Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: More on LATX bi-state building<br/>
Date: Aug 14, 2003 @ 04:01<br/>
Author: Lowell G. McManus (&quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; &lt;mcmanus71496@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="11300.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next&emsp;[<a href="topic11256.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="11301.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="11303.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-819807331">I agree with most of your analysis, but I think you underestimate the power of a<br/>
large tree (and this was quite a large tree even 25 years ago) to move man&#39;s<br/>
puny works out of its way.  Haven&#39;t you seen concrete sidewalks mangled by the<br/>
roots from nearby trees.  On the other hand, I&#39;ve also seen things like steel<br/>
posts swallowed by growing tree trunks.  I suppose it all depends on the kind of<br/>
tree and the speed of its growth.<br/>
<br/>
You mentioned your own photo of this monument.  Is it on the web?  I only know<br/>
of Parsell&#39;s photo.<br/>
<br/>
There&#39;s an interesting article on the survey of the dry latx and artx boundaries<br/>
at <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.msls.org/Rendezvous02.pdf">http://www.msls.org/Rendezvous02.pdf</a> .<br/>
<br/>
Lowell G. McManus<br/>
Leesville, Louisiana, USA<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> ----- Original Message ----- <br/>
From: &quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:orc@...">orc@...</a>&gt;<br/>
To: &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>&gt;<br/>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:16 PM<br/>
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: More on LATX bi-state building<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
ahaha<br/>
so goody & gum drops upon it<br/>
<br/>
also i have learned the exact length of the rock is 48 inches<br/>
per bus&ss under louisiana<br/>
tho perhaps only 15 or 18 inches of it was visible at last visit<br/>
<br/>
so fortunately we wont have to dig it up to measure it<br/>
<br/>
& now that we know its full length<br/>
the angle of the dilapidation if any will determine the minimum &<br/>
most probable displacement of either the apex or the base<br/>
<br/>
or technically such an angle would determine only the minimum<br/>
possible rotational displacement of both the apex & the base as<br/>
averaged about the midsection<br/>
<br/>
however it seems likely that no part of the rock should ever have<br/>
been attracted back toward the tree trunk but that all of it should<br/>
have been repulsed by the tree<br/>
& if not uniformly so then at least fairly consistently along its full<br/>
length<br/>
<br/>
& the bearing of the dilapidation should be a fairly good indicator<br/>
of the general direction of the overall displacement<br/>
<br/>
so it seems there is good reason to believe we could nail the<br/>
original tripoint position just from these 2 careful readings<br/>
the angle off the vertical<br/>
& the compass bearing of the tilt<br/>
<br/>
or we could certainly get a more nearly correct position than the<br/>
marker presently occupies & indicates if indeed it is tilting<br/>
<br/>
but i believe these 2 data comprise the limit of what we can hope<br/>
to reconstruct of the 108 year history of the rock<br/>
without resorting to dendrochronology<br/>
which happily should only be needed if the rock is severely atilt<br/>
& which i doubt<br/>
<br/>
for i imagine we are probably talking millimeters of verifiable<br/>
displacement here rather than anything so huge as inches<br/>
<br/>
& i am guessing that the bigger news than any appreciable<br/>
displacement of the rock would be the continuing growth of the<br/>
tree about it<br/>
& the reduction in size of its visible portion<br/>
<br/>
but of course to learn anything for sure here<br/>
we might need to take accurate measurements not just once but<br/>
over a period of some years </span></blockquote></div>