Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The Smithsonian Institute Responds

  1. #1
    Join Date
    22nd July 2005 - 00:27
    Bike
    77 XL250
    Location
    Tararua
    Posts
    1,576

    The Smithsonian Institute Responds

    The story behind the letter below is that a man in Newport, R.I., Scott Williams, digs things out of his backyard and sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labelling them with scientific names and insisting they are actual archaeological finds. Here's an actual response from the Smithsonian Institute:


    Smithsonian Institute
    207 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, DC 20078

    Dear Mr. Williams:
    Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labelled "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 that might have tipped you off to its modern origin:
    1. The material is moulded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.
    2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimetres, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.
    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 AD 1956, 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 Institute, 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 backyard.
    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
    The best way to forget all your troubles is to wear tight underpants.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    25th May 2004 - 23:04
    Bike
    1963 Ford Thunderbird
    Location
    Horowhenua
    Posts
    1,869
    Must be related to a couple of nutters who regularly write to the Manawatu Standard - Richard 'Murray' Tingey and Ineke Diepgrond (sp?). The first is morally opposed to the repeal of the smacking law, and the second writes total crap about anything and everything.
    Yes, I am pedantic about spelling and grammar so get used to it!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    7th November 2004 - 11:00
    Bike
    Aquired by locals
    Location
    Groote Eylandt
    Posts
    6,606
    Why are these people alive?
    To every man upon this earth
    Death cometh sooner or late
    And how can a man die better
    Than facing fearful odds
    For the ashes of his fathers
    And the temples of his Gods

  4. #4
    Join Date
    21st July 2005 - 12:00
    Bike
    92 Yamaha FJ1430A
    Location
    Nana Republic
    Posts
    2,543
    Blog Entries
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Sniper
    Why are these people alive?

    because it is illegal to kill them
    Life is tough. It's tougher when you're stupid

    SARGE
    represented by GCM

  5. #5
    Join Date
    24th January 2005 - 14:30
    Bike
    A Cage
    Location
    Kapiti
    Posts
    647
    The first is morally opposed to the repeal of the smacking law
    You think someones a nutter because they want to be able to smack their kids?
    Or is it just soemthing in the way he writes that marks him as a nutter?
    .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    25th May 2004 - 23:04
    Bike
    1963 Ford Thunderbird
    Location
    Horowhenua
    Posts
    1,869
    Quote Originally Posted by LiasTZ
    You think someones a nutter because they want to be able to smack their kids?
    Or is it just soemthing in the way he writes that marks him as a nutter?
    Sorry, meant to say he is morally opposed to smacking, not the repeal of the law - he's one of the ones who want to ban smacking. He cannot see the difference between a slap on the leg to discipline a child and a full-on beating. This is an example of his way of thinking: he was in the post office a while back and bought a stamp that had a picture of a vineyard on it. He refused to accept the stamp and staff initially thought it was torn or otherwise damaged. No, the reason he didn't want THAT stamp is because he was sending the letter to a 14 year-old girl (never said why HE was writing to a 14 year-old girl!) and he could not put such an evil thing on it. He said a stamp with a picture of a vineyard would encouraging drinking!
    Yes, I am pedantic about spelling and grammar so get used to it!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    25th October 2002 - 12:00
    Bike
    Old Blue, Little blue
    Location
    31.29.57.11, 116.22.22.22
    Posts
    4,864
    That reply is priceless - gave me a great laugh - quite cheered up me day!
    Who said scientists don't have a sense of humour and aren't understanding of human frailties!!
    “- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •