>One of the reasons for my silence I've already given in a previous post. Another reason, which I haven't mentioned before, is based on the visit to Jack Coles by Dr. Anthony Fraser-Smith of Stanford and Andy Michael of the USGS. They totally debunked his ideas based on preconceived notions. Hence, the way that I want to do this is to get to the point of being consistently statistically significant that is recognized by the scientific community before I even think of revealing what it is that I am using. I don't want to get into the position of being defeated before I even get started.
>>

Not exactly how Andy tells it AND you left one name off the list.....Richard Stead was lead man on the trip to Jacks house that day...Richard told me in no uncertain way that Jack had promised not to make a media show out of the visit. When USGS etal arrived, media was all over the place....and there was a disagreement...USGS etal decided that Jack was using the situation to gain some notoriety and refused to even look at Jacks low-tech tools until the media left....media refused.....and USGS etal went home....I am sure Andy will attest to the same story......

Bob