[meteorite-list] Meteorwrongs
From: trandall_at_idsi.net <trandall_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:55:45 2004 Message-ID: <a05100300b8669c8e4704_at_[216.91.17.63]> --============_-1201197672==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Oh this is TOO funny! A great response from the Smithsonian! Thanks for posting it! A Barbie doll head! I wonder if I should send in the plastic spaceman I dug up in the garden last year, I know it was mine from when I was a little kid! Nahhhh... Regards, Tom Randall www.idsi.net/~trandall/welcome.html >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
--
--============_-1201197672==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [meteorite-list]
Meteorwrongs</title></head><body>
<div><br></div>
<div> Oh this is TOO funny! A great response from the
Smithsonian! Thanks for posting it! A Barbie doll head! I wonder if I
should send in the plastic spaceman I dug up in the garden last year,
I know it was mine from when I was a little kid! Nahhhh...</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Tom Randall</div>
<div>www.idsi.net/~trandall/welcome.html</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">Hi
all:</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">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.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">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.<br>
___________________________________________________</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<font size="-1">Smithsonian Institute<br>
207 Pennsylvania Avenue<br>
Washington, DC 20078</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">Dear Mr.
Williams:</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">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.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">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:</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">1. The material is molded
plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.<br>
2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic
centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified
proto-homonids.<br>
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.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">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:</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">A. The specimen looks
like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.<br>
B. Clams don't have teeth.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">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.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">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.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">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.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">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.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">Yours in
Science,</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">Harvey Rowe<br>
Chief Curator- Antiquities</font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1201197672==_ma============--
Received on Sat 12 Jan 2002 09:13:59 PM PST
|
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|