southernyahoo Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I can't figure out why Lindsey has "his" copyright on the supposed Sierra Kills photo of the steak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Probably only because it is his photo. I've seen different photographers copyright pictures of Larry Bird or Michael Jordan, because it was their work taking the picture. Obviously they don't own Larry Bird, but wouldn't want someone taking their image, making posters out of in and cashing in. I don't think he's claiming he owns the sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 You ought to read what he says about it himself, fellas. It is a "holding copyright" in the same way as Melissa's protection for the photo of the rear of purported sasquatch had her or her group's name on it. It seems to be to prevent others taking the image and claiming it, but doesn't imply a claim of his own. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I don't understand how you can have a drawing based upon a DNA sample. I do not see anything in Lindsay's post that is earth shattering. Still no confirmation that Ketchum's paper has been accepted for publication. I think we can reasonably infer that the paper has not been accepted as of today for publication, and that it may in fact never be published in a journal. At a hundred I predicted we would get to 150 prior to publication, at 150 I predicted we would get to 200 before publication and here we are. My prediction now is that somewhere between 250 and 300 this topic will start to die out due to lack of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 No offence bigfootnis, but you obviously glanced at the article, read nothing, then still felt the need to come on here and post about it. This kind of critical analyse is far to common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Dr. Ketchum doesn't have forever. Her info on the DNA will come out one way or another eventually. Just because it hasn't been published yet doesn't mean it won't be published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I don't understand how you can have a drawing based upon a DNA sample. It would indeed be very difficult to make a drawing of a creature "based on a DNA sample"... If you want more background on how the drawings were made I would recommend reading through the Sierra Kills thread in the General Discussion Forum. These are purportedly drawings done by an artist in cooperation with Mr. Smeja, the shooter of the two BF's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I just thought of something--what if the delay is because they are trying to patent the "anomalous" DNA itself, or even the entire genome, in the way that biotech companies do with genes? (I don't know if this is possible, and frankly I'm appalled that people would try to patent something they did not themselves invent, but would not be surprised. Doesn't this happen pretty regularly nowadays?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 ^ I don't know if they can. I actually don't mind if they are trying to profit someway (anyway) from all of this. Whether it's money, awards, recognition or whatever. It's their deal, they deserve all accolades. I'm just hoping it's not delayed because they are trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 ...could be they're just waiting for the clones to hatch?... ( duck & run now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I just thought of something--what if the delay is because they are trying to patent the "anomalous" DNA itself, or even the entire genome, in the way that biotech companies do with genes? (I don't know if this is possible, and frankly I'm appalled that people would try to patent something they did not themselves invent, but would not be surprised. Doesn't this happen pretty regularly nowadays?) You can't patent the genes or genomes themselves, but can patent a test to detect a unique sequence within it. It would be tricky buisness if they were too variable and diluted as some sort of hybridized species or if there were multiple species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 No offence bigfootnis, but you obviously glanced at the article, read nothing, then still felt the need to come on here and post about it. This kind of critical analyse is far to common. No offence taken. What part of the article did I glance over. I did not read anything not already stated somewhere before except for information about the drawings. Did I mess something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Dr. Ketchum doesn't have forever. Her info on the DNA will come out one way or another eventually. Just because it hasn't been published yet doesn't mean it won't be published. If she doesn't want to be "scooped" she'd better get it in gear. Sykes is pulling up quickly with his "fast track" study. I suspect (but cannot at this point prove) that the Sykes study may well be more in the middle than the beginning stages. His request for samples may be more of a request for additional samples, and he's just not saying that for whatever reasons. This would explain the recent odd activities in the Ketchum camp. They know they're out of time, and are pushing hard towards a final draft. You can't patent the genes or genomes themselves, but can patent a test to detect a unique sequence within it. It would be tricky buisness if they were too variable and diluted as some sort of hybridized species or if there were multiple species. Actually, you can patent the genome (the sequenced gene) if you are the first to sequence it. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Gene_patent And it's very bad news for science...but that's another discussion. BTW: the process of hunting down existing genes to patent is called "bioprospecting" (or more accurately "biopiracy") Edited June 10, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 No offence taken. What part of the article did I glance over. I did not read anything not already stated somewhere before except for information about the drawings. Did I mess something? You need to read BFSleuths response to your comment, which you'll find above. But, basically - the drawings aren't based on DNA samples, but from the memory of the supposed killer. Which, you'd know if you read the whole article on Robert Lindsay's blog where the images appeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Actually, you can patent the genome (the sequenced gene) if you are the first to sequence it. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Gene_patent And it's very bad news for science...but that's another discussion. BTW: the process of hunting down existing genes to patent is called "bioprospecting" (or more accurately "biopiracy") Interesting, It says you can patent a naturally occuring isolated gene, but are rarely awarded or upheld in courts. Obviously because it can hinder science and or diagnostics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts