Re: Where is Geology 401?

Greg Billock (
Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:53:14 -0700 (PDT)

Glenn replying to Norm:

> >essential here.) There was a long string of
> >references supporting the data points in this
> >correspondence. I found that one of these
> >references was to a study in my state - my
> >county in fact. I went to try to see for myself
> >(so what I made a few questionable fence crossings).
> >I could clearly see the radiometrically dated
> >layer at this spot and could also see the excellent
> >outcrop of the traditionally dated layers. What I
> >couldn't see for myself was any trace of fossil
> >content despite considerable exploring and poking.
> This is one of the frustrating things. I was shown a secret trilobite site
> by some professors once and was left there for a morning trying to collect a
> fossil. I wasn't exactly sure what form the fossils were, and I didn't see
> any. There were there by the hundreds when I was told what to look for and
> shown one. One's eyes must know what to look for sometimes. I felt really
> dumb for missing hundreds of fossils at my very feet.

This is a good point. If you contact the person who wrote the
original article, Norm, they would probably be more than happy to
give you more specific instructions on how to get to what they

BTW, perhaps the best-known long-range correlation has
been in the news recently--the iridium layer at the K-T