Not all the nutballs are at Hickory Farms (or the BP).  I just got this one
forwarded to me.  --Jim Rhodes:

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, labeling 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 1998 Darwin Awards Nominee list, the world would
probably be a much duller place without him.

Smithsonian Institution
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-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 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