Google Earth Community: STEVE FOSSETT SEARCH--POST HERE

In the early 1980s I worked on a US Army Corps of Engineers proposed flood control study in suburban and urban New Jersey. It included 100 miles of the Passaic River and its tributaries which are still today a problem as development creates narrower and narrower channels closer to the previous wider outfalls (also industrial use of the rivers, etc.) Within it the area was divided into pixels of interest which translated into 600 feet by 900 feet (probably on a color monitor of 900x600 resolution) and each areas holding the potential for archaeological impact was translated onto aerial maps that had been traced onto paper 1"=200'. Some random areas were selected based on research of "high" "medium" and "low" probabilities for archaeological resources (historic and prehistoric) and were ranked based on research (paleo sites in New Jersey have only been found under at least 1 meter of river deposits) and a number were selected to test the method. My friend and I in Edgewater, NJ would take the corner coordinates and locate the to be shovel tested 600' x 900' rectangle on the landscape somewhere where we would go out and put at least four shovel tests into. As is was planned (or not) 50% of the selected test areas were underwater in flood when we went to test. Other areas had been developed so quickly the 16 month flyover was too old and areas thought wetland had been filled and built upon. This is amazing in that the data can be supplied so thoroughly in comparison and recent. I would suggest having worked in Idrisi and AutoCad using USGS data for the EPA and others, that some projective geometry be supplied to make these layers of information correspond thereby expediting evaluation of differences. I know this exists and I currently am assuming the difference in companies as the root problem.