[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: John Gwilliam <jkgdiver_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:55:45 2004
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020113075012.009aa2f0_at_pop.primenet.com>

--=====================_4145591==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Morning All,
Thanks are in order to Dr. Grossman for pointing this out to us. We are
again reminded that humans are pretty gullible animals and even intelligent
people can be ignorant about some subjects. Since none of us can be
"experts" on more than a few subjects, we all have to rely on the knowledge
and wisdom of others. Personally, I'm very grateful for the people that
tolerated my questions and encouraged me to "keep looking".

By a show of hands, how many of us were "meteoridiots" when we first got
interested in meteorites? Come on folks...raise your hands.

Yeah....that's better.

BTW, did you all know that the Post Office is going to start charging a use
tax on every email we send?.........;-)

Former Meteoridiot,

John

At 09:25 AM 1/13/02 -0500, Jeff Grossman wrote:
>The letter below is another "urban legend," completely bogus. You can
>file it right next to that Oliver North story about bin Laden we heard a
>while back.
>
>http://www.snopes2.com/humor/letters/smithson.htm
>
>-jeff
>
>At 09:31 PM 1/12/2002, magellon_at_earthlink.net wrote:
>>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
>>
>>Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
>>US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383
>>954 National Center
>>Reston, VA 20192, USA
>>
>>______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing
>>list Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

John Gwilliam Meteorites
PO Box 26854
Tempe AZ 85285
http://www.meteoriteimpact.com
--=====================_4145591==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Morning All, 
Thanks are in order to Dr. Grossman for pointing this out to us. We are
again reminded that humans are pretty gullible animals and even
intelligent people can be ignorant about some subjects.  Since none
of us can be "experts" on more than a few subjects, we all have
to rely on the knowledge and wisdom of others. Personally, I'm very
grateful for the people that tolerated my questions and encouraged me to
"keep looking".   
 
By a show of hands, how many of us were "meteoridiots" when we
first got interested in meteorites?  Come on folks...raise your
hands. 
 
Yeah....that's better. 
 
BTW, did you all know that the Post Office is going to start charging a
use tax on every email we send?.........;-) 
 
Former Meteoridiot, 
 
John  
 
At 09:25 AM 1/13/02 -0500, Jeff Grossman wrote: 
<blockquote type=cite cite>The letter below is another "urban
legend," completely bogus.  You can file it right next to that
Oliver North story about bin Laden we heard a while back. 
 
<a href="http://www.snopes2.com/humor/letters/smithson.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.snopes2.com/humor/letters/smithson.htm</a> 
 
-jeff 
 
At 09:31 PM 1/12/2002, magellon_at_earthlink.net wrote: 
<blockquote type=cite cite>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 cite>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> 
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman       phone: (703) 648-6184 
US Geological Survey          fax:   (703) 648-6383 
954 National Center 
Reston, VA 20192, USA 
 
______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com <a href="http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list" eudora="autourl">http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list</a> </blockquote></blockquote> 
<div>John Gwilliam Meteorites</div>
<div>PO Box 26854</div>
<div>Tempe  AZ  85285</div>
<a href="http://www.meteoriteimpact.com/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.meteoriteimpact.com</a>
</html>

--=====================_4145591==_.ALT--
Received on Sun 13 Jan 2002 10:50:31 AM PST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Matteo Chinellato: "[meteorite-list] Collection Site Update"
Previous message: dean bessey: "[meteorite-list] HUGE THIN SECTION SUNDAY ON EBAY"
In reply to: 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