[Rockhounds] Okotoks erratic put together again

[Lanny R]

Now I feel like an idiot. After expressing some doubt from of what the  
original photo showed, I just took the two reconstructions on face  
value and didn't even think about it or look back at the original  
photo. Bryan has obviously done a lot of "reconstruction," but in  
Gary's the bedding does match up, even though the right half is  
juxtaposed to the left.

I'm still satisfied that the bedding appears to be the same in the two  
pieces.

Lanny


On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:40 AM, 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
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 17:34, GLENN ANDREWS <LIpumpkin at msn.com>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Any others care to express their opinion on this?
>>>
>>> Well, if its broken into two pieces how does that make it one  
>>> erratic?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Lanny R<mailto:lanny.r at roadrunner.com>
>>> To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
>>> collectors<mailto:Rockhounds at drizzle.com
>>> :%20A%20mailing%20list%20for%20rock%20and%20gem%20collectors>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] glacial erratics (was Stonehenge geology
>>> resolved)
>>>
>>>
>>>  I have a doubt about the "Big Rock," this Okotoks Erratic really  
>>> being
>>> one rock broken into two pieces. First, I don't recall ever seeing a
>>> large rock that I was sure had obviously broken into two pieces  
>>> where
>>> it had settled in the middle so that the two pieces dipped inwards.
>>> Secondly, I can't see any match in the layers between the two  
>>> pieces.
>>> That might be just a problem of how it is shown in the photograph,  
>>> so
>>> that one can't really see them all that well. Thirdly, the piece on
>>> the right is more broken up and has a lot of  rusty layers, very
>>> unlike the left piece.
>>>
>>> Any others care to express their opinion on this?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Lanny
>>>