Guest Tazz77 Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I do not even care about waiting on the publishing of the DNA results. Instead of DNA it is NDA that interests me. There seems to be a lot of people who know who cant say. Show me the NDA please. Is there a NDA on the NDA? Surely someone would be willing to produce one. There seems to have been so many signed there is surely a score of copies laying around. Keep your DNA. Can I see the NDA? Hey guys I know I am new here and I am just trying to contribute. I am not trying to guarantee the authenticity of this but here is a purported NDA by Ketchum copy http://bigfootfieldreporter.com/wordpress/tag/melba-ketchum/
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 That NDA is dated from July 25th of last year. That is a computer generated form with a few fields filled out prior to printing directly from a computer. That wasn't crafted by a lawyer but printed with a template. Surely that is not the NDA I seek.
kbhunter Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 KB, if this is true (not saying it isn't, just disclaimering), then it is a prime example of why I don't trust Science as an institution. If the paper exists and hasn't been rejected, then it should be published ASAP. There is no good reason for a find of this magnitude to be held in "limbo". Well, I can say I can't disagree with you as far as trusting science. See, "science" starts with a hypothesis and has to proven out There are many scientists that could agree the DNA is the matches "something", but as it has been said many times, it has to be matched to something that is identified as the subject of the hypothesis. Depending on how many true examples and or evidence has been submitted for proof, it may or may not be enough for all scientists to exclaim a proven end result worthy of publication. It has to be approved by all and signed off as complete. with names and reputations being involved, I can easily imagine why it is where it is. Show me the NDA please. Is there a NDA on the NDA? Surely someone would be willing to produce one. There seems to have been so many signed there is surely a score of copies laying around. Keep your DNA. Can I see the NDA? There are many NDA's associated with this. None of them will lead you to the final result. They are not uncommon in this field of study as squaltting squatch says. KB
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 That does not work for me. Can we not use blanket statements? I am seeking an NDA specific to the working up of the "Ketchum Report" that would be dated sometime in the 2008 2009 range. Looking for a lawyer crafted document that will probably be notarized after it is signed.
kbhunter Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Well Woodswalker, since I have seen a few of these, I tell you...it would do you no good with those dates. Now, seeing the paper itself and all of the supporting evidence, that is what you want to see. There are many NDA's associated with this. KB
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Are you trying to Obi Wan Kenobi me? Those are the droids I am looking for sir.
kbhunter Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Not sure of your question or intent here WW. Would you like to explain that comment? KB
southernyahoo Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Woodswalker I can tell you that the linked NDA above is not what a submitter of samples would have signed. It would say "Research and Testing Agreement" at the top. I could certainly show you the real deal, but it would likely not go over well with Melba.
Guest icicle Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Well, I'm further into this thread now, and I think I'm starting to put it together. Ha. I'm having fun at home, as I'm English and Hubby is American. "What???" I've been saying "You mean you lot failed to notice a ten foot tall furry hominim thats been stealing your kids, ripping your heads off and hanging out in your back gardens??" But he counters my sophisticated arguments by creeping up behind me going "Here chicky chicky..!" Its not fair Edited October 18, 2012 by icicle
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 There are many scientists that could agree the DNA is the matches "something", but as it has been said many times, it has to be matched to something that is identified as the subject of the hypothesis. Depending on how many true examples and or evidence has been submitted for proof, it may or may not be enough for all scientists to exclaim a proven end result worthy of publication. It has to be approved by all and signed off as complete. with names and reputations being involved, I can easily imagine why it is where it is. I can't myself. If it doesn't match any other sample in the Gene banks (and they're very complete, from what I've read) then by definition they are NEW, esp since there aren't supposed to be any higher primates other than H Sapiens Sapiens running around the N Am continent.
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Does anyone here remember what Elisha Gray is known for? I'm getting the feeling that with the other potential releases out there, that Dr. Ketchum and her report might be known for being in second place one day too... St. G- Edited October 18, 2012 by St. George
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) The American Journal Of Human Genetics? What happens when you search for "Ketchum" on their site? Why does it find a match but nothing highlighted to show why it was matched to my search criteria? Edited October 18, 2012 by Woodswalker
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) ok now the nda's that had to be signed by the people that submitted samples can't be shown because that would upset Ketchum, right? So there is a nda that says you can't show the nda that you signed when you first submitted your sample . it gets better by the minute. Edited October 18, 2012 by squatting squatch
Recommended Posts