Smithsonian Institute Submission

[SatchFan 0]

This is a classic. This nut digs up stuff in his back yard and submits
his "findings" to the Smithsonian.

Here's their response to his latest buried treasure:

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-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 one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "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 yourfindings.

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-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.

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's 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 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
Curator, Antiquities

[indyz 1]

That is really funny, even though it's fake.

[AggieDave 6]

Don'tcha hate how Snopes kills all the really good 'net stories...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[indyz 1]

Quote

Don'tcha hate how Snopes kills all the really good 'net stories...

I'm thinking about writing a Snopes-bot that'll fact check new posts, but it would probably piss too many people off (one person in particular).

[AggieDave 6]

I feel like that every time someone e-mails me something like that. I have better things to do then have my e-mail clutter up with useless crap like that, I mean, that takes away valuable postwhoring time...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[SatchFan 0]

Quote

Quote

Don'tcha hate how Snopes kills all the really good 'net stories...

I'm thinking about writing a Snopes-bot that'll fact check new posts, but it would probably piss too many people off (one person in particular).

Alright already. This post wasn't any more useless than any other thread that I have come across in here.

[AggieDave 6]

We didn't say it was useless, I enjoyed reading the story again, and it still brought a smile to my face.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[freeflyz 0]

IT SUCKS

[SatchFan 0]

Thanks for making it clear. I was getting mixed signals.