what is human, and what is not, etc. Its the leaks and our own speculation that leads to the frustration, but some things are factual. Dr Ketchum , and the people that she is associated with are professionals at what they do. There is money behind this study. There are several clear ties to the Bigfoot community, and evidence it has gathered. There are people here, on this forum, that have provided samples to this study, and continue to adhere to the NDA's they signed. (and good for them for sticking this out). To assume the results have been rejected, or it is of no significance due to delays and silence does not makes sense to me. I think that rejection, or erroneous results, would be something that would leak out, or be talked about more openly than actual significant results. A reminder, this is a private study, so the potential for profit due to sensationalism, as ground breaking news will be something the people who put the money up for the study would be interested in, why wouldn't they? From an academic point of view, they would certainly want to cross their T's and dot their I's, and be very thorough before they go public with such a thing, considering the culture of ridicule, and distrust that surrounds the subject. Delays and silence,.....makes perfect sense to me. An elaborate hoax, or ridiculous whimsy, makes no sense to me, considering the caliber of people involved,and the diversity of the people involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Well said, JohnC. If half the rumors and leaks are true regarding what they may have found in the DNA sequencing, then it behooves all involved with the paper to make absolutely sure they are rock solid with their methods, results, and conclusions. From the authors and researchers to the editors and peer reviewers I would think every one of them would want to be sure of the paper before it is published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) I think it is pretty presumptive at this point to think that the release of the so-called paper will generate any interest in the press other than the tabloids. I have seen no evidence that there is anything of import in this paper. I have also seen no confirmation that the paper has been accepted for publication. I think it is pretty safe to assume that as of today, the paper has not been accepted for publication. Finally, as a lawyer, I can tell you that NDAs are not worth the paper there printed on and in my opinion the NDA's are an excuse for not coming forth with details. Noting about this paper has been confirmed but "a paper has been submitted". Anyone can submit a paper and then make vague claims about what it purports to prove. I could not agree more! But it doesn't matter, there will be nothing conclusive coming out of this paper regarding proof of BF. Besides, DNA related proof would be great, so the world could say 'holly crap, Bigfoot really does exist', but what people really want to see are pictures or a video...which have zip to do with a paper on DNA and for which there is zero reason not to produce...something...anything! But I'm a firm believer that there is no digital evidence...even though people involved with this camp claim to have repeated observations of BF. Skeptical of this paper, but not so much Sasquatch in general! Edited May 9, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I think the magnitude of her paper might be enough to hit the headlines. It's DNA proof right? It's what a lot of skeptics wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) I think the magnitude of her paper might be enough to hit the headlines. It's DNA proof right? It's what a lot of skeptics wanted. It would be huge headlines...and if there were legitimate scientific minded folks in the know that this proof was even in the works and forthcoming...it would be out there in the mainstream by now. Edited May 9, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Been unattentive for the most part for a while, so forgive me, but what are some of the "leaks and rumors"? And, is there a chance that at least part of the hold up is due to a conflict of opinion as to what the results may change in the view of science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts