Summations Only

Sure, that could happen. Depends on fault geometry and the degree of offset.Remember, this is, in large part, a schematic section, so it could as well be true here.And all that I think Moose was saying is that you cannot tell if the fault came first or the tilting. We truly cannot tell from this diagram.

Right. Even if the Shinumo were thrust into the Tapeats (all the way through, actually) there should be some differential movement between it and the Hakatai and the Dox, since they do not penetrate the Tapeats.The faults that offset the Supergroup Rocks is cut by the unconformity, as are the various intrusive bodies in the Precambrian rocks. The dikes are cut off and the granite plutons are cut off by the unconformity.But to top it all off, there are erosional gravels derived from the Supergroup and the Vishnu rocks at the base of the Tapeats Sandstone. This is the drop-dead argument against Faith's upthrust of the Shinumo. The rocks were hard enough to form erosional gravels and dot no exhibit a shear texture that would be necessary in Faith's scenario.

You do understand that the Canadian Rockies topography that you see is formed by erosion, do you not?Do you understand what I'm saying here?

No I don't know what you mean by "formed by erosion." I was focused only on the form of the strata.

Erosion will do for my scenario, don't need shearing. But what do you mean by "at the base of the Tapeats?" IN the Tapeats or below it? Offhand "derived from the Supergroup and the Vishnu" sounds like a confirmation of my scenario. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, cut off by the unconformity. That's part of the evidence that the strata above were already there when these events occurred: the faulting, the tilting, the granite and Vishnu formation, the erosion etc, and that is evidence for the occurrence of the tectonic force in the "Precambrian" rocks after all the strata were in place. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course it is. I don't think the split would occur without resistance to the tilting, which is what fits my scenario so nicely. The whole block of strata would simply tilt up into the air without that, there wouldn't be any faulting or splitting. There is no upper resistance in the conventional interpretation, only in my scenario. And why would it have to "vary" anyway? If the Supergroup is tilted and pushed by the tectonic force up into the lower surface of the Tapeats with all the weight of the strata above it, that counterforce of the weight would put strain on the Supergroup, which I think accounts for the faulting and splitting which are simultaneous. That same resistance accounts for the eroding away of the upper corners of the Supergroup.The erosion itself implies the horizontal movement I keep saying must have occurred, though yes, the only actual evidence of the horizontal movement is the position of the quartzite boulder, but such movement would account for the way the fault line is cut off by the unconformity, meaning that cross cutting relationship that would show the strata were already there was prevented in this case.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The unconformity cuts both the bedding of the supergroup and the fault that offsets it. It does not cut the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks.

They were formed by erosion just as the shape of the Supergroup rocks was.

That is correct. What's your point?

So you agree that erosion of the Supergroup occurred before the Tapeats was deposited on the unconformity?How do sedimentary clasts of the Supergroupat the base of the Tapeats support your position?

The unconformity is younger than the Supergroup and the faults that offset it.But there is no evidence that it is younger than the Tapeats.

I have no idea what you mean. Surely the Rockies were formed by the upthrusting of the strata wherever the strata are the prominent feature. I'm sure there has been plenty of erosion as well, but what point are you making about this? Erosion didn't FORM the mountains, the upthrust rock did.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it occurred as a result of the tectonic force tilting and pushing up the Supergroup, plus the horizontal movement at the unconformity between the Tapeats and the Precambrian rocks.(I've begun to use the term "erosion" to describe the rubble that accumulated at the unconformity, since you reject the terms "sheared" and "abraded" but I certainly don't mean by that word what you mean: that the erosion occurred on the surface before the strata were laid down. It would be nice to have a different word to say it, however.) They are the result of the collision between the lower tectonic force and the upper weight of the strata (which caused the Kaibab Uplift among other things) plus the horiizontal movement between them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Kaibab Uplift is the main part of that evidence, since it pushed up the entire stack of strata where the Supergroup collided with the Tapeats. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.