[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Non-meteoritic Laugh

The following is actually a true story. While it has nothing (or little)
to do with meteoritics, it DOES demonstrate the capacity for humor on
the part of the scientific community, ESPECIALLY the scientists in the
Paleoanthropology Dept. at the Smithsonian. 
	If you don't want a great laugh about a non-meteoritic topic, just hit
"Delete"
	Best wishes, Michael
------
Michael Blood wrote:
> 
> The story behind the letter below is that there is this guy in Newport, RI named Scott Williams who digs things out of his backyard and sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian
Institute, labeling them with scientific names, insisting that they are
actual archaeological finds. This guy really exists.
         I majored in Anthropology both as an undergraduate and as a
graduate. I heard of this fellow since my introductory class as a
freshman, but had never seen any of the actual communication from the
Smithsonian until recently. However, he has assumed a sort of
"underground" super hero stature with anthropologists everwhere.
          Anyway...here's one of the actual responses from the
Smithsonian Institution:
> ===========================================================
> ____________________________________________________
>            Smithsonian Institute
>            207 Pennsylvania Avenue
>            Washington, DC 20078
> 
>           Dear Mr. Williams:
> 
>            Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute,
>            labeled "93211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline
>            post...Hominid skull." We
>            have given this specimen a careful and detailed
>            examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree
>            with your theory
>            that it represents conclusive proof of the presence of Early
>            Man in Charleston County two million years ago.
>            Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of
>            a Barbie doll, of the variety that one of our staff, who
>            has small children, believes
>            to be "Malibu Barbie." It is evident that you have given a
>            great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and
>            you may be quite certain that
>            those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the
>            field were loathe to come to contradiction with your
>            findings.
> 
>            However, we do feel that there are a number of physical
>            attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you
>            off to its modern origin:
>            1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid
>                remains are typically fossilized bone.
>            2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9
>                cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the
>                earliest identified proto-homonids.
>            3. The dentition pattern evident on the skull is more
>                consistent with the common domesticated dog than it
>                    is with the ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams you
>                    speculate roamed the wetlands during that time.
>            This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing
>            hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this
>            institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather
>            heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let
>            us say that:
> 
>                  A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll
>                                that a dog has chewed on.
>                  B. Clams don't have teeth.
> 
>            It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must
>            deny your request to have the specimen carbon-dated.
>            This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear
>            in its normal operation, and partly due to carbon-dating's
>            notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record.
>            To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were
>            produced prior to1956 AD, and carbon-dating is likely to
>            produce wildly inaccurate results.
>            Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach
>            the National Science Foundation Phylogeny Department
>            with the
>            concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name
>            Australopithecus spiff-arino. Speaking personally, I, for
>            one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your
>            proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down
>            because the species name you selected was hyphenated,
>            and didn't reall sound like it might be Latin.
>            However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this
>            fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is
>            undoubtedly not a Hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet
>            another riveting example of the great body of
>            work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You
>            should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf
>            in his own office for the display of the specimens you
>            have previously submitted to the Institution, and the
>            entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon
>            next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your
>            Newport back yard.
> 
>            We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital
>            that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us
>            are pressing the Director to
>            pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you
>            expand on your theories surrounding the trans-positating
>            fillifitation of ferrous metal in a structural matrix that
>            makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur
>            you
>            recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a
>            rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.
> 
>            Yours in Science,
> 
>            Harvey Rowe
>            Chief Curator-Antiquities
>            all kinds