Speaking of which, my sister just sent this:
The story behind the letter below is that there is this nutball in
>Newport,
>> RI named Scott Williams who digs things out of his backyard and
sends the
>> stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labelling them with
>scientific
>> names, insisting that they are actual archaeological finds.
>>
>> This guy really exists and does this in his spare time! Anyway...here's
>the
>> actual response from the Smithsonian Institution. Bear this in mind
next
>time
>> you think you are challenged in your duty to respond to a difficult
>situation
>> in writing.
>>
>> Personally, I believe that although this guy really deserves to show up
on
>a
>> 2000 Darwin Awards Nominee list, the world would probably be a
much
duller
>> place without him.
>>
>>
>> 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
>> |
