[Rockhounds] Okotoks erratic put together again

[Lanny R]

If one looks at the amount of weathering in the rocky bluffs of the  
lowlands and of the cliffs and big blocks in the talus of the  
foothills and mountains, I would say that yes, that amount of  
weathering would fit 10,000 years of exposure since the ice sheet  
melted. Also, the rock is of a type not native to the Okotoks, but is  
in a train of similar (but smaller) rocks that extend up to the  
mountains, there probably is no doubt, geologically speaking, that it  
is a glacial erratic.

Lanny

On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Jay Bates wrote:

> I can't believe how many people on this list question that the two  
> parts of the erratic do not fit together. How many geologic  
> processes can you think of where they would not match? If they did  
> not match, now that would be a big news. The two halves are very  
> jointed and weathered. I would think a better question could be are  
> they even erratics? I think they are erratics even though it is hard  
> to imagine a glacier carrying such broken up and jointed rock a long  
> ways from their origin. When did the glaciers melt in the area and  
> could they have weathered that much in that time since the glacier  
> melted? I would assume they have been there probably around 10,000  
> years, since the end of the last ice age. Is 10,000 years enough  
> time to have that much weathering?
>
> R. Peter Richards wrote:
>> We've now seen two pretty convincing "reconstructions" of this  
>> erratic.  But if I'm not mistaken, both of them put the right half  
>> on the left and vise versa.  How did the two halves get moved to  
>> their current configuration if the reconstructions reveal their  
>> original orientation?  I would find it much easier to believe that  
>> the rock split in two after it was deposited by the glacier, and  
>> took its current orientation primarily by settling of the ground  
>> underneath.  In that case, the left one should stay on the left in  
>> those reconstructions.
>>
>> Pete Richards
>>
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2009, at 8:31 PM, J Bryan Kramer wrote:
>>
>>> Well I had a try at it based on this shot:
>>>
>>> <http://www.pbase.com/image/73508329>
>>>
>>> And came up with this:
>>>
>>> <http://upload.pbase.com/image/108852525>
>>>
>>> via photoshop CS4
>>>
>>> As for why assume it was one piece, how likely is it that a  
>>> glacier would
>>> randomly drop two huge chunks of rock right next to each other.  
>>> Occam's
>>> razor says it is probably the same rock.
>>>
>>> BK
>>>