Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

How did I "deny" this? Again you say something so bizarrely wrong I amaze myself that I continue to try to communicate with you at all. At least half of your posts are addressed to something in your own head. You live in some kind of alternative universe. I really don't think the problem is your professional training any more at all. I think if another geologist happened into EvC without any knowledge of the posting history he or she would find your communications as weird as I do. Talking to you is an ordeal.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'VE MADE A VERY GOOD CASE FOR THAT.

Unbelievable. Somebody shoot me. A thousand or more posts on this subject and now you think I'd imply a completely different scenario. The lower space was created when the gneiss was disturbed tectonically, which I figure had to have happened while the strata were already in place because they too were disturbed, and the layers on the left dropped because of the space on the left. Perhaps that side of the gneiss didn't drop, it was more that the rising of the gneiss on the right pushed the whole stack upward, but the gneiss on the left for some reason wasn't pushed up so there was a pinching of that "sagged" layer over the gneiss on the right at the same time gravity pulled it down on the left.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's an irrelevant pedantic semantic point when the argument is about whether layers deposit horizontally or not. You were arguing that the "bedding plane" of that orange-lined layer had been deposited that way -- ON the slight tilt, so I pointed out that a PLANE can't include a tilt. It can tilt after it's deposited, yes. I just want to keep the arguments clear.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

/Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I couldn't possibly have meant such a thing. Good grief. I merely meant that OBVIOUSLY the lower is more deformed, and when you asked what I meant I said BECAUSE IT HAD FARTHER TO FALL. Good grief. It's CLEARLY more deformed. If I have to explain why it can only be because there was this big hole for it to fall into. Perhaps it took days for it to fall into it, I don't know HOW soft it was. soft enough to fall that far in whatever time it took while the ones above had more support and only tilted slightly.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I HAVE explained this. Those occur where the GU is an ANGULAR unconformity and there was sliding beneath the Tapeats which truncated the fault that formed in the tilted strata.

This I'm not sure how to explain. That doesn't mean I'm ignoring it. The fact that I can explain as much as I do just means that will be explained eventually also and your demanding that I give an alternative explanation for absolutely everything before you'll acknowledge anything is unreasonable.But I'd postulate that the tectonic force itself had something to do with the formation of the gneiss just as it would have for the schist where that is the basement rock in the GU, that pressure, plus volcanism where that was also present, which it was in many of the GU rocks, evidenced by the presence of granite. I also postulate a point where the pressure and heat from below are resisted by the weight of the strata above, that being where the unconformity occurs.

I wasn't. Can't imagine how anyone would see a jog there. I could have told you that much without the street view.

Well, exactly how close are they, and in what direction from each other? That's one of the frustrating things, not to know where things are in relation to each other.

How interesting, and how very odd considering that the clear sequence of things does have the strata already there when the disturbance occurs. At the road cut anyway. Pending experiment of course. Hope I can also come up with an experiment to show what sandstone drapery on monadnocks really is.

It's only slightly narrowed, not a lot. Same area as the red jog though, although I think it also looks slightly narrowed to the left of that jog as well.Here's a marked photo:

Yes, I've been saying this for a thousand posts now at least.I'm taking what I've said many times about the sagged layer on the left, the slight tilt of that left side overall, the rough rocks where that section starts to tilt, all that as the evidence I've referred to for the claim that the strata were already there when the gneiss deformed, and deformed along with it.

The "mainstream view" is that the sediment originally deposited on the pre-existing slope, and the same above that, on the slight tilt, right? I don't think that "better" explains it at all, I don't even believe it. But evidence will have to wait until I can do the experiments. And by the way, nobody on your side has produced evidence for your view, either, since diagrams aren't evidence.

I think there is still some narrowing of the lower layers over the gneiss as seen from the frontal view: But the frontal view does make it clear that the sagged layers are on a much less steep slope than appears from the other angle.