Whenever you’re somehow exposed to the public as a specialist for anything, you get email. From colleagues, from amateurs – and from kooks. I certainly do not qualify for the kinds of carzy, batshit insane and often hateful stuff much more notorious people get (think PZ Myers), but there have been a few instances where I got really fucked up stuff.
Sometimes, weird emails may come from people from cultures much different from mine, so I try not to let appearance make me conclude someone is nuts right away. Rather, I may reply in a friendly manner once or twice. But if the nonsense keeps coming in unsolicited and ever crazier, there is a good way to stop it quickly in most cases: I tell the writer that I do not wish to receive unsolicited emails, and that I will make future emails public.
One such case is a guy who calls himself Peter Mihalda. No idea if it is his real name, but that’s what the email sender claims. I told him off a while ago, after he had been sending crazy emails for a while, and that seemed to shut him off. Now he is back, and not just crazy, but outright racist. OK, Peter or whatever your name may be. Below are your emails, to warn any sane person in the world off.
Peter Mihalda <firstname.lastname@example.org> Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:14 AM Greetings, if you think that Sheyla B is the only one who mystificates people on the scientific level - you are very wrong. There is another group of scientists ("dr Sepulveda et amigos"), working in the same field of science - history, but this time history of animals. They are much more successful in what they do... Two animals, very well fossilized and preserved, from about the same time period (era) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Batrachotomus_kupferzellensis.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Herrerasaurus_ischigualastensis_DSC_2929.jpg They are extremely similar to one another (and believe me in a great detail), yet very different. In a twisted theory of this "banda terrorista", they represent a very important step in evolution of vertebrate animals, namely one is a primitive animal and another one very modern. But how to identify them correctly? "Good guy, bad guy - which is which?" The "key to understand" is very simple - it is necessary only to look at the calcaneum (an ankle bone): if this is small (reduced) an animal is a "bird", if the bone is big it is a crocodile. And if you think this is a joke, you are wrong again... One of them, dr. Jacques Gauthier (if you think he is French - again wrong: he is "American", and even more (or the most?) Californian), a spiritual brother of Lance Armstrong and Sai Baba from Bangalore (p.b.u.h.): "It was nature...it was God...not us...who has chosen and created this miracle of animal world, and we are those who have correctly identified that" It is irrelevant and unimportant that one is this gang, dr. Currie, has recently shown that one group of these "bird-line archosaurs" (or dinosaurs, if you wish), crocodile-like creatures from Mongolia, still have the big calcaneum, because it is THEM who create the rules, and therefore they determine where it is important and where not. This is almost a perfect game: 1-"we said it - it is in accord with our theory", 2-"the structure has turned back to the primitive condition, it is an evolutionary turnover, so it is still in accord with our theory". If this is not enough, they have a "joker in their sleeve" - a double-turnover. So what to say at these scientific mystificators? Maybe to cite Abu Nuwas: "Allah akbar. Teacher do not betray me! If I get 4, 2 are yours. Fools will remain fools. Allahu akbar." Peter Mihalda
but soon he was back for more:
Peter Mihalda <email@example.com> Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:26 AM Greetings, it is very sad but Dr. Marjanovic lies. Those are PALEONTOLOGISTS who determine the relationships among extinct animals. Nobody and nothing else. I have asked many of them "and how do you explain skeletal features" and they answered "data are put to a computer, the programme runs, and then ACCORDING TO results skeletal characters are explained". Argentineans explain it a very strange way http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app55/app20090099.pdf p. 416 "primitive presence of X - presence of Y - gain of X" I look at Neuquensaurus or Saltasaurus, I see primitive features, and I say they have NEVER changed, so the animals are primitive (with some other derived features). Argentineans say this "A primitive feature had changed to derived one, and then changed again back to the very same primitive feature, so the animals are super-derived with two changes". So I may look at a frog and say "What I see now is primitive, but maybe it was ONLY originally primitive, then it had changed and then changed back" and if I find some derived feature I may say "based on this derived character it is clear that the animal is super derived, with two changes, because all other features must have changed at least twice (and why not 4 times, to have quatro-reversals?)". It is absurd. Similarily, dr. Marjanovic explains all the similarities between the two important fossil animals as "A bunch of symplesiomorphies and a handful of convergences", because one animal has a "heel" - as Dr. Marjanovic calls it - on its ankle. A damned spur is the whole evolution! Maybe I am little blind, and maybe other people have better sight, but I really do not see any other differences (of course there are some but not those which say one is a bird and another a crocodile). Brusatte et al in their big analysis did not find these two animals to be closely related, but why? Because their data matrix is centered on an ankle, and because they KNEW before that an ankle is a problem in their theory. "Only" 17 ankle characters http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Benton/reprints/2010Brusatte.pdf People should vote, as they vote politicians because science is a very important part of our society. But I did not vote Mark Norell or Paul Sereno to be "high authorities" in paleontology. WHO they are? And WHO has authorized them? And WHAT is their achievement, "fruits of their work"? A scientific mystification. And where is Darren Naish, with his eagles? Everybody knows (in Asia even children) that an eagle is unable to take a wolf, but when it comes to the "cracking of nuts", to solve some essential problem of evolution, he is like "And what others say, for example, in USA? No. So no, these two animals are not closery related to one another. Oh, in fact they are very different but people do not understand that because they are not familiar with our programme, and with a greater sample, and with science in general, I know that because I have a diploma, and others are imbeciles - if they are not, why they do not have diplomas?". That our society must be divided and not everybody can have a diploma in paleontology, archeology or economy, it is impossible to explain to him. Some people asked me if it was always like that. Oh no! Prof Huene, a German paleontologist, has found it 65 years ago. But his ideas are rejected because - I think - he was a nazi (like 99% of all other Germans who voted Adolf Hitler in 1936). It is incredible that in 2013 science may collapse on the "human factor", namely vanity. Absurd. But yes, THESE are "hundred years after apes", out of date, and their super-methods have produced scientific nonsense. Peter Mihalda
You had enough yet?
It seems dear Peter assumes I am getting some emails that I am not getting, which makes his weird and unconnected ramblings even more weird and unconnected. Not that it matters, though.
And I love how he must keep insulting people and use ad hominem attacks, the evidence for which is purely in his head – Huene was AFAIK (based on a paper by Reif & Lux about his life and work) anything BUT a Nazi.
OK, I’ve given you a sample, I’ll spare you the rest except for a few very interesting snippets that highlight the character of Peter Mihalda. But I’ll upload PDFs of the email exchanges, which include me notice to him that I will post future emails by him.
Choice quotes from them:
Those were OUR expeditions (aka European, namely Polish and Russian) for OUR money, and Mongols ONLY joined them they did not find anything because you know they live in tents (aka yurts) and ride horses (and sometimes (Jenghiz Khan) they attack and smash us).
Hm, reminds me a lot of Third Reich rhetoric!
[re Naish and Gauthier] I-do-not-know-whether-they-are-sane....
Well, I have never met “dr. Gauthier”, but I have met Darren Naish, and he is quite sane. As opposed to Peter Mihalda. And dear Peter doesn’t even know his anatomy terms either…. Tsk, tsk.
I hope he stops spamming my inbox now. Seems he has found new targets in some colleagues. Maybe they have as much fun reading his shit as I had, but the joke gets old.