[meteorite-list] Meteorwrongs

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

From: magellon_at_earthlink.net <magellon_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:55:45 2004
Message-ID: <3C40F18B.C4797DDD_at_earthlink.net>

--------------5062EFEF1F864279094C2DBF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Excellent example Dean!
Bravo to the Smithsonian.
Their patience is only matched by their sense of humor.
Ken Newton

Dean Langadas wrote:

> Hi all: Since a few folks on the board have opted to slam an
> individual for his ongoing postings of meteorwrongs, I thought I'd
> post one of my old favorites, how to let a guy down easy. This is a
> real letter to a real guy, and it fits the occasion. Good for a
> laugh, and some of you guys need to take the hint.
>
> There is a gentleman in Newport, VT named Scott Williams who digs
> things out of his back yard and sends them to the Smithsonian
> Institute, labeling them with scientific names, and insisting that
> they are actual archaeological finds. Here is an actual response 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 to 1956 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 really 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 ions 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

--------------5062EFEF1F864279094C2DBF
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Excellent example Dean!
 Bravo to the Smithsonian.
 Their patience is only matched by their sense of humor.
 Ken Newton
Dean Langadas wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
Hi all: Since
a few folks on the board have opted to slam an individual for his ongoing
postings of meteorwrongs, I thought I'd post one of my old favorites, how
to let a guy down easy.  This is a real letter to a real guy, and
it fits the occasion.  Good for a laugh, and some of you guys need
to take the hint.  
There is a gentleman in Newport, VT named Scott Williams
who digs things out of his back yard and sends them to the Smithsonian
Institute, labeling them with scientific names, and insisting that they
are actual archaeological finds. Here is an actual response 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 to 1956 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 really 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 ions 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</blockquote>

</body>
</html>

--------------5062EFEF1F864279094C2DBF--
Received on Sat 12 Jan 2002 09:31:39 PM PST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Matson, Robert: "[meteorite-list] Meteorwrongs and tolerance"
Previous message: Ron Baalke: "[meteorite-list] Planet X"
Next in thread: Jeff Grossman: "[meteorite-list] Meteorwrongs"
Reply: Jeff Grossman: "[meteorite-list] Meteorwrongs"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

StumbleUpon

del.icio.us

Yahoo MyWeb